Fighting Anti-Liberty With Anti-Liberty?

A group called ACT! For America is asking people to sign a petition to prevent the building of a mosque near the site of the World Trade Center. Sounds like an American thing to do, right? Let's take a quick read through a couple of things, shall we? First, the petition page:

***

We Oppose the Mosque at "Ground Zero"

Add your name to the group of 67,840 people who have already signed using the Internet!

Please read our petition below and fill in the form to add your signature. Then, forward this petition to your friends and family.

(ACT! For America Privacy Policy: We value your privacy and we will not give, rent or sell your contact information to any other organization. By providing us this information you help us ensure that everyone who signs the petition participates only once.)

We Stand With the Victims of 9/11,
We Oppose the Mosque at "Ground Zero," and
We Urge You to Join Us in Opposition

To Mayor Michael Bloomberg and the Elected Officials of New York:

We the undersigned join with millions of Americans who are opposed to the founding of a mosque at the very site where Islamist jihadists destroyed the World Trade Center and took the lives of nearly 3,000 people.

We are opposed to the grotesque symbolism represented by the building of this mosque at "ground zero." We are especially appalled that those pushing for this mosque have designated its grand opening date for September 11, 2011 – the ten year anniversary of the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history.

We are deeply disturbed by the insensitivity to the families of the victims of the 9/11 jihadist attack exhibited by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and his supporters. We find it grossly hypocritical that Islamists and their allies repeatedly lecture Americans about the need to be "sensitive" to Muslims while Imam Rauf and his allies practice the height of intolerance and insensitivity through the blatant act of building a mosque at "ground zero."

We are offended by the views Imam Rauf has expressed about 9/11, such as his conspiratorial theory that Muslims did not perpetrate the 9/11 attack and that America's policies were partly to blame for the attack. Such views are a slap in the face of the victims and families of 9/11.

We find it repulsive that Imam Rauf and his followers and supporters would seek to build a mosque near ground zero promoting the same Sharia ideology that the 9/11 hijackers used as the justification for their act of unconscionable murder.

Therefore, in deference to the families of the 9/11 victims and their memory, we call upon the elected officials of New York to oppose the building of this mosque near ground zero and for them to urge Feisal Abdul Rauf and his followers to find another location for it.

***

Let me summarize here: They want to use government power to prevent the members of a religion from assembling to practice that religion on a piece of private property (SEE NOTE).

Just for, as they say: shits and giggles, let's take a look at the First Amendment of the US Constitution:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The petitioners are not asking Congress to violate the First Amendment, but I think we can agree that one cannot claim to be defending "America" while going directly against the intent of the Constitution (especially when trying to use the power of government to do so).

Ironically, the banner at the top of the peition page tells us that ACT! For America is "Rising up in Defense of our Security, our Liberty, and our Values." Well, I am not sure who they mean by "our," but it is clearly not Americans. Their petition and the reasoning therein clearly violate Constitutional Liberty and Values. They might seem to be standing up for American security, but that pesky Constitution tells us that...

***

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

***

So the ideals in the Constitution are supposed to "provide for the common defence" and "secure the blessings of Liberty." Apparently, ACT! For America disagrees with the Preamble and figures they have a better way of defending and securing America, that way being the dissolution of Constitutional values.

Why do I point this out and make a stink about stuff like this? Because I took an oath, which I have never rescinded, to "... support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; [and] ... bear true faith and allegiance to the same..." ACT! For America, like so many other faux-patriotic groups and individuals, sure sounds like an enemy of the Constitution to me.

XXX

NOTE: One may also consider their mention of "the grotesque symbolism represented by the building of this mosque" as being indicative of an attack on freedom of speech, as well. Your call.

PS - I could make more comments about some of the things expressed in the petition, but my intent was to keep it in the context of the values expressed in the US Constitution.

The Universe In My Helmet

I joined a group on FaceBook today for freethinkers who ride motorcycles. The group's originator, Paul, had made some comments about the thinking that goes on inside one's helmet. Being someone who has had many thoughts inside a helmet, I was inspired by this to go take a ride and see what thoughts emerged. Dave was unavailable this evening, so I fired up my silver Ducati S2R1000 and headed off alone west along Spur Drive, intending to turn toward the Great South Bay once I got to Bay Shore.

The Ducati and I made it over the bridges and onto the westbound Ocean Parkway in time to watch the sun go down. Seeing the big orange-red ball in the sky prompted thoughts of the similarity of the wavelength of that light -- which had left the sun about eight minutes earlier (SEE NOTE 1) and had had some of its other wavelengths reflected or refracted on the trip to earth, mostly via the atmosphere -- to that of lightning bugs (fireflies), the luminescence from which is in the 510-670 nanometer length. The orangey-red hue meant that I was detecting light in the approximately 600 nanometer wavelength range.

I pondered that coincidence, then quickly realized that the light from fireflies is exactly the light from the sun. Nearly all energy in our daily world comes from the photosynthetic process (SEE NOTE 2), powered by the sun. The light from fireflies is not similar to that from the sun. It IS light from the sun.

Not long after the sun set, I turned around and headed back toward Suffolk County. The light from my headlight was now becoming visible and I realized that this light, too, is from the sun, albeit via a very circuitous route that involved photosynthesis by plants of a species that probably no longer exists, through the gut of an herbivore whose species probably no longer exists, possibly through the claws, teeth, and stomach of species of a carnivore that no longer exists, probably through the alimentary canal of some insects of species that no longer exist, may have been processed by species of bacteria that no longer exist, then sat in the earth under pressure and heat, turning to the type of carbon compound that now spews out into the Gulf of Mexico. This material was eventually found by humans, pumped from the depths of the earth's crust, transported, refined, transported again (and perhaps again and again) into the tanks under the ground at the Mobil station on Sunrise Highway near Southern Parkway, then up into the tank of my Ducati and through internal combustion, rotation and electromagnetic mechanisms into the electrical charging system and into the light bulb, where it was turned back into visible light for the first time in perhaps hundreds of millions of years. That's quite a journey.

Riding east on Ocean Parkway, I subsequently pondered the fact that the light I had seen from the setting sun looked slightly different to people riding the other way looking into their rearview mirrors, thanks to the Doppler effect (or redshift, if you prefer), even though their eyes were not sensitive enough to notice this different light. Why would it have looked different? Because of relativistic effects. Had they measured the speed of the light reaching their mirrors (attached to their cars, heading east at approximately 60 miles per hour relative to the sun's position), it would have shown the exact same speed as if I had measured it at my faceshield, heading toward the sun at perhaps a little more than 60 miles per hour. The speed of light is constant (the C in E=MCsquared). The different speeds between me and those cars going the other way, however, would have affected the wavelength of the light. This is the very essence of special relativity, and so many people don't get that, despite the fact that Einstein explained it to the world a century ago. The effects that we call general relativity were present also, of course, as acceleration and gravity are impossible to determine just by measuring them (i.e., they express themselves in exactly the same manner, so that you cannot tell which is which -- this is why acceleration is maeasured in G's: units of gravity). Upon having this thought, I grabbed a chunk of the Ducati's plentiful midrange power, lunging forward with the processing of solar energy expressed as a throaty growl and increasing relative speed and with the knowledge that I was warping spacetime with my processed photosynthetic power.

By the time I got back to the twin bridges over the Great South Bay, it was almost fully dark. I decided to take Montauk Highway back and experience the towns along the way (West Islip, Brightwaters, Bay Shore, Islip, and East Islip), before returning to Islip Terrace.

Cruising east along Montauk Highway, near the old Gardiner homestead at Sagtikos Manor and the park that my beagle Shiloh and cat Wobbles enjoy, I thought about how many people choose not to experience the beauty and wonder of the universe through the simple processes I had been pondering, preferring to think in terms of fairies and pixie dust and all manner of fictional creatures and processes. How boring, limiting, and ultimately depressing, that way of being is. I could not help but feel some compassion for their loss. If there is a gift that humans have from the universe that other life forms on earth have not (yet?) received, it is the ability to see beyond the medium scales of experience that we have been given, into the very, very small and very, very big scales that are made possible by science and technology. Truth is not revealed by ignorance and superstition, yet that is the path chosen by, or imposed upon, so much of humanity. As the ability to experience the world through one's innate human capacities is an innate right (the right to think), those systems and people which suppress that right are perhaps the worst kind of violators of human rights.

As I rolled up toward the intersection of Montauk Highway and Fifth Avenue in Bay Shore, an ambulance came to the intersection from the left, lights and sirens cutting through the dark, humid night. This turned my thoughts to how lucky we are at any given point in spacetime to be experiencing the universe in the way I was. Life is short, indeed, and I have come close to making an early exit several times. I also though about my friend Rob, who is in the ICU at Stony Brook Hospital right now and was not experiencing this wonderful evening.

As I continued through Bay Shore, my thoughts returned to the crime against humanity that is the restriction of freedom of thought. At that time, I became aware of the fact that I had my officially-licensed US Army riding jacket on, replete with US Army logos and a US flag on my right shoulder. I also was cognizant of my NY state license plate, which, as a military veteran's plate, has a US flag on it. I live in, and have served in many ways served, a nation in which there are strong socio-political groups (SEE NOTE 3) that strive to prevent the kind of thoughts I had experienced on my ride down Ocean Parkway. This made me somewhat angry, as you might expect, and a bit embarrassed that my once-great nation had become known for its high value of ignorance and low value of education and truth. I let the anger go, though, having been down this path enough times and not wanting it to ruin my evening.

After I filled the Ducati's tank with more photosynthetic energy at the Mobil station, I made the short ride home. Coming down my street, I saw many fireflies blinking in the night, giving freedom to the sunlight of so many years ago. The thoughts of my ride, like the ride itself, had come full circle. All in the space of my helmet and a few roads.

XXX

Disclaimer: I wrote this as a reflection of my thinking during a little ride, not as a scientific dissertation. Feel free to nitpick my discussions of physics, chemistry, biology, geology, etc., but please realize my impetus here was not pedantic (Ha! I used "impetus" and "pedantic" in one sentence! How ostentatious is that?!).

NOTE 1: The earth's distance from the sun is not consistent, as we ride our planet in a roughly elliptical orbit around our star, so the time it takes the light from that star to reach us depends primarily on our orbital position at the time.

NOTE 2: I began to think about chemosynthetic life, but brought myself back on track to the moment I was experiencing

NOTE 3: Although I don't like the limiting effect of labels, we usually call these people "religious fundamentalists" or "the right" or "social conservatives;" stuff like that, but I am referring to any one who would abhors that most basic of human rights: freedom of thought.

After The End

One thing I have gained from studying Buddhism (as much as that phrase is somewhat non-Buddhist in its nature) is a true appreciation of impermanence. This understanding continues to deepen with time and experience.

I fairly often find myself looking around and wondering what a given area will look like in future configurations. This usually leads me to ponder the fact that everything we know and will ever know will someday not exist. This happened to me today, at work. I was driving down a local road, and I wondered when the road and neighborhood will cease to be, and what will follow it. I knew I was seeing a snapshot of a tiny, tiny, tiny part of spacetime.

That moment of pondering expanded into other aspects of my life as the day went on...

The house I live in is almost 100 years old, and has been in my family since 1926. Someday, though, it will no longer stand. The property may be subdivided and another house built upon it. The vegetable and flower gardens will be gone, as will the trees (SEE NOTE 1) . The many animals buried in the yard -- pets, wildlife, strays found dead in the street -- will dissolve over time, or perhaps be dug up and disposed of in a future excavation. My family's association with the property will eventually be lost.

My father died in 1992. My mother is now 91. One of my brothers has had several cancerous growths removed and is having issues with diabetes. All four of the boys in the family have had heart procedures. My sister, though perhaps the healthiest person in the family (despite her disabilities), has begun to show a decline in health over the last couple of years. Some of my cats are nearly ten years old, and my beagle is 11. My wife and I are both in our 40s. As close as we are, the idea that "our love will be forever is a farce." One of us will likely die before the other. In time, there will be no trace of either of us in the universe (aside from the context of conservation of energy/matter, of course).

I have had a few close brushes with death. The delicate nature of life and the swiftness with which things can happen do not hide from me. I know that nearly anything can happen at any moment.

Historical buildings. Roads. Neighborhoods. Nations. Languages. All these things, and all other things, will cease to be.

Eventually, of course, the earth will cease to be. Humanity, I suspect, will have, by that time, found a way to continue on elsewhere if it has not wiped itself out. But even the universe will grow cold and die a slow heat death at some point, or perhaps fall back in upon itself. the laws of physics do not point to any happy endings. No universe, no people.

You may be thinking that this is a pretty morbid and depressing way of looking at things. I would disagree. It is merely the acceptance of reality, and that acceptance allows one to appreciate the world more.

We make up stories about fairylands where we will live forever after we die. That lack of acceptance and fear of reality, to me, is much more disturbing than the acceptance of finiteness. And it is not just disturbing on a philosophical or emotional level, there is also a negative pragmatic effect (SEE NOTE 2).

When you believe that you have eternity to get things right and unlimited spatial-temporal resources, it is easy to be blase about the here and now. I think that history shows that worldviews that promote this sort of fantasy devalue life (SEE NOTE 3).

When you accept that all is impermanent, you tend to have a greater appreciation for the wonder of it all. As far as I can tell -- that is, as far as the evidence shows -- this is it for what I know as "me." The implication is that I had better damn well appreciate it while I can, and not squander it.

XXX

NOTE 1: We have had to take down four 100-year-old oaks in the yard over the last few years, and the tree I planted in fifth grade is so big that my neighbor would like to see it taken down before it falls onto their house. The tree that was my father's last Christmas tree was damaged by a storm in March and we had to have it taken down.

NOTE 2: There is a related effect that is important but not relevant to my topic today: These sorts of worldviews also tend to think that the universe, and life, are some sort of cheap magic trick performed by some supernatural being that snapped its fingers, wiggled its nose, or otherwise effortlessly created all that we know and will ever know. That allows a pretty cheap, cheesy view of life. When we look at the facts, though, we see that all that is is the result of a delicate-yet-violent, magnificent dance of forces, energy, and matter on spacetime scales that are literally unimaginable to humanity. That is much more special than a parlor trick that could be done over at will.

NOTE 3: Really, it is simple math: If you expect that your life will be, say 80 years, then the worth of any particular moment (we'll call this value M) in your life is divided by 80 years (M=X/80y). If you believe that you will be intact for eternity, then any particular moment is infinitely less valuable (M=X/Infinity). That implication is shown in the lack of value that most religions put on life. The wholesale massacres and abuses by gods and their adherents ("Kill 'Em All, Let God Sort 'Em Out" as the popular Bible Belt bumper sticker/t-shirt tells us) can much more easily be justified when the worth of any particular moment in any being's life is, literally, infinitesimally small. I could go on much further with this, but you get the idea.

Religion In The News

It has been an interesting year for religion in the news. We are less than five months through 2010 and religion has already shown itself quite well.

The sexual and human rights abuses of children, and well-coordinated cover-up of these abuses, by Christian clergy has probably been the biggest religion-in-the-news story.

Factions within the Tea Party and the Republican Party (cough-Sarah-Palin-cough) trying to kill the US Constitution by replacing its liberty-based ideals with theocracy is, of course, disgusting and a threat to freedom and human rights on a global scale.

There was that story about the church group kidnapping children in Haiti after the earthquake.

Today, I read a story about a Sunday school teacher, who kidnapped, raped and killed an eight-year-old girl (as a side note: we don't often see stories about women being charged with these sorts of offenses).

As disturbing as the above are, one really sick one has been on my mind today. Suicide bombers in the Islamic world have developed a new tactic in their fighting for God (as if using animals, children, and people with developmental disabilities wasn't bad enough). The new twist is to set off one blast, then another when rescue workers are on the scene. First kill the innocent, then target those willing to risk their own well-being to help others. Very nice.

Any single one of these things is evil and repulsive, and just cause for pissing on the "morality requires religion" fallacy. Add them up, along with the many I did not mention above and the many that never make it into the news (such as the personal story I related recently) and it becomes obvious why many of those concerned for human rights can hardly wait for the end of the dominance of irrational belief systems.

While the elimination of irrational belief systems would not eliminate evil in the world, it would remove the motivation and excuse of acting in the name of some disgusting, bloodthirsty god.

A Truly Tragic and Evil Religion Story

I have been debating whether or not to post this for some time. The story involves an acquaintance of mine -- someone who I respect -- and I don't want to do anything to hurt them any more than their religion already has (and continues to do). I will not use names here. I will also, as always, try to be as accurate as possible and not imply anything that is not based on the facts as this person has related them to me.

I will call this person X. This person's current spouse will be called S. Their children will be XSb (the boy) and XSg (the girl).

X was born in a fundamentalist family in the rural Bible Belt. X was raised to believe that the Bible is the word of their god. Their brand of fundamentalism includes many of the usual maneuvers to deal with criticism of scripture, including the idea that the Old Testament no longer applied once Jesus was crucified (SEE NOTE 1).

X was molested by an uncle as a child. Although I do not have the details of the incidence, it, at the very least, involved some sort of inappropriate touching.

X's first spouse was in seminary school when they met. After their marriage, X's first spouse got the opportunity for his first job as the clergyman in charge of a congregation (SEE NOTE 2). When they had dinner to discuss the position with the church's elder and his wife, the elder commented -- out loud -- that he would like to see X in a bikini (X is attractive now, so I am sure she was back then, as well). As X's spouse's new position depended on the decision of this elder, the comment was allowed to pass.

X's first marriage did not work out (I do not have details on why), but she has commented several times that she believes the congregation blamed her for the divorce. Women are, after all, second-class citizens -- an afterthought that was only worth creating when the animals were not good enough companionship for the man -- in the Abrahamic traditions.

X remarried. I would expect that there was much talk of religion before the marriage, as this is an important topic for X, and that X was satisfied with the religiosity of her new spouse, S. Within hours of arriving at their honeymoon location, X found out that S was addicted to drugs. Rather than a happy start to a new life together, their honeymoon was, essentially, a cold turkey experience for S, and S was not particularly nice about it, as you might imagine. X does not like to talk about the honeymoon.

X has said now that maybe she should have sought to annul the marriage right away, but she is no quitter and is a person of faith. I expect that she prayed as hard as she ever had to get the situation right.

Somehow, this hideous relationship was allowed to progress to the point of them having two children (I suspect that faith in the power of prayer was part of the justification). Although X believes that S no longer uses drugs, he does use alcohol, and is not terribly nice when he does (not that he is nice when he is totally sober, either). X says that S calls the kids names (you name it, he has probably called them it), and sometimes hits them (I have seen a photo of a handprint on one of the kids' ribs). He is not much nicer to X, and she had to get stitches one time from having a door slammed on her foot.

I have a saying that "you don't marry a person, you marry a family," and that applies here. S's mother empowers him and covers up for him, even in the face of photographic evidence and actual wounds. S's sister -- we'll call her S2 -- has some serious mental problems and is on permanent disability because of them. Somehow, though, S2 has been allowed to babysit X's children. You may see this next bit coming...

Last year, one of X's children, XSg, told her that S2 had touched her inappropriately. Naturally, S and his mother defended S2 and said the child was probably making it up. X demanded that S2 no longer be allowed to be alone with the children, and this has caused many fights. S has even gone so far as to tell the children that they could not see their grandparents on one holiday because their mother hates S2. Classy, huh? Hey, he goes to church so he must have morals, right?

I try to mind my own business and not make judgments based on the testimony of one side of a problem (although I believe X to be very honest, if brainwashed and deluded by religion). But I encouraged X to get third-party involvement when the inappropriate touching incident(s) was/were revealed. She did. She contacted one of the nation's most prominent big-name churches. What did they tell her? They told her what Bible passages to approach S2 with to try to show her her sins. Yup. Not "contact the police." Not "get your kids and run like hell." Not "get the kids to a professional who can help them avoid permanent emotional scarring." Nope. Bible passages. I suspect they wanted a contribution for this "service," although that was not expressed to me.

I don't know all the details of where this is now, but X had made a doctor's appointment for XSg a few weeks back. It is a shame that she wasted time by turning to religion first, then to science (although I am not positive that she went through with the doctor's appointment).

This is a heart-breaking story in so many ways. X is a smart, hard-working, honest, talented, attractive person and deserves nothing but the best in life (as do her kids). But she has been repeatedly victimized by her family and her religion.

I didn't really want to talk about this issue -- mostly because I fear that someone may figure out who X is, but also because it is seriously tragic -- so please do not ask any questions or make any comments. This is all I will say about this. Just understand the lack of value that some religions put on human health and well-being, and the very real suffering that the brainwashing creates.

***

NOTE 1: No, I have never tried to question this with X, although it seems pretty obvious to me that a god that exists unchanging, omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient "outside time and space" could not, by definition, make a left at Albuquerque. Nor have I mentioned the New Testament passage where Jesus is supposed to have said something about coming to enforce the law, not abolish it)

NOTE 2: I am not saying "pastor," or "priest," etc., because of my concern for keeping X's anonymity

Escapist Nation: The Cultural Bias Against Reality

My lifelong sense of the oddness of the cultural bias against reality is becoming a more serious sense of concern. In a world that is increasingly complex, intermingled, populated, and subject to of destruction, I am not sure how much longer we can keep our heads in the sand -- and maintain a cultural preference for doing so -- without massive negative consequences. And it is perhaps more prevalent (and certainly more dangerous) in my own nation than in most parts of the world, which concerns me even more.

When I was a child, I found the idea that storytelling was called "fiction" and the relating of facts was called "nonfiction" to be very, very odd. The default mode of communication, this seemed to indicate, was non-fact. That seemed awfully backward to me. The idea that reality was viewed as non-something was mind-boggling. At the time, I figured there must be some reason that I didn't get it. Over time, I have come to see that it wasn't me that didn't get it. It is the general state of humanity that is confused about priorities.

Here's another backwards set of words: theist versus atheist. People who believe in invisible magical beings who supposedly violated known laws of physics in the past (but are somehow conveniently unwilling to do so now) are considered the norm. But people whose view of the world is based on the things that we can see and prove are considered so horrible that there are even states where they are not allowed to serve in public office. Convicted criminals are okay, but people who base their worldview on reality are not. How backwards is that?

As someone who has researched and written about historical subjects, and been involved in their preservation, I have become all-too-aware of the lack of respect for fact -- that is, reality -- among the general readership and even among the authors of historical works. Standards for factuality in my own area of study -- lighthouses -- are hideous. The reason that I try not to make public comments about other lighthouse authors is because it is very difficult to find nice things to say (Tom Taylor was one of the exceptions, and he was taken from us before he gained widespread readership). This lack of concern for fact -- or even a preference for fiction -- is, unfortunately, even present in the volunteers who regularly interact with the public at historic sites. What tour guides quickly learn is that fantastic stories "sell" better than most real history. While this is certainly a criticism of docents who do not stick to established facts, it is more a comment on the cultural information market that leads them astray.

If we combine the subjects of the previous two paragraphs, I hope you'll see why I consider religious historians to be inherently untrustworthy. What can call one's judgment regarding historical fact more into question than believing mythology collections to be historical tomes?

In the field of writing, those who produce fiction tend to be more highly esteemed, and marketable, than those who discern, assemble and relate facts and truth. I first gained some level of notoriety for my writing skills when I wrote some fictional works as a child. I won a couple of awards in school and attracted some attention from schoolmates with these writings. To gain notoriety as a nonfiction writer, even at a regional level, took many years of study, discipline, and practice. Yet many people -- especially fiction writers -- do not even consider writers of non-fiction to be "real writers." How's that for irony?

Do we even need to go into movies or television? In both media, documentaries are the stepchildren of the industry.

Who do we idolize in culture (pun intended, by the way)? People who sing made-up stories and professional fakes (we call them "actors") who act out stuff that not only never happened, but often is physically incapable of happening.

Awards shows? Look at the ratings of the Oscars, for example, versus the Nobel Prize broadcasts? What's that? You've never seen the Nobel Prize ceremonies on television? Thank you.

How about looking at amusement parks versus museums? Museums are rarely commercially viable, while amusement parks are often cash cows.

It's great to be optimistic. Even being pessimistic is okay. But go ahead and try being realistic and see where that lands you in society (see the third paragraph in this post).

I do wonder if we are starting to realize (pardon the pun) this problem at some level. We now have "reality" TV shows, which may allow us to pretend that reality is important, while still allowing us to avoid reality. Heck, if you're watched a reality TV show or two in one week, you're entitled to some good old-fashioned entertainment, right? In the real world, of course, MTV producing a show called "The Real World" is about as oxymoronic as you can get.

Americans, and humans overall, are better natural storytellers than historians. But I would argue that "are" and "should" are vastly different conditions.

All of this, at this point in my life, causes me great concern. I suspect that as long as American Idol gets better ratings than Nova, more Americans can name Oscar winners than Nobel winners, and Disney World gets more visitors than the National Archives, the US will continue to slide away from its former leadership position in the world. After all, how can (and should!) we expect people to look up to a society that values fantasy above reality?

XXX

The Genius and Courage of Charles Darwin

Darwin's genius is really understood by very few people. He was obviously a great biological observationist and thinker, and fathered one of the most successful fields of science in the history of mankind. But he is under-appreciated. He really should eclipse Einstein as the pre-eminent thinker model. His work was, in many ways, more successful.

Here are a couple of things about Darwin that probably very few people realize...

The idea of evolution pretty much predicted DNA (as a physical way of transmitting data between generations). With an understanding of DNA, evolution makes much more sense than it did before we knew how traits were passed along from generation to generation. The fact that Darwin figured it out WITHOUT knowing the mechanism is impressive.

Evolution also required more time to explain the world than the age of the solar system, as it was believed to be at the time. In fact, Lord Kelvin believed the sun was only -- if I remember right -- tens of millions of years old, and that was not long enough to explain the current state of life on earth. I have read that this troubled Darwin. Well, Chuck, it turns out that you were not only write about biology, you nailed cosmology, as well. We now know, through the benefit of our much greater abilities to measure and calculate both huge and tiny quanitities of matter and energy, that the solar system is over 4 billion years old. And that works just right with Darwin's observations.

So even without knowing the mechanism for biological evolution, and with his work conflicting with the work of the era's greatest physicists, Darwin got it right. That not only requires genius, but courage.