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.

Life With Judy: The Incomplete Life

First, a little background for those of you who may not know about my sister, who lives with me and my wife: Judy is my big sister. She's 22 years older than me -- 67 -- and has suffered from birth with a developmental disability. That is, her brain did not develop "normally." She is rather high functioning, though; enough so that she understands her disability and feels the frustration and anger for not being able to live a "normal life." She lacks the freedom to make many of her own choices in life. Although Diane and I do what we can to give Judy a myriad of experiences, there is no way to ever give her the life that she might dare to dream of.

One of the things that Judy used to talk about when she was young, and I was a little kid, was getting married and having a family. She wanted the sort of fairy tale wedding/babies story that little girls dream of. This was never something that she could have -- and perhaps she knew that deep inside -- and I suspect that is a big part of the anger and frustration that she lives with.

She has been watching The Bachelor on television (SEE NOTE). Tonight, there is a wedding on the show (Jason and Molly, I believe). They are having a huge, facetious, Hollywood-type wedding and Judy is watching it. I was sitting next to her on the couch with the laptop (which I have now moved to the kitchen) when I looked over and remembered how much she wanted something like that. I became both sad and angry at once. To say "it's not fair" would be the grossest understatement, but I also understand the reality of biological life, the tenuousness of what we call a normal human life. Some people just get screwed in DNA's quest to replicate itself. My sister is one such person.

I suspect that the life-long torture of my sister has had some influence on my religious views. While it is true that from a rational, fact-based point of view, I simply find no evidence for any of the many gods various human tribes have proposed, I also find it even harder to believe that there could be any sort of loving super-sky-daddy. Call it the Problem of Evil, if you will (Check out the first episode of Mr. Deity on YouTube). I can't imagine anything more twisted, sick and evil than the sorts of physical deformities -- don't forget that developmental issues are physical deformities -- that are imposed upon innocent children. I've watched my sister's torment for my entire life -- you can cram your "loving god" fairy tale up your ass.

Having pets in the house -- a dog,cats, and parrots -- helps to make Judy feel more like she is in the midst of a family and keeps her occupied. She babies the cats, especially. I think she had long had a sort of mother complex about me, too, which is why it was such a tough adjustment for my wife. Judy probably felt displaced to some extent and gave her hell for quite some time, blaming Diane for any problems ("Everthing was fine until Diane showed up" was one of her many angry, barbed attacks). It must be tough for Judy to be at the mercy of me and Diane. We do what we can for her, but there's only so much of the void we can fill.

The show will be over in a few minutes. When it is done, I'll go sit with Judy for a little while and talk with her before she goes to bed.

XXX

NOTE: I don't like her to watch what I would consider "White Trash TV," but I try to walk the fine line between looking out for her and micromanaging her life.

Waiting For Pat Robertson...

Well, it has been a few days now and still no word from Pat Robertson why his god gave Chile an earthquake. I think I have it figured out, but I'd really like to hear his opinion.

If there's one thing that his god (the Abrahamic God) has little regard for, it is women (SEE NOTE 2). And guess what gender the President of Chile is? Yes! A female! And what is worse than a female? Yes! An educated one! And what happens when people become educated? Yes! They tend to become agnostic! An educated, agnostic woman as a democratically-elected President!? It's no wonder they are being punished!

Given the fact that Chile's earthquake was much more powerful than Haiti's, one must suspect that that god finds an educated agnostic woman president much more offensive than a nation making a pact with the devil for freedom. Sure, you could argue that the stronger buildings in Chile required much greater energy to topple than those in Haiti, but that's thanks to man-made building codes (said the building code enforcement official), not some scriptural edict (This also brings up the subject of gross destructive intent versus net destructive intent, which I lack the theological background to properly address).

Anyway, if anyone has an "in" with our friend Pat and he has not figured out why his god put a whoopin' on Chile, you may want to pass along the info.

XXX

NOTE 2: Genesis lets it be known that women were only created because the animals weren't helpful enough for Adam (many more Abrahamic scriptural passages note the lowly state of femininity, but MySpace lacks the server capacity to address them all). It seems to me it would have been a more efficient move to just give dogs opposable thumbs, but I suspect to one day see a VH1 "Behind The Music" episode that reveals the real reason: That annoying little "erection" problem. Of course, Eve being created from Adam's own flesh does point to a sort of "go fuck yourself" attitude on the part of his god. You have to love deity humor that way.

Dishonesty and Theft In The Home Renovation Business

If you are like most people, the title of this essay probably leads you to think that I am going to talk about contractors ripping off homeowners. But I am not. What I want to discuss today is a much bigger problem: Homeowners ripping off contractors.

Both of my jobs are in the building industry. By day, I am a municipally-employed building inspector. In my rounds of doing mostly residential inspections, I see lots of remodeling jobs and talk to lots of contractors. My part-time job, which used to be my full-time job, is as a kitchen and bath designer. I have been in that business for about 15 years. Between these two jobs, I get to see a fairly wide view of the remodeling industry, and one of the most common themes that seems to arise is that of homeowners stealing from contractors. This is, I believe, why many contractors become angry and cynical over time and develop an "us versus them" attitude.

You may not believe me. After all, you see crooked contractors in the news now and then, but never crooked homeowners, right? The reasons for that are more logistical than statistical: One contractor who rips off a dozen customers is easier to research and makes a better story than a homeowner who rips off a dozen contractors. It is also a marketing matter: News outlets market to homeowners, not to businesses.

Enough dancing around the edges. Let me give you a some examples, which I have seen repeated over and over, of how homeowners rip off contractors.

One situation that is common in my design capacity is as follows: A homeowner calls our company and schedules a measure and assessment of their project. This is something we do for free (SEE NOTE 1). The boss usually does the measuring and initial on-site discussion, then brings that back to me or our full-time designer. We then draw out the space, read all the notes, ask the boss some questions, and design and price at least one option for the project. In that process, we generally end up doing some research to see what products best work for the project at hand (e.g., maybe they have an unusual space that requires an odd-sized fixture, or maybe they want a certain finish on the faucet that is difficult to find in a reasonably-priced line, etc.).

By the time the homeowner comes in to consult with us the first time (this consultation is free), we have probably already invested hundreds of dollars to create a custom design that is tailored to their needs and desires. In this meeting, we show them our ideas, listen to their responses, adjust on-the-spot if necessary, and give them a basic cost. Our initial estimate is never for a bare-bones design. We incorporate everything that we believe is needed for the project (we don't get involved in painting, though). Every little detail that we know, from years of doing this, is needed to accomplish the task is included.

Technically, our policy is to ask for some money if they want to proceed further. This policy prevents us from investing too much time and money into a project that may not happen. The deposit or design fee, or whatever you want to call it, gets incorporated into the cost of the project. We often will continue on, though, without a financial commitment from the client. This is because we don't want to scare people away if they are on the fence, and because we genuinely like working with people to create a successful project.

In some cases -- too many -- we will work out a great design, pick out many of the details (colors, textures, tile, cabinetry, counters, hardware, etc.), and be ready to sign a contract when we suddenly stop hearing from the potential client. Appointments may be missed, phone calls and/or e-mails may not be returned... The red flag is flying at this point. It may be that it turns out that they cannot do the project at this point due to unforeseen circumstances (job loss, medical expenses, sudden death in the family, etc). More likely, in my experience, it is because they have used you for all you can do for them and they are going to use your ideas and work and try to adapt it to a cheaper way of doing the project. This generally means buying the materials at discount stores (Home Depot, Lowe's, Direct Buy, etc.), and finding either a low-priced contractor (who probably works out of the back of a pickup truck with no license, insurance, etc) or a relative who has basic renovation skills (or even doing it themselves). Or they may take the design and list of materials and shop it around to other contractors. These contractors can offer lower prices for the job because they have not had to invest time and money in the whole design process.

The above scenario is much more common than you would expect, and has happened to me a few times recently (which is what prompted me to write this). Make no mistake about it: This is theft we are talking about. A design is the intellectual property of the designer (or designer's employer) unless/until it is purchased by the client. In a case like this, the company is spending money to create something for the client in good faith, and the client rewards that with dishonesty and thievery. I cannot stress enough that this is a common occurrence.

Another fairly common instance is when a homeowner makes changes during the project and refuses to pay for them at the end. In a perfect world, the job would stop at the mention of any change and a revised contract or change order be signed before proceeding, but there are a variety of reasons why that doesn't happen (it messes up scheduling, there may be miscommunication along the way, the contractor mistakenly trusts the homeowner, etc.).

Another similar situation that I see -- but has fortunately not happened to me personally -- is when a job is nearing completion and the homeowner kicks the contractor off the job and refuses to pay the remaining balance. The thinking of the thief in this case is that he/she can complete the job themselves for much less than the remaining balance. I have heard of two such instances in the last couple of weeks.

This may even be taken one step further, to the point when a contractor finishes the job and the homeonwer refuses to pay the balance. They do this because they know they can often get away with it. The time and court costs (and stress) involved for the contractor may well be too much to be worth the fight.

I am not talking about rare instances here. I see these crimes -- and that is what they are -- regularly.

Yes, there are crooked contractors. But the instances of homeowners ripping off contractors are more numerous than the other way around. These costs inevitably get passed along to other customers. In other words, these people steal from all of us.

How can this be remedied? I am not confident that it can be. If, for instance, I were to implement a strict policy of charging a design fee, the nature of the marketplace is such that a competitor would take advantage of that (I have seen it happen). If we were to stop a job every time a change was made, it would decrease efficiency on the job, costing time and money. If we were to adjust contracts to leave almost no money at the end, people would not sign such contracts (SEE NOTE 2). Believe me, these are things that are discussed regularly within the industry.

It may well be that the risks of being ripped off by homeowners is an inherent risk in the industry. As with so many things, the only real cure is to create a better society -- one composed of people who are more decent and honest. That's a tough thing to accomplish, but it is certainly worth a try. And it all starts with each one of us.

XXX

NOTE 1: Technically, nothing is free. All company actions incur costs: Salaries, phone bills, fuel costs, insurance, vehicle wear and tear, etc.. Any "free" services we provide are inevitably built into any sales that we make.

NOTE 2: I do try to keep the final payment as small as possible, but that is a fine dance to execute. Leave too little money at the end, and it looks to the general public like you are the one trying to work an angle.

Sarah Palin: The Humiliation Train Rolls On.

As if it wasn't enough of a national embarrassment that Sarah Palin was seriously considered for the office of Vice President of the United States, she keeps making us look dumber and dumber -- and less American -- every time she opens her mouth.

On February 7th, Sarah Palin spoke in Texas and noted how her state (Alaska) and Texas share some things, including wide open spaces, a pioneer attitude, and "cling[ing] to [their] guns and religion." When I heard that last phrase, I thought: "Wow, she just summed up the Taliban and Al-Qaeda."

Makes ya proud, don't it? Yup. A recent VP candidate is proud to share ideology with terrorists. I guess it beats "learnin' ta read" and then reading the US Constitution. If she ever does, she'll note that there are two mentions of religion in the Constitution: Both of them warnings (SEE NOTE 1). She would also find that science -- that bad thing that screws things up by introducing facts into her fairy tales and historical revisionism -- is something that Congress has a mandate to promote (Article I, Section 8).

I feel bad for the reasonable, patriotic people of Alaska and Texas, as they are repeatedly burdened with the humiliation of being associated with such anti-American attitudes and ridiculous political figures. I do hope they realize the added importance of voting in their states.

People like Sarah Palin, and those who support her (which is mind-boggling), are the reason I will not recite the Pledge of Allegiance. The flag represents the living country, and much of what is going on in American socio-politics does not deserve my allegiance. My allegiance is to the Constitution. I gladly took the oath to defend the Constitution as an enlisted member of the military and, if anything, feel ever-stronger about the importance and dignity of that oath.

I, unlike phonies like Palin, encourage you to read the Constitution. Instead of waving a flag and promoting anti-American agenda like some sort of twisted treasonous parrot, learn about our Constitution. Here's one way: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html

I also encourage you to get and hand out free copies, especially on Constitution Day (I bet you don't know when that is, but the fact that the government does not promote it or celebrate it should make you think). Get more info here: http://www.constitutioncenter.org/ncc_progs_Constitution_Day.aspx

I believe the best way to stand up for what is right is to honestly seek and share facts, with reason and compassion. This is exactly the opposite of what Taliban-like ideologues like Palin do. It is an uphill battle -- people prefer a good story to facts -- but consider the alternative.

XXX

NOTE 1: I believe Article VI addresses religious tests for government office (which Americans violate at every election these days), and the First Amendment prohibits any establishment of religion by the federal government (I include the Bill of Rights when I refer to the Constitution because the Constitution would not have been ratified without it. And, no, the Bill of Rights is not the Ten Commandments -- I wonder how many Americans believe THAT!)

Life With Judy: The Never-Ending Menu

[Life with my sister has many unusual aspects. I have decided to share some of them, with the hope of perhaps giving an insight into (which I would hope would trigger compassion for) the lives of those with developmental disabilities.]

One of Judy's favorite things is food. Whenever she goes anywhere, when she returns home I get a recitation of everything she had to eat, and sometimes even the quantities. This is often repeated either later that day or the next day (just to be sure I got it).

For instance, Judy went to a church event recently. When she got home, I heard about the food: "I had pancakes. And sausages (she has some trouble with that word). And ham." She will often drag the words a little, too, as if saying them a little slower adds to the experience ("I had paancaakes. And saausages. And haaam.") She tends to go in chronological order, with the dessert menu (the pinnacle of the dining experience, in Judy's world) coming last. She will include the beverages (she loves coffee and wine), and how many glasses/cups she had of whatever.

Whenever anyone close to her (generally meaning, Mom, Diane or me) goes to some event, Judy almost always asks about the food: "Did you have refreshments?" "What did you have to eat?"

It's not enough to just talk about food, of course. She often brings home leftovers from church. At any given time, there may be bagels, muffins, cookies or a variety of other foods in our refrigerator that she has brought home. I often wonder if the "churchmembers" think we don't feed her.

When there is some special dinner, breakfast, or other food-related event at church, we always give her money for it. Yet she still often comes home and tells us that a churchmember paid for her food. In late 2009, I told her one time that the churchmembers don't need to pay for her food -- that's why we give her money. She threw a full-out tantrum, accusing me of not wanting the churchmembers to do nice things for her. Oy. I'm sure Diane somehow saved the day and explained the deal to Judy.

Of course, she doesn't give us our money back when she lets someone else pay for her food. One week, after she had a day or two earlier allowed someone else to pay for her food, she wanted to get some takeout food (probably Chinese food, that's living the high life in her mind). I suggested that she could pay for it with the money we gave her. She laughed at me and walked away.

We try to take Judy out to eat on a fairly regular basis (we will often try to get my mother -- who is 90 years old -- to go along, as Judy likes to see her and talk to her). A trip to the diner or to Red Lobster or just about any restaurant is an event for her. Since she has trouble seeing in low light, reads slowly, has some reading comprehension issues, and often cannot make a decision, we help her out with menu choices. We know pretty much what she likes (seafood is one of her favorites) and doesn't like (tomatoes, mushrooms, etc), so we try to narrow it down to a few choices and see which one she wants, then wade through the choices for salad, soup, vegetables, potato, etc. It is not always easy. My mother sometimes makes it worse: We'll find something on the menu and Judy will agree to it, then Mom might see something else and suggest it. That resets the whole process. Time to tell the waiter/waitress we need a few more minutes.

No meal is complete in Judy's world without dessert. She will often not eat her entire dinner at a restaurant, holding a little room for something sweet. Occassionally, when the server asks if anyone wants dessert, Judy will blurt out "Sundae." Sometimes, she just perks up and starts looking at me and Diane like a cat that just heard the sound of a can opener.

Although Diane and I try to give Judy as many experiences as we can, she still lacks the fullness of a "normal" life, and food fills some of that gap for her. So while I may mutter "kill me" under my breath when she starts to tell me the menu from her most recent outing, perhaps for the second or third time, I do understand that it plays a big role in her life.

XXX

PS: As I was writing the above, it reminded me of other aspects of Judy's life that I can write about: her relationship with our mother, her attitude about money, why she doesn't like to eat tomatoes, etc., etc.

"The Mind Is Like A Parachute"

I'm sure that most of you have heard the above aphorism. It is, in my experience, usually bandied about by folks who lack the skills or willpower to employ critical thinking and find this as a nice excuse to just believe whatever they want. It is the sort of attitude that makes people like Deepak Chopra and JZ Knight (SEE NOTE 1) very wealthy.

Despite the cop-out common usage of the mind/parachute metaphor, I think it is a good metaphor. It is, in its commonly used format, however, incomplete.

Consider the application of a parachute in guiding one safely to the ground. There are many uses for parachutes, but this is the most commonly-thought-of (SEE NOTE 2). Picture yourself in freefall, then pulling the ripcord to activate your chute. With any luck, your chute opens. But does it open all the way? You'd better hope not.

A fully open parachute is nothing more than an assemblage of textile flapping in the wind as you accelerate toward a very nasty result. The chute only works if it is held in a position that allows you to control the amount of air flowing through and around it. The mind works in much the same way.

If you open your mind completely so that you have no control over it or the flow of information into and around it, it is not of much use in protecting you. You need some form of shroud lines to hold in in a controllable, useful state. Let's call these shroud lines "critical thinking" and "compassion" -- that is, the ability to use fact and reason to discern what information is best suited to help you live a happy, productive life that is not harmful to others.

Cut those strings and your parachute will indeed be more open, but that's not really a good thing for you and anything else that might get in the way as you plummet toward the ground.

So, yes, your mind is indeed like a parachute. And you should treat it with similar respect and care.

XXX

NOTE 1: In the case of JZ Knight's (trademarked) Ramtha "teachings," one's mind not only needs to be open, it needs to scraped clean of all gray and white matter, bleached, and replaced with nothing more than your credit card information.

NOTE 2: When I was stationed at Fort Bragg, the aircraft I worked on were often parked next to those of the Army's parachute team, The Golden Knights, and I knew some of the mechanics/crewmen on those aircraft, so the parachute metaphor reminds me a bit of my younger days.

"Unauthorized" Biographies

Motley Crue bassist Nikki Sixx recently posted the following on his web site. It brings up an interesting topic:

"Years ago an unauthorized biography called 'An Education in Rebellion' was written about me without my approval or support. It was never endorsed. In fact, I disapproved and considered legal action because I felt fans were getting ripped off by being sold a book without my involvement.

"I feel fans have bought it under the assumption that I approved of it because the writers have collected interviews from people that make it seem relevant. These people who were interviewed have told me afterwards that they had no idea that their conversations were being used for an unauthorized book.

"I want to say that I do not, now or ever, approve of people riding the coattails of other people's hard work and personal lives — this is criminal, in my opinion. This is no different than what the paparazzi does or the gossipy crap that perches like vultures on our newsstands with magazines like the National Enquirer.

"The writer and publisher are now 're-releasing' the book with updated information based on my success with MÖTLEY CRÜE, SIXX: A.M., 'The Heroin Diaries' and other ventures I'm involved in. It's scummy at best, to be honest. My attorneys have already sent them legal letters directing them to stop, but they know the loopholes and how to get around them.

"Believe it or not, the law allows anyone to write a book about anyone else without getting proper permission, which is really crazy, because my fans think this was endorsed or approved by me, and it's not.

"This is sad. These people are now partnering up with a company to sell ownership rights to the book's master rights, even though they are my life rights — again, bordering on scum.

"As a fan of music, I do not buy anything unauthorized, because I know, unless the artist signs off on it, it's hearsay, gossip, and made up to pad the pockets of the writers, publishers, etc.

"Their website gives people the false impression that these 'auctions' have the fans buying some portion of revenues that go to artists or songwriters. In my case, at least, nothing could be further from the truth. Nothing comes to me or my family. It's hurtful.

"It's this kind of thing that makes me even more excited to do the 'Sixx Sense' radio show.

"I look forward to shining a spotlight on issues like this one — issues that go unnoticed and issues that may otherwise slip through the cracks.

"In the end, I worry about the fans being ripped off. I cannot (nor can any of my friends in the public eye) stop these bottom feeders.

"If you want to know about MÖTLEY CRÜE, get 'The Dirt'. If you want to know about band members, get their individual books, but don't support this type of behavior on this or any artists....

"They say they're excited to share this with fans and that may be so, but if it's not about the money... then donate it to charity."

Sixx doesn't think that people should make money from writing about others, even calling suggesting that it "is criminal, in [his] opinion." That pretty much wipes out the field of biographies, as well as a great deal of news reporting.

Thank of any "unauthorized" biography you may have read. Should that book have been illegal?

When a writer reports on, say, the background of a political candidate, should that be illegal, unless it is approved by the subject?

My own nonfiction writing would be affected by such a law. In my first book, I wrote quite a bit about the lives of lighthouse keepers, their families, and associated figures. Some of these subjects were/are still alive. Should I have been prohibited about writing about these people without some sort of written permission and payment to them?

Let's keep in mind that most of us have some skeletons in our closets that are part of our history, and part of who we are, that we would not really like to see out in the public. Given the opportunity, many people would only approve or support a revisionist version of their own history. Is that the right thing to do? We need to be aware of the difference between non-fiction and PR.

You'll notice that Sixx did not make any specific claims regarding the truthfulness of the book in question. There are laws against libel, but he does not mention any such instances. I, personally, would not use information from someone who did not know their statements would be used in a book. article, etc., but what did the interviewees in question think they were being interviewed for?

Sixx says that "the law allows anyone to write a book about anyone else without getting proper permission, which is really crazy." Really? Freedom of information is crazy? Try to imagine a world where nothing was written without the approval of the subject. This would create a body of historical work that would basically make for a big press release to the future; a Disneyfied version of the real world. The word "Soviet" comes to mind.

This reminds me a bit of the Sedition Act of 1798, which is generally considered a black eye on the Adams presidency and would probably not have held up as constitutional had it been challenged in court before expiring in 1801. Part of it made the following illegal:

"...if any person shall write, print, utter or publish, or shall cause or procure to be written, printed, uttered or published, or shall knowingly and willingly assist or aid in writing, printing, uttering or publishing any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either house of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame the said government, or either house of the said Congress, or the said President, or to bring them, or either of them, into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them, or either or any of them, the hatred of the good people of the United States..."

When we read between the lines of Sixx's blog, I think we see him frustrated by the lack of control and cash that an "unauthorized" biography affords him. Celebrity has its down sides, and this is one of them. When you become a public figure of any degree, your marketability can sometimes hurt your feelings. I have had half-truths -- and even some outright lies -- leveled against me in the newspaper and on the radio, but that's the way it goes.

I don't think that anyone, including Nikki Sixx, would suggest what he proposed once they had thought it through.

XXX

IMPORTANT DISCLOSURE: I should point out that I am somewhat of a Motley Crue fan. I have seen them in concert a few times and consider them to be a good rock band (not in the technical or innovation sense, but in the fun, rebellious rock 'n' roll sound and attitude sense). Had the blog in question been written by, say, Mariah Carey, I probably would not have been so nice.

More Misinformation From Deepak Chopra

I recently wrote about my introduction to the work of Deepak Chopra. Not too long after that, I had the displeasure of hearing him on the radio. He confirmed my opinion of him very well. For this, he at least deserves some credit for being consistent (being consistently wrong and full of shit is still consistency).

Let's look at some of the lowlights from his radio appearance, based on the notes I took as he spoke...

He spoke about the correlation between meditation and changes in the body, including the brain. This is a valid and documented association. But he used this to promote his faux-scientific (and money-making) view of a mind separate from the brain influencing biology. Let's use a computer analogy here: Is installed software separate from the computer? If you load new software on your computer, does it affect the processes in the computer? Of course it does! Does this require some form of New Age magic? No! The correlation between the workings of the mind/brain and the biological functions of the body, if anything, help to disprove his crap, not prove it. Change the mind, change the body. Change the body, change the mind. Why does this happen? Ummm, maybe because the mind is biologically-based? But that does not put money in his pocket, so he makes a right at Alberquerque, when the truth is to the left (SEE NOTE).

Chopra admitted in the interview that he shunned physiology as a medical student for emotional reasons (he was grossed out by dead bodies), but then spun it as being some sort of grand epiphany that the medical field was wrong for thinking that it could learn about life from studying dead things. Again, a skilled rhetorical tactic. Can one learn about fire by studying the fuels from which fire arises? Umm... yes. You can build a perfect turbine engine without having to have worked with a running one. You don't need to invoke some sort of mystical fire-soul thing, but you sure do need to understand the mechanics of it all.

At one point, he referred to Buddhism to supposedly back up his make-believe world views, specifically mentioning the Dalai Lama and Thich Nhat Hanh. This was a tactic of his that I have noted before: Completely flip the truth upside down. Both the Dalai Lama and Thich Nhat Hanh have made it quite clear that science knows more than Buddhism about the fabric of reality, and both have written that when science and Buddhism conflict, Buddhism must change to reflect the facts. This is, of course, completely the opposite of the position of faux-science peddlers like Chopra.

My head almost exploded when he said "Angioplasty does not prolong life a single percent." Yes that is a direct quote. This is so brazenly in the face of fact that I am not sure what to say. I have a brother who had angioplasty almost twenty years ago and he is still alive and kicking. Another brother of mine had two stents put in five-plus years ago. My own angioplasty was done in November 2007. I went from rapidly-progressing angina to a complete absence of angina in the course of a 45-minute-or-so procedure and was back to work and playing music live in less than a week. When I went to my doctor for my follow-up visit, he looked at the images of my heart before the procedure, with the left anterior descending artery more than 90% blocked, and told me that 35 years ago, when he entered the medical field, that was a death sentence. Why would Deepak Chopra tell such a horrible lie? Because real medicine is science-based (i.e., fact-based) and he is a peddler of snake oil (anti-science). Reality is the enemy of his financial success, so he must do all he can to deny it.

He was spewing so much crap that I could not keep up with my note-taking. I did note at one point that he was a "full-out, damn the torpedoes Bullshit artist."

This second exposure to Deepak Chopra left me with the same impression as the first: This man is not as stupid or ignorant as his statements would seem to indicate. He knows what he has to do to sell his products. Everything out of his mouth or pen or keyboard is a commercial carefully crafted to sell those products. What is somewhat ironic to me is that I see his target demographic as being many of the same people who are anti-capitalism/corporation/business. These same people who mistrust corporate advertising totally buy into Deepak Chopra's corporate advertising. Make no mistake about this: He IS Big Business.

XXX

NOTE: Yes, a Bugs Bunnyism. Bugs, unlike Chopra, earned an honest living and had worthy lessons to teach.

Homosexuality In The US Military

The idea that any able-bodied US citizen with a clean civil and criminal record should be denied the opportunity to serve their nation is reprehensible. In fact, if the idea of an American citizen being denied civil rights by the government (or anyone) doesn't make you feel this way, you need to contemplate your sense of patriotism. The opposition to homosexuals in the military is nothing more than a fear-based reaction to the real world. It's time to, if I may use this colloquialism, "man up" and deal with it.

I have yet to hear a comprehensible reason for not allowing homosexuals to serve openly. I have only heard or read bullshit. A comment thread on the subject on Military.com is pretty typical of the Neanderthal-sees-fire-for-the-first-time reactionary mindset that it boils down to. The two main "reasons" seem to be 1. "I don't want a fag looking at me in the shower," and 2. Homosexuals are an abomination to God.

While neither of these are any real form of reasoning, I guess I should address them:

1. a. Fags have probably already looked at you in the shower (maybe you just weren't hot enough to warrant a reaction?), b. Open showers are not as common in the military as they would have you think, c. Stop being a sissy.

2. Maybe if you agree to keep your childish/fearful/hateful religion to yourself, homosexuals will be more willing to keep their homosexuality to themselves.

In short, if these sissy-mary bible-thumpers want to serve in a military where their Middle Eastern god's detestation of homosexuals is part of policy, I think the Taliban has some openings. Take your divided loyalties and go; we don't need you dragging America into the Dark Ages.

Some of these idiots try the "troop morale" angle. Well, what's worse for troop morale than sending thousands of Americans to their deaths (or mangling) and orphaning American children in senseless occupations of backward countries? Where's the uprising there?

How about the fact that women do not have to meet the same standards as men to have the same military occupations? I KNOW multiple standards are bad for morale (in fact, it cost me my flight status, and the accompanying additional monthly pay, at Fort Bragg). Where are the phone calls to radio shows, press releases from members of Congress, and various other forms of protest about what this does to morale?

I served in the pre-DADT (Don't Ask Don't Tell) military and don't recall homosexuality ever being a concern to anyone I ever served with in those eight years, three months and two days. I am sure I must have served with homosexuals. So? If they meet the same physical and mental standards as any other (in my case) soldier, then leave them alone.

There are strict sexual harassment regulations in the UCMJ (SEE NOTES 1 and 2). These can just as easily apply to homosexuals as to heterosexuals (SEE NOTE 3). If some homosexual looks at you in the shower and winks at you and you get scared, you file a sexual harassment complaint (after you stop sobbing, pry yourself out of the fetal position, and mop up the puddle of urine). THAT'S WHAT THE DAMNED RULES ARE FOR!

Yes, when DADT is stricken down, bogus sexual harassment complaints will be filed at first. So it needs to be made clear that false accusations will be punished quickly and severely (making false accusations about a fellow military member is pretty close to treason, if you ask me). This won't be an easy transition -- growing up is tough -- but with some honesty and courage (and maybe even a little compassion from all), the process can be made as painless as possible.

Military readiness is not something I take lightly (one of many reasons I oppose undeclared wars and unnecessary occupations of foreign nations). Really, if someone can give me a good reason -- a reason that is not based solely on fear -- why a group of otherwise-qualified citizens should be barred from serving their nation, I am listening.

XXX

NOTE 1: The UCMJ is the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the basis for military law in the US. You may read as much as you can stand here: http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj.htm

NOTE 2: A non-military woman called in to WNYC's Brian Lehrer radio show to complain that the military should be more worried about sexual harassment against female military members. I became so incensed at this distorted depiction of the military that I called in to the show. Unfortunately, they ran out of time before I could get on the air to correct this. The civilian world is much more lenient than the military when it comes to sexual harassment. I regularly hear things in the workplace and in public that would end a military career.

NOTE 3: I'd bet that if you were to compile statistics, you'd find the "anti-fag" contingent to be over-represented as subjects in sexual harassment investigations. They merely fear someone doing to them what they do to others. I think this is called "projection."

The Future Of Islam In America

The future for Islam in America looks bright, especially if one looks at it from the perspective of a true believer. In fact, it looks like we are on a divinely-guided way toward sharia law.

What makes me think we are on the path from the USA to the ISA (Islamic States of America)? Let's take a look at some facts and trends...

1. It is important to start by understanding that the Islamic god is the same god as the Christian or Jewish god. Judeo-Christian power-holders would like people to believe otherwise and work hard to state that it is not so, but God makes it quite clear in the Quran that we are taking about the same God from whence Judaism and Christianity came. The main difference is that Jews and Christians do not follow the final word of that god (and His final and perfect religion), as given by God to Muhammad.

2. The two mentions of religion in the Constitution are both warnings about it. Given that a majority of the pious in the US at that time were of various Christian sects, we can see that Christianity was specifically kept out of the Constitution. This is further evidenced by the fact that there is no mention of Jesus -- the defining figure in Christianity -- anywhere in the Constitution or other important early American political writings.

3. The Treaty of Tripoli, negotiated under Washington, signed by Adams, approved unanimously by the Senate, and afterward printed in newspapers without any record of dissent, made it quite clear that "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen." "Mussulmen" was a version of "Muslims." No enmity against Islam.

4. In 1864, when the nation was weakened by the War Between The States, the phrase "In God We Trust" was shoehorned onto American coinage. The phrase is basically the definition of Islam. "Islam" means "submission (to God)," and a "Muslim" is "one who submits (to God)." Submission can only occur in the presence of trust, and trust implies submission. "In God We Trust" is about as close to a definition of Islam as you can get without speaking Arabic.

5. In 1956, In God We Trust became the US's national motto. E Pluribus Unum (one from many) had been used on the Great Seal of the United States since 1782 and was accepted as the de facto motto of the US throughout history (this is the source of the "melting pot" idea, which has since been replaced with the opposite ideal: "diversity"). This was removed by Congress and a religious motto put in its place.

6. The nation's Islamic motto was further entrenched by placing it on paper currency beginning in 1957.

7. The original oath of enlistment in the US military made no mention of any god, making it quite clear that the enlistee was to support the Constitution and obey the President. The wording was officially changed -- taking effect in 1962 -- to include the phrase "so help me God."

8. Fourteen or 15 of the 19 Muslims who attacked America on 9/11/01 were Saudi Arabian Wahhabist Muslims. So who did the US attack in retaliation? Afghanistan, then Iraq, neither of which had any Wahhabist political connections or posed any real threat to US security. Yes, Osama bin Laden is a Saudi. And he has somehow eluded the most powerful military force in the history of the world for more then eight years. Coincidence? And yes, there were terrorist training camps in Afghanistan. These would have been best addressed by surgical special operations missions; instead, we half-heartedly occupied the country and allowed the terrorists to reorganize elsewhere.

One might argue that the US's policy of using American troops and resources to fight what seems to be an extension of The Crusades would negate any pro-Islam theories, but if the US was truly looking to negate the Islamic threat to America, where are the attacks on Saudi, Iran, and Yemen (among others)?

9. In the time since 9/11/01, Americans have been implored to embrace "diversity" and not blame Islam for... well... Islamic policy.

10. The efforts of "Christians" to alter US laws -- including The Constitution -- do not include mentions of Jesus (again, the defining figure in Christianity). Rather, they simply refer to "God" in these efforts. As the final revealed word of that god is contained in The Quran, it is quite plain to see that the insertion of "God" in US law means an acceptance of The Holy Quran and its revealed Word as relevant to American law.

I should also point out the increasing power of government in the US, at the expense of personal freedom. As I have pointed out in previous blogs, a look at our coinage shows the fall of Liberty as we put more trust in God. Submission to God, after all, cannot happen if everyone is free to do and think as they wish.

From the point of view of a true believer, the divine hand of God is obviously at work here, patiently and purposely altering the most powerful nation on earth to become the seat of God's power as expressed in His Holy Quran. With a sense of justice and irony that are certainly in the vein of God's attitude, He has been using blasphemers -- mostly Christians and Jews, but other nonbelievers, as well -- to clear the way for the ultimate Islamic power on earth.

Of course, to a rational human being, the workings of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam look like the Three Stooges on LSD and crack, but for a true believer, the signs are clear: The US is to be the future seat of God's perfect religion, with the replacement of the secular US legal code with sharia law.

Allahu Akhbar, my soon-to-be-Muslim brothers and sisters.

New Year's Resolutions

As I have mentioned here before, I used to not do the whole New Year's Resolutions thing, largely because it has been so trivialized and self-centered that it was offensive. A few years ago, though, I thought about it and decided to try to use it as a short-range (one year) planning tool to move toward my objectives in life. It has worked splendidly well, so I am keeping at it.

The last couple of years have primarily been dedicated to becoming smarter and more open and honest. I feel as though I have made progresson both of those fronts, but being more honest and open almost inevitably means offending more people. While I accept that as a function of reality, I realize that that old adage "You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar" has a great deal of truth to it. So one of my major resolutions for 2010 is to be nicer, friendlier, more neighborly. If I truly believe in the beneficial effects of my life philosophy, after all, I have an obligation to find ways to better spread those effects toward creating a better world.

This doesn't mean that I am going to smile and nod and say "uh-huh" when people try to push bullshit on me, but it does mean that I am going to challenge myself to find a better way to fight that bullshit. If I just say "Bullshit," then I put up a wall and may actually prevent that person from considering my point of view.

Yes, I realize that there are unreasonable, dishonest, self-serving, greedy evil people out there (which reminds me, I heard Deepak Chopra on the radio last week and he confirmed my earlier post about him) who do not respond to fact or politeness. It is not those people about whom I am thinking. My target demographic is that huge mass of people who are just ignorant or misinformed about issues, but open to discussion. These "swing voters" are key if we want to create a smarter, more compassionate species of humanity.

While I work toward this resolution, I will continue to build on the idea of being smarter and more open, as I have some momentum there from past resolutions. And I will continue to work on spending more time with my sister (which is why I have moved my computer and a practice amp out of the basement) and on regaining some control of the yard, after ignoring it during my nonprofit years.

I have a few other resolutions for the year, too.

1. Understand gravity. Yes, this one is impossible. To think that I could possibly understand the least understood force in the universe is absurd. But the understanding of gravity is probably the biggest single problem in all of science right now and if it happens in my lifetime, I want to be able to have some understanding of this momentous occasion. Here's a metaphor: If you want to appreciate a Super Bowl game, you need to have as much of an understanding of football as possible.

2. Become twice the musician I was at the end of 2009. Not real hard considering my lack of talent and experience, but ambitious enough to drive me. This is part of my decision to concentrate on music for 2010 and 2011

3. Start preparing for my return to nonprofit work. I feel as though my nonprofit experience and success (I earned a national award in 2005) give me an obligation to contribute to causes and taking two years off to concentrate on music makes me feel a bit guilty. So I am going to use the next two years to prepare myself for a return to the nonprofit sector in 2012 and I want to take some time to reflect on past successes and failures so I can make the most of my future nonprofit endeavors. I'm not sure what field I will work in. Returning to historic preservation is an obvious possibility, but I also would like to do something that works to alleviate the suffering of the innocents in the world. I won't decide that aspect until next year, though. For now, I just want to start preparing myself for the governance aspect of it all.

4. I am embarrassed to say it, but I have made one of the most common and trivial resolutions that nearly everyone seems to do: I am going to get my weight down from 255 to 230 or less this year. I abused the heck out of my body in my teens and twenties and some of those injuries would be less bothersome if I weighed less. This resolution is sort of unfair, since my recent change to a near-vegan diet will undoubtedly result in 15 or 20 pounds without even trying, but that's okay.

So there you have it for 2010: Be nicer, understand gravity, become twice the musician I am now, start preparing to return to nonprofit work, and lose 25 pounds while continuing to work on being smarter and more open, taming the yard, and spending more time with Judy. No problem. I'll pull this blog back up a year from now and see how I did.