The Woodchuck

I made the mistake of joining Facebook and using my woodchuck picture for my photo. (Okay maybe that's TWO mistakes).

Now people are finally asking me "What's with the woodchuck?!?"

I consider the woodchuck to be my animal guide. (Or spirit guide or animal totem or whatever you call them).

Of course I don't really believe in spirits or any mystical powers of a big fat rodent. But I think it is useful (or at least fun) to define archetypes that give us direction.

It's like those online tests for "Which Superhero are you?" or "Which Cylon are you?" Of course those things aren't real, but I think it's a good way to be introspective and analyze who you are or what your motivations are.

Ever since I grew up in Kentucky, I seem to come across an unusual number of woodchucks. (Some people call them groundhogs. Same thing.)

The thing that really gave me the chills was that on more than one occasion I've examined some of my old photos very closely and found a hidden woodchuck I hadn't seen, in the picture, looking at me. And I'm not a camera person, so I don't take very many photos.

Many years ago I was reading about animal totems, and I looked up "Woodchuck", and it said it was one of the few animal totems that will follow you for life. It also described the woodchuck spirit as being solitary, introspective, and highly philosophical, especially on the topics of life and death. Perfect. I decided then and there that my animal guide was a woodchuck. :)

So there you have it. I don't like pictures of myself, so I just prop up my animal guide as a symbol for the kind of person I am.

In the "Which superhero are you?" tests, I usually come up as "Spiderman"...which I don't agree with. In the "Which supervillain are you?" tests, I come up as the "Joker", which I totally agree with...but that's just lame to put the Joker as my picture. So...I'm a woodchuck! :-)

Warm Fuzzy!

Wow!! :-)

Some of my co-workers surprised me at work today with Christmas presents and a card signed by everyone! That has never happened before!

I am horribly embarrassed by the whole thing, and I'm sure I don't deserve it. I feel like I either want to curl up into a little ball and hide, or hold my head up and actually accept the fact that a bunch of people actually thought kindly of me!

I took down my entire "Happy Meme" because I have at least 10 real human beings to be thankful for now.

My spirit is more than re-kindled, it's on fire!

I feel like I could take on the world, or at least take on any technology or managerial dragons that threaten us in the coming months!

Foolish, silly, immature optimism? Probably. But it FEELS good. :) :)

"Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more!"

Evil Dead Christmas!

Christmas seems to be coming SO fast this year. Normally I'm prepared and have all my shopping done way in advance, but for this year I've barely even started.

I can't figure out why the date is coming so fast and why I'm moving so slow, and the image I keep having in my head is that comical scene of the Deadite chasing Ash through the woods in the movie "Evil Dead II".

It's like Christmas is chasing me, gaining on me fast and yet somehow not catching me, charging at me with a roar and dramatic camera angles, and I'm stumbling over trees and crashing through doors trying to stay ahead just ahead of something I can't see.

Okay...I know that's a weird visualization...but that's what Christmas feels like this year! Aaaaa!

When we choose to care - Part II

My very first posting on this blog was on the Virginia Tech shooting. I was pointing out that as tragic as the Virginia Tech shooting was, people die every day from gun violence, and those people and those families go unnoticed.

A family who's house is wiped out by hurricane Katrina gets national media coverage, national sympathy, and financial aid. A family who's house is wiped out by a tornado in Oklahoma is ignored.

I see this kind of shotgun sympathy playing out again today with this plan to rescue General Motors. The reason given for saving General Motors is that we'd lose a few hundred thousand jobs if GM falls. Well, we've ALREADY lost several hundred thousand jobs in this economy. Those people were just as devastated, and they hurt our economy just as much. Where is their help? How about saving all of THEM first? Where is the help to the thousands of little businesses that are failing?

Hundreds of thousands of people who work for small companies will get laid off and suffer, and nobody cares when it's all spread out. But if you work for one giant company, then you are in luck, because that's a much more convenient way to package our sympathy and attention!

If you made responsible choices but still lost a home to foreclosure in 2007, you can just go to hell for all we care. But if you made irresponsible choices and you are losing a home to foreclosure in 2008, hang in there, because help is coming!

The message is VERY clear: Do what everyone else does, move to the most populous cities, work for the largest corporations, join the most popular churches and worship the biggest God! Pay close attention to your neighbors and buy what they buy. Listen to the television for all your advice. Betray yourself for your new homogenized identity. There is safety and power in numbers. This is why the Baby Boomers rule the world!

I understand how this happens, and I know that human beings are more effective when they can focus on fewer things at once. But I'm always disappointed when sheep-like behavior is rewarded while being different makes you invisible.



Vistaluna: A woodchuck in sheep's clothing since 1969!

Way to go Hoosiers!

Of all the election results, the one that really warmed my heart was Indiana voting for Obama.

I went to college in Indiana, and I really fell in love with the city of Indianapolis. Indiana is one of my favorite states. The only complaint I would have is that so much of Indiana is very rural and hick-ish. To see Indiana vote for a Democratic candidate really is amazing to me.

Having Indiana vote for Obama fills in a gap in a wave of "blue" that has been marching south and has now finally reached the original dividing line between North and South during the Civil War. Some small part of this cultural divide between Red states and Blue states is a leftover cultural divide between the North and the South from the Civil War and up through the Civil Rights movement. Instead of Blue vs. Grey, we now have Blue vs. Red.

Go Blue!!!!!

A sincere message to George W. Bush

Meet the Straw Men

Whoa! I think too many people on both sides are getting FREAKED OUT about this election. I know the election is very important, and I will be very unhappy if McCain/Palin wins.

However, both sides are demonizing the other side, and it's getting both sides scared and angry and seemingly on the verge of violence.

Both sides are freaking out because they believe these exaggerated straw man versions of the opposition. Just because Obama is supporting a tax cut on only 95% of the people makes him a socialist? Come on!

Just as most Democrats aren't actually hippie-socialists, I'm sure most Republicans aren't actually inbred Jesus freaks. (At least I hope they aren't).

Let's be honest here...let's look at these ideological straw men on both sides.

Let's really examine these characters we fear so much.

Meet the Straw Republicans

Jedidiah Elihu Samson: He is an Christian Evangelical Fundamentalist. He accepts a literal interpretation of the Bible on faith, and would consider it a character flaw if he allowed himself to critically examine that belief. He believes the Earth is only 6,000 years old, and that Evolution is a global scientific conspiracy. He is a Christian Dispensationalist who sees no reason to worry about protecting the environment when we are already in the end times. In fact he advocates a Holy War against Islam to hurry the end times along. He is pro-life and pro death penalty. He believes homosexuality should be a crime, and women who cheat on their husbands should be executed, even if she is only 12 years old. He only votes Republican because there isn't an official Jesus Party (yet).



Brice Winchester IV: He’s upper class, arrogant, and does not appreciate the advantages he has been given in life. He believes that he has worked hard to attain his status in life, and that everyone who is poor must just be lazy or defective. His power and position in life is obviously due to superior genetics and superior character. He has contempt for the underclass, and treats his employees poorly. Anyone who refuses to work 80 hours a week for minimum wage is lazy and weak. He idolizes Gordon Gecko. If there is to be any justice in this world, then people like him should not have to pay ANY taxes at all, because he already (regrettably) has to pay his employees, and that's more than enough charity as far as he's concerned.




Cletus “Duke” Becephelus: Loves beer, guns, Nascar, guns, hunting, guns, red meat, guns and *****. His blood is an explosive mixture of alcohol and testosterone. He has a hard-on (figuratively or literally) for the U.S. military. The rest of the world is one big ass that just needs a good kicking. He is a racist, sexist, homophobe, and bigot. He has no end of derogatory names and hatred for every kind of person on the planet that isn't exactly like him. Those people are the enemy, and he and his buddies are in a perpetual state of ass-kickin' war against them. He has no respect for higher education and hates intellectuals. What’s the point of going to college if you graduate and still get your ass kicked in a fight?

Meet the Straw Democrats:

Moonbeam Riversong: She’s a vegetarian who asks her food for forgiveness before she eats it. She keeps a diary of her carbon emissions, and even recycles used toilet paper. She sees herself as being one with nature. Nature recognizes no artificial national borders and nature puts no value on material possessions. Nature seeks only harmony and balance, as must we. She wishes to outlaw all combustion engines and plastic.




Milton P. Dippole – An intellectual bookworm. He has three degrees from Cornell in Music Therapy, Comparative Sociology, and Philosophy. He has a genius level IQ and believes that intelligence is the greatest measure of worth. He believes Americans are ignorant and superstitious and that Europeans are better people. He wishes for a single world socialist and atheistic government. He views himself as an enlightened man drowning in an ocean of primitive and ignorant humans. This makes him bitter and he sinks ever deeper into solitary intellectual pursuits. You'll find him down at the book store cafe sipping latte and reading French poetry or Friedrich Nietzsche (if he's in a good mood)




Dirk "Dude" Logan – An irresponsible man with no ambition in life. He's been fired or laid off from countless jobs. He blames all of his problems on "the man" and excuses his lack of ambition by saying that the system is stacked against him, so there is no point in even trying. He lives in his parent's garage, and still receives an allowance from them, even though he's 30 years old. He spends his money on booze and partying, and refuses to have a goal in life. He is a strong advocate for the legalization of marijuana, the re-instatement of welfare, and free healthcare.



-------------------------------

There are other archetypes for Republicans and Democrats, like the Radical Muslim, the Fascist Soccer Mom, etc. All of these straw people DO exist in real life. There are real Jedidiahs and Moonbeams in this world, and they are a problem, I know. I just don't think they account for the majority center of this country.

I am personally embarrassed when a Moonbeam speaks for the Democrats on television...just as I'm sure Republicans are embarrassed whenever the television camera finds a Republican Cletus.

We are all looking at each other lately, trying to find one little characteristic that will allow us to comfortably dump every member of the opposing side into one of these extreme caricatures.

Obama proposes one TINY adjustment to take rates for the top 5% income makers, and suddenly everyone on the Right says "Ah ha!! He's a [derogatory label]! We knew it!!!!"

Likewise I think some Democrats were too quick to cast Sarah Palin as a total Jedidiah without hard proof she was really that extreme. They ended up mocking her assumed beliefs instead of attacking the legitimate fact that she's a complete ditz who lacks even minimal awareness of the world. I think those attacks backfired just a little and got the other side really upset.

Ugh, it was VERY hard for me to type that last paragraph. The last thing I want to do is defend Sarah Palin. But if I'm going to get upset at the Republicans for type-casting Democrats, then I have to be willing to check my own type-casting of Republicans.

I have to bite my tongue when I see a Tanner or Jedidiah, because I know the Democrats have their own contingent of idiots too. It's not as easy as just assuming that all Republicans are stupid and all Democrats are smart. Both sides of vast stockpiles of stupid.

The key is to not let the stupid ones from either side get on camera, much less get a leadership position.

If you are going to attack Obama, then attack his policies and attack what he has actualy DONE in his life. Don't attack what you are so sure you think he will be just because you are scared witless of these Democratic strawmen.

What is Patriotism?

There has been a lot of talk in this election about Patriotism. There is a large segment of this country that is highly patriotic, and considers it a character weakness if you are not highly patriotic too.

I don't know how much of that is real, and how much of that is lemming-like flag waving because nobody wants to be seen as un-patriotic. I fully believe the "Patriot Act" would not have received as many votes if it did not have the word "Patriot" in the name.

"Patriot" is such an emotional word that it is often abused for political gain.


For people born in the first half of the 20th century, I can see how America would be so inspiring. They witnessed America win World War I, World War II, survive the Great Depression, stand up to the Soviet Union, and be the first to put a man on the moon.

But for people born post moon-landing (like me), we've seen misguided wars, political corruption at the highest levels, deficit spending, staggering debt, political payback for decades of abusive foreign policy, declining education standards, the best jobs going overseas, a declining standard of living, a crumbling infrastructure, an ugly culture war, a wrecked economy brought down by greed, and George W. Bush.

America has lost its sparkle, it has lost its moral high ground, and it just doesn't inspire rabid patriotism the way it probably did for previous generations.

I like America well enough, and it's still my favorite country. I see no immediate need to move to another country...although the thought did BRIEFLY cross my mind after the 2004 election. :)

So what's the big deal about Patriotism? Why all the flag waving and chest thumping?

Has everyone forgotten that we are a nation made ENTIRELY of traitors who abandoned their home country in search of a better life here in America? Our Founding Fathers were first class traitors! (Even Native Americans had to abandon Asia to come here)


Are we trying to say that abandoning your country when times get tough is a bad thing? If so, then we are nation of bad, un-patriotic people!

There would be reason to be patriotic if we had something really special that no other country had. For almost two hundred years, America offered freedoms that were rare. I'm sure those were the really great times to be an American.

But now there are many democratic nations, and the differences between America and other European countries is becoming less dramatic. European countries tend to have higher taxes than America, but a different tax rate isn't as much of a disction as, say, "Freedom of Speech". I *love* our freedoms, and I dearly appreciate them, but we aren't the only country with such freedoms.

Our lower tax rates and hard driving capitalism was supposed to be what made us so prosperous. But now even that line of thought has been called into question as we sink deeper in debt that many of our European counterparts. We are now a debtor nation to socialist China, and we spend our borrowed money for the oil we purchase from dictatorships.

Maybe I'm missing some kind of "Tribal Allegiance" gene, because I also don't root for any sports teams, and it seems to be a quite natural behavior for people (mostly men) to form passionate ties to sports teams.

Maybe people root for America the same way they root for the Dallas Cowboys (or whoever) and there's nothing more magical to patriotism than that? Maybe America is just a big "team" that people emotionally bond to?

It's not that I'm not loyal; I consider myself fiercely loyal to the things that actually play a part in my life. I'm loyal to my friends. I'm loyal to my team at work...so much so that I am often blind to their weaknesses.

At one job (many years ago) there was a guy on my team who was a total jerk, and I never realized he was a jerk until he joined another team. This sort of thing has happened to me many times.

So, maybe Patriotism is like that...a kind of loyalty that makes you blind to the weaknesses of your country? In that light, I guess I can understand it, but I just don't have it at the "country" scale.

If I step back and try to think of humanity at that large of a scale, then I am only reminded of one of my core values that believes that everyone is basically the same and we are all part of this planet, and the human race as a whole is more important than any one country.

10 Bill Mahers would make up for 1 Sarah Palin

This was a great interview, and I was surprised to see a discussion this anti-religious on national T.V. :)

The problem is only 5% of population would agree with Bill, and 50% of the population idolize Sarah Palin.

The Spiritual Woodchuck

Oh I hope I'm not going off the deep end with this little essay...

Well, this probably isn't much MORE weird than a woodchuck writing an Internet blog about the biggest questions in the Universe... :)


Atheistic Spirituality
----------------------------
Your life is an endless series of tasks. You sleep, you work, you eat, and you perform maintenance on yourself and everything around you. These are common behaviors of living things.

But humans have evolved an awareness of ourselves and an awareness of time. This allows us to see reality beyond the immediate present, which also leads to an understanding of mortality. We are also social animals, and our development of self-awareness also allows us to conceptualize each role we play in some greater whole that will continue after we are gone.

We all play our parts in larger groups. We are a family member, a team member, a resident in a neighborhood, a party-affiliated voter, a follower of a religion, a fan of a rock band, a citizen of a nation, and so on. We each have a dozen or so groups to which we offer varying degrees of loyalty and support...sometimes at great personal sacrifice.

Our evolved brains also make us imaginative, pattern-seeking and meaning-seeking creatures. When that is combined with our enhanced awareness, we evolve the ability to define our purpose in terms beyond our own needs. We seek morality, philosophy, spirituality, mysticism, religion, math, and all manner of higher order manifestations of reality. We are programmed to visualize beyond our ability to see.

This can be as dangerous as it is useful. Evolution did not provide our brains with a scientific method that allows us to properly test the endless stream of tenuous conclusions we form. We are fortunate to have invented the Scientific Method ourselves. We are UNfortunate that this often runs counter to our brain's natural tendency to make great inductive leaps with insufficient data. Throw in fear, hate, love, ambition, and fervent group loyalty, and you have a real recipe for disaster.

It is for all these reasons that I tread in the realm of spirituality very carefully. I keep my feet firmly grounded in the knowledge that we have come a long way in defining all aspects of our world in terms of the basic laws of matter and energy. There is no evidence for, nor reason to believe in, any supernatural forces in this Universe.

However we are not robots. We are not rational beings. We have evolved the need for emotions and the need for meaning, meditation and ritual. To some extent, we depend on many things that aren't real and aren't logical. We sing, we dance, we dream. =)

I'm an atheist, but I believe it is possible for an atheist cultivate some degree of spirituality if it is defined in secular terms. It would be a spirituality rooted in that which is infinite and unknown rather than that which is supernatural. If you will permit me the preposterous goal of defining my own spirituality, here are the 7 key aspects of spirituality that I focus upon.

And let me state up front that these are all just my goals and not things I've personally achieved to any great degree...in fact I'm terrible at a couple of these.

1. Seek to understand the interconnected nature of all things.
   
   Actions we take can result in a nearly infinite ripple of cause-and-effect that is far beyond human understanding. Many times in my life, I have seen seemingly insignificant actions put into motion an incredible chain of events that had a major impact on me later in life.
   
   Because of this, I have come to believe in a practical form of Karma. When all the little things I do from day to day are good and done with a good intentions, they increase the odds of these positive thoughts and actions being amplified with time and returned to me in ways I would never imagine. People can influence their own luck, but not in ways they are likely to ever see.
   
   


2. Seek to live as many, not as one.
   
   I do not believe in an absolute moral authority. I believe that morality is something that grows and forms organically inside each of us as we develop and as we experience the world. Without an absolute moral authority, you don't need to fear that civilization will devolve into Thunderdome. Evolution has programmed us to favor helping others instead of hurting others...unless we are programmed otherwise by circumstance. We wouldn't have survived this long were it not so.
   
   Humans have existed on this Earth far longer than any single religion has, and yet we've always survived and multiplied and improved upon our situation. So to claim that life can't be lived with the loss of your favorite religion is just not true. (In fact, the periods of recorded history when man made the least progress are precisely the periods when religion held it's tightest grip on society.)
   
   However, with or without religion, morality is absolutely key to our survival. Morality is a key aspect of our interconnected nature. It is a recognition that we are not just individuals, but rather are participants in a much greater whole. Each of us is many, not one.
   
   If you can only be yourself, then your actions alone don't not matter. Your 1 vote probably won't change the election. Your 1 big SUV doesn't have a measurable impact on the planet's environment. Your donation towards cancer research won't cure cancer 1 second sooner. So why bother?
   
   If you adopt the morality of the one, your life becomes easier. But if we all adopt the morality of the one, society will crumble. Each of us must try our best to adopt the morality of the many, because the many is what we really are and the many is what must survive. Fortunately, evolution has programmed us to feel positive feedback when we help others and sacrifice and do the right thing.
   
   It's a good thing we evolved from social pack animals and not from cats! :)
   




3. Seek to understand people.
   
   We are all products of the same evolutionary and environmental processes. We are all the same in a very practical way. That idiot who disagrees with you on all of your political views is exactly the person you would be if you had lived their life.
   
   Even the more grim and pathological aspects of human life, such as addiction, depravity and violence, are not beneath any of us if our lives had been different.
   
   I have a basic "faith" that everyone is doing the best they can with what they know and what they have. Sometimes what they know is very little, sometimes what they have is nothing, and sometimes they are burdened with a damaged psyche, so sometimes the best they can do is really awful, but that's what it is to be human.
   
   Sometimes I lose patience with Bible Belt Christians, but I try to remind myself of what Abraham Lincoln once said about the South: "They are just what we would be in their situation."
   
   We have to accept the fact that people are the way they are for evolutionary reasons. Some of the reasons are good, some are bad, but rarely are they reasons we can control. Conservatives exist because Evolution has pre-programmed a certain number of us to resist change for the sake of a stable society. Liberals exist because sometimes change is actually needed. (Liberals look at a problem and ask "What should we change?". Conservatives look at a problem and ask "What changed?")
   
   Do not let your repulsion for someones beliefs drive you to be the radical opposite, lest you become as big a fool as they are. Everything must exist in moderation, even opinions.
   




4. Seek to understand yourself.
   
   It seems to be human fate for each of us to have our own little neuroses or quirks or emotional reactions that come from places beneath the surface of our conscious mind. Everybody has these to differing degrees.
   
   Some people are pretty well adjusted, and other people are deeply scarred and traumatized. But no matter where you are on this scale, regular attention to your thoughts and feelings and emotions can move you incrementally towards the better end of the scale and thus a healthy internal balance.
   
   I came from so far down the bad end of that scale that I'll never make it to the happy side in my lifetime. But every year I'm wiser than I was the year before. I do take some small measure of pride at what I've been able to accomplish in life given a traumatic start, and I attribute my little pockets of success to my continual quest to achieve some small measure of balance using the tools outlined in this article.
   
   It is unfortunate but true that human beings usually take actions and form opinions from emotional gut reactions, and then later use reason to justify what they did or what they believe. This gives you the illusion of rational behavior, but it is not. So a balanced life is dependent on a deep understanding of the source of all your fears and desires. Rationality alone will not be able to control your actions, so you must instead seek to understand the emotions and motivations that will.
   
   Example: For many people, being pro-choice or pro-life is due more to emotional reactions than it is to starting with no opinion and trying to weigh the arguments with pure reason. For these people, this subject triggers something deep-seated and hidden in their psyche...something that probably has nothing to do with the actual subject of abortion...but which expresses itself in a desperate defense of one side or the other.
   
   To the extent we fail to understand our motivations, emotions and pains, we become controlled by them like puppets.
   
   


5. Seek balance.
   
   This is the most desired aspect of spirituality. It should be thought of as seeking "contentment" rather than seeking happiness, because happiness itself is a concept that only exists in contrast to unhappy experiences. You can get everything you've ever wanted and be happy, but if you are unbalanced you will eventually find new reasons to be miserable.
   
   Western consumerist values propose that if you work hard and do the right things, you will be able to do whatever it takes to obtain the things you desire, and thus achieve happiness. In contrast, many Eastern philosophies propose that if you follow the right path and focus your mind in meditation, you can eliminate the desire itself, and thus achieve balance.
   
   In other words, you can work hard and buy a sports car to be happy, or you can meditate on your life until you realize you don't need a sports car to be content. I would not judge either path as inferior, as both have their situational strengths and weaknesses. Personally I favor Eastern philosophies, but that has more to do with what I need in life rather than what I would recommend for anyone else.
   
   Balance must be found in all aspects of your life in order to be content. One of the key aspects of Buddhism is the practice of moderation (The Middle Way). Do not live an austere life, lest you lose touch with yourself. Do not live an indulgent life, lest you grow dependent on pleasure. Avoid all extremes in thought and in action.
   
   


6. Meditate.
   
   We are biologically programmed to benefit from meditation and ritual. All religions have some sort of regular prayer ritual, usually combined with music and/or dance. This is no accident. Human beings are biologically programmed to benefit from these things, and Atheists often miss out on an important tool for regulating our thoughts and emotions and re-enforcing our focus on those things that are most important to us.
   
   I practice some simple forms of meditation when I have time. And when I don't, I feel the effects. I find myself too easily wound-up and too overly focused in the small details of every day life rather than being able to broaden my mind to just accept the flow of events as they are.
   
   Ritual and rhythm are also important aspects of meditation. They help you to empty your mind by reducing your thoughts to the most simple and basic tasks of breathing and movement.
   




7. Believe in a story.
   
   Human beings live in a story world. Everything we do and everything we aspire to be narrates our part in some larger tale. Stories are a source of strength and hope and re-enforcement that we often need in our day-to-day lives. Just look at the popularity of Batman and Star Wars and Lord of the Rings and all other manner of escapism. We love those stories because these people do the things we want to do and believe the things we want to believe.
   
   Just beneath the outermost layer of our highest rational capabilities lives the core intellect of our brain which is incapable of knowing (or caring about) the difference between fantasy and reality. Children have to develop high rational skills in order to distinguish fantasy from reality. Adults in primitive tribal cultures sometimes never develop these skills. This is why many religions have their origins in primitive cultures where a good story is not much different than a good truth.
   
   Even for those of us who have rational educated minds, it is amazing to witness how easily we process fantasy as if it were real. What true Trekkie DIDN'T cry when Spock died in Star Trek II? :)
   
   The strength of Christianity is that it has a compelling story of a man who made the ultimate sacrifice so that all people can have the opportunity to reach Heaven. This story tells us that bad people will ultimately be punished, and good people will ultimately be rewarded. The Christian story offers heroic sacrifice, justice, repentance, forgiveness, love, hope, and immortality.
   
   Atheism loses out for lack of a common story. You can hear it in the voices of people who ask you "But...if the Bible is wrong...then what is the point? What do we do?"
   
   If you prove the Bible wrong, then it's like you just canceled their favorite T.V. show that they were hooked on, and now they don't know what to watch. Atheism has no "Star Trek" to replace Christianity's "Seventh Heaven".
   
   Stories are a powerful aspect of spirituality because they generate emotion, and emotion is a far more motivating to human beings than logic will ever be. We are not Vulcans. Human beings can analyze with logic, but we are motivated by emotion.
   
   And that's where the story comes into play: A good story is a framework for exploring the emotional motivations for doing good or doing what must be done.
   
   A good Atheistic story would start by laying out all the facts we know about the history and nature of the universe and our place within it. The facts about our Universe, on every scale from the very large to the very small, are absolutely awe inspiring. Then our story would shift into the fantasy realm of our future. It would suggest limitless possibilities for our species, even the possibility that we could someday create our own Heaven or Utopia. Impossible? Maybe. But that's the kind of hope that inspires us!
   
   The closest thing I've ever seen to a 1-book version of such a story (and is written to be accessible to the masses) is Carl Sagan's "Cosmos". Perhaps what we need is a story that is a cross between Cosmos and Star Trek? Cosmos would be something like the Old Testament, and Star Trek is something like the New Testament! :)
   
   But it has to be an optimistic story of the future. Don't use Battlestar Galactica or Babylon 5 as inspiration for what the future could be!
   
   Once we have a common story as a framework, then we each build our lives around our own personal stories...sort of like Role Playing...only this is real life. The storybook version of ourselves is more interesting and motivating than the real people we are. We find strength in pretending we are them, and their motivations spill over into the reality of our own lives and influence our own behaviors and motivations.
   
   I don't think it's coincidence that most Atheists are sci-fi junkies. :)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So this is the atheistic spirituality I have invented over many years, and this is a work in progress. Many professional authors have written thick books on the subject and done a far better job of defining spirituality that I ever will. But there is no one central book for Atheists. There is no one guide. Each of us is left with defining what spirituality means for themselves.

If we had these sort of tools and stories pre-packaged in one convenient book and one shared story, that would sure help in the adaptation of secular life into a society of human beings who struggle and still need many of the aspects of religion...but without the supernatural trappings. I consider myself one of those people.

The Center of Truth

This is discouraging:

http://www.catholicintl.com/products/books/gwwprint.htm

"The internet doesn't make you stupid, it just makes your stupidity more accessible to others." -- Anonymous

If every star in the Universe orbited the Earth once every 24 hours, they would be traveling at impossible speeds and experiencing centrifugal forces that would make them utterly flat...never mind the idea of trying to imagine the Milky Way galaxy spinning around an axis located near the outer edge of the galaxy and not the obvious center of this SPIRAL galaxy!



Ugh! I can't believe I'm wasting words in my blog reminding people of why the Universe does not orbit the Earth! If humanity cannot even grasp science enough to let go of a theory like Geocentrism, then Intelligent Design is going to be with us forever!

Human beings have almost a limitless ability to rationalize anything. This makes us so vulnerable these "scienticians" who either willfully or ignorantly do not accept the ability of mankind to acquire significant truth through any means but divine revelation.

They use science only as a tool for uncovering the mysteries of scripture and in doing so pervert the scientific method by limiting all outcomes to those which have already been accepted on faith as being the truth!

Those outcomes that support their point of view, however few and however tortured they may be, are sifted out like bits of treasure from great mounds of disagreeable facts. They seek Divine science to rationalize their world view in modern terms so they don't look like anachronistic fools. Their lofty goal is nothing less than to eventually build a formal and legal defense of Creationism (and apparently Geocentrism) on rationalistic grounds rather than on traditional faith.

A fortress with 100 soldiers looks as formidable as a fortress with 10,000 soldiers...IF you put those 100 soldiers in all the visible spots. Likewise Creationism can appear to be a worthy challenge to Evolution when Creationists need only produce enough material to fill the limited attention span and understanding of the audience.

Put Creationism on equal footing in the classroom, and our propensity to rationalize will take care of the rest.

Creationism is bothersome enough as it is, but I had no idea the forces of scientific Geocentrism were still alive as kicking. Perhaps this is the logical conclusion of passionately applying "science" to a literal interpretation of scripture. If you take one seriously, you have to take them both seriously. There is every bit as much (and more) scripture to support Geocentrism as there is to support Creationism.

In the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. - Hebrews 1:10

Who has established all the ends of the earth? - Proverbs 30:4

He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved. - Psalm 104:5

The world is firmly established, it can not be moved. - Psalm 93:1 & 1 Chronicles 16:30

"Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Who marked off its dimensions? Who stretched a measuring line across it? On what were its footings set, or who laid its cornerstone - Job 38:4-6

For the pillars of the earth are the Lord's, and he set the world on them. - 1 Samuel 2:8

When the earth and all its people quake, it is I who hold its pillars firm. - Psalm 75:3

Therefore I will make the heavens tremble; and the earth will shake from its place
- Isaiah 13:13

...the stars in the sky fell to earth, as late figs drop from a fig tree when shaken by a strong wind. - Rev. 6:12,13

If you take the Bible literally and proclaim than a "day" is truly a day (and God created the world in 6 days), then you have to also conclude that a "pillar" is truly a pillar and this Earth is literally fixed in space with physical restraints...and apparently it is also a flat structure having a "cornerstone".

Well, if Geocentrism and Creationism are congruent, then perhaps Geocentrism may yet be an unwitting ally of science. If Geocentrism has as much biblical validity as Creationism, then the very weight of its own absurdity will drag BOTH of them down. If Creationists insist on a literal interpretation of the Bible, then they must defend Geocentrism too. I can't wait for Kentucky to open a Geocentrist museum!

The 16th century arguments for Geocentrism bear a striking resemblance to the 21st century arguments for Creationism. Both have veiled origins in scripture, and both make strong appeals to common sense and to what is "obviously" true.

I'm paraphrasing here, but the arguments for Geocentrism went something like this: "If the Earth was rotating while orbiting the sun, we would feel acceleration and deceleration from night to day. Gravity would decrease when both centrifugal forces aligned. Objects thrown straight up would land to the west. Flying birds would drift and have increasing difficulty keeping up with the ground. We would see significant parallax motion of the stars between Spring and Fall, unless the stars were trillions of miles away, but that's just crazy!"

(Alpha Centauri is in fact over 25 trillion miles away.)

But these arguments for Geocentrism are utterly convincing if your knowledge of the Universe is limited to what was commonly known in the 16th century. In fact, 16th century Geocentrism was even more convincing than 21st century Intelligent Design! Geocentrism appeals directly to what you can see with your own two eyes and feel with your own two feet!

The overthrowing of Geocentrism in favor of Heliocentrism was the first major scientific insight into the nature of our Universe where science revealed a reality that was fundamentally at odds with the way our brains perceive the world.




On the scale of the very large, or the very small, or the very old, or the very fast, or the very dense, the Universe does not behave in ways our brains are designed to accept.

The story of Heliocentrism is the story of the birth of modern science and mankind's ability to understand that which is beyond our ability to see. It is proof positive that science can yield spectacular insights that mankind would *never* have achieved otherwise with only the use of "common sense".

Equally important is to understand that science does not achieve these things quickly or gracefully. Science often progresses in gradual steps toward the final truth as wrong ideas are replaced with "less wrong" ideas. Always there are far more failures than successes, but always there is progress forward.

In "De Revolutionibus", Copernicus makes a detailed inventory of all the stars in the Heavens. He gives the locations and magnitudes of every star in the entire Universe. According him that's 346 stars in the Northern Hemisphere and 316 in the southern Hemisphere, making a grand total of 662 stars in the Universe. (ha!)

Copernicus was correct that the Earth orbited the Sun. But he got most other things wrong; humorously wrong. Even some of his mathematical proofs for Heliocentrism were wrong.

Tycho Brahe borrowed parts Copernicus's theory for his "World System" which stipulated that the Sun orbited the Earth, but all the other planets orbited the Sun. This is a reasonable observation relative to the Earth, but still wrong.

Johannes Kepler came to accept Copernicus's theory completely, but then spent years trying to prove that all of the orbits of the planets represented geometric solids, which is very wrong.

Galileo Galilei enthusiastically defended Heliocentrism, and was brought before the Inquisition for his troubles. Galileo understood Heliocentrism, but he didn't understand gravity, and much of what he said about the shapes of orbits was wrong.

Isaac Newton formulated the theory of gravity which finally explained everything. But Newton was wrong about many other things...and so on and so on.

All of these great scientists devoted their life's work to advancing our knowledge in only small "less wrong" steps.

This method of learning is very difficult for most people to accept and appreciate. Science is often ridiculed and mocked because the short-term mistakes from year to year are far more visible and memorable to people than the long-term progress science makes over decades and centuries.

There is a common belief among Christians that if any one sentence of the Bible is wrong, then the whole book is wrong. This black-and-white approach to truth is at the very heart of Creationism and Geocentrism. It is no wonder that people who prefer that type of thinking would be unwilling to grasp the error-prone nature of scientific truth.

The moral authority of scripture is a powerful tool, no doubt. I am probably a rare Atheist in my opinion that religion had a useful purpose in the past, and that purpose is still needed today by many disadvantaged people who need heart and will to survive more than they need intellectual enlightenment.

But the future progress of mankind, by almost any definition of the word "progress", is clearly in the hands of science now, not religion. Religion cannot make progress because religion is hopelessly tied to ancient texts that can never change or grow. That may be fine for a moral framework* but it will not solve many of the problems we face today.

I am disappointed that Geocentrism is still being posited as fact, but at the same time I welcome people to learn more about Geocentrism and its history...especially the history! They would learn how science made mistakes and yet pressed closer to the truth until it defeated the combined forces of religion and "common sense".

My hope is that through a greater understanding of the history of Geocentrism, people will integrate an appreciation of science and an understanding of the limits of common sense into their views on Intelligent Design, and they will see how it is the same brand of non-science as Geocentrism.


---------

*Even as a moral framework, the Bible has begun to show it's age because it does not clearly and directly address many modern moral problems...and the problems it does address are difficult to understand because they are framed in the lives of primitive farmers and fishermen.

The Bible has 413 references to sheep, 373 references to Ox or Oxen, and 148 references to slaves and servants. I've actually seen sheep in person, but I don't think I've seen an Ox, and I'm pretty sure I've never seen a slave. The efficacy of Biblical parables diminishes as our lives become increasingly removed from the lives of those primitive superstitious people to whom we can no longer relate.

The Bible has little or no reference to modern moral issues such as racism, sexism, protecting the environment, the death penalty, species extinction, human rights, torturing prisoners of war, health care, or the use of fossil fuels. Oh, it does have 281 references to oil, but that are all references to lamp oil or those spiced body oils they dripped on their bodies before showers were common.

The Bible doesn't even give clear and specific guidance about abortion, and yet this is the single biggest hot-button moral issue we face today!!


**The Earth is zipping along at about 67,000 mph relative to the sun and the sun is moving at 486,000 mph relative to the center of the galaxy, and our galaxy is moving at about 1,300,000 mph relative to the Cosmic Microwave Background.

Slashdot writing style

A couple of people have written me e-mails complaining about my crappy writing style because I write with such tiny paragraphs that are only one or two sentences long each.

I call this my "Slashdot" writing style, because I see it all the time in the Slashdot comments section, and I see it increasingly on almost every kind of public comment forum.

Traditional writers would say that each paragraph should have a subject sentence followed by several sentences that address that subject in various ways.

I think that style of writing is falling by the wayside in favor of the a writing style that expresses just one THOUGHT per paragraph, with only the first few words establishing the subject. I find it easier to write and easier to skim as a reader.

It's sort of an eyeball optimization, and yet it's also more conversational and informal. People do not naturally speak in paragraphs.

This also wastes more vertical space, but these are not the pre-internet days when paper and ink actually cost something. Writing space is nearly free!

If each paragraph is just one thought, then you can get the jist of it in just a few words and then decide to skip it and go onto the next point. It's harder to skip thoughts when multiple are buried in a big block of text.

Anyway, yes I'm aware of my non-professional writing style, but I never claimed to be a good writer. I'm just babbling on and on for the fun of it, and I find it more fun to write everything like a reply to Slashdot! :)

Barack O-Bible

I just listened to the first installment of Another Goddamned Podcast, and they discuss the topic of politicians (Barack Obama in this case) pandering to Christians. (A great podcast by the way!)

This has been a problem longer than I've been alive. Every time any legal challenge tries to draw a clear line between church and state (nativity scenes on government property, ten commandments on government property, the phrase "under God" in our pledge of allegiance, the phrase "In God we Trust" on our currency, etc.) the politicians of both parties practically fall over each other trying to be the first to condemn any such challenge. These are some of the only times you'll see unanimous votes in the House or Senate to overturn any such ruling. It is very clear that Atheists have no voice in politics whatsoever.

In fact, we have less support now than we had at the turn of the 20th century. Adding "In God we Trust" to currency and "Under God" in the pledge all happened in the Twentieth Century.

And now we see this recent turn of events where Barack Obama is going out of his way to proclaim his Christianity and make it clear that he will live and lead as a man of faith.

I have so many mixed emotions on this subject that I could literally argue with myself for days. I want Atheists to have a voice, and I want them to have the option to oppose candidates who threaten the separation between church and state. But after 7 years of the current crop of Republican leaders (it's not just Bush), I've changed my voting registration from Independent to Democrat, and I'll support even an Evangelistic Christian Democrat over any of the current crop of Republican candidates.

The Background

Although this is highly oversimplified, let's group Americans into one of 4 categories:

1. Social Liberal and Economic Liberal
2. Social Conservative and Economic Conservative
3. Social Liberal and Economic Conservative
4. Social Conservative and Economic Liberal
   

But we only have 2 parties to choose from, and so the parties gravitate toward the two largest groups, which seem to be groups 1 and 2.

Group 3 tends to be people who register as independents, and they can be tipped into either party.

Group 4 is a perfect fit for evangelical Christians, and likewise should split evenly between Democrat and Republican. And yet Evangelicals overwhelmingly vote Republican.

Why do Evangelicals vote Republican?

Just a few decades ago, the Bible Belt voted overwhelmingly Democrat. Christian morals and the Democrat political values were a natural match. The Democrats stood up for the poor and disadvantaged. But this lead to supporting the Civil Right movement of the 60's, and this was highly unpopular in the Bible Belt. And honestly, the Bible is not a great champion of Civil Rights.

But the Civil Rights movement worked very well for the Democrats, and so they became the party supporting women's rights as well, and this lead to supporting abortion, and even attracted supporters of gay rights and animal rights.

The Bible is not a strong supporter (to say the least) of women's rights. Although the Bible doesn't say much against homosexuality, it says just enough to allow homophobes to use the Bible like a sledgehammer against anyone supporting gay marriage. The Bible doesn't have a single passage that is clearly anti-abortion either, but it has enough literary references to life before birth that Christians seem to have interpreted it that way, and they've made it a major issue.

Southern evangelicals live in a very homeostatic world, and anything that supports a social change is terrifying to them. This was the tipping point that converted evangelicals to the Republican Party.

I think after being in the Republican Party for so many years, the evangelical Christians have become slightly brainwashed with some of the extreme forms of economic conservative beliefs as well. (Evangelicals are prone to brainwashing. What a surprise.) I've seen Christians who live in poverty but vocally support tax cuts for the wealthy. They've also adopted this the Republican slavish worship of business that says if capitalism is good, then all businesses must be good, and corporations can do no wrong. Republicans LOVE Wal-Mart and Microsoft and Haliburton and Lockheed-Martin and Enron (until they got caught) and Oil Companies and any company that makes money at the expense of everything and everyone. And now many evangelical Christians have adopted this philosophy...even when it is (sometimes) at odds with Christian morals.




Barack Obama

Anyway, all of the above is the foundation for what is happening to the Democratic party today. The Republicans get all of the Group 2 vote, half the Group 3 vote, and all of the Group 4 vote. It has been a rough time for the Democrats for the past few decades. The loss of the evangelical Christians has hurt the Democrats in ways that they've never been able to fully recover from. They only managed to barely get control of congress after a long series of historically tragic mistakes on the part of the current Republican leadership. (Again, it's not just Bush. I could ramble off at least 20 names in the Republican leadership...or 10 if you don't count the one's who have already been forced to leave office.) But this backlash against Republicans won't last.
Many Democrats honestly believe that they cannot prosper without stronger evangelical support. We will always be this "divided nation" of two Americas unless the one of the two parties can make a home for disenchanted factions in the other party.

Barack Obama's pandering to faith is nothing new. Bill Clinton would quote scripture with the best of them, and Jimmy Carter was one of the most religious presidents in recent history. The Democratic party is doing everything it possibly can to appeal to the Christian majority of this country.

And as an Atheist, this very troubling to see all of American politics kissing up to Christian evangelicals every chance they get, but we have to fact the facts that Groups 3 and 4 have all the power right now, because Groups 1 and 2 are entrenched and loyal and evenly matched. Democrats are going to have to attract groups 3 and 4 by promising to cut spending and promising to lead with faith.


Big Picture

People who have a strong belief in God are the vast majority of the American population today, and will be so for at least another 50 years if not much much longer. There is nothing that can be done about that. If the Democratic party is to succeed, they very much need to attract people of faith. Many Evangelicals are NOT opposed to the economic liberalism of the Democratic party. Mike Huckabee is proof of that. What they are (mostly) opposed to is the social liberalism of the party.

The Democratic party needs to prove that it's political values are more in sync with Christian moral values than are the Republican political values. They need to prove that they have a realistic form of economic liberalism that will keep spending in check.

For Barack Obama to pander to the Christian majority is totally expected and needed. Is it dishonest? Maybe, but I don't know Obama's personal beliefs. He seems very genuine in his spirituality, and yet he's had the guts to openly support and enforce the separation of church and state. He seems to understand the difference between espousing faith and governing by faith. The Republicans clearly don't understand that difference. The Republicans are convinced to their very core that this is a Christian nation because the founding fathers were all devout Christians. They definitely were not.

I will be keenly watching for any moves that directly violate our Constitution, but outside of that, I'm fine with Barack making moves to bring more Christans into the Democratic party. Those Christians who are militant about abortion above all else will probably never be Democrats. But there are lots of moderate faithful who are not one-issue voters, they will balance all these concerns and be willing to back whichever party supports the greatest number of their values. These are the Christians who are largely voting Republicans but are disenchanted with many current Republican policies.

So, I wish Barack Obama all the luck. I think he has a better chance of winning converts from the right than Hillary does. He has a better chance of making all of us put down our hot-button pet issues and come together as a nation to solve the bigger problems facing us all. I voted for Barack over Hillary, and I sincerely hope he wins.

Go Barack!!!!!!!!!!!!


(Side Note)
It's not that I don't like Hillary. She rates highest on support for the sciences. But I don't think most Americans realize how much Hillary is hated on the right. Even the people on the right are keeping it quiet, but it's there. I spent some time in rural Tennessee...disguised as a Republican...and I swear those people are ready to lock-and-load and start causing violent trouble if she looks like she'll win. I think she also might have a chip on her shoulder against Republicans (and deservedly so) which would prevent her from working as well with Republicans as Barack. There are too many Republicans who would lose all of the credibility if they suddenly agreed to anything Hillary wants.

Right now, we are facing such dire issues that I'm totally in the mood to forgive everything any Republican has ever done and just get on with our lives. I think Barack has that attitude as well. I'm not sure Hillary does.

Then again...only Nixon could go to China and only Kirk could make peace with Klingons. Maybe only Hilary can appease Republicans? :)

A good rant!

I love a good rant. This one is nearly a year old, but it's still VERY timely and appropriate for today:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mEEjX6j_f4

The Politics of Science

With all the problems this country is facing, the presidential candidates are heavily focused on issues of change, the economy, and the war in Iraq. It is difficult to discern their positions on many issues that are important to the scientific community. Even if the other issues are more important, some small part of my vote is still going to be based on a candidate's support for the sciences, and I would like to know where they stand.

I have made my own modest effort to read and research to try and find out what candidates have said and done in regards to many of these issues.

Of course, all politicians are good at saying what they think people want to hear. Whether or not any of these candidates are willing and/or able to actually follow through with their promises is questionable at best. And I make no claim to even remotely have the research skills our resources of a true journalist. So, take my ratings with a *big* grain of salt.

Here is my scale of 1 to 5 atoms:

- Excellent support for and understanding of the sciences
- Reasonable support for multiple branches of science
- Not especially focused on science, but not threatened by science either.
- Confuses science with politics and subjective beliefs
- Here comes the 2nd Dark Age

The Rankings:

Hillary Clinton -

• Vocal supporter of stem cell research
• Opposes teaching Intelligent Design in science class
• Vocal supporter of Internet Neutrality
• Vocal supporter of investments into alternative energies
• Vocal supporter of NASA and space exploration
• Supports 80% reduction in carbon emissions by 2050
• Focus on technology and innovation to drive economic growth, and reversing what she calls the Bush Administration's "assault on science".
• Establish a $50 billion Strategic Energy Fund to invest in technologies to promote conservation, combat global warming and reduce dependence on foreign oil.
• Speed the development of a vehicle to replace the aging space shuttle fleet, and "fully fund NASA's Earth Sciences program and initiate a Space-based Climate Change Initiative" to better study global warming.
• Increase the budget of the National Institutes of Health by 50 percent over 5 years.
  Direct all federal department and agency heads to safeguard against political pressure on scientific issues.
• Re-establish the position of Assistant to the President for Science and Technology.
• Ban political appointees from unduly interfering with scientific conclusions and publications.

"For six and half years under this president, it's been open season on open inquiry, and by ignoring or manipulating science, the Bush administration is letting our economic competitors get an edge in the global economy." -- Clinton at the 50th anniversary of Sputnik

Barack Obama -

• Supports doubling federal funding for basic research, thereby "changing the posture of our federal government from being one of the most anti-science administrations in American history to one that embraces science and technology."
• Opposes teaching Intelligent Design in science classes
• Supports Internet Neutrality
• Supports more equitable distribution of wireless bandwidth ranges to bring wireless internet access to rural areas.
• Voiced very strong and continuing opposition to recent congressional budget cuts for major science projects such as the International Linear Collider and the ITER fusion-power experiment. I would rate Obama 5 atoms for this stance alone were it not for the fact that this is likely mostly a policitical move on his part, because Senator Obama represents the state (Illinois) where Fermilab (one of the major targets of the budget cuts) is located.
• Generally, Obama has a somewhat narrow focus on immediate practical applications of science in the fields of health care. He is more interested in what science can do to help people now rather than what we should be investing in science to help people in the future.
• Proposes greatly increased spending on science education, but would pay for it with cuts in NASA's budget.

John Edwards -

• Overall John Edwards is not as vocal about scientific issues as Clinton or Obama, and he focuses on a pretty narrow set of topics.
• When questioned on scientific issue positions, he sometimes offers up vague and non-committal answers. For example, when asked about funding for NASA his answers have been something along the lines of "Space Exploration is great and we need to do it." But he hasn't put together a detailed policy.
• Supports stem-cell research
• Opposes teaching Intelligent Design in science class
• Supports Internet Neutrality
• Strong supporter of active policy to control emissions
• Strong supporter of increased science education in schools.
• In the Senate, he has a consistent record of supporting environmental improvement measures
• Believes that careers in science are vital for America's future and not something we should offshore.
• Proposes to eliminate political litmus tests for government scientists.
• Proposes to protect the integrity of government science by prohibiting political appointees from overriding agencies' scientific findings unless the chief White House science advisor concludes they are erroneous.
• Proposes to reverse the demotion of the head of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and restore the office to a central role as an assistant to the president, a rank held in previous administrations.
• Has an unfortunate record of occasionally using "junk science" as a trial lawyer prosecuting medial malpractice lawsuits.

"The disregard of science by the Bush administration -- the censorship of data and analysis of global warming, the treatment of stem cell research, mercury emissions and other subjects - has been shameful. As president, I will ensure that government professionals charged with the collection and analysis of scientific data--from the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy to the EPA--are insulated from political influence. Period." -- John Edwards

John McCain -

• Strong supporter of environmental issues. John McCain has stated that global warming is “the most urgent issue facing the world”. He hasn't always seen global warming as a serious issue, but better late than never.
• He has an unclear position on teaching Intelligent design. Has supported Intelligent Design on and off in the past.
• Opposes Internet Neutrality
• Overall, McCain is a pragmatist and has show a willingness to listen to scientific opinion and change his mind take action when needed, even when it contradicts a position taken by the Republican Party.

Rudy Guiliani -

• Rudy has virtually no record on scientific issues, positive or negative. He seems to care very little for science, but he also makes no effort to impede the progress of science. He is likely to take advice on scientific matters from the experts.
• Although he is a Republican, he has made little effort to bow to the desires of the Evangelistic branch of his party. He seems somewhat resistant to their anti-science message.
• The danger with Rudy is that the President has the ability to influence what issues the congress and the country focuses on. And Rudy is the type who will never focus on scientific issues. When pressed with questions about global warming, he will begrudgingly admit it's an issue, but then turn the subject into our reliance on foreign oil.

Mitt Romney -

• On record as opposing teaching Intelligent Design
• Opposed Internet Neutrality
• Much like Juliani, Mitt has virtually no record on scientific issues, and doesn't seem to care. If you go to his website, http://www.mittromney.com/, he doesn't list any positions on any scientific issues...not even global warming.
• His big weakness is his desire to please the evangelists in his party. He sees himself as a personal representative and defender of the Mormon religion, and he obviously feels he has something to prove to the Christian Evangelicals. This is what could cause him to side with Evangelicals rather than scientists on key issues where they tend to disagree.

Mike Huckabee -

• Supports Internet Neutrality
• Believes that Evolution is a farce (YIKES!)
• Unclear record on environmental issues
• As with Romney, the issues he chooses to advocate only center around the central Republican themes of God, Family, and America.
• He has a reasonable and practical aspect to his personality, and this is the only thing keeping me from giving him a 1 atom rating. He is the embodiment of all the risks that come from mixing Church and State. However, he has also demonstrated some ability to listen to others and to build concensus as much as possible. He is the "compassionate" conservative that Bush never was.

Fred Thompson -

• Straight-line ideologic conservative from top to bottom. (Or maybe he's just acting, but he's a good actor!)
• He values his political positions absolutely everything else, and is unwilling to listen to people who disagree with him. He is very much like George Bush in this regard. If any of his ideological positions are shown to be un-scientific, then science itself must be fallible, because his ideas are not.

As I'm writing this, I just heard that Fred has dropped out of the race. This is good news! He was my only 1-atom rating besides current president George Bush.

This means that ANY president we get from these remaining candidates will be an improvement over our current president. (At least in the area of support for the sciences.)