Vistaluna

Not coming out at work

2009-03-18T21:11:00.000-07:00

Okay, I'm not just copy-catting Ordinary Girl this time...this really is a subject that was already brewing in my head lately...but OG tripped it off. :)

The subject is whether or not to be open about being an Atheist in the workplace. After all, there are many Christians who are open and vocal about their beliefs at work.

I'm fairly quiet about my beliefs at work...and part of the reason is because I used to debate Religion and Evolution in college, and after a few years I learned that rational arguments cannot disarm faith. If anything, rational arguments make people defensive and they retreat further into faith.

If people come to Atheism, they generally have to discover it for themselves.

But there's another reason I don't express my lack of faith: I don't want the pressure of being a representative of a minority. I think that people would scrutinize my actions, character, and morals if they knew I was an Atheist.

I've heard some American Muslims say they feel pressure to be extra good and friendly since 9/11...because they feel (probably legitimately) that other Americans are watching and studying them more intently these days. They feel pressure to prove that not all Muslims are bad. (Which is ridiculous because any adult should realize that good and bad people come in all flavors.)

I don't think I'm up to the challenge of being studied. If I say I'm an Atheist, the follow-up question is almost invariably about how I was raised. If anyone asks me about my parents or upbringing, I can't say a single word about that without lying or giving them ammunition against me.

Also, I'm a technical leader at work...sorta the head-geek, and I don't want people to lose in faith in ME. I know in my heart I can be a force for good and help everyone at work...but only if people trust me. If came out as an Atheist, it would surely undermine that.

I guess that's politics 101. The higher up you get in any position of authority or power, the more you have to play your cards close to the vest.

So, maybe my reasons for not being open about Atheism are a bit unusual. But it does work. Does it make me a chicken? Maybe...but if being a chicken helps me and everyone around me at work...then I like to think of myself as the heroic self-sacrificing chicken! :)

Republican .NET

2009-03-15T18:56:00.000-07:00

I used Facebook to find someone I knew in High School. His name is Jeremy, and I haven't heard from him since 1987.

Well, it turns out Jeremy majored in Computer Science, just like me.

It also turns out that Jeremy is a far-right Republican and very conservative Christian. (I did not know that in High School)

Wanna guess what kind of software development he does? He does Microsoft .NET...and he specializes in Microsoft Sharepoint.

I think I had a blog post about this some very long time ago, but it continues to puzzle me as to how politics play into technology, and why Republicans seem to have a bias in favor of Microsoft, and Democrats have a bias against Microsoft.

(Of course I would argue it's not a bias to be against Microsoft if you are right.) :)

Is there something about the actual technologies that excites the Democrat or Republican mind? Or is it simply that Republican love big powerful rich companies (like Wal-Mart and Microsoft) whereas Democrats resist so much money and power being concentrated on so few?

Maybe Republicans always want to go with the safest and most conservative choice, whereas Democrats like to be experimental?

Maybe it's a combination of all these things and more. I don't know.

I hate to stereotype people...but I see this pattern so often that surely politics has found it's way into technology.

I find that very disturbing, because surely technology people have enough "religious" wars as it is without bringing politics and REAL religion into the debate.

So sad.

Things we cannot have

2009-03-01T11:23:00.000-08:00

I had a comment to post in reply to this blog post by the chaplain:

http://thechapel.wordpress.com/2009/02/21/to-see-or-not-to-see

But my comment grew to more than 3 paragraphs, so I made a post of my own about it.

I would like to applaud BlackSun's remarks (in the comments section) and add a few of my own.

People are almost never totally honest in the reasons they give for being bothered or offended by something. Often times they are not even honest with themselves. We've all heard of rabidly anti-gay homophobes who are actually closet homosexuals.

I'm just not convinced this girl (in the post) is telling the truth. She may not even know the truth of her own feelings. Are we sure she's really religious? Maybe she has some other kinds of physical issues that make sex a problem for her. Maybe she was even traumatized by incest or rape. Of course she would never want to publicly admit either of these things, so she pretends to be the good and pure girl who just wants modesty, going so far as to even join a website that's all about modesty. She's looking for an excuse she can use to justify her feelings to others (and to herself). If she is actually harboring deep pain or shame, then I feel great pity for her.

Or maybe I'm giving her too much complexity and she really is just a simpleton who was raised in an oppressive household. :)

Religion is responsible for a majority of these problems, but not all of them, because there is something runs deeper in human nature.

Many years ago, I knew someone who loved golf as much as life itself. But then he had a crushed shoulder that prevented him from playing golf. He became agitated whenever people around him would talk about golf. He became golf-repressed. As ridiculous as that sounds, it was a real problem. He really harbored a bitterness about the subject, and I wouldn't be surprised if today he views golfers as lazy, arrogant, country-club snobs.

Some women who are against abortion are harboring resentment and jealousy because they didn't have a choice when they got knocked up. But they don't want to admit that (even to themselves) so they couch it in religious arguments.

Some people are sexually-repressed but not by choice. Either they have a disability, or they are unable to find a partner, or they have a partner who is unable to satisfy them. These people are likely to become resentful of our culture that puts such a strong value on sex and sexuality.

People who have struggled with poverty their whole life can become bitter towards people who do well. I grew up in a state where I met too many people who honestly hated college kids and college graduates. They would call college people sissies and fools and cowards and communists all kinds of bad names. Deep down in side, I'm sure they are just harboring bitterness and resentment that they never got a chance for an easier life.

Life wasn't fair to these people, so they take out their anger on the people who had a fair life.

So in the deepest sense, this has nothing to do with sexuality or religion. This is a common human disease where we let ourselves be tortured and tormented by something we desperately want but can't have. But we don't want to admit (even to ourselves) that we can be so petty and desperate over things that shouldn't be so important to us. And if we can't admit it and be okay with ourselves as we are, then these issues will only solidify with age.

I consider myself lucky to be a highly introspective person. There are a lot of pathologies I could have fallen victim to if I wasn't constantly "debugging" my internal thought process. I am often frustrated with people who aren't introspective. With those kinds of people, you have to just hope they were programmed right from the start, because they sure-as-heck aren't ever going to apply patches to their own mental software. :)

But I think part of the reason I CAN be so introspective is because I don't feel bound to any ideology or dogma. I have always known since I was a child that I'm totally making EVERYTHING up as I go (because I had no parents to teach me). And even today, everything I am is a result of a tremendous amount of trial-and-error on my part, so I won't guarantee the accuracy of any of it. :)

Christian lechers

2009-02-13T17:20:00.000-08:00

This is just an observation...and I'm formulating theories as I'm writing this...so pardon the rambling... :)

I think we've all met people in our lives who are lechers. And by "lecher" I don't mean your garden variety pervert. I mean the total jackasses who sexually harasses at every opportunity. I'm talking about managers who invite the cute employees to lots of 1-on-1 meetings and hit on them constantly and pressure them into going out for drinks. I'm talking about married guys who pick up girls (or hookers) on every business trip away from home, or the guys who can't go more than a minute in a casual conversation without diving into sexually explicit details of everything they've done or would like to do to every woman or man they know. I'm talking about guys who discuss their plans to take a vacation to a country where the "age of consent" is less than 16.

I've met 6 hard-core lechers in my life, and I think I've found #7 at my current place of employment. (2 of these 7 are women!).

It's not that I'm so terribly deeply offended by these people...because often times I can just avoid them or ignore them. But what is bothering me is that I've noticed a trend that is too much to be a coincidence: EVERY one of these jerks I've met is fervent, loud, bible-clutching Christian. Most are Evangelicals! They are sexual harassers and Jesus freaks at the same time!!

One guy from a previous job would sit as his desk listening to Christian Rock and Gospel music all day long, and then he would go out to lunch and paw the waitresses and loudly tell stories that would make a porn star blush! Then he would go back to work and put on headphones and sing along for the glory of God. (I'm not exaggerating. He really was that extreme!)

I've never met an Atheist harasser. I'm not saying they don't exist, but I am saying that is seems pretty clear that religion does not guarantee morality or compassion for others.

You see, in order to live with their obvious hypocrisy, they must take to heart the Bible's statements that all men are sinners, but that Jesus paid for these sins. So, if the Bible says I can't help but be a sinner, and that my sins will be forgiven, then that pretty much gives me a blank check!

"Jesus died for these sins...so we better make them good ones!"

As an Atheist, I know that nobody is paying for MY sins except myself and any other people I affect. So I feel especially obligated to be as decent and respectful as I possibly can be to others.

But these Christian Jekyll-and-Hyde bastards can do whatever violent or depraved behaviors they want to do on a Saturday night so long as they drag themselves into church the next morning...and that makes it alright.

One guy I knew many years ago was obsessed with getting the "legal age" lowered to 12. And his argument was always "If they can bleed, they can breed! They married that young in the Bible!" He had no conscience or respect for others. Just because something is biologically possible doesn't mean it's in their best interest! How do you not care about what is best for others? How do you take Christianity seriously and yet walk through life like one big "id"?!?

I got so sick of working with this individual that I made destroying his career a pet project of mine for about two months. Fortunately he just quit the job and I never had to see him again.

One theory of mine is that the Bible tends to diminish the value and humanity of women...to a small or large degree depending on how seriously you want to interpret it. Traditional Evangelical families may not provide these men with good role models of smart, independent women. In fact they might even have come from families where women were treated very badly.

BUT that still doesn't explain the two female lechers I've met! Neither one of them are capable of carrying any conversation for more than a minute with dragging it into the gutter...often in front of younger male employees who report to them. Maybe they grew up in a house full of male lechers and they just got used to behaving that way? But still, how can they possibly NOT notice that nobody else in the work place talks like that or laughs at their jokes or participates with them in these conversations?

I don't want to paint with a broad brush here, because most religious people are not serious lechers. I don't think being religious can make you a creep, but I do suspect that being a creep (or a sadistic jerk or a power-freak) makes you susceptible to the message of religion.

Most strongly conservative men are high-testosterone, red-meat loving, pro-military, gun-loving, deer-hunting, beer-drinking, football-watching, macho-men. Or at least that's the kind of strong man they admire. Those traits are all badges of honor among conservative men (and conservative women). This is the "Joe Six-pack" that conservatives idolize.

Religion is very attractive to these kinds of people, because religion offers authority, certainty, power, discipline, order, and something worth killing for. It's not attractive because it promises to make them behave like good people...although that is the disguise used to cover for religions indulgences.

If you could buy a box of religion at a store, the label on the front of the box would say "It makes you a good person! It increases morality and compassion!" But the ingredients on the back would be "Contains: authority, obedience, conformity, unquestioning acceptance of dogma, certainty, violence, blood sacrifices, marriage to young girls, and corn syrup". It would also have a disclaimer: "Does not contain compassion, critical thinking, self-analysis, introspection, respect for others, or peanuts"

And that is where the hypocrisy comes from. Religion cultivates an innocent goody-goody facade that masks the true dark desires that it is really made of.

As an Atheist, I feel like I've spent my whole life being beaten down with everyone's belief that religion leads to morality and that religious people are "good" and moral people.

But from my personal experience, the most morally corrupt and twisted people I've ever met in my life have all been...without exception...devout Christians. Some of the most twisted and sadistic behavior in all of history (like the Inquisition and Salem Witch Trials) comes from Christianity! Do some reading sometime into some of the torture devices used during the Inquisition. Those people were FREAKS!

And don't forget about all the boy-raping priests (and subsequent cover-ups) that have been uncovered over the past decade! Those guys are the epitome of sexual perversion combined with religious devotion!

I don't want to make it sound like I'm some kind of prude. I have the Internet after all. I've seen it all, and very little shocks me. (Except the original "2 girls, 1 cup" video...GROSS!!!!!!!!) I'm absolutely fine with people fantasizing about anything they want and indulging in whatever activities they wanna do between two (or more) consenting adults, but I'm NOT fine when they see no need to control themselves in a public space or work environment where other people should have a reasonable expectation of safe and mature behavior. And I'm especially not fine when they wrap this behavior in Christian holier-than-thou hypocrisy!

I'm willing to offer the benefit of the doubt and believe that that bad people are just bad people, and whatever religion they do or don't have will not change their bad behavior. Christianity won't "fix" them anymore than Atheism would "corrupt" them. Atrocities happen when bad people come into absolute power. The "absolute power" is the real problem, regardless of how they got that power.

But...without religion...there would at least be one less road to absolute power!

The Woodchuck

2008-12-24T23:22:00.000-08:00

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!

2008-12-18T19:06:00.000-08:00

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!

2008-12-05T19:28:00.001-08:00

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

2008-11-12T17:04:00.000-08:00

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!

2008-11-06T20:30:00.000-08:00

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

2008-11-04T19:35:00.000-08:00

Meet the Straw Men

2008-11-01T21:55:00.001-07:00

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?

2008-10-25T18:21:00.000-07:00

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

2008-10-02T20:20:00.000-07:00

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

2008-09-24T21:55:00.000-07:00

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.

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.

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! :)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

2008-04-03T19:38:00.000-07:00

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

2008-03-23T18:36:00.000-07:00

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

2008-02-06T20:02:00.000-08:00

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:

Social Liberal and Economic Liberal
Social Conservative and Economic Conservative
Social Liberal and Economic Conservative
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!

2008-01-25T08:07:00.000-08:00

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

2008-01-11T20:08:00.000-08:00

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.)

The science of faith

2007-11-07T12:12:00.001-08:00

I was chatting with an acquaintance recently, and our conversation wandered into the topic of Evolution. He thinks Evolution is all fake. Naturally his view of Evolution is entirely based on the fact that he has already accepted on faith that the Bible as absolute truth. Once your reality is based on faith, you can believe whatever you want to believe.

But I've found that many religious people are at least willing to attempt to debate on facts, because nobody wants to be seen as being irrational. (Never mind that they retreat deeper into faith if they start to lose the battle of facts.)

This individual wasn't even willing to debate me. The reasons he gave were reasons I've heard before, and reasons I'm hearing more and more lately...enough to think there is a real movement behind this.

The argument goes something like this:

"Look, people have been debating the existence of God and the meaning of life for thousands of years, and nobody has ever come up with a winning answer. How could I be smarter than all of them? I have accepted God on faith, and there is no use in thinking about it or debating it any further. You can show me any reason to doubt God's existence, and I can find someone on the other side who would counter your argument. Debating gets you nowhere. I'm going to focus on living my life and being happy."

Obviously there are holes in every part of his "just believe and be happy" argument. It assumes mankind has collectively learned nothing at all, it assumes that human beings are totally incapable of reasonable judgment, it assumes that happiness is a greater goal than truth, and it is a defeatist attitude in the face of an imaginary challenge of their own creation! It is a complete abandonment of reason. You could justify anything with that kind of logic.

And yet what this presents is a more difficult and vexing form of faith that what I usually encounter. Many people want to believe that their religion is reasonable and logical and can easily stand on the facts. They want to believe that we all live in the same reality and that reasonable people will come to the same conclusions when presented with the same evidence.

But this "believe and be happy" form of faith takes the shape of a conscious decision to see the world as they want to see it, to willfully believe whatever they want to believe, without any concern for seeking any absolute truth. If mankind has proven itself unable to discern what is real and what isn't, then everything must be faith, and we might as well just sit back and enjoy the ride.

It's like something right out of the movie "The Matrix", and yet this is real, and it's happening right now. Hundreds of millions of people are making a conscious choice for the blue pill.

Do I value truth over happiness? Yes...but I don't believe they are mutually exclusive. A life without magical thinking offers the freedom of the mind that is necessary to have an enriched and well examined life. I also don't believe that a blue-pill life leads to happiness. I know plenty of religious people who suffer terribly and are miserable people.

But I do sometimes wonder what it would be like to live in a bubble of blind faith...to be able to believe whatever I want to believe, and be absolutely certain that it was the truth. I would never even be aware that I had traded truth for fantasy. I would never know a red pill even existed.

But once you've seen the real world, it is most difficult to go back. And when I think about that, I wonder how I got "unplugged" in the first place. Why do a few of us escape the bubble of faith that traps so many?

How can the world be so full of religion, and yet I feel so sure that I have reached an awareness that most people have not? I don't consider myself as being any better than the believers. I've met religious people who are brilliant and wonderful people. So it is a puzzle to be an Atheist in a world full of religion. Atheists sensed that something wasn't right, and that there was more to the world that what we were told. We were skeptical and inquisitive, and we wouldn't stop digging until we found some answers. And what we discovered turns out to be vastly different than what most of humanity just accepts on faith because they aren't so inquisitive.

But why are the majority people people not inquisitive?

"You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it." -- Morpheus

Most people aren't inquisitive because most people have a lot invested in their chosen reality. And that is what makes atheists such an unpopular minority: We deny their reality. We are a much greater threat to their world than any other religion. Having multiple religions in this world only serves to reinforce their reality. The existence of Islam reinforces Christianity, and vice-versa. Worshipers look around the world and only see other worshipers. So they see no need to question their reality. The only question is who picked the right god.

But atheists deny the reality of what these religions have all collectively created. We are the weirdos. We are the glitch in the system that they want fixed. Every religion throughout history has had it's "enforcers" who have attacked and hunted us. We are the one group that everyone can agree to hate. Polls have shown that people would rather elect someone from another religion than an atheist.

In this country, "religious freedom" is interpreted to mean that you can believe in God any way you want...just so long as you still believe...just so long as you remain plugged-in to the system and admit that faith is all there is. I can't count the number of times I've heard religious apologists claim that even Atheism is an act of faith...that we are no different and we play by their rules.

And this brings me back to my blue-pill friend who just doesn't care about science, philosophy, or religion. To him, atheism is just one of many ways to view this reality. But no, he is very wrong. They are all very wrong. Something fundamental has changed, and even many atheists don't realize it. This is not the same philosophical debate that has been raging for thousands of years. This is something brand new. In very recent human history we have seen the enthusiastic and universal application of the scientific method, and this has given us our first true glimpse of the real world.

For the first time in history, we are developing the ability to see the raw data of this reality. It is only in the past 100 years that all of the pieces of biology, geology, chemistry, astronomy, physics, and psychology have come together into a coherent picture of the real world.

100 years ago, within the lifetime of many people living today, there was no concept of galaxies, no concept of continental drift, no DNA, no general relativity, no protons, no neutrons, no big bang, no understanding of evolutionary mechanisms, and no way to see the "code" that makes up reality. What science has delivered in the past century is nothing less than the physical reality that lies underneath our perceived reality. This is an absolutely brand new challenge to religion and it is the ultimate challenge to the inevitability of faith.

Atheism has teeth now. The Atheistic stance has changed from "Maybe the world could work without supernatural influence" to "Here is actually how the world actually does work without supernatural influence." It is a switch from inductive to deductive arguments based on our new-found ability to observe the physical reality of this world.

Religion is losing it's last foothold in reality and is being forced entirely into the realm of faith, and faith is losing it's legitimacy. In the past, faith was the act of believing in the absence of hard evidence. Today, faith is the act of believing in spite of hard evidence. The doorway to reality is finally open for all of us, and the only way to miss it is to willfully choose to look away. And this, of course, is exactly what most people will do.

If science becomes the tool that unplugs humanity from the false realities of religion, then science will eventually be attacked or be abandoned by large segments of the population. I can only hope it's not a majority of people. But even a rabid minority can cause catastrophes. The theory of Evolution will be the front line and the pivot in this battle. We can gracefully progress to the next stage of human society, or we can willfully close our eyes and slam ourselves back into another Dark Age. A significant percentage of the world's population, including my blue-pill friend, will absolutely prefer the latter.

I would no more push Atheism on someone than I'd want them to push Christianity on me. (And believe me, they do!) You can't force someone to take the red pill. But what I will advocate with utmost conviction is science. As a species, we are strong and we are many, but to survive we must move forward, and to move forward we must learn. We need the collective insight and wisdom to solve our own problems instead of waiting for the man in the sky with the white beard to save us.

It's not that I'm optimistic that science will find easy answers to all the problems that face our planet, but rather science will allow us to see our problems for what they are, and science will give us the best options for dealing with them. Science will give us the red pill we desperately need, and then the rest is up to us!

(To help support the advancement of science, please visit http://www.aaas.org/)

A reason happens for everything

2007-11-03T20:47:00.000-07:00

If you've never heard of Jacqueline Saburido before, then beware this video is a bit gruesome and a major downer...

http://www.glumbert.com/media/drunkdriving

And that video isn't anywhere near as gruesome as the full details of everything she's been through and continues to go through.

If you do a Google search on Jacqueline Saburido (Jaqui), you'll see there are multiple websites devoted to her and her story. She has been the focus of a major outpouring of sympathy and consideration. She has become a powerful figure in the campaign against drunk driving. When you see the videos of her and her story, you can't help but feel twisted up inside.

But why is it that nobody seems to notice, or care, or even remember that two other kids actually DIED in that car accident? Death is not a strong deterrent to drunk driving?

Everyone cares deeply for Jacqueline's father and feels sorry for what he's had to go through...but nobody even remotely cares for the parents of the other two kids who died. You have to dig deep in all the news stories to even find the names of those kids! They are almost totally forgotten.

The reason nobody notices the death of the two other kids is this: We all instinctively know that there are things worse than death. It is absolutely true, and we all know it, but when forced to confront that fact, most of us will deny it. This is exactly why the doctors brought her back to life even though they must have known it would be an abomination to do so, and would put her through an experience worse than letting her die. This is why laws that allow assisted suicides for terminally ill patients never pass. If nothing is worse than death, then why is euthanizing a suffering pet an acceptable practice? We allow more peace and dignity for our pets than for our own kind.

Jacqui is interesting because what she has been through is more horrifying to us than just dying in a car accident. And yet a majority of us refuse to honestly confront that kind of thinking. We can't bare the weight of these decisions upon us. We want easy and guilt-free answers to our biggest questions, and we will do anything to anybody to get them. If you let a suffering person die, people will call you a monster. If you prolong their suffering indefinitely by keeping them alive, people will call you a miracle worker.

It is highly ironic that the people who are most unwilling to accept death are religious people who believe that there is a better world after death. They hide behind catch phrases like "Everything happens for a reason" and "This was God's will". I get so infuriated with these philosophical lightweights. Maybe it was "God's will" for Jacqui to die that day, and the doctors disobeyed His will by bringing her back? Surely the doctors are not agents of God's will, for they become better at avoiding death every year, and the day will come when they cure aging and stop death altogether.

It is only an atheist doctor who could make a reasonable argument for giving a patient every opportunity to hang on to this life, if that is what the patient wants. But no, the rabid strain of "live at all costs" thinking actually comes from the religious individuals. And yet these same people believe that this life on Earth is infinitely insignificant compared to what awaits us beyond. If you believe in Heaven, then surely you realize that Jacqui would be enjoying Heaven all this time instead of enduring over 50 surgeries and agony of an intensity and duration that few people will ever suffer. Her parents could have grieved and moved on instead of being trapped in an ongoing ordeal that will last until the day they die...at which point Jaqui might wind up under institutional care!

But are we to believe there is a good reason for Jaqui to be denied Heaven only to be put through a living Hell? If everything happens for a reason, then what was the reason for death of the two other kids in this car accident? Nobody even remembers them. Their lives have had no impact on drunk-driving awareness at all.

Everything does NOT happen for a reason...rather...human beings are surprisingly capable of making a reason happen for everything. Jacqui has a horrific story to tell, and people have been able to make use of that in drunk-driving awareness campaigns. But Jacqui could have just as easily had the same thing happen to her at the hands of a sober driver who just lost control due to a flat tire. Then what would you do for Jaqui? Have her campaign for tire safety? Well, you could make Jacqui into an inspirational speaker who demonstrates how the human spirit can triumph over adversity. (And you quietly hide the fact that Jacqui does, in fact, suffer from depression and has had many bouts of wanting to die, and might have actually killed herself by now if she had fingers or the means to do so.)

There have been tens of thousands of women in Congo who were so violently raped that they've suffered permanent internal organ damage and can't lead normal lives. Do we suppose this happened for a reason too? Would you try and argue that the reason for their suffering was to draw attention to the horrible situation in the Congo? As if a death toll of 4 million people since 1996 has NOT conveyed that message? And if it hasn't, then what was the "reason" for the death of the 4 million? To make matters worse, there is such a cultural stigma against rape that most of these women keep it a secret to the day they die. They fade away, unnoticed by anyone, with all their suffering left unbalanced by any later positive outcome.

There is some validity to using a horrific experience to remind people that horrific experiences can happen. Yes, you can find meaning and purpose in that goal, but the purpose is not the reason for the experience!! A divinely inspired world would have no such experiences to begin with, and would need no such lesson...or at the very least would find some other way to teach that lesson than "by example". Surely an all-powerful being could educate us about the dangers of drunk driving without very SLOWLY burning a young woman alive while she is conscious and screaming in agony (as Jacqui was).

I don't want you to think I don't feel sorry for Jacqui. I feel more-than-sorry for her, I feel downright heartbroken. She haunts my thoughts. But now that she is past the worst parts of her ordeal, I am trying to be optimistic that she'll be able to find peace and meaning in her life. She seems to have an incredibly strong character. But will the rest of her life be worth everything she has had to endure and everything she will yet endure? That is an unknown, and at no point will the doctors allow her to make that call for herself.

She has paid an unbelievably high price in order to have these additional years of life, so she might as well try and make the best of them. But instead of raising awareness of drunk driving, maybe she could raise awareness of the hypocrisy and childish fantasy that muddies the waters of some of the most important decisions we'll ever make in our lives.

Villa Alegre!!

2007-08-14T21:53:00.000-07:00

This is awesome. I've been searching for the theme song to Villa Alegre for nearly 20 years. It was a T.V. show I really loved when I was very little.

Finally someone found a recording and put it online:

http://www.myspace.com/villaalegre

and

http://www.myspace.com/villaalegremusic

Thank you internet!!!!!!

I haven't heard this song in over 30 years...and it seems slower than I remember it being. But this is definitely the song! The theme song to Speed Racer also seems much slower than I remember from when I was little. I guess my memory somehow speeds up songs over time. :)

Children of faith

2007-08-10T07:20:00.000-07:00

In "The God Delusion", Richard Dawkins attacks the notion of children being labeled with the faith of their parents.

"There is no such thing as a Christian child, there is only a child of Christian parents. Whenever you hear the phrase Christian child or Muslim child or Protestant child or Catholic child, the phrase should grate like fingernails on a blackboard" -- Dawkins

Dawkins is a brilliant writer, and I agree with many of his positions. But on this point, I couldn't disagree with him more.

We absolutely SHOULD refer to a child of Christian parents as a "Christian child". This is the reality of the situation, and it serves as compelling evidence that religion is a subjective cultural phenomenon and not an objective discretionary phenomenon.

In reality, an overwhelming majority of children adopt the religion of their parents for the entirety of their lives. A child may choose for himself a wide array of personal interests and goals, but he or she will almost certainly follow a religion that is not significantly distant from that in which he or she was raised. And why is that? It's because all other choices in life can be made objectively, logically and honestly. Religion is immune to such influences and we must remind people of that fact at every opportunity.

Your religion is every bit as culturally indoctrinated as the language you speak, and yet we would consider it ridiculous to claim that God would send people to hell based on the language they spoke. Why is it ANY less ridiculous to claim that God would punish people for any other cultural influence such as faith?

This is a glaring discrepancy within religion that goes right to the heart of the faulty premise that any significant understanding of our world can be obtained through faith. By removing the label of faith from our children, we only serve to support the delusion that faith is somehow largely a matter of personal choice, as if a child could choose a faith as thoughtfully as they choose their first car.

Would Mr. Dawkins also object to referring to a child of French speaking parents as a "French speaking child?" Surely not! Yet I defy anyone to show how religion and language are different in terms of relative cultural indoctrination.

I understand the desire to break the strangle hold of religious labeling, but at the same time these labels can be used to draw attention to the ridiculous reasons behind the assumptions.

My heart goes out to all children of faith in the world. Their lives will be profoundly shaped and limited by thoughts and ideas that will necessarily elude rational examination. They will be deprived of the ability to make a reasoned and objective choice of religion, and yet they will be held eternally accountable for their choice.

I will continue to refer to these children using the label of their affliction, for we should all be reminded at all times what is being done to them.

Purple America

2007-08-06T12:06:00.000-07:00

This is just a neat map that I like to look at sometimes. (Click on the picture for a larger view).

The rough trend I see here is that people in high-density population areas are more liberal than people in more rural areas. So, the more contact you have with a wider variety of people, the more open-minded you become. What a surprise.

The Pardox of Choice

2007-08-06T07:55:00.001-07:00

This is a video I saw a few months ago. I thought it was just interesting at the time, but the more I think about it, the more I think it is profoundly true. Every day, I see more and more examples of dissatisfaction that comes from having too much choice.

Paradox of Choice

Here is a longer version of this talk

Faith: The Gathering

2007-07-24T07:57:00.000-07:00

Keith Sader sent me a fascinating article about a reporter who found and lost his faith. It's a really profound and cool article, and will no doubt generate nothing but a mountain of hate mail for his efforts.

What struck me was his conclusion where the author said "Either you have the gift of faith, or you don't".

Part of me finds that statement distasteful. It's like saying either you have the gift of being blind, or you don't.

And yet, there is some truth to the statement. I've met many people in this world who have an amazing ability to "fix" and idea or a point of view in their mind. With little thought or effort, they can etch a belief into their brain that is absolutely permanent for the rest of their life, no matter what they see, hear, do, or learn. It must be comforting to have that kind of certainty, and maybe that's why they are able to maintain it.

Sometimes it's harmless. Countless people (usually men) will adopt a favorite sports team as a child, and then remain loyal to that team their whole life no matter how many times they move to other cities. They don't seem to grasp the fact that their choice of favorite team is arbitrary thing, based solely on where they happened to be living when they developed an interest in sports.

I knew a co-worker named "Dave" who was determined to be a rabid loyal fan of the Philadelphia Eagles for his entire life...despite the fact that he only actually lived in Philadelphia for 8 months as a child. It just happened to be the "right" 8 months when he saw his first live football game and developed his interest in the sport. He doesn't consider it the least bit odd that he's still a rabid Eagles fan, despite having lived in San Diego (a city with a pro football team of their own) for the past 20 years.

And if people are able to form a bond of unwavering loyalty to an arbitrary sports team, then just imagine how strongly they can bond with something even more significant...like religion. Most believers don't grasp the fact that their religion is almost certainly determined by the religion of their parents. If they had been adopted by Muslims as a child, they would be Muslim now, with every bit as much certainty that their beliefs were right and everyone ELSE was going to hell.

This "gift of faith" is a strange gift indeed. I can't imagine what it is like to be absolutely certain of anything, and then on top of it be absolutely certain about something that is absolutely arbitrary! Jeez, that's messed up!

As much as I wish I had that level of confidence and conviction, I would still consider it a curse...not a gift...to have a brain that worked like a "write-once" CD-ROM.

Conspiracy or Faith?

2007-07-19T15:31:00.001-07:00

An anonymous reader left a comment about my article on Simulating Evolution. I thought his comment was interesting enough to deserve a full response.

To the anonymous poster:

Thank you for your reply and the explanation of your stance. :)

I couldn't help but notice that the tone of your comment suggests disgust and ridicule, and I'm sorry you feel that way. You find it infuriating that people would be dumb enough to accept evolution as accurate. And yet, I assure you, the people who accept evolution as fact feel the exact same way about your point of view.

So, I feel I cannot respond directly to your points, because reasoned debate cannot be had when each side thinks so precious little of the other.

You have to step back and be willing to accept that there are many reasonable, intelligent, honest, and upstanding people who believe evolution is true. Likewise, I am willing to accept that there are many reasonable, intelligent, honest, and upstanding people who DON'T believe evolution is true.

So, how can this be? You really should think about this question. We ALL should think about this question. It's humbling to be reminded that our grasp of the truth is so tenuous and so subjective.

We could debate the actual facts and evidence for evolution until our faces turn blue, but it would do no good since we've already established that reason alone doesn't seem to bring about revelation in this matter. Rather there is something beyond reason that is interfering with this debate. People are subconsciously (or even consciously) warping reason by choosing to selectively pick the facts that support the side they've already chosen to support in the first place.

People are really good at this kind of selective filtering, especially when they are emotionally motivated. And evolution is a subject that has surely sparked emotional responses. Either the evolutionists, or the creationists, or both, are being motivated by something more than just honest truth-seeking.

If evolution isn't true, why do so many scientists study it and continually reaffirm it? Why do a staggering majority of scientists of all branches of science accept it as fact? Why has evolution stood ever stronger for 140+ years?

One option is that there is some kind of global conspiracy among the scientific community to convince the public of a lie. I don't know what their motive would be other than to erode our belief in God. Maybe it's also some kind of power-play to give intellectuals more control. Young scientists graduating from college are also somehow indoctrinated into this global conspiracy. Maybe learning science opens some kind of gateway that lets the devil control your mind. Scientists who claim to believe in God must be lying.

Another option is that there is no conspiracy among the scientific community and no mind-controlling devil. What is happening instead is people who have faith in the Bible see evolution as a challenge to one aspect of that faith. The Bible, if taken entirely literally, suggests that we were directly created by God. And the idea of being directly created by a God is very compelling, for many reasons. It gives people of faith a strong emotional bias against evolution. Since they have already made up their mind (by faith) that the Bible is completely literally true, they must faithfully fight against anything that disagrees with any part of the Bible.

We all need to ask ourselves, which one of these scenarios is more likely? Is it more likely there is a global conspiracy of science that has lead to (or is a result of) a global brainwashing? Or is it more likely that what we are seeing is human resistance to change, couched in arguments from faith?

Which one of these patterns of behavior have we seen before in human history? I don't remember there ever being a global conspiracy on the scale of evolution. However, I do remember there being many historical events where religion took a strong, emotional, and even violent stance in support of something that was accepted on faith alone. There are even many well documented cases of a religious institution attacking a scientific theory, not with facts, but with the sword, the branding iron, and the rack...and other instruments of torture far worse.

Given that both sides of this debate are populated with reasonable, normal human beings, I ask you, seriously, which side is more likely to be caught up in a well-meaning but misguided response to this issue? Which side has more to lose? The evolutionary scientist might worry about losing his job, but the creationist is worried about losing salvation. Which side is likely to have a more emotional response? And finally, which side is going to be mostly likely to hold their ground against any amount of reasoned debate?

There is no use for me to debate you on the facts. I don't mean to say that in a demeaning way. I have respect for your opinions, and I'm sure you are a reasonable person, just as I am a reasonable person, just as the vast majority of us are reasonable people.

But you have something at stake here that I just can't compete with, no matter what I say.

Perhaps we should just talk about sports? NFL summer training camps start pretty soon.....isn't that something to look forward to? Do you think they have football in heaven?

Fusion: There is no substitute

2007-07-19T07:25:00.000-07:00

If news reports are any indication, the general public seems to be overly optimistic about science's ability to deliver truly effective alternative energy sources in the near future. Those who don't have a strong background in chemistry and physics seem to think inventing a new energy source is just an engineering problem like making a faster CPU.

Even recently, I saw a news article touting an "amazing new invention" that can burn saltwater as a fuel by using radio waves. (Look it up in Google. Stories of this invention are all over the internet.)

The very first question that anyone should have asked, before even reporting this story, is "How much energy does it take to generate those radio waves, and is it more energy than you get in return from the hydrogen?" But that question was never asked.

The basic problem is this: When you burn hydrogen (with oxygen), it turns into water. The amount of energy you get out of this reaction is the same amount of energy it takes to separate hydrogen from oxygen in the first place. At best, this invention is a super efficient way of producing hydrogen so that you get back almost 100% of the energy you put in to cause this reaction. That is really neat, and could make generating hydrogen cheaper, but it is no source of "new" energy. It will still take electricity to make hydrogen, and that electricity must come from either nuclear reactors or fossil fuel (for the most part).

It really pains me to be a cynic in this matter. Normally, I would be the last to claim that something was "impossible". Given enough time and ingenuity, mankind seems capable of doing almost anything. However, we must be guarded against the wide-eye view that science can do anything, and do it quickly.

By every model of matter and energy we have come up with to date, including quantum mechanics and string theory, there are only two fundamental sources of energy in the universe: Fission and Fusion.

All sources of energy we use on Earth come from either fusion or fission. Oil is just a form of stored fusion. Fusion powers the sun, which allows plants to bond molecules for storing energy. Plants are eaten by animals who digest these molecules for energy. Large masses of plant and animal material decay and compress over millions of years underground, and that forms oil. Oil has energy because it retains the original complex molecules.

Solar energy, wind energy, and hydro energy are also all forms of fusion power. Every renewable source of energy that we can possibly use must come from the Sun in one way or another.

The only exception to this rule is fission power. Fission power draws energy from the decay of radioactive elements. We can purify and control radioactive materials in ways that can produce great amounts of power.

However, radioactive materials are, themselves, a result of fusion power. Radioactive elements are produced in the cores of massive stars.

Every source of power imaginable comes from fusion power. And strictly speaking, even fusion is not a "source" of energy, but rather a local temporary increase energy that comes at the expense of generating greater entropy in the Universe as a whole.

Unless science comes up with some radical new way to manipulate the very fabric of reality (not gonna happen for a long time), we need to focus on fusion and fission as our only plausible sources of energy. We need to work on technologies that can collect energy from the sun, such as solar panels, wind farms, hydro-electric damns, ethanol, bio-diesel, etc.

We also can build more nuclear reactors to take advantage of the radioactive materials we have. But keep in mind that radioactive materials are not a renewable resource. And it also takes a lot of expensive safeguards to use nuclear power safely.

One possible breakthrough in energy generation would be if we could create our own fusion reactor. Right now, fusion technology seems a very far way away. Recreating the center of a sun is no trivial task - it takes fantastic amounts of energy, and it is very difficult to sustain. The sun has the advantage of tremendous amounts of gravity to sustain its fusion reaction.

If it turns out that immense gravity is the only way to sustain a fusion reaction, then the only way to make a fusion reactor is to make another star.

For the the lifetimes of anyone reading this article, we are going to have to maximize solar energy technologies, because our sun's fusion is our best and only long-term solution. All the other things you see making news (ethanol, bio-diesel, hydrogen fuel cells) only move the problem.

The other shoe that no politician dares to drop is the population problem. Having cheap oil might allow the population to grow to a level that might not be sustainable. There is not enough productive land in the world to grow enough corn and wheat to feed AND fuel the entire Earth. The slight increase in ethanol activity has already caused corn prices to rise.

I'm not trying to be a pessimist, but I do think it is going to be more difficult (an inconvenient) that most people realize to provide energy and food for 7 billion people using only fusion-derived technologies.

But fusion-derived technologies is all we have.

Simulating Evolution

2007-07-13T23:09:00.001-07:00

I recently read an interesting article on simulating Evolution that was posted by ordinarygirl.

This IS a very interesting article! Way cool!

I've seen experiments in simulated evolution before, but this one is one of the most surprising yet.

However, I want to share my own opinion that many of these simulations of Evolution operate under an incomplete view of Evolution. They see Evolution as just natural selection through some kind of "survival of the fittest" mechanism.

That is definitely one aspect of Evolution, and it is an effective mechanism to keep a species adapted to a gradually changing environment.

However, natural selection is not the only driver in Evolution. The other is natural potential.

If you have a pair of mice, and give them easy access to unlimited food and resources and territory, you will have an exponential population explosion of trillions of mice that will cover the entire surface of the Earth with a solid layer of mice in under 5 years.

The fact that our planet isn't covered in mice, even after millions of years, is a reflection of their limited access to resources, and the "virtual" death toll of trillions of unborn potential mice. This outweighs the death toll caused by maladaptive traits, and so is potentially a larger driver of Evolution than merely "survival of the fittest".

If a small number of species can find a way to exploit an untapped resource, or develop a unique adaptation to a given environment, then that variety will temporarily experience that explosive growth potential that leads to the biggest leaps in Evolution.

While this new variety rapidly grows and flourishes, the old variety continues to maintain itself in the manner it always has before. As natural selection continues to put pressure on both varieties to maximize their adaptation to their own environments, this causes the two varieties to pull apart until they become distinct species.

Dog breeding, for example, produces a WIDE variety of dogs. But it doesn't produce a new species. This is because the only mechanism at work is selective breeding (semi-natural selection). There is nothing fundamentally changing in the dogs environment. A dog is still a dog and does doggy things and eats doggy food provided to it by doggy people. :)

But if a group of dogs were able to adapt to a different environment with a different manner of survival...one in which they had different interactions with species around them, and yet had little competition and thus could survive while they adapted to their new life...then you would start to a true split into a new species, and a wildly successful one at that.

To use an analogy: Imagine a large and established corporation. Such an organization is generally only capable of gradual changes as needed to meet changes in it's environment. A large corporation that gets caught up in rapid change usually goes extinct. (Just like well established animals cannot survive rapid changes in their environment.)

But now imagine some of the employees from this large corporation go off and start a new business of their own, taking advantage of some untapped or newly developed market. They might struggle at first, but if they have no immediate competition, and if they are successful, they will grow like crazy with a completely different "corporate DNA" than the parent company. Since this company started small, it had the ability to make rapid fundamental changes as it grows. Established corporations can't do that.

Rapid progress in any industry comes from small companies blooming, not from from killing off (Naturally Selecting) failed companies.

Likewise, having a small population of animals allows favorable genetic changes to spread more quickly and not be drowned out by the masses.

So, a true simulation of Evolution would include simulating a vast and changing multi-variable environment, with an incalculably large number of possible interactions and dependencies. This kind of environment with such vast numbers of possibilities is needed to give all species a chance to stumble into something that is new and yet survivable. And this is what is needed for a new species to arise.

Most of what I've said here is in Darwin's original Origin of Species book. Darwin quite rightly figured out that the Evolution of animals was a far more complicated phenomenon that simply "survival of the fittest". Darwin did not use that phrase in his book. It was coined by someone else later.

So, the whole point of my whole posting is this: It is very tempting to want to simulate evolution with a computer, and see what kind of virtual species you can create. But understand that such a program, if it is to be accurate, would have to be far more complex than any software written to date. Simply trying to create new species by selective breeding is not going to mirror reality. You indeed might create new and surprising species, but it won't be in exactly the way nature would have done it. Such programs tend to succeed by having far more "open-ended" possibilities for viable mutations than what nature actually provides.

If anyone is interested in Evolution, I highly recommend reading Darwin's original book cover to cover. It is a far more complete and insightful coverage of the theory of Evolution than I have found in any other book. (And surely more than I have found in any science class.)

Modern books on Evolution try too hard for the dumbed down approach to explain Evolution in simple and obvious terms. But you miss out on something important if you don't follow all of Darwin's research and reasoning from beginning to end.

Oh, and if you are going to read Origin of Species, you need to find a reproduction of the FIRST edition. There were six editions total, and unfortunately, in each edition, Darwin kept adding crap or tinkering with part of the book to better address questions that were raised in those days. The first edition is best at standing on it's own.

The Grand Delusion

2007-05-22T17:42:00.001-07:00

This is a great video. Biting sarcasm, and yet a message with a point comes through loud and clear.

http://www.glumbert.com/media/atheistdelusion

My future is better than your past.

2007-05-18T08:33:00.000-07:00

This is just a small observation:

For people of faith, new ideas are merely the children of old ideas. The older a doctrine is, the more certain it is true, for it has stood the test of time and tradition. No books are as sure and true as the oldest books, like the Bible. Old ideas must be given respect and reverance, and not be questioned, for who are we to counter thousands of years of wisdom? New ideas should be treated with suspicion until they are proven to not exceed the bounds of any old idea.

For people of art, philosophy, science, and reason in general, new ideas are maturations of old ideas. It is the old ideas that are childlike and simplistic. What science has learned about nature in the past 100 years trumps (overall) what it has learned in the previous 1000 years. Old ideas are continually questioned and tested. The overthrowing of a old and long-standing scientific theory is especially exciting for a person of reason, and a cause for celebration.

By contrast, overthrowing an old idea is terrifying for a person of faith. And this fear is responsible for centuries of religious persecution and torture in order to preserve those old ideas.

And in these two points of view, we can see echos of the differences between "conservatives" and a "liberals". It's the difference between valuing what has been done in the past, versus a desire to experiment and try new things.

And these differing views of past and present reach into every aspect of everyday life. I know people who put great value on a cookie recipe that has been passed down through many generations. They refuse to make cookies any other way. And I know people who constantly try new and different cookie recipies in a never-ending quest for the "best" cookie.

This is no small difference in personality and character. This is a fundamental difference in the way we see the past, present, and future.

I won't judge which view is "best", because that would depend on what you believe the purpose of life to be. If you believe the purpose of life is to cautiously maintain and preserve our way of life, then perhaps it's valid to look to the past for what has worked best. But if you believe the purpose of life is to progress and improve and change, then it's valid to look to the future for what we can do differently.

Maybe a happy median is to embrace science and technology, and be ready to adapt to the changes (and benefits!) that it brings...but at the same time, keep making those cookies that your great-great-grandmother made, in tribute to her and to those that got us here. :)

An Open Letter to the South

2007-05-18T08:05:00.001-07:00

Dear South,

Shut-up.

I was born and raised in Kentucky, and while that is not the deep say-owth, it's close enough that I got a taste of rural suthrn' livin'. And, I think I do have some appreciation for southern life.

I can romanticise small-town southern living where everyone is friendly and honest and happy; where there's always a freckled little boy holding a baseball glove and walking with his dog along side a white picket fence, and there's a little girl with pigtails pulling a red wagon filled with her dollies; where all the women wear long white dresses and bake pies, and all the men have weathered faces and freshly-cut hair.

And I can understand the comfort and attraction of a way of life where everyone is like you, and where change happens slowly, or not at all; where work is hard, but life is easy, because life is simple, and the people are simple; where a man can build his whole life out of a few manual skills and a pocket full of Bible verses.

There is something very "Zen" about mastering the simple life. And I appreciate the wisdom in that. But with the isolation of rural life comes a lack of exposure to a diversity of thoughts and experiences...and that leads to ignorance and an over-simplified understanding of life and of the world around you. In this environment, you become ignorant. It doesn't matter if you have a genius I.Q.; if you live in Mississippi, you live in a comic-book reality, and it will warp your mind. You become resistent to complex answers to any questions.

I know that sounds narrow-minded and harsh for me to speak this way. And I know it sounds like I'm being judgmental. I'm bordering on hypocricy since one of the things I dislike about the Southerners is their tendency towards narrow-minded prejudices.

But here is my point:

The tendency towards ignorance happens in all poor and rural areas all around the world. But it is especially strong in the Southern USA. There is a strain of anti-intellectualism that runs deeper in the south than in any other rural areas in the rest of the country. And I think it can be traced all the way back to the Civil War and their distrust of outsiders. Southerners have really cultivated a pride in their history and their identity, even to the point of being proud of their ignorance. The term "redneck" is flattering praise in the south.

That's what upsets me about certain elements in South: Arrogance combined with Ignorance. And that's dangerous and disruptive. It enables individuals to act strongly and confidently, with great passion and conviction, but without having a clue what they are talking about. And yes, I can't help but think of George W. Bush with his strong moral character and loyalty and leadership, and all these human traits I would ordinarily admire if only he had an intellectual rudder to steer himself. But he seems to be a student in the school of thought that says what we all need is less curiosity and more conviction! Honestly I think we need BOTH.

Every time I hear someone speaking with a southern accent on T.V., I just want to change the channel, because I just assume that something dumb is being said with great conviction. But that's an unfair stereotype and prejudice on my part. I'm old enough now to have been wrong more times that I can count. I do consider myself a bit of a thoughtful and clever person, but I offer all my opinions cautiously and without false pride. I'm willing to waffle in my opinions because that just shows that I'm still thinking and learning.

"A man who views the world at 50 the same as he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life."
-- Muhammad Ali

Southerners see "waffling" as a weakness, and so it necessarily follows that they see learning and personal growth as a weakness. It is pure hubris to assume that you are born knowing everything.

So, to the South, I say you DO have much reason to be proud. You have shown great character and resiliency to rebuild your land from some of the darkest periods of our nation's history. But, the pride you have in your accomplishments does not gift you with more "common sense" than the rest of the country. Don't forget the reason you've had to rebuild in the first place: Because you have been fundamentally wrong before, on multiple occasions, and in the not-so-distant past.

You have a wonderful culture to be very proud of, but there is also much you can learn from other cultures. And to those few individuals who I especially target with this Open Letter: put down the microphones and megaphones once in a while, and just relax for a little while and listen. I know that when you grow up in such a close-knit society of people similar to you, it can be so stressful and exasperating to hear opinions contrary to what is obviously true to you. And that just makes you angry enough to shout. But what is plainly true to you is just not plainly true for others. And you need to take the time to understand why that is, because the answer is not so simple as "those people are dumb or brainwashed or lazy". In fact, that's what outsiders think about YOU!

The truth is that the truth is more complex and multi-faceted than anyone realizes. You in the south are so strong, and yet you have seen so little of the world. Take some time to stop and understand the other 98% of the planet that is not like you.

It will do us all some good.

--VL

March of the Presidents

2007-05-16T13:34:00.000-07:00

In my lifetime, I don't ever remember so many serious candidates running for President all at once. And each candidate is delivering such cautious and watered-down policy statements that it's hard to tell them apart.

But there are differences between them. You just have to dig.

Here is a cool tool for matching a presidential candidate to your own personal political views.

http://www.speakout.com/VoteMatch/senate2006.asp?quiz=2008

I'm sure it's over simplified, but it was nice to get a "ballpark" feel for where I should start.

Global Warning

2007-05-16T13:27:00.000-07:00

This is a really informative article. One of the best I've seen. It covers the common myths and misunderstandings about global climate changes.

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462

Conform or be cast out

2007-05-16T07:34:00.000-07:00

Here is an interesting news story...

http://www.glumbert.com/media/priceofatheism

Conspiracy Theories

2007-05-16T07:26:00.000-07:00

This is how I feel about conspiracy theories:

http://xkcd.com/c258.html

There are very few true conspiracies out there. It is much more common that the "powers that be" are just plain ignorant.

A House Divided

2007-05-01T21:59:00.000-07:00

In public, we tolerate different points of view. But in private, people are narrow-minded bastards....

http://www.glumbert.com/media/atheistkid

An Intelligent Discourse

2007-05-01T21:56:00.000-07:00

Even more interesting than the subject matter of this interview, is the highly intelligent and civilized way in which the conversation unfolds. It's a very British (and wonderful) manner to debate politely, and openly admit when the opposition makes a point that carries some merit.

http://www.glumbert.com/media/dawkinsbishop

Republicans: You're on Notice

2007-04-30T06:01:00.000-07:00

I'm putting Republicans on notice for misuse use of the English language.

The current Republican leaders are masters of creating deceptive and manipulative (but catchy!) sound-bite sized phrases that can turn any large or complex topic into a bite-size straw man.

Examples:

"Intelligent Design" - Creationist mythology trying to disguise itself as science.

"Death Tax" - There is no tax on death. There is an income tax on income amounts over $625k that come from estate inheritances. And even then there are plenty of loop holes to ensure that your precious spoiled brat gets all the millions he/she deserves.

"Partial Birth Abortion" - A horribly twisted phrase that doesn't refer to any known medical procedure.

"Patriot Act" - Shortly after 9/11, who would want vote against anything with the word Patriot in it? Nobody would have voted for it if it was called the "Spy on America Act"

"Marriage Penalty" - Nobody ever intended to penalize marriage. The tax code is very complex, and yes there have been times when the tax code worked against low-income couples by placing them in the same tax bracket as a single person making their combined income. However, this tax code also benefited married couples at higher incomes. The marriage penalty is more about tax loopholes for the rich than anything.

"Cut And Run" - This phrase implies cowardice. There was never ever a single democrat who ever suggested "Let's order the troops to RUN AWAY."

"Tax And Spend" - Both parties drove us into the financial trouble we are in. But even worse than "Tax and Spend" is the current Republican policy of "Cut-Tax but still Spend".

"Liberal" - This used to be a good word, meaning someone who was open minded and willing to try new things. Now it's somehow become a slander word, somewhere between "coward" and "traitor".

There are plenty more examples.

Now, I don't want to unfairly pick on the Republicans, because I know all politicians have to be masters of spin to some extent. But I really think the Republicans are more cynical and manipulative with their sound bite spin than Democrats are.

When liberals twist phrases, it's usually in an attempt to put Political Correctness on a subject.

It's not done to scare people or paint the opposition as evil.

Interview Me

2007-04-20T10:34:00.000-07:00

I volunteered to be part of an interview chain.

This is where you have to answer 5 questions about yourself to someone, and in return you can ask 5 questions of anyone else who wants to participate.

Here are the questions I got, and my answers:

Q: As a child, what did you want to be when you grew up and why?

A: I wanted to be an astronomer. Once I learned about planets and galaxies, I just couldn't ignore them or get them out of my mind. Like in the movie "The Truman Show", once I got a glimpse of a bigger reality out across the cosmos, I couldn't stop looking for it.

Q. List three things you would do with more free time.

A:
1) I would travel more. I've always wanted to see Europe, and also some of the very remote spots of the globe not yet changed by humans.
2) I would read more. I've collected books for years, like I'm somehow gathering pieces of a puzzle. And someday I want to have the time to read all the books and put it all together. For now, I only have time to read little chunks....a chapter here....a chapter there...etc.
3) I would spend more time with my friends.

Q: If you had to choose between being blind or being deaf, which would you choose and why?
A: Oh my gosh that is a tough one to answer. I've never regretted hearing anything I've ever heard. But I regret seeing many things I've seen. Sight can be so awful. Sight is also a source of great distraction, and a killer of imagination (T.V., video games, etc.) So in many ways, the thought of being blind seems more interesting than being deaf. It would bring my whole world in much closer to me, and would allow me to use much more of my imagination. But from a purely practical aspect, I need my sight more than my hearing to do my job and to do most of the things I love. So, darnit, I guess I'd rather be deaf. That's my practical answer. Being blind would be my "romantic" answer.

Q: What do you most like about your life right now?
A: The security that comes from being "established"...having an established career, and having money saved. No matter what catastrophe befalls me next, I won't end up living under a bridge and digging through garbage. And that feels really good to someone like me who spent the better part of my life alone and living "on the raggedy edge", with little resources and no family to catch me if I failed. I'm really proud of how far I've come and what I've accomplished given the really awful hand I was dealt early on in life.

Q: If you could change one thing in the world, any one thing, what would it be and why?
A: I wish we could move the solar system closer to clusters of other stars. Our long-term survival depends on our ability to get off this Earth before we "use it up" or otherwise find a way to wipe ourselves out.

Okay, that answer went way out of bounds of the question. Let me try again:

I wish we had some kind of technology that could educate people more quickly and easily. Like in the Matrix where they could download lessons directly into the brain. Life is getting increasingly complicated and sophisticated and technical. And the education level of the general populous is not keeping up. So many important issues require at least a college degree (or equivalent study) to understand. I would argue that making informed decisions about global warming, evolution, genetics, stem cell research, foreign governments, health insurance, civil rights, economic theories, etc. requires about 20 years of total education. And the vast majority of people just don't have that. And so they are too easily swayed with appeals to over-simplified (and often religious) answers.

Global Warming? Don't worry, the Rapture is soon. Evolution? Didn't happen. Stem cells? Each one is a human being with a soul. Civil rights? The Bible says women must obey men. Foreign governments? If they aren't Christian, screw em'. Health insurance? God will answer the prayers of the sick. And so on.

The whole planet needs a way to get a lot more educated in a lot less time. I'm not going to be arrogant enough to say that if everyone is educated, they will agree with ME. But I do bet an educated populous would not fall for the polarizing tactics of the major political forces in this country.

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

Okay, those are my answers. If anyone else wants to be interviewed with 5 questions, leave me a comment. :)

VL

When we choose to care

2007-04-19T20:26:00.000-07:00

So all the news today is all about the mass murder at Virginia Tech. It was a creepy, scary, violent, and sad event. Sympathy, support, love, and money poor in from all over the country to the surviving families of this tragedy. The news media covers the lives and stories of the slain students.

But I am concerned about the narrow focus of this response. Thousands of people die from gun violence every year, and all those deaths go largely unnoticed. If you want to be remembered for a shooting death, make sure you die with a lot of other people. Don't be gunned down alone!

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.

15,000+ people are killed every year from drunk driving, and people barely notice. Millions die from war and famine in Africa each year....and we really couldn't care less.

But the 32 people who died at Virginia Tech will receive the full grief and support of our whole nation.

That many people are killed almost every DAY in Iraq, and we don't care (much). And then we wonder why the rest of the world hates us.

I'm not saying I don't understand why this happens. I've been a sucker for the news coverage and sad stories from the Virginia Tech massacre myself. But I do find it terribly unfair and unfortunate that our national sense of tragedy is only capable of such limited and narrow focus.

There is more death and suffering in the world than any person can deal with, and so we pick and choose just a very few people to help and feel sorry for. And we pick those people who are most like us, and who come in the most convenient packaging.

I'm sure there are many parents across the nation who have lost a child due to senseless violence, and watched their child pass into obscurity, never to be remembered. And I wonder if they look at the news coverage of the Virgina Tech massacre...and the video tributes to individual kids who died...and I wonder if they think "What about MY child?"