DO WE NATURALLY KNOW RIGHT FROM WRONG?

I must have clicked on something inadvertently, because for the past week or so I have been inundated with posts and articles about religion versus atheism.

The pro-religion folks often point out that without a religious framework of morality, there is no backstop to prevent someone from murder, rape, pillage, etc. The atheists counter by stating that we all know right from wrong. The threat of hell or punishment isn’t what keeps us from doing wrong; we just know that it’s not done.

This sounds a lot like the philosophy of Immanuel Kant’s concept of ‘categorical imperative’. It is imperative that you act in a certain way, for no reason other than you simply should not do it. Kant’s oft-quoted statement is that

6 Categorical Imperative Examples (Kant’s Ethics) (2026)

In defense of Kant, it is often argued that the Golden Rule is found as a universal law in all religions. On the other hand, how is it that it is immoral to eat beef in India, but immoral to eat pork in the Middle East? You might even claim that eating dog meat is immoral in Western countries, while it is perfectly normal in China and the Far East.

There is even a ‘Dog meat eating festival’ in China.

This line of reasoning opens the atheist up to the religious person’s criticism, “Where does that categorical imperative come from?  Who created it?”

I would take the argument even further, by asking, “Are the same acts moral in every culture of the world? Could an action be moral in one culture and immoral in another?” I think the answer is, ‘Yes’. Or maybe it’s a matter of degree: some immoral acts are more immoral than others. Just as there are thousands of gods and religions, so also there are thousands of moral systems. How do you know yours is the correct one?

Take lying, for instance. In some cultures it is a terrible sin to lie, while in others it is only a minor infraction. In most cultures, murder is a lot more serious than lying.

Then my previous question becomes: “Who decreed that murder is worse than lying, if both are immoral?” The Western justice system metes out penalties for various crimes. Who decides whether some crimes deserve harsher punishment than others? It would be interesting to compare penalties among cultures.

Atheists in the websites I receive usually ask, “What evidence do you have that God exists?” But religious people could ask the atheists, “What evidence do you have that murder is wrong?” If your religion depends on where in the world you were born, it may also be the case that your morality depends on where you were born. Thus, both religion and morality are cultural phenomena.

CAN TRUMP STEAL ALL THE MONEY IN THE U.S. TREASURY?

I’ve been hearing a couple of words used by the media with increasing frequency: ‘brazen’ and ‘egregious’. That’s because Trump’s actions have become much more and more brazen and egregious these days. He has really ‘jumped the shark’ with his latest corruption: stealing 1.8 billion dollars from the Treasury to distribute to the thugs who attacked the capitol on Jan. 6 and injured many law officers.

As you’re probably aware, Trump ‘sued’ his own Justice Department for $10 billion, and then withdrew the case because he had made a ‘settlement’ with the DOJ for his $1.8 billion slush fund.

I have a couple of questions that seem important to me, but which I’m not hearing in the media.

  1. If he cancelled the lawsuit, then the 1.8 billion was not a settlement at all, but rather a deal made with his own team to empty 1.8 billion into his slush fund. He simply directed his minions to give U.S. Treasury money for his private use. Can that possibly be legal?
  2. More importantly, if he gets away with this one, there is nothing stopping him from pulling the same stunt with every other U.S. Government department. He could threaten to sue the FBI and then make a deal with Kash Patel to give him $10 billion. Then he could do the same with Hegseth in the Defense Department, then Lutnick in Commerce. Then Rubio, then Bessent, etc.  He could end up with 100 billion dollars. He could bankrupt the entire government.

In fact, why not just direct the Treasury Department to give him personal control of all U.S. money? He controls them all anyway, and they must do his bidding or be either fired or charged with some made-up crimes.

There’s even more to it. According to CNN, the ‘settlement’ states:

According to the new document, dated Tuesday and signed by acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, the federal government is “FOREVER BARRED and PRECLUDED” from prosecuting or pursuing “claims” or “examinations” arising from matters pending before the IRS, including “tax returns” filed by Trump before the agreement was reached. The language applies not just to Trump, but to his family, trusts, companies and other affiliates.

Again, this can’t be legal, can it? The President can’t just order that he not be investigated, even if it’s part of a real ‘settlement’.  This is one area where the courts could step in.

One final stipulation from the agreement: the American people must apologize to the rioters. “Sorry that your flagpole was bent when you struck the officer over the head with it.”

Is there any way this could be stopped? Well, for one thing, the timing of the cancellation of the lawsuit may matter. If the lawsuit were cancelled before the ‘settlement’, then there was no pending lawsuit, and therefore no settlement. There would be only an agreement between the DOJ and Trump. That agreement would be illegal, since the DOJ doesn’t control the purse strings of the government. On the other hand, Trump is justifying the deal on grounds that the DOJ already has a fund to compensate people unfairly treated by the government, and this fund was already used years ago. Do we know how much is still in the fund?

On the other hand, if the settlement happened while there was still a lawsuit pending, then the judge could order hearings to determine whether the suit was between adversaries, or where there was collusion. If the judge rules that there was no adversarial relationship, then the suit is again cancelled, and the $1.8 was just a deal and would again be illegal, as explained above.

In any case, the words ‘egregious’ and ‘brazen’ clearly apply to Trump’s latest grift.

THE COMING CRASH: BE PREPARED

Cambodians, and in fact people all over the world, are not taking the coming economic catastrophe seriously enough.

One reason is that the ships that left the Middle East over a month ago are still arriving in Europe and other ports, so that shortages, even of oil, are not being felt yet. However, once their supplies run out in a couple of weeks, there will be no replacements.

The blockades on the Strait of Hormuz are not being resolved. They could last for months, while the rest of the world must run on 20% less oil, fertilizer, helium, and other products. That means not just higher prices, but shortages of everything.

Cambodia has fared pretty well so far, and I fear that Cambodians are becoming complacent that everything is working out all right. I don’t think they are expecting petrol prices to double, from the current 5300 riels per liter to as much as 10,000 riels. Or worse yet, petrol stations simply won’t have the petrol to fill your car. Already we are seeing long queues of cars at filling stations.

What can Cambodians do to prepare for the shock? Cambodia is lucky to grow a lot of its own food. People should start relying on local products, since their prices shouldn’t rise faster than products imported using petrol transport, or using imported fertilizers.

Consumers and residents prefer Australian and other imported beef, because it is more tender than the tough Cambodian beef. I have gotten used to Cambodian steak because, even if you have to chew it more, its good flavor stays in your mouth. That’s just one example of getting used to Cambodian products. You can even buy local buffalo meat, which is really tough, but which can be used as a delicious snack or appetizer with beer or other drinks. Imported beers are going to go up in price also, so drink Cambodian.

I eat a lot of duck meat and duck eggs. These are local products which won’t be affected too much by the economic downturn.

The price of natural gas cannisters has doubled, as you well know if you cook by gas. It may go even higher. It’s time to start cooking with electricity, or charcoal, or even a wood fire or oven.

Since it will be much more expensive to drive your car or motorcycle, you should arrange your living accommodations near your workplace or your kids’ school. Buses and Pasaps are cheap alternatives to your personal transport. You might even travel by train!

The time to start taking these precautions is NOW! Once prices have doubled and store shelves are empty, it may be too late.

YES, TRUMP HAD A PLAN FOR IRAN ALL ALONG

Since the beginning of the Iran war, pundits have been criticizing Trump for not having a plan or an objective. He changes his tune every day. Many websites claim that Trump has lost the war and doesn’t know what he’s doing.

I claim that Trump had clear objectives, and that he is achieving them big time.

Trump’s frequent Iran policy reversals are followed by big market swings, and in every case someone is placing huge bets on oil prices and stock markets just before the market opens. Some inside-traders are thereby making billions of dollars.

At the same time, the prolongation of the Hormuz blockage is driving oil prices higher, and oil billionaires are making huge profits. American oil producers still have the same production costs, but the retail prices have risen drastically, providing enormous profits.

Also at the same time, Hegseth is asking Congress for billions more in war spending. Trump’s GOP Congress will bitch a bit, but will eventually cave in to the demands. There will be lucrative contracts awarded to Trump family members and cronies. This has already been happening with, for example, contracts for making drones.

This was his plan for Venezuela. Maduro may be out, but not his régime. Venezuela now sells oil, and the money goes into a Trump-controlled, non-governmental bank account in Qatar. Big American oil companies allied with Trump are now going in to control the production of oil.

These grifting activities, seemingly more blatant and outrageous every day, are convincing me that this was Trump’s plan for Iran all along. Killing schoolgirls, destroying infrastructure, bombing thousands of innocent Iranians, losing American soldiers, raising prices for Americans, all count for nothing, as long as Trump and his billionaires are enriched.

What does my hypothesis hold for the future? The longer those oil prices go higher, the more billions in profits go to Trump/Oil & Co. Expect the Strait to remain closed for a long time. Maybe Iran can also get the Houthis to close the Bab-el-Mandeb.

On the other hand, Trump will continue to oscillate between ‘peace-on-the-horizon’ one day before the markets open, and ‘bomb-them-into-the-stone-age’ the next day. That way, he can continue to make a killing from insider trading. One danger with that approach is that the markets have already figured out TACO and may take him less and less seriously. Judging from the past two days, however, the market manipulation appears to be in full swing.

TRUMP’S BALLROOM – NATIONAL SECURITY?

I hate to waste my time on this silly ‘assassination’ story, which is going nowhere. Social media is focused on whether it was ‘staged’ or not, but I believe that misses the point.

Let’s suppose for a minute that the assassination attempt was real. Even if so, the spinners might have immediately recognized the opportunity to spin the event into a plug for Trump’s ballroom. I want to focus my remarks on just how ridiculous this spin is.

Trump and his ballroom

First, even if the ballroom is built, almost all events like this one will be held elsewhere. You are not going to hold the Superbowl or a UFC fight in the ballroom. If you held the Press Club gala in a hotel across town, a ballroom next to the White House is not going to protect the President. Why wasn’t the assassination attempt in Butler used to justify a ballroom?

Second, the President was never in real danger. The shooter never entered the main hall, and in fact he was on a different floor of the hotel. He was nowhere near enough to shoot the President. If the event had been held in Trump’s ultra-secure ballroom, the shooter would again be outside the ballroom, no danger to the President. The ballroom would have no effect on someone outside.

Third, and most importantly, the Trump team are flogging the ballroom itself as a protection for the President, but the real security apparatus will be UNDER the ballroom – military electronic equipment not specifically designed to protect anyone in the ballroom. Why not just build an underground fortress and forget about the ballroom on ground level?

I saw a good joke on Faceebook, where a man steps on a rake and it hits him in the face. He cries, “We need a ballroom.” That’s where the real dishonest spin comes in. Trump is asking the media and the public to believe that the ballroom itself will protect the President in the ballroom, while at the same time he asks Congress and the courts to consider only the military apparatus underground, so he can claim the ballroom is for ‘national security’.  The ballroom itself has nothing to do with national security.

CHINA JUST BANNED FOR-PROFIT SCHOOLS

OK, for a nominally Communist country like China, for-profit education exacerbates class differences, since only the rich can attend the better schools. Therefore, an egalitarian government should outlaw profit-oriented schools.

How about extending the ban to lower-middle-class countries like Cambodia or richer countries like the United States? The same class-dividing argument as in China also applies. In the United States, rich politicians will favor private schools for the own children to attend, but will de-fund public schools, forcing poorer children into worse and worse education. And, of course, in the end, the well-educated rich kids get the good jobs and perpetuate the class divisions.

However, there’s more to it than just the class angle. The whole motivation behind for-profit schools is to project a flashy image to fool parents into shelling out the cash for their kids’ schooling. Schools will spend more on advertising and on conspicuous vehicles and buildings than for actual learning or hiring good teachers.

Here are a few ways that for-profit schools fool parents:

  1. They inflate progress reports. They award fancy certificates and medals to almost every student, so that the parents think that their kids are real geniuses.
  2. They advertise their ‘international’ status. Almost every for-profit school in Cambodia has a display out front of “Our Partners”. This consists of perhaps dozens of logos of foreign schools. The modus operandi is to visit a foreign school, sign an MOU promising exchanges, etc., display the MOU prominently, and then forget about the foreign connection entirely.
  3. They advertise their expatriate teachers, using outdated photos of white-skinned teachers bending over a desk, explaining something to a cute kid. All this, even if in reality they have no expatriate teachers. Almost every for-profit school displays such a photo.

Generic photo with expat teacher

4. They lie. They advertise programs and services that do not exist.

5. They promote size and expansion at all costs. No student is ever denied admission, nor do students flunk out or fail to graduate. They focus on student number expansion rates, not actual achievement.

    Here are the results: the PISA organization ranks 81 countries’ schoolchildren in terms of science, math, and reading skills. Of the 81 countries, Cambodia ranks dead last (81st) in math and in science, and only slightly better in reading.

    A quick anecdote: schools in Cambodia are judged by the results of the government grade-12 leaving exam. I saw a ritzy, expensive private school that had a lower pass rate than the government school average. I thought, “That’s the end of that private school; why would a parent spend all that money to get a lower score than the cheaper government schools?” In fact, the results didn’t affect the school at all; parents send their kids there not for education, but for prestige. (Maybe not too different from many American colleges.)

    One other point: in Cambodia, for-profit schools are usually set up not by educators, but by entrepreneurs. Not only is their primary objective making money, but their knowledge and experience is in making money, not education. They usually know nothing about education.

    This raise a big question: is for-profit education NECESSARILY or INHERENTLY fraudulent? It could be argued that a highly selective (limited enrolment), rigorous school could gain such a reputation for excellence that it could be profitable. Some of the most selective and rigorous universities in the United States do turn a profit. Parents spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to send their children to Harvard, where fewer than 10% of applicants are admitted.

    However, I think that parents should be savvy enough to recognize the value of a truly high-quality education. In many not-so-rich countries, parents can be fooled. That’s the problem for countries like Cambodia, especially in rural or small-community areas. Perhaps only in more educated centers like the capital city are parents knowledgeable enough to understand the value of good quality and to see through the lies and fake images of most for-profit schools.

    HORMUZ MISINFORMATION

    It’s hard to learn the truth about what ships are or aren’t passing through the Strait of Hormuz. Both sides have told so many blatant lies; it’s difficult to believe anything.

    Let’s start with the Chinese-owned tanker Rich Starry. According to the Times of India, “The Rich Starry resumed its outbound voyage overnight and sailed out of the Strait on Tuesday. The vessel had initially appeared to abort its passage on Monday.”

    However, LogisticsMiddleEast.com. reported “Shipping data shows the sanctioned tanker Rich Starry, which exited the strait yesterday, was forced to turn around and re-entered Iranian waters on Wednesday.”

    Rich Starry? (www.vesselfinder.com/ship-photos/248407)

    There are varying reports of how many ships have passed through the strait, ranging from 0 to 20 ships.
    The BBC reports, “Four vessels with links to Iran have crossed the Strait of Hormuz despite the start of a US naval blockade, according to ship-tracking data.”

    What is really going on? Here are a couple of observations and questions:

    1. The Rich Starry was a Chinese-owned ship. Would the US attack a Chinese ship? That would risk Chinese retaliation, not Iranian, and possibly start WWIII.
    2. Even non-Chinese tankers are probably filled with oil bound for China. This oil has been bought and paid for by China. China would not like to see 100 million dollars of oil, which they own, destroyed or pirated. This again raises the specter of Chinese retaliation.
    3. What about other, neutral, ships? So far, there are no reports of Iranian attacks or threats, but such actions are sure to come. Iran would probably not hesitate to attack a Saudi or Kuwaiti tanker. The total number of ships passing the strait is reported as 45 since the ceasefire (Al Jazeera), still a far cry from the 100 or so ships per day before the war.
    4. American naval forces are actually hundreds of kilometers away from the actual strait. It would be difficult or at least time-consuming for them to attack vessels near Iranian ports. On the other hand, Iranian drones, missiles, and speedboats are stationed on the banks only a few kilometers away. They could attack a ship in seconds.
    5. One should not lose sight of the fact that the mere threat of attacks is enough to force a ship carrying 100 million dollars in oil to decide against running the gauntlet of the strait. The risk is too great. That’s why it’s easy to block the strait.

    The next step may be the blocking of the Bab-el-Mandeb on the Red Sea. That would cut off another 12% of the world’s oil supply. Blockage has already been threatened by the Houthis in Yemen, who are considered allies, if not proxies, of Iran.

    If both the Bab-el-Mandeb and the Hormuz Strait were blocked,

     the world economy would be in real trouble.

    (Note that I have not quoted any U.S. sources, especially the government’s CENTCOM reports, which are notoriously fabrications.)

    THE U.S. $2 BILL IS A GOOD LUCK CHARM IN CAMBODIA

    How odd! That the US two-dollar bill should become a good luck charm in Cambodia.

    When I arrived in Cambodia in January of 1995, the bills were everywhere. Every money-changing stall, and many other shops, had them on display — for good luck, not currency. There was a rumor that the United Nations UNTAC workers had been paid in $2-dollar bills, but I have never verified this.

    The bills are much rarer these days, but you can still see them in some money-changers’ shops. However, they are now appearing in people’s houses and even their wallets. They are often covered in mystic Buddhist symbols common to sak yant tattoos and those mysterious red yantras hanging in shops and houses. In fact, it is even possible to find a red yantra depicting a $2 bill hanging in someone’s private house.

    Speaking of sak yant tattoos – common in Cambodia and Thailand – the two most common forms are the butterfly fold and the corner fold-ins.

    The website spiritualnexus.net describes these as follows:

    One popular fold creates a bowtie shape, likely meant to symbolize gifts or special treatment one hopes to receive through associated fortune. Another common technique folds multiple corners toward the bill’s center, perhaps concentrating luck inward like a magnet. In some cases, the corners are actually cut off, in order to ‘punch out the bad luck.’

    The  Chinese community in Cambodia has a different use for the $2 bill. Bills, especially those with a red (=good luck) seal, are appropriate gifts for putting inside the traditional lai see red packets for young people at Chinese New Year. The term ‘lai see’ may be short for 壓歲錢; yāsuì qián, meaning “money warding off old age”.

    Chinese New Year version of $2 Bill

    In fact, the two-dollar bills are considered good luck in many cultures. In America, they have been used for decades by gamblers to bring good luck.

    The spiritualnexus.net website even ties the $2 bills to Christianity:

    • Firstly, Jesus spent two days deceased in the tomb before rising again, therefore the two dollar bill nods to conquest over death.
    • Secondly, there were two criminals crucified alongside Christ, but only one repented resulting in salvation, so the bill references the possibility of spiritual liberation.
    • Finally, Christianity teaches God’s kingdom has two realms – Earthly and Heavenly – hence the two dollar bill signifies movement between worlds.

    By the way, the $2 bills are still in American circulation, even though they are quite rare.  The Series 1976 $2 bill featuring a portrait of Thomas Jefferson on the face and the signing of the Declaration of Independence on the back was issued for the U.S. Bicentennial and remains in current circulation today.

    CARGO PLANES ON A      SEARCH AND RESCUE MISSION?

    Two C-130 cargo planes, like those lost in Iran. How?

    Why were cargo planes assisting in a search-and-rescue mission? And why were they actually on the ground inside Iran? The more I think about this story, the less sense it makes.

    1. These huge planes had to land deep inside Iran. This seems to imply there was a safe landing strip for them. The Iranians must have known about this.
    2. They carried cargo, or were about to load cargo. What kind of cargo were these huge planes carrying if they were on a search-and-rescue mission?
    3. Why were they destroyed? They cost $100 million each.
    4. What happened to the crew? In fact, there must have been many soldiers there to load or unload cargo. Were they rescued? How?
    5. Were there other C-130s that didn’t get destroyed? Did they fly away? There are reports of a third plane.
    6. The official American version is that the two planes got stuck in the mud, but could not be left behind because of sensitive communications equipment which had to be destroyed to keep them out of Iranian hands.

    Did you see the photos of the desert terrain? Doesn’t look like mud to me.

    The debris from the two planes is concentrated. If shot down, it would be scattered.

    The entire American official version stinks to high heaven. Iran’s version is that the planes were shot down.

    My own scenario is quite different. First, the destruction happened during the rescue, but there is no evidence that it was in any way related to the rescue. It could have occurred hundreds of miles away. If the above photo is accurate, the destruction took place far from any mountains, although the rescued pilot was hiding in the mountains.

    I see two possibilities. The first is that the US was setting up a base and unloading communications equipment and perhaps building materials. This would entail personnel, who would then remain on the site.

    The other explanation is that the US was delivering supplies to some rebel group like the Kurds, who might control some land for landing planes. I favor this explanation because it doesn’t really entail American ‘boots on the ground’ Let the Kurds do the dirty work.

    I think the Iranians destroyed the planes on the ground rather than in the air, as they claimed. Iran wouldn’t want the world to know that either the US or the Kurds controlled any territory inside Iran.

    By the way, why is the identity of the rescued pilot being hidden? Is it possible that the whole story is a fabrication? Or they don’t want him talking about what really happened?

    The American media are covering up this story. They don’t want Americans to realize that cargo planes can land inside Iran. Americans might ask too many questions.

    “NO MEN PLAYING WOMEN’S SPORTS”

    For culture warriors, transgenders in sports have been a hot-button issue. 180 schoolgirls murdered in Iran? Yawn! Child-rapist President? Bo-ring! But a transgender in women’s sports makes their blood boil.

    They have a point. Do you want your girls’ basketball team playing against a 110 kg (240 lb.) hulk like Luka Doncic, if he somehow declares he’s female? (He doesn’t, by the way.)

    Basketball star Luka Doncic

    The culture warriors are quick to ask ‘gotcha’ questions in debates or Congressional hearings, like “can you define ‘woman?’” Most people cannot give a clear answer. Genitalia? Can be changed. Hormones? Can be replaced. Is there one defining criterion?

    Actually, there is: the presence of an SRY gene. You inherit your genes at birth, and they cannot be changed. The Olympic Committee has decreed that if you have the SRY gene, you cannot qualify as a female athlete. Case closed; end of story.

    But wait, the culture warriors have more tricks up their sleeve. They point to the Mozambican/South African female runner Caster Semenya, who won gold medals and other championships. Here is her photo.

    The culture warriors shout, “Anyone can plainly see that’s a man.” In fact, she’s a woman, without an SRY gene and with female genitalia. Her difference is in an overproduction of the male hormone testosterone, which gives her many male characteristics. Culture warriors have attempted to force her to lower her testosterone, to no avail. She is, by definition, female, and must be allowed to compete.

    Some females have more testosterone than others, just by their genetic nature, just as some basketball players are well over 2 meters tall. You can’t ban Luka Doncic from competing just because his genes caused him to be too tall. Similarly, you can’t ban Semenya just because her genes caused her to have too much testosterone.

    Now what about all those sports that don’t require physical prowess? Ping-pong? Snooker? Why even bother having separate male and female ping-pong competitions? Even chess. There are significant mental changes when a person undergoes hormone replacement therpy. Could those changes give a transgender an advantage in playing chess? It’s all quite complicated, but at least, the SRY gene criterion is simple and applicable.