Brain Cramps

Fighting Anti-Liberty With Anti-Liberty?

2010-07-17T17:10:00.001-07:00

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

2010-07-11T18:15:00.000-07:00

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

2010-06-28T14:26:00.000-07:00

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

2010-05-10T18:02:00.000-07:00

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

2010-04-21T17:50:00.000-07:00

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

2010-03-15T13:19:00.000-07:00

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

2010-03-13T18:11:00.000-08:00

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

2010-03-08T18:37:00.000-08:00

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...

2010-03-01T14:31:00.000-08:00

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

2010-02-26T13:27:00.000-08:00

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.

2010-02-24T15:36:00.000-08:00

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

2010-02-17T13:16:00.000-08:00

[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"

2010-02-11T17:40:00.000-08:00

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

2010-02-10T14:58:00.000-08:00

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

2010-02-10T06:54:00.000-08:00

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

2010-02-04T17:19:00.000-08:00

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

2010-01-12T14:31:00.000-08:00

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

2010-01-01T20:40:00.001-08:00

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.

An Atheist Christmas

2009-12-21T16:32:00.000-08:00

Although I don't label myself as an atheist, there's little doubt in my mind that my lack of belief in a literal interpretation of any of the 2500 or so gods created by humanity makes me one on the eyes of many. I am fine with that. Yet I manage to enjoy and celebrate Christmas just fine.

Christmas has always been a special time in my family, which has primarily Lutheran roots. For the most part, though, that religious heritage has not figured greatly in our celebrations.

While a couple of members of the family are regular church attendees, others of us are not. I've been to Christmas services several times, of my own choice. I happen to like churches and the "feel" that is given to them architecturally and mythologically. There is, to me, something very unique about a house of worship. I have attended an Orthodox Easter mass in Moscow and made an offering at a Tibetan Buddhist temple in St Petersburg (SEE NOTE 1). And there is something cool about a Christian church at Christmastime.

It was a little more special when I didn't understand that the Christmas story is a lie about Jesus' birth (SEE NOTE 2). And historical evidence that I have seen points to a birth date several months earlier in the year (SEE NOTE 3). The placement of the celebrated date around the winter solstice not only fits with the mythological hero role of someone like Jesus (a bringer of light, and all that), it is also consistent with Christianity's habit of fighting other religions by absorbing their holidays (Halloween is another good example). But although I know that the clergy are lying to the congregation, I still appreciate -- if I may nod to Joseph Campbell -- the power of myth.

Much more powerful for me at Christmastime, though, is the sort of gathering of friends of family, both literally and emotionally, and the idea of doing good toward others. I like to think that some seeds of closeness and decency are sowed at this time of year. I am not a real social person, so the parties and gatherings at this time of year aren't a huge attraction to me, but I know they do some good for many people. And the exchanging of cards and presents, although it is becoming more and more commercialized and trivialized, does make a little more of a connection between people. We are a little more likely to call or write someone we haven't communicated with in a while. The holiday wishes people exchange are a little nicer than the usual iciness we see in public. There are a few more smiles, hugs, and handshakes at this time of year, and that is a good thing (SEE NOTE 4).

The decorations on trees and buildings and in yards provide a sort of -- when done well -- artistic side of the holiday, often while evoking the sense of wonder we felt as children and too often lose as adults.

This time of year, we are reminded of the simple things in life, which also happen to be the important things in life. Although I believe we may set a bad example to children when we lie about the literal existence of Santa Claus, I do believe that the stories of Santa Claus, like many other fables, offer good life lessons (self-sacrifice, generosity, strength in the face of adversity, etc.).

Christmas, like life, is largely what you make of it. I acknowledge the Christian lies and oppression, and the commercialism, and the superfluousness of those who are just as superfluous the rest of the year, and other negative aspects of Christmas. But I won't let those people ruin the spirit of the holiday for me. If anything, it inspires me to work harder to fight such injustices and promote corny things like "good will toward men (SEE NOTE 5)."

This holiday season, I have taken my developmentally-challenged sister Judy to see The Nutcracker (her first time at the ballet), taken her and my 90-year-old mother to see the holiday light display at the Holtsville Ecology Center (funds raised help care for the animals at the center), taken Mom out to find a real wreath for her apartment, and this week we are putting up Mom's tree for her and taking her and Judy out to see the lights on the Montauk Point Lighthouse. Most of the family will gather for dinner Christmas Eve and on Christmas -- it is important to Mom to spend time with all of her five kids this time of year. Between Christmas and New Year's Eve, Diane and I will take Judy to the nighttime holiday happenings at historic Old Bethpage. I won't get to spend as much time with close friends as I would like, but they will -- hopefully -- still be around after my mother leaves us, and I will spend more holiday time with them then.

So, to my friends, family, bandmates, coworkers, online acquaintances, and even those who I don't know and may never know: I wish you the merriest of Christmases and a season filled with wonder, joy and inspiration. I hope you all find the strength and fortune to move closer to your dreams now and in the future.

XXX

NOTE 1: I forgot to take my hat off when I stepped in, and the monk let me know pretty quickly -- even though he spoke neither English or Russian -- that that was a no-no. I made up for it by giving an offering of a book that had been published in the US about the history of that temple. He seemed excited about it -- you know, for a Buddhist monk...

NOTE 2: If you want to argue with me about that, go ahead and write down each account of the birth story, then let me know what you found.

NOTE 3: Yes, I know there is some debate about whether Jesus actually existed, and extremely little contemporary evidence or mention of him, but I get the feeling that there was SOMEONE doing SOMETHING that got all these people excited at the time, and we may as well refer to that person as Jesus. We often cannot see details through the fog of time, but we can detect some sort of movement. As someone who has published two history books and established a cherished reputation as being a stickler about separating facts and fiction, I am well aware that we sometimes just have to admit that we do not know, and perhaps cannot know, many important historical facts.

NOTE 4: Yes, I know the hugs and handshakes can transmit disease... Work with me here, okay?

NOTE 5: Of course, I am using "men" as a gender-neutral abbreviation for humanity.

I Didn't Have An Opinion Of Deepak Chopra Until Now.

2009-12-09T14:01:00.000-08:00

I've never had an opinion of Deepak Chopra. Honestly, I didn't even really know what he was about -- what he actually did. It seemed to me that he was one of those people that was mostly famous for being famous, kinda like Paris Hilton. But then I saw this column he wrote. Now I have an opinion.

Take a read through the column, and my commentary will follow. It is from: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deepak-chopra/the-perils-of-skepticism_b_373788.html and is called The Perils Of Skepticism.

If you've ever used Google Alert, you know the jolts it can deliver. Whenever anyone in the blogosphere decides to blow a poison dart your way, Google is happy to deliver the news, along with the more positive mentions, of course. Most of my stinging darts come from skeptics. Over the years I've found that ill-tempered guardians of scientific truth can't abide speculative thinking. And as the renowned Richard Dawkins has proved, they are also very annoyed by a nuisance named God.

Over the years I've found that ill-tempered guardians of scientific truth can't abide speculative thinking. And as the renowned Richard Dawkins has proved, they are also very annoyed by a nuisance named God.
Statistically, cynical mistrust is correlated with premature sudden death from cardio vascular disease. Since the skeptics who write venomous blogs trust in nothing, I imagine that God will outlive them. In the interests of better health, these people should read scripture, or at least a poem, twice a day. Doctor's orders.

I've debated skeptics, including Richard Dawkins (I spoke with Dawkins for over 90 minutes on camera in Oxford. He extracted 30 seconds from the dialogue and dubbed me the enemy of science.) and I am amazed that they mistake self-righteousness for happiness. A sort of bitter satisfaction is what they reap. No skeptic, to my knowledge, ever made a major scientific discovery or advanced the welfare of others. Typically they sit by the side of the road with a sign that reads "You're Wrong" so that every passerby, whether an Einstein, Gandhi, Newton, or Darwin, can gain the benefit of their illuminated skepticism. For make no mistake, the skeptics of the past were as eager to shoot down new theories as they are to worship the old ones once science has validated them.

It never occurs to skeptics that a sense of wonder is paramount, even for scientists. Especially for scientists. Einstein insisted, in fact, that no great discovery can be made without a sense of awe before the mysteries of the universe. Skeptics know in advance -- or think they know -- what right thought is. Right thought is materialistic, statistical, data-driven, and always, always, conformist. Wrong thought is imaginative, provisional, often fantastic, and no respecter of fixed beliefs.

So whenever I find myself labeled the emperor of woo-woo, I pull out the poison dart and offer thanks that wrong thinking has gotten us so far. Thirty years ago no right-thinking physician accepted the mind-body connection as a valid, powerful mode of treatment. Today, no right-thinking physician (or very few) would trace physical illness to sickness of the soul, or accept that the body is a creation of consciousness, or tell a patient to change the expression of his genes. But soon these forms of wrong thinking will lose their stigma, despite the best efforts of those professional stigmatizers, the skeptics.

Published in the San Francisco Chronicle

Let's look at some of these statements. Quoted material will be indented. I will call my response:

The Perils Of Snake Oil Salesmen.

Most of my stinging darts come from skeptics.

And we will see why shortly. But let's start with a definition of skepticism -- a good place would be the definition used by... maybe... The Skeptics Society (http://www.skeptic.com/about_us/):

Some people believe that skepticism is the rejection of new ideas, or worse, they confuse “skeptic” with “cynic” and think that skeptics are a bunch of grumpy curmudgeons unwilling to accept any claim that challenges the status quo. This is wrong. Skepticism is a provisional approach to claims. It is the application of reason to any and all ideas — no sacred cows allowed. In other words, skepticism is a method, not a position. Ideally, skeptics do not go into an investigation closed to the possibility that a phenomenon might be real or that a claim might be true. When we say we are “skeptical,” we mean that we must see compelling evidence before we believe... Modern skepticism is embodied in the scientific method, which involves gathering data to formulate and test naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena. A claim becomes factual when it is confirmed to such an extent it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement. But all facts in science are provisional and subject to challenge, and therefore skepticism is a method leading to provisional conclusions. Some claims, such as water dowsing, ESP, and creationism, have been tested (and failed the tests) often enough that we can provisionally conclude that they are not valid. Other claims, such as hypnosis, the origins of language, and black holes, have been tested but results are inconclusive so we must continue formulating and testing hypotheses and theories until we can reach a provisional conclusion.

So, basically, skepticism is the use of fact and reason to evaluate claims. Frankly, in a lifetime of seeking honest answers to questions, both big and small, I have not found a better approach.

Over the years I've found that ill-tempered guardians of scientific truth can't abide speculative thinking.

Nearly all science begins with "speculative thinking." Scientists START there, but they do not STOP there (this is a major difference between science and pseudoscience). They then test this thinking. If the tests back up their thinking, then they must present it to their peers via conferences and publication. Other scientists then try to topple the thinking and the facts, using reason and, often, their own experiments. This is a process that takes a great investment of time, money, and reputation. If your data back up your speculative thinking and the data from others' experiments and analysis do so, you are on your way to getting credit for a new discovery or way of viewing the world. If the experiments and analysis of others do not substantiate your thinking and associated facts, you could very well find yourself the recipient of a great deal of embarrassment, loss of funding, unemployment, and other bad things.

In addition, one finds that many of the great scientists were fans of science fiction as kids. Some, like Isaac Asimov, have even been among the greatest writers of science fiction. Are we to believe that Asimov lacked speculative thinking? He was, after all, an industrial-grade skeptic, as well as a professor of biochemistry and -- gasp! -- an atheist/nontheist/rationalist/humanist. He was also the author of about five hundred fiction and nonfiction books (some of them listed here) and an untold number of essays, short stories, columns, etc. He also won many awards for his writing, had awards and a magazine named after him, and left behind a vast legacy of creative skepticism.

Chopra makes the metaphorical implication that a fertile mind requires the application of manure. Skeptics reject -- and disprove -- this fallacy.

And as the renowned Richard Dawkins has proved, they are also very annoyed by a nuisance named God.

Chopra's technique here is subtle, but obvious: He knows that his target demographic -- the people who pay him for his products -- are more likely than not to believe in gods, fairies, monsters, and all that. So he is recruiting them to his side by polarizing them against skeptics. Notice that he does not say "the concept of God," or "the idea of God," or even "gods." He is talking to, and trying to influence a particular audience. This man is obviously a talented rhetorician. Also, Dawkins' reputation as a prominent atheist means that invoking his name will help to align the credulous to Chopra's side. Nifty moves.

To be honest, though, skeptics are not "annoyed by a nuisance named God." Skeptics tend not to believe in such an entity -- because it does not stand up to factual analysis -- so they cannot be annoyed by it. Chopra is smart enough to realize this. What some skeptics do get annoyed about is the insistence that such entities are factual and that decisions should be made on that unproven assumption. To a skeptic, fact -- not fiction -- is a proper (because it is proven) way to conduct affairs. None of the thousands of gods worshiped by humanity have a factual basis. The difference between a skeptic (or an atheist, though the two are not necessarily synonymous) and a monotheist is that the skeptic merely believes in one less god than the monotheist (SEE NOTE 1).

Statistically, cynical mistrust is correlated with premature sudden death from cardio vascular disease. Since the skeptics who write venomous blogs trust in nothing, I imagine that God will outlive them. In the interests of better health, these people should read scripture, or at least a poem, twice a day. Doctor's orders.

Neat. Check out this little dance he does in this paragraph:

1. In the first sentence, he uses scientific- and medical-sounding words to try to establish himself as being rational and based on fact (note that he does not provide a citation, which all scientific and medical articles do),

2. In that first sentence (it is a good one), he also slides in the word "cynical" -- a word with negative emotional connotations for most people -- as a synonym for "skeptic."

3. In the second sentence, he uses the tired false statement that skeptics believe in nothing (he also inserts "skeptic" where he used "cynic" in the first sentence, further associating skepticism with cynicism and the associated negative feelings). Skeptics believe in facts. They believe in reason. And they believe in these things because they have proven over and over to be worthy of such belief. Skeptics believe that two plus two equals four because it has been proven. Skeptics do not believe that two plus two equals 178,344, because that has not been proven.

4. He believes that "God will outlive" skeptics. An unproven and unprovable statement -- which is how he rolls, of course -- and one that is meant to get those credulous readers to snuggle up to him. He is trying to draw his target demographic closer (and it probably works).

5. The next sentence calls skeptics, who he has already tried to establish as cynics, "these people." He is working to establish a duality again, dividing "us" from "them." Not very wholistic of him.

6. His last sentence (sentence fragment, actually), is telling you that he is the authority here. Many people have been brought up to trust doctors, and he is playing on that. Again, some nifty -- and very skilled and practiced -- manipulation.

That was a busy paragraph. Phew! On we go...

I've debated skeptics, including Richard Dawkins (I spoke with Dawkins for over 90 minutes on camera in Oxford. He extracted 30 seconds from the dialogue and dubbed me the enemy of science.) and I am amazed that they mistake self-righteousness for happiness.

I don't know of this debate, so I cannot comment on that part, but any depiction of Chopra as an enemy of science has been firmly established by himself in this column. Skeptics use the scientific method, and Chopra is working hard here to align people against skepticism. That's pretty much the definition of an enemy, isn't it? From http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ENEMY: "one that is antagonistic to another." Isn't that the theme of his entire column!?

He also infers, quite bluntly, that skeptics are self-righteous. Again, the very definition of skepticism shows him to be either ignorant or dishonest (guess which one I think it is). Skeptics hand over claims to fact and reason. They make no proprietary (i.e., self-based) claims merely because "I said so," which Chopra has done in this column. He also sneaks in "happiness," knowing that that is what people seek. He tries to establish his knowledge of the subject while showing that "they" do not possess it. This guy is good.

No skeptic, to my knowledge, ever made a major scientific discovery or advanced the welfare of others.

Wow. This is a bold step to take in his path of manipulation. Was Newton not skeptical of Aristotelian physics? Was Einstein not skeptical of Newtonian physics? Was the entire field of quantum mechanics not skeptical of Einsteinian physics as a complete explanation? Was Darwin not skeptical of creationism or Lamarck's theory of use and disuse? Is not every scientist skeptical of the explanations for phenomena that have come before? New discoveries are not made by people who accept the world as it has been related to them -- they seek out new information and truths and use thoise things to solve problems and help humanity (and often even non-humanity). Chopra here is telling an outright, 180-degree-from-fact lie. But if you're still reading this far into the column, he probably figures he has you on the hook and now needs to use that same line to haul you into the boat.

Typically they sit by the side of the road with a sign that reads "You're Wrong" so that every passerby, whether an Einstein, Gandhi, Newton, or Darwin, can gain the benefit of their illuminated skepticism.

No. The sign says "Prove it." And those with the facts DO prove it.

1. Einstein's general relativity work (as far as the bending of light, which his famous equation predicted, since mass and energy were shown to be the same thing) was not accepted as fact until May 29, 1919, when Eddington provided proof of the bending of light during a solar eclipse. Without proof, science is not... well.. science. Einstein's "gedankenexperiment" techniques were uniquely brilliant, but with out the math AND the proof, it was not enough to build a worldview upon.

2. Gandhi? Okay, you got me here. What?

3. Newton. Newton explained his views with facts. These facts were the best that could be provided by the tools and data available at the time. With more precise tools and more information about the universe, some of his work has been shown to be wrong or just very good approximations.

4. Darwin struggled with the implications of his scientific findings, but accepted the facts. Again, it was anti-skeptics who did -- and still do -- deny his work, and even try to bury the truth it uncovered.

5. Chopra's use of the famous names above was intended to imply that he was on their side and the skeptics were/are not. This is a sort of proof by association with celebrity, which is a logical fallacy, but an effective rhetorical tool when speaking to the uneducated masses. By associating himself with celebrity names, he hopes to give himself more credibility. This works on many people. For people who understand his sleight-of-hand tricks, though, it has the opposite effect (this does not matter to him, as those people are unlikely to give him money, anyway. I told you this guy is smart).

6. Notice that Chopra does not mention the many skeptics/scientists persecuted (Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake in 1600, Galileo Galilei was tried for heresy in 1633, etc., etc.) by spiritualists because they did not -- like Chopra -- like being held accountable by fact-and-reason-obsessed skeptics. Chopra is merely carrying on an old tradition of persecuting those who challenge the desire for power and money with facts and reason.

As long as we are invoking the name of Einstein, here's an actual quote from him:

All our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike — and yet it is the most precious thing we have.

Notice Einstein didn't say that bullshit was the most precious thing we have. Or "spirituality," or warm and fuzzy faux-science. Nope. He said "science." Cross Einstein off the list of people you can use to support your stuff, Mr. Chopra. Of course, if you interested in being honest, you would have already done that.

For make no mistake, the skeptics of the past were as eager to shoot down new theories as they are to worship the old ones once science has validated them.

Skeptics do not worship old theories. In fact (there's that nasty word again), skeptics are the ones that overturn old theories/hypotheses/beliefs/assumptions/etc. But skeptics are eager to "shoot down" theories -- both new and old -- if they do not stand up to fact and reason. Fact and truth - unlike Chopra -- can stand up to such an assault. Real scientists/skeptics treat the critical treatment of theories as a good thing, as it points to way to more facts and greater truths.

It never occurs to skeptics that a sense of wonder is paramount, even for scientists. Especially for scientists. Einstein insisted, in fact, that no great discovery can be made without a sense of awe before the mysteries of the universe.

There's no way to sugar-coat it: This is just a lie. A sense of wonder about the universe is endemic in skeptics, and this is why they dislike bullshit: it deadens the wonder of the universe and replaces it with drug-like complacency and stagnation. Some of the most prominent skeptics (David Attenborough, Carl Sagan, and many more -- including one of Chopra's targets: Richard Dawkins) possess a sense of wonder that practically oozes from them. It is this sense of wonder -- of the possibilities inherent in the unknown -- that drives these people to greatness that very few are able to achieve. And, yes, Einstein was one of these.

Skeptics know in advance -- or think they know -- what right thought is. Right thought is materialistic, statistical, data-driven, and always, always, conformist. Wrong thought is imaginative, provisional, often fantastic, and no respecter of fixed beliefs.

By this point, he is so deep in his lies and misinformation that there is no going back. There is nothing left to do but rally the troops for the charge up the hill.

1. As we have established by the very definition of skepticism, skeptics do not claim to "know in advance." They require proof. And even at that, they recognize the provisional nature of that proof.

2. He purposely confuses "thought" with "proof." Yes, proof is, indeed, "materialistic, statistical, data-driven" and similarly grounded in reality. If not, then why did he appeal to a statistical correlation earlier in his column?

3. He states that skeptics are not "imaginative" or "provisional," or "fantastic," but I think I have demonstrated this lie above. Skeptics are among the most imaginative people there are, which is why they are responsible for the great scientific breakthroughs that help us live longer, stay healthier, travel off-world, understand our own human nature, uncover the secrets of the universe and the atom, and publish and read information (both good and bad) on an internet.

4. As far as not respecting "fixed beliefs," he is pretty much right on that account (a lone fact drowning in a sea of toxic rhetorical detritus!). EVERY belief is subject to study in the skeptic worldview. If it is true, it will hold up. If not... well, aren't we better off without it? Do we really want to live our lives based on lies and misinformation? (SEE NOTE 2)

Before once again reading his final paragraph, I want you to understand something. Deepak Chopra is a brand name. Make no mistake about it, it has a dollar value. That brand name sells consumer products. These products are, he has made it quite clear, not endorsed by fact and reason. Chopra is publishing PR for his products; he is advertising here (SEE NOTE 3). Think of skeptics as a sort of intellectual consumer advocate group. Whereas Consumer Reports (and similar groups and people) bring the ire of irresponsible corporate manufacturers upon them, skeptics likewise evoke the wrath of irresponsible corporate bullshit artists.

Now read his final attack, his coup de grace. And see if it doesn't make you chuckle a little bit:

So whenever I find myself labeled the emperor of woo-woo, I pull out the poison dart and offer thanks that wrong thinking has gotten us so far. Thirty years ago no right-thinking physician accepted the mind-body connection as a valid, powerful mode of treatment. Today, no right-thinking physician (or very few) would trace physical illness to sickness of the soul, or accept that the body is a creation of consciousness, or tell a patient to change the expression of his genes. But soon these forms of wrong thinking will lose their stigma, despite the best efforts of those professional stigmatizers, the skeptics.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is how a 21st-century snake oil salesman operates. It is brilliant, and both hostile and transparent to those who question it. This is nothing new, just an old tradition with new products and ways of selling them.

If you are a supporter of these sorts of charlatans, I humbly ask that you question some of the undocumented, conveniently warm and fuzzy, manipulative marketing that these people impose upon you. The well-being of the world, now and in the future, is too important to be left to self-aggrandizing con men like Deepak Chopra.

***

NOTE 1: Skeptics believe in one less god than monotheists because there is no more evidence for the literal existence of one god than any other, whereas monotheists (indeed, most theists period) generally believe in one of these gods and not others because they have been told to do so.

NOTE 2: This touches on an inherent ethical aspect of skepticism. Skepticism assumes that truth and fact are good and lies and misinformation are bad. If you reject that assumption -- like Chopra demonstrates he does -- then skepticism isn't for you. Before you send me the "gotcha" note: Yes, all human knowledge/experience rests on some sort of assumption. Skeptics merely work to pare that down to as few as possible, to peel away the layers of fiction to find truth and facts that can be applied in the world in which we live. If you have a better method, the world is waiting to hear it.

NOTE 3: As I mentioned earlier on, I didn't know much about Chopra before I read this column of his. My assumptions about his "products" are based on what he wrote above. It seems pretty obvious that he is a purveyor of pseudo-science, and probably makes a pretty good living at it. Notice that he didn't mention that, either?

Opposite Ends Of The Spectrum

2009-11-29T16:16:00.000-08:00

A recent online discussion pointed out a salient point about why I am fond of Buddhists and non-theists , and wary of Christians and other supernatural religionists.

In a discussion about whether or not kids should be indoctrinated about religion -- whether for or against any particular one or religion in general -- there was a split that showed the vastly different worldviews of religionists and non-theists. While non-theists generally believe that children should be allowed to make up their own minds when they are capable of doing so, religionists are quick to want to take advantage of the malleable minds of children. One religionist even posted this quote:

"Train up a child in the way he should go, Even when he is old he will not depart from it." Proverbs 22:6

...As if that is something to be proud of. This person was quite blatantly expressing a pro-brainwashing stance in his religion. This is, though, consistent with the child abuse that is rampant in the Abrahamic religions -- both physical abuse and mental abuse. While we mostly hear about the sexual abuse that these children suffer at the hands of Christians or the beatings --especially of girls -- in Islamic traditions, the mental abuse probably does more long-term damage.

I was encouraged by the general non-theist stance of allowing children the freedom to figure it out for themselves when they are ready and able. That's certainly the camp with which I would want to be associated. This is also consistent with many (probably most) Buddhist sects.

The Order of Interbeing, which I have mentioned here before, has a basic guideline for behavior called The Fourteen Precepts. The third precept reads thus:

Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education. However, through compassionate dialogue, help others renounce fanaticism and narrow-mindedness.

Imagine if all children were given that respect.

So if you happen to be keeping a list of why there's not much likelihood of me adopting any supernatural religion, you can add the fact that I respect -- and care about the well-being of -- children.

Thanksgiving, New Computer, Proverbs, etc.

2009-11-27T17:07:00.000-08:00

- I got a new laptop today. My old one has been on the edge for a while, which is why I have been using the Mac (which I initially bought to do audio and video editing) for the last few months. I transferred my old files and should be working off of that computer mostly now. It has Windows 7, which worked pretty well today as we were setting it up.

I have written one published book on each of my last two laptops. I have a project going on now that should be done and off to the publisher this winter, and I hope to get at least one more done within the next two years.

- One of my brothers bought an acoustic guitar and is going to learn to play. I'm going to try to help him along (I already bought him a book, stand, tuner and metronome). I am hoping to get him out to an open mic before too long (notice how vague that time period is).

- In an online discussion about indoctrinating children today, a religionist posted a very telling quote from Proverbs (22:6): "Train up a child in the way he should go, Even when he is old he will not depart from it." The more you look at religious doctrine, the more sickness you find. What this says is "Brainwash children." As if the physical abuse of children by Christians is not bad enough, they actually have mental abuse codified.

- Tip of the day: Going vegetarian just before Thanksgiving, especially in a family with some members who are hostile to the idea, is a tricky thing. But then, doing the right thing often is. :-)

Beyond Hubble.

2009-11-23T15:55:00.000-08:00

The orbiting Hubble Space Telescope has given us huge amounts of information on the far reaches of our universe (SEE NOTE). Hundreds of thousands of images not possible from within the confines of earth's atmosphere have been taken in the nearly 20 years since the Hubble left earth and went into orbit. The story of Hubble is a long one, and you should do yourself a favor and visit its web site at: http://hubblesite.org/

But in about five years, a new space telescope will see further out in space (and, hence, further back in time) and add new discoveries to our already massive amounts of data (much of which will not be analyzed for years). From the official James Webb Space Telescope web site (http://webbtelescope.org/webb_telescope/):

The James Webb Space Telescope is NASA's next orbiting observatory and the successor to the Hubble Space Telescope. A tennis court-sized telescope orbiting far beyond Earth's moon, Webb will detect infrared radiation and be capable of seeing in that wavelength as well as Hubble sees in visible light.

Infrared vision is vital to our understanding of the universe. The furthest objects we can detect are seen in infrared light, cooler objects that would otherwise be invisible emit infrared, and infrared light pierces clouds of dust, allowing us to see into their depths. Webb will unleash a torrent of new discoveries, opening the door to a part of the universe that has just begun to take shape under humanity's observations.

Right now, scientists and engineers are piecing Webb together, creating through cutting-edge technology an innovative observatory that not only withstands intense cold, but uses it to its advantage; an observatory that folds up inside a rocket for launch and unfurls like a butterfly opening its wings upon nearing its orbit.

In 2014, the Webb telescope will launch into space, sailing to the distant, isolated orbit where it will begin its quest. Supernovae and black holes, baby galaxies and planets' potential for supporting life — Webb will help reveal the answers to some of the biggest mysteries of astronomy.

This is a great age of discovery. Hubble narrowed the universe's estimated age from 10-20 billion years to about 13-14 billion years. Webb will narrow that down even more.

Check out those web sites when you get a chance. This is stuff that Newton wouldn't even have dared to dream.

XXX

NOTE: I originally wrote "the universe," but there are some hypotheses out there that indicate ours may be one of many universes, just as our galaxy is one of many galaxies, or as our star is one of many stars, etc.

Perhaps The Best Reason...

2009-11-22T16:38:00.001-08:00

There are lots of reasons for living a vegan lifestyle (SEE NOTE 1). Among them:

Compassion for farm animals. This one is pretty obvious. Farm animals suffer not just because they are killed for food, but because of the horrible conditions in factory farms and the genetic manipulation of these animals to make them more efficient meat producers. "Old McDonald's Farm" is a lie that we hold up to make the torture of farm animals seem less real, or even somehow happy.

Compassion for wild animals. Huge amounts of land are needed to house and grow food for farm animals, decreasing habitat for wild species. Wild species are often hunted near grazing lands because of their prey instincts.
Environmentalism. Animal agriculture is inherently inefficient. It requires large amounts of land, water, and energy. It also creates huge amounts of air, water and soil pollution.
Labor issues. Factory farming hurts the American worker. Factory farms replace people with automation. Poultry processing is one of the most dangerous jobs in America (without the increase in wage that you might expect to go along with a dangerous job).
Human health. The negative effects of a meat-based diet are well known (and, like the benefits of vaccinations, generally denied by extremist nut-jobs).
Patriotism. Animal agriculture speeds the use of our natural resources, increases our dependence on foreign oil, increases our indebtedness to foreigners, increases our taxes, stresses our health care system, and decreases our quality of life.

So there are lots of ethical and rational reasons for adopting a vegan lifestyle. But there is an even better one: It pisses off Sarah Palin.

One way of gauging if something is good is to see if it bothers bad people. Veganism meets this criterion. Although you can be damn sure that Sarah Palin will not get a cent of my money (and it pains me to give her any mental- or word-processing time), I heard this week that among the many things she complains about in "her" book (I don't know who actually wrote it) is vegans.

That was good enough for me to desist my consumption of animal products on the spot. When Diane got home from work, I informed her of the matter. I believe she understood.

I was a vegan in my 20s for about five years, so I know I have the strength and discipline to do it (SEE NOTE 2). If I had kept that approach, I would almost certainly not have a stent in my anterior descending coronary artery as I write this.

All I need to do to stay on track when I see a tempting steak or smell bacon cooking is picture Sarah Palin in the Oval Office. If that doesn't scare me straight, nothing will.

XXX

NOTE 1: Veganism is, essentially, a way of living that eschews the use of animal products. It is primarily dietary in nature (no animal flesh, by products, or excretions), but tends to also include the avoidance of purchasing leather garments and such. The impetus tends to be ethical (it reduces the suffering in the world), although veganism for health reasons is fairly common, too. When researching it, one finds that there are many reasons for veganism and extremely few reasons not to do it.

NOTE 2: It can be difficult to live outside the "norm." I lost my way due largely to the hectic life that I adopted over time. Eliminating animal products from your diet is not easy as a blue-collar American with a busy life. That's no excuse for the suffering I have caused, but it is a fact of life.

Another Church Sign

2009-11-20T16:01:00.000-08:00

I saw another interesting church sign today. This one said:

JOY IS NOT THE ABSENCE OF DIFFICULTIES BUT THE PRESENCE OF GOD

This immediately prompted some thoughts:

1. This is typical religionist marketing. In essence, it tells the reader that the answer to your problem is not to make any real effort (because that doesn't help); the answer is to buy our product. It's like saying "Clean laundry is not determined by the brightness of the colors or the absence of pathogens, it is determined by whether or not you use Tide." It replaces that which can be measured or proven with that which you must accept as fact without evidence (or even in the face of contradictory evidence). Pretty shifty. Also pretty effective.

2. This is also typical of the brainwashing that religionists must overcome in order to embrace... umm... reality. What this simple sentence on a church sign tells people is that joy is not possible without (insert deity here). This kind of stuff is hammered into their heads from the time they are kids. And it is a message delivered by people who we are told we must respect. This adds the "argument from authority" angle and, although that is a logical fallacy, how many people actually use logic in their daily lives? The emotional part of the brain is much more powerful and easy to access (hence the marketing style). Is it any wonder that religionists are generally -- and I mean this literally -- frightened of free thought and incapable of understanding how people can be happy without imaginary friends?

My version of that sign would be more like "Joy is not the absence of difficulty, but the acceptance of reality."

Call me silly, but I do not see how pulling the blankets over your head makes the monsters go away.

Friendship

2009-11-07T05:24:00.001-08:00

I generally abhor the nonsense that gets passed around as chain mail, including the mushy "you are my friend" kind of stuff. Here's one that is more realistic:

1. When you are SAD, I will jump on the person who made you sad, like a spider monkey jacked up on Red Bull.

2. When you are BLUE, I will try to dislodge whatever is stuck in your trachea.

3. When you SMILE, I will know you are plotting something that I must be involved in.

4. When you're SCARED, we will high tail it out of here together (unless you can't keep up).

5. When you are WORRIED, I will tell you 'horrible' stories about how much worse it could be, until you quit whining like a big baby.

6. When you are CONFUSED, I will speak slowly and use little words.

7. When you are SICK, stay the heck away from me, until you are well again. I don't want whatever you have.

8. When you FALL, I will pick you up and dust you off (after I'm done laughing my ass off).

9. This is my OATH, I pledge it to the end. 'Why?' you may ask -- because you are my FRIEND!

***********************

Friendship is like peeing your pants: Everyone can see it, but only YOU can feel the true warmth.

The Miracle at Fort Hood -- Three Perspectives

2009-11-06T13:56:00.000-08:00

Yesterday's happenings at Fort Hood, Texas should cause us to examine the roots of such tragedies. I have been pondering the reports (while trying to contain the anger that comes from seeing my Army brethren gunned down from within) and have been exploring them from three primary perspecties: religious, rational, and that of a U.S. Army veteran still dedicated to his nation and to those who share the American military tradition.

The religious perspective is the most positive one. The events at Fort Hood confirm the Word of God and should therefore, deepen the faith of many people and strengthen their belief in God. When I heard of the shooting, I immediately thought of a section of The Holy Quran: Chapter Eight, which deals with The Spoils of War. Let's back up just a bit and look at some of what transpired at Fort Hood:

One man, who was already under investigation by the military, managed to get two handguns into a military building on one of the nation's primary Army posts (SEE NOTE 1). In a thoroughly policed area like that, he then managed to kill 13 people and injure another 30 before being shot four times by police. And he lived. Casualty counts at colleges and high schools by people with multiple semiautomatic rifles and no military police presence don't manage those kinds of numbers. And the shooters generally end up dead. This was an instance of violence that went against statistics. And what is the usual term that the faithful use for instances that stand outside the statistical norms? Yes, a "miracle."

Greater evidence to the miracle theory is given by the words of the shooter (it has been reported that he exclaimed "Allahu Akhbar" at some point during the attack) and the Word of God (which I will quote shortly). There was a clear religious involvement here, which means, if you believe in the supernatural, that the Hand of God was at play.

"Allahu Akhbar" means, essentially, "God is great." Combined with the definition of the word
"Muslim," which translates to "one who submits (to God)," we see our Islamic National Motto, "In God We Trust," in the thick of this violent episode. If we -- and I mean anyone who trusts in God -- actually do trust that God, then we can (and should) go forth bravely and act upon the Word of that God. And we should expect the outcomes of those actions to be in line with the Word of God. Now read Chapter 8, Verse 65 of the Holy Quran along with me:

O Messenger! Rouse the Believers to the fight. If there are twenty amongst you, patient and persevering, they will vanquish two hundred: if a hundred, they will vanquish a thousand of the Unbelievers: for these are a people without understanding.

Pretty clear, huh? What is even more miraculous is that God promised a ten-to-one kill ratio here, and this Army Major got thirteen kills. That's pretty close to, but even better than, that promised by God (SEE NOTE 2), and it happened under very challenging circumstances.

And he survived four gun shots! On a military post, you would expect a one-shot kill, not a four-shot wound. Any faithful person has to see that as Divine Intervention.

So I think this episode at Fort Hood is one that religionists can use to support their belief in God, and can use to help sort out which is the One True Religion (in the Quran, God repeatedly refers to Islam as the perfection of religion). There are many more passages that reinforce the above, but I suspect that the point is made and more transcriptions of verse would only add verbosity.

From a rational point of view, I think things are much different. I am certain that rationalists are of the opinion that this is another example of what religion does to people. When people believe strongly (i.e., have faith) in a deity, or collection of stories, or ideology, they are too often driven to extreme deleterious actions. This is often known to rationalists as the "those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities" problem (it is based on a statement by Voltaire, I believe). And what is more absurd than an invisible magical father figure who encourages violence, hate, and all sorts of nasty things, while still pretending to be loving, merciful, wise, etc.? In the rationalist view, the contradictions and twisted faux-logic of religious scripture inevitably lead to incidents like this in many people who take that stuff as fact. This sort of violence is an unfortunate "I told you so" to a rationalist.

The two perspectives above should show one of the main problems with the power struggle between religionists and rationalists: Horrible events like this reinforce the worldviews of both sides, and that does not bring us closer to solving these issues.

I would like to add a third perspective; that of my own as an eight-year military veteran with a deep love of the Constitution and the nation which it created. Few things are more disgraceful or tragic to my military mind than the idea of a military member purposely killing his own. It is among the most heinous of offenses a member of the military can commit (after the purposeful harming of nonmilitary beings while representing the nation, which brings disgrace to the entire nation and its legacy). I would gladly, and I mean this literally, pull the trigger on this bastard myself. Death with honor and legitimate purpose is something to be welcomed as a member of the military. Death without honor and legitimate purpose is a tragedy (SEE NOTE 3).

The hideous disregard for Constitutional cautions about religion are dragging America down. The fundamentalist/evangelical tainting of American politics and policy has created great problems for us, and will continue to do so (at least we kept Sarah Palin out of D.C.... Phew!). We have a solid foundation for our nation, a document (and colonial history) that should teach us that mixing government and religion hurts both. The more we violate that, the more our society and our government will be degraded. Few things can be more disturbing to a military veteran who stills believes in his oath 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."

I feel for the many people whose lives have been destroyed by this tragedy, but I also feel the pain of knowing that it will be a wasted opportunity to, with the intent of finding honest answers, ask questions about what the hell we are doing to our nation.

XXX

NOTE 1: Fort Hood is not much different in military scope and importance, and therefore security and associated policies, from my two stateside posts: Fort Bragg, NC and Fort Campbell, KY. I never would have dreamed, even 25 years ago, that someone could possess a private weapon on post, let alone two, and get away with it.

NOTE 2: Those who carried out the 9/11 attacks far exceeded that ratio, of course. And then there is the obvious divine protection of Osama bin Laden, who has managed to evade the greatest military and technological power the world has ever known for more than eight years. Note, also, the "people without understanding" comment in the passage. You will probably hear words/phrases like "why," "how come," and various other expressions of non-understanding by non-Muslims about this for a long time. This is further confirmation of the Word of God, of course.

NOTE 3: This is why I opposed the occupation of Iraq before it ever happened, and why the death toll there is doubly tragic to me.

Religious Leaders Helping The Global Climate.

2009-11-02T16:32:00.000-08:00

WARNING: I intended this to be not much more than a little news tidbit that mocked some silliness, but I got carried away and used some bad words. If that might offend you, please navigate away from this page. Yes, I could have edited them out, but that would have changed the entire flow and feel of the piece, and I am too much of an artist to do that. ;-)

This morning, I heard a report on BBC News about a historic meeting in the UK. Religious leaders from around the world got together to address global climate change. What did they do?

With Christians and Muslims and Jews and others all together to address global climate change, you would expect them to use their particular skills and knowledge to fix the changing climate. What might these special abilities entail? Faith, and the answers it provides, right? Basically, you'd expect them to pray for a fix, then call it a day, right? Nope. They issued a statement. A statement. I am not kidding. According to the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8333250.stm), "[i]n a statement, the religious leaders urged G20 governments to fight for a deal which would quickly end global reliance on fossil fuels." Yup, they basically prayed to government.

In all fairness, that's not all they did: "The leaders promised to raise awareness of climate change in their communities." Nice. They are going to act as ad agencies doing PSA's. Very nice. "They also said they would support international efforts to help the poorest and most vulnerable people cope with climate change, and redouble their efforts to cut emissions from their own institutions." Okay... That's kind of a non-statement, and certainly not something that we need religious leaders for. In fact, if we could get religions to stop sucking up tons of money to self-perpetuate and made that money available to scientific and technological efforts to deal with climate issues, and to science education in all nations, we just might be able to do something to help those people better deal with climate change.

Why did these religious leaders get together in the UK? Perhaps because a British scientist, Lord May, asked them to do so (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/sep/07/global-warming-religion). A scientist asking religious leaders to help with a problem?! Wow, maybe scientists really do turn to gods when the going gets tough, as evangelists try to tell us. What did he want them to do? Pray? Appeal to the Holy Spirit? Collectively say a dozen or so Hail Maries while facing Mecca? According to The Guardian, he said that "[r]eligious leaders should play a frontline role in mobilising people to take action against global warming." Uhhh... What? "May said religion had historically played a major role in policing social behaviour through the notion of a supernatural 'enforcer', a system that could help unify communities to tackle environmental challenges. 'How better it is if the punisher is an all-powerful, all-seeing deity,' he said." Oh, he wants religious leaders to try to intimidate and coerce the multitudes. Now, that makes sense. Use a group's special knowledge to help out. Who coerces better than the clergy? Lord May did not, apparently, mention prayer in his statement (See? You don't need a collection of religious leaders in order to make a statement to the British press).

So there was no mention of prayer anywhere in this? Isn't that the ultimate mega-tool -- the Cosmic Sawzall -- that only the pious can use?

I did eventually find an article that talked about religious leaders assembling to pray for climate change (http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKL0793503820070907). This article DOES address prayer for climate change. But that was over two years ago. Shouldn't we be seeing the changes by now? They were praying to the omniscient, omnipresent, loving all-powerful Wizard of... I mean, God, right? Zip-bang-boom! Done! That's the way that god works. I have read it, repeatedly, in that god's own words. Basically "Fuck with me and ye shall be smited! Kiss my ass and ask for whatever and I will grant thee three wishes." So what the hell did they pray for? "'This prayer is a recognition that we have spoiled the earth and we now need to rectify this by changing our lifestyles,' said Musharraf Hussein, a British Muslim leader. 'We seek the help of our creator to acquire the strength and ability to make the necessary changes.' You idiots! Religious scripture is full of examples of the pious asking for divine help and getting entire armies wiped out for them! Seas parted! Plagues! In the face of global climate problems, you ask for help changing your lifestyles!? If you need lifestyle changes, pray for your god to keep you people from lying, stealing, molesting children, starting wars, spreading hate, oppressing minority groups, and killing people. THOSE are fucking lifestyle changes! THIS is a global climate issue! I hope Mr. Hussein made that statement wearing an orange wig, red nose, and really big yellow shoes with red laces.

You're right: I am not taking these religious leaders and their work seriously. How could I? We hear about the power of faith and prayer, but when the shit is on the line they... ummm... issue a statement through the British media. A copping out of biblical proportions (pun intended). In colloquial terms: An Epic Fail. This is like Obi Wan, at the point where Luke is about to try to blow up the Death Star, instead of saying "Use The Force, Luke," going "Umm... Good luck." Come to think of it, when considering the prospect of religions helping to address global climate issues, that'd be my response, as well.

XXX

PS -- Seriously, if this sort of stuff doesn't persuade you that even the clergy know that prayer is bullshit, you are beyond help.

Evolution In A Can

2009-11-02T15:02:00.001-08:00

As I returned to town hall after another day of serving the local citizens, I stopped in the restroom, as I often do, to finish the processing of some of the day's coffee and iced tea. As I closed the door, I saw a can of Lysol on the shelf by the sink. It said, quite proudly and in big letters, "Kills 99.9% of germs." I looked at it and said "What about the last point-one percent?" (SEE NOTE 1)

That got me to thinking about how easy it is to show evolution to people, and why it is important that we understand it. It is this simple:

If we spray that Lysol on a germ population, we knock out 99.9% of them (SEE NOTE 1, if you have not yet done so). That last .1% then has no competition for resources (space, food, etc.) and can reproduce more freely -- all this as a result of a genetic coding that gave it a competitive advantage at this point in spacetime (that genetic coding may or may not have ever had any influence on its reproductive ability before now -- SEE NOTE 2).

With that resistant strain having the chance for wider distribution on that surface, it also gains a better chance of coming into contact with something -- like you -- that might transfer it to another surface where it can establish itself and start the whole process over again.

This is evolution in a nutshell (or on a doorknob, if you will). It is, at its core, a very simple process, and one that is easy to show. Where it gets more complicated is with, of course, more complicated organisms. This is why you don't see major changes in a species from one day to the next. It takes place at the level of DNA -- of the many combinations of just four nucleic acids contained in two polymer strands (I'm trying to keep this simple, so I will stop there). For DNA changes to survive long enough to express themselves at the species level of complex organisms take huge amounts of time.

If evolution is this simple, why don't more people understand it? The answers are manifold and complicated, but I will give you the main ones:

1. Scale. Humans have evolved to deal with things on a medium scale. That is, our senses pick up certain-sized things (including sound and light wavelengths). We cannot see DNA with the naked eye, nor are we alive long enough to easily grasp things that take more than our lifetime (SEE NOTE 3). Evolution involves both the very tiny AND the very large. Double whammy.

2. Education. It is no coincidence that evolution is least understood in populations with lower education levels. It takes a certain level of basic science education to understand evolution, and many other important aspects of the real world (SEE NOTE 4).

3. Fear. Humans are afraid of things we don't understand, of the unknown, and of change (change often means an unknown future, after all). Evolution presents all of these things. It can be hard to understand (mostly, IMO, because of inadequate education and/or scale issues), it involves an element of the unknown (of the past and the future), and it IS change. The real world is a scary place, and evolution brings much of that scariness to the forefront. Some people prefer to pull the blankets up over their heads and hope/pray the monsters will go away. Denial, however, is not a valid strategy for survival.

If you find evolution to be a fuzzy concept (even after my explanation), you should start with Richard Dawkins' book, The Selfish Gene. It will help you to understand the process much better, and just may change the way you look at the world... including a can of Lysol in the bathroom at work.

XXX

NOTE 1: The more astute reader may ask what that 99.9% actually means. Is it 99.9% of the number of individual organisms? Or is it 99.9% of the types of organisms? Those are two very different conditions. Checking the Lysol web site (http://www.lysol.com/products/disinfecting-sprays/lds-disinfectant-sprays/) gives us the following relevant information: "LYSOL® Disinfectant Spray is an EPA registered disinfectant that kills more than 99.9% of illness causing bacteria and viruses on environmental surfaces in your home. " It doesn't really answer our question, does it? Either way, we see that it gives a competitive advantage to the more dangerous germs.

NOTE 2: This particular coding may very well have been a random mutation, either old or recent, due to things like exposure to the sun (radiation causes genetic mutations) or just a plain old screw-up in the genetic replication process of the organism. It happens, and this is an important point in understanding the process of evolution -- not every change is a result of selection pressures.

NOTE 3: I view this as a sort of wavelength issue, for illustrative purposes. If one were to plot the average human lifespan and the time it takes for a given species to become another species (something that is a matter of great debate and study), as waves on a graph, the wavelength of evolutionary change would be so much larger than that of a human lifespan (yet tiny compared with a wavelength representing, say, the age of the planet) that it would be extremely rare for them to intersect. Add to this the fact that such changes are extremely hard to detect and you can get an idea of why we don't see speciation in complex organisms. It's largely a matter of basic math.

NOTE 4: Americans are lagging behind in this important area. Our overall substandard science education hurts our nation's ability to cope in the world economy, which hurts our social and political power. American "patriots" should be putting science education at the very top of the priority list if they want to see a strong America with a leadership role on the world stage in the future.

Save Your Soul (If You Can Find It)

2009-11-01T17:01:00.000-08:00

I approach the idea of a "soul" like I approach pretty much anything else: Just because lots of people believe in it, doesn't mean I will just join the crowd. For me, the idea of a soul ranks alongside Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the various gods, fairies, demons, and all that supernatural stuff, and somewhere below the idea of Sasquatch or the Loch Ness monster (SEE NOTE).

At the root of the problem is, as usual, a definition. If you want me to believe in something you are proposing, I need some sort of definition, not a fuzzy and moving target that depends on current trends in public superstition.

What I think most people mean start out meaning is "that which makes each of us individuals." If that is the case, well, I accept individualism. I not only see individualism in humans, it is very easy to see in other animals. As a birdwatcher, I have even seen great differences in personality in little birds in the wild (personality generally expresses as behavior).

Where I think many people make a wrong turn (at Albequerque, according to Bugs Bunny) is when they get to the permanence aspect of it. Your soul has always existed and always will exist, they try to tell me. This is something that I call "wishful thinking;" and not fully-formed thinking, at that. The first problem is that it does not fit the soul-as-individual idea. As individuals, we change throughout our lives. Some of us even experience total changes in who we are, due to disease and/or injury. There are disorders that, to me, seem to completely refute the personality-as-soul idea.

How about multiple personality disorders? Do those people have multiple souls?

What about people that have Capgras disorder? This is a disorder that can result from brain injury or disease in which they believe one or more people around them have been replaced by an impostor (I believe that the spouse is a common target of these delusions). We talk about our souls going to hang out with the souls of the people we love (oddly, no one ever asks how that's going to work out with the innumerable loves and families we have all had in the past and will have in the future. That is going to make for some ugly situations in heaven, or wherever -- Heaven is a silly idea for another time). How does such a thing work out for those who die with Capgras disorder? Do they then remember their loved ones? Or do they still believe their loved ones' souls have been replaced by impostor souls?

When does a soul enter a human form? If it is at conception, then what about cells that later split and become identical twins? Does each twin have half a soul? If so, shouldn't that express itself as some sort of half-soul disorder, like only having half the personality traits of a normal person? What about chimeras -- those cases where multiple fertilized eggs fuse into one human? Do these people have double souls?

If our souls (as personalities) reincarnate (and I have not heard an argument that there is anything preventing them from doing so), then why do children act as blank slates? Shouldn't their souls contain the information from previous existences?

What about people with developmental disabilities? Are some souls mentally retarded? When my sister dies, does her soul magically regain whatever normality it supposedly had prior to this life?

And what about animals other than our species? If we argue that they don't/can't have souls because of their different brain structure, then we end up backing up a paragraph and having to accept that those humans with malformed or damaged brains may be people without souls. If brain structure is not the determining factor, then what is? The particular genetic makeup that makes us Homo sapiens? That begs the question of what all these souls were doing before humans arose. And if DNA is the source or holding area or whatever, we should be able to prove or disprove a soul based on arrangements of adenine, thymine, guanine, and cytosine. But since DNA is not permanent, we have a problem there.

Which quickly leads us to the question: How many souls are there? Is it one per human? If so, what is the maximum number of them? Do they get recycled? Or is every example of humanity unique? If so, then there are souls just waiting for more human bodies to become available. The number of humans that will ever exist is finite, so the number of souls must be, as well. What mechanism will make sure we don't make more human babies than there are souls available? Will all humans magically become sterile when the souls run out? Or will there be soulless humans for a bit if we run past our quota?

I could go on and on with unanswered questions about souls and examples of how the concept (at least how it has been explained to me) violates what we know to be reality. More and more, we are seeing that our individualism is a construct of our biological structure and information processing (i.e., our genes and our environment). Far from the myth that "we only use 10% of our brain," we are discovering that every part of our brain is a part of who we are, and that injuries to nearly any part of the brain can have huge effects on us. Our "soul," I currently believe, is a delicate, temporary, and precious thing that requires no hocus-pocus to explain, and deserves to be handled with great care.

As always, I am open to refutations of my observations or interpretations of data or concepts, and welcome any evidence you might have for an immortal soul (SEE NOTES 2 and 3). After all, that would make the uneccessary deaths of so many beings much more bearable (even if it does so at the cheapening of the idea of life).

XXX

NOTE: Although I don't "believe in" cryptozoological beings like Sasquatch and the Loch Ness monster, I also don't see anything that prevents them from being a physical possibility. The longer they persist as unfound entities, the less likely they seem to actually exist, but strange creatures are still being found in the wild, especially those that live in the water. Consider how unlikely the Ceolacanth was when it was found in 1938 (Cool web site here: http://www.dinofish.com/). Some cryptozoologicals, like werewolves and vampires, violate basic known rules of biology, so I don't give those much processing time.

NOTE 2: I will anticipate one silly example of support for the idea of a soul before anyone embarrasses themselves by trying to explain it: Near death experiences (NDE's). NDE's (as well as OBEs) have been tested in the lab, and even induced in the lab. They appear to align quite well with what we are learning about the structure and function of the human brain via the rapid data from neuroscience. We are pulling the curtain aside and finding out, more and more, that there is no Wizard of Oz. If we can improve education in the U.S., we'll answer many more of these questions and spooky unknowns faster.

NOTE 3: Some believers in pseudoscience/paranormal/whatever will try to invoke scientific principles. One I like is the "conservation of energy" principle applied in "What happens to our energy when we die? Science says that that energy must continue to exist." Yup. Then your computer or car must have a soul that leaves them every time you shut them down.

New Band Debuts, And Some Buddhist Thought.

2009-10-31T16:42:00.000-07:00

Last night's debut of The Bobcats went well. This year's Act1 Entertainment Halloween bash was a crazy one, and it on well after I left around 2AM.

When Diane and I showed up, right around 9, Motif Sounds was already playing. They have a new guitarist, and it hasn't caused them to skip a beat. The new guitarist/frontman is impressive. The next band was My Favorite Mistake, and they rocked harder than I had expected, started out with a female-sung version of Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap (Play some AC/DC and you have my attention). Big Daddy & the Bulldogs was next, with Jerry playing bass instead of second guitar. Another solid rockin' set for the evening.

Then my new band, The Bobcats, debuted around midnight. We were a little concerned with the fact that our drummer quit six days prior and we had to draft my friend Andrew (from Triple Seven) and go in with only one full band rehearsal. Everything went well, though, and we had a great time.

After us another new band debuted: Calamity Blue. They were good. The female singer worked the crowd well, even singing while standing on a table at one point. For many people, what she did would have seemed too calculated and hokey, but she pulled it off. That's a band to keep an eye on.

By now, it was after 1AM and the place was still pretty packed. We hung out a bit longer, but Diane was getting tired and I was reaching the "enough to drink on an empty stomach" point and I had to get up for work today.

Overall, a successful debut for the band at one heck of a Halloween party. Kappler's rocked long and hard.

And now for something completely different...

I was reading a blog tonight and the subject of Buddhism came up, specifically the idea of "self awareness." Here's what I wrote:

Not to be too nit-picky, but "self-awareness" is a concept that doesn't translate well as a Buddhist concept. In broad terms, the "self" ("atman") is seen pretty much as a mental construct in Buddhism. The understanding of this leads to a realization of "non-self" ("anatman"). Technically, yes, "self-awareness" is important in Buddhism, but only as a way to remove the delusion of self. The self is seen sort of like an anthropomorphism of a phenomenon, much like the creation of deities and such to explain things we don't yet (or maybe cannot) understand. The tough part about achieving an awareness of non-self is overcoming the fear that creates such constructs (fear of the unknown, fear of being alone, and all those other powerful evolutionary forces that have shaped our neurophysiology).

As to the larger subject of whether or not Buddhism is a religion: It all depends on the definition of religion. The colloquial use of the term as a system of supernatural beliefs leads to a "no" answer. But if we revert back to the original meanings of the word's roots -- essentially, "linking back" -- then it may well be the quintessential major religion, as it is the only one that values objectivity and fact over faith in the works of deluded men. It is almost deist in that respect, I suppose, except that deism tends to be anthropomorphic, too.

The Buddhist realization of "non-self" is, perhaps, the toughest concept to translate into Western thought. When I took a course on world religions in high school, they got it all wrong. The extinguishing of the self doesn't mean that we are one big blob of non-individuals. Quite the opposite, I believe. It has been my experience that Buddhists are more individualistic (i.e., not herd-minded), and I believe that is because of the loss of the limitations that mental constructs like the self create. We tend to compartmentalize and label ourselves, and that requires the erection of psychological walls. Tear down those non-existent walls and you are free to explore more and incorporate those experiences into your everyday interactions and expressions.

To put it in base terms, Buddhism seeks to diminish suffering through the exposing and relinquishing of bullshit. Tell a Buddhist about your "soul" or "self" and he may very well ask you to show it to him/her. With Buddhism as a tool -- for that is all that it is -- one can seek out and find useless and harmful beliefs and attitudes and, as a result, create a more accurate, helpful, and useful mental model of life. One of the biggest parts of that is the understanding of the delusory nature of the "self."

XXX

NOTE: As I freely admit, there are sects of Buddhism that have become quite tainted, making it a duller and less effective tool. But I still prefer an animistic/shaministic/buddhist religion like Tibetan Buddhism over the war- and hate-mongering ideologies that are rampant in much of the human population. We'll never cure humanity of its penchant for ideologies -- especially cold-turkey -- so let's at least try to promote peaceful, loving ones.

The Most Idiotic Thing I Have Recently Heard

2009-10-10T06:49:00.000-07:00

If you actually listen to people, you hear some idiotic comments. My favorite recent one...

A woman in one of the buildings in which I work had her fetus die with about a month to go in her pregnancy, and I heard another woman comment, "Well, it's all part of God's plan." There's a plan that includes killing children a month before they are due to be born? "Jesus loves you, but he killed your baby?!" Don't "god-fearin'" folks blow up abortion clinics and execute doctors who do the same thing?

I really do try to be nice, but if someone honestly believes such a thing, many of their civic privileges/rights (voting and driving, especially) should be revoked. If they believe the architect of such a plan is worthy of worship, they are just too dangerous to be allowed to have political or social influence (unless our goal for society is a permanent Dark Ages).

Knowing When To Walk Away.

2009-10-06T14:27:00.000-07:00

When engaged in a conversation with someone on a point or points on which we have different views, I try to stick with it, giving the other person as much of a chance as possible to make their point and, hopefully, teach me something, while also trying to make my views and their bases clear. There are times, though, where this is impossible and one has to learn to walk away.

I was involved in an online conversation with a MySpacer on two different subjects. One of them was the presence of "ghosts" or "spirits" in historic buildings (the other was about evolution). The conversation began when I saw this person tell someone else that historic buildings are "notorious" for being inhabited by spirits. Well, since I happen to know a bit about historic sites, have spent much time at them, and have expended a great deal of time, energy and money to help preserve these sites and their history for the good of all, I felt as though I needed to jump in.

I noted how I had a much greater than average exposure to historic sites and their histories, including cemeteries and places where deaths had occurred (including my own 95-year-old house in which at least one person has died) and places that have been tied to ghost stories (SEE NOTE), and that neither I nor anyone that I knew in the field had ever experienced anything not explainable by the physical world. While this is not a scientific study, my level of exposure and network of others with high exposure to these sort of sites lends a much greater statistical significance to my anecdotal reports than someone whose experience and information base is limited to TV and the internet.

In addition to the results of my personal experience, historical research, and discussions with others in the historic field, there is no physical evidence for the spirit world. Yes, there are things that are "unexplained," but that does not mean that they are not explainable. Many things that we now understand quite well were unexplainable for many years: radiation, DNA, fire, viral diseases, etc. Many of these sorts of things were given supernatural explanations, yet we know now that they are easily explainable.

Naturally, my arguments based on fact and reason did not deter the individual. I, and all of the other people I know in the field, were dismissed as not being "in tune" with spirits and I was also hit with the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" falsity. Let's use an analogy here, as I did in my response: Suppose I tell you there is a 12-legged cat in a certain room. If you go in the room and find no evidence of a 12-legged cat or any evidence that a 12-legged cat was ever there, what would be your conclusion? That you weren't "in tune" with 12-legged cats? While I wouldn't fault you for saying at an absolute level that there might theoretically be a 12-legged cat in there, I would think that you were dead-fuck-nuts if you acted like there was a 12-legged cat in that room whenever you were there and told other people there was a 12-legged cat in there. For all practical purposes, I would consider you much more sane if you acted as if there was no 12-legged cat in the room, even if you took a quick look around whenever you walked in that room.

She ended that post by claiming that her belief in demons and ghosts and such did not make her any less "intellectual." Well, here's the definition of "intellectual" from the Merriam-Webster dictionary (the bold italics are my emphasis):

Pronunciation: \ˌin-tə-ˈlek-chə-wəl, -chəl, -shwəl, -chü(-ə)l\
Function: adjective
Date: 14th century
1 a : of or relating to the intellect or its use b : developed or chiefly guided by the intellect rather than by emotion or experience : rational c : requiring use of the intellect

When one asserts that something exists because of their experience and/or anecdotal information, when rationality points to its nonexistence, one is being exactly the antithesis of intellectual. There were other misdefined and undefined terms, no references to materials that might provide a basis for her assertions, and gross evidence of an ignorance of some of the subjects being discussed.

My conversations with these people are sometimes almost identical with some conversations I have with my sister, who has a developmental disability. Example: She likes to close blinds during the day and open them at night. I have tried over and over to explain to her that people can see in at night when the blinds are open and the house lights are on. She accuses me of lying when I tell her this. I have even taken her outside at night and showed her, but she still insists I am lying and, in fact, gets nastier and more insistent that I apparently have some evil agenda. This is what it is like to talk to some people who, you would expect, do not have the same limitations as my sister.

It reminds me of Monty Python's dead parrot skit:

No matter how dead you show the parrot to be, they just make stuff up, misuse terms, and say stuff that has no meaning. It is annoying, and a waste of time. While I don't like to walk away from a conversation, if it has no potential for productivity, then I need to learn to walk away.

It is a shame that people believe in baseless BS when there is a wonderfully beautiful and complex world of reality around them. While I feel bad for them, I need to learn that I can't "save the world" and that some people are just destined to live out their lives in a fantasy world. The best we can hope to do sometimes is to control the amount of damage such people do to the world around them.

XXX

NOTE: Two of these sites, which have been the subject of "real ghost stories" (an oxymoron) on TV, happen to be ones where I am generally recognized as the leading authority on their history. On one of these shows, the "haunting" was confirmed. I have not seen the other yet.

A New Retreat Tactic For Christian Fundamentalists?

2009-10-04T13:35:00.000-07:00

After years of weakening America with lies, misinformation, and fantasy-based policy-making, religious fundamentalists have been forced into some degree of retreat. Whether this is a linear move toward the future (for the sake of America and humanity, let's hope so) or, more likely, just another pendulum swing, remains to be seen. Regardless, though, watching the retreat and the desperation it has caused allows for some interesting observations.

Earlier today, I read a letter in a popular motorcycling magazine that referenced the supposed "God-inspired Constitution." This is the first time I have seen this phrase, and I can't help but wonder if it is part of a larger movement, since the pious aren't real big on individual thought.

Perhaps the facts about the Constitution are becoming widespread enough to cause this? Not likely. So let's review a few here to see if we can find evidence of this inspiration...

Perhaps there is a mention of God or Jesus in the Constitution? This would seal the deal, right? Well, despite the claims of Christian fundamentalists that the US is a "Christian nation," there is no mention of Jesus (the defining element of Christianity) in the Constitution. Nor is there a mention of the Abrahamic God (SEE NOTE 1).

Maybe we can find this inspiration in the Preamble? Surely, that will explain the inspiration for the document, no? Here it is:

"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."

Hmm. "We, the People" ordained and established the Constitution. Not some god. This should be considered blasphemous to any religious fundamentalist worth his weight in... uhhh... frankincense. Muslim fundamentalists realize this, and it is a big part of why we have been under attack from them. The Quran makes it pretty clear that Jew and Christians are roughly the equivalent of other nonbelievers, and the representation of those traditions in our social demographics just makes them that much more nuts (SEE NOTE 2).

But hold on: Religion is mentioned in two places in the Constitution:

1. In Article VI:

"...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Now, wouldn't this be an odd thing to be included in a document inspired by a particular god, especially if that god was trying to establish a nation based on only one of the three religions that worship it?

2. In the First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Let's just pretend that I cut and pasted my comments from above and save me the effort, okay?

To further the investigation into the case of divine inspiration of the Constiution, let's ask if the document mentions that infamously-demonic antithesis of godliness: science.

Well, yes, it does, in Article I, Section 8:

"The Congress shall have Power... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries..."

As always, there are a few interesting aspects here:

1. I am no lawyer, but this would appear to be the source of all copyright and patent law in the US (My thanks go out to the founders for the royalty check I received last week).

2. The founders expressed their intent to, quite literally, to promote the progress of science. You know science: That system of fact and reason that has given us things like General and Special Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, and lots of other things, the most spectacularly successful of them being Evolution. If the Abrahamic god hates evolution, as fundamentalists often remind us, why would it inspire the founders to promote science? Surely, the deity was smart enough to realize this would aid in the discovery of evolution (SEE NOTE 3), as well as bazillions of facts that negate the "facts" of the histories written in scriptures.

3. The importance of science to the founders is shown here, just as it is on the first coinage of the US (photos in my My Photos album).

We could go on for quite some time about it, but I would hope that the idea of a "God-inspired" Constitution has been shown here to be nearly as dishonest and/or ignorant as claims that the U.S. is a "Christian nation."

Christian fundamentalists, it should be recognized, will not easily give up their efforts to inject their wickedness into any crevice that is unprotected. It is what they do. They are very, very good at politics and manipulating power. We will see lots more of these lies expressed in new and mind-boggling ways as time goes on and they are forced further into retreat.

Allow me to inject a personal anecdote here:

Earlier this year, I was asked by a Christian fundamentalist if I was "one of those people trying to take God out of the Constitution." That grandiose display of ignorance and anti-Americanism stunned me like a taser. I don't remember what I said, and it wouldn't matter anyway. Facts and reason do not appply to these people.

If you believe that I might have quoted the Constitution out of context or left out things that would counter my point, please send me your mailing address and I will send you a free copy of the Constitution, with all of the amendments included (I have some left over from Constitution Day). Unlike supernaturalists, I encourage -- and am happy to help -- you to explore the facts for yourself.

XXX

NOTE 1: The year of the Constitution is written as "in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven," so some might argue that there is a mention of their god, but keep three things in mind: 1. The founders of this nation were political descendants of Great Britain, which determined the calendar, and we should expect such a calendar from a king who was also head of the official (Anglican ) church of the state. 2. Considering the often-deistic writings of many of the founders, the "Lord" referenced was not necessarily the Abrahamic one. 3. Consider the fact that, following the above, was this phrase: "and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth." If the writers of this document were so dedicated to any religion, why would they feel the need to add a secular measurement of time immediately following the religiously-dictated one? That was a pretty radical move, and one that I am surprised has not been more noted by those defending the secularity of the Constitution.

NOTE 2: Certainly, some desperate fundamentalist will point to the word "Blessings" and say that this indicates their God's inspiration of the document, as only their god can offer blessings, but one word nails this: context (fundamentalists hate context). The Preamble makes it quite clear that it is the effort of "the People" that is securing these blessings. Again, blasphemy.

NOTE 3: Yes, I know that Darwin, Dawkins and many other evolutionary biologists were/are British, but there have been notable Americans, as well, such as Stephen Jay Gould and George Williams. And let's remember that Hubble's discoveries of the expanding universe took place on US soil -- at the Mount Wilson observatory, I believe.

Why Are Ghosts Nocturnal?

2009-10-02T14:04:00.000-07:00

Ever notice that ghosts only seem to be active at night? Ever wonder why that is?

How is it that humans, a diurnal species, somehow become nocturnal after they die?

If "spirits" exist on "another plane of existence" (whatever that means), how come they are sensitive to the day and night cycles of a planet?

If ghosts are "non-physical entities" (whatever that means) why are they constrained by time and space (the things that define physical existence)?

Speaking of space: How come "hauntings" seem to almost entirely happen in isolated settings?

The answer, actually, is quite simple: In fiction, the setting is an important element. A good story requires a compelling setting. Darkness is spooky (diurnal species tend to naturally fear it because they have not evolved to operate well in it) and that fear can distract one's ability to think rationally, making one more likely to believe... well... garbage. In essence, the spookiness of darkness (and isolated settings) numbs your brain so that bullshit can sink in better and the purveyor of that bullshit can manipulate you to whatever ends they may have in mind (like misery, gullibility loves company).

So don't fear the dark, at least not because of ghosts. Fear people who want you to believe unsubstantiated claims. They are much more real and dangerous.

XXX

P.S. - Although it was not my intent, yes, I realize that I also explained why most religions play on fear with threats of banishment to spooky places.

The End of Album-Length Releases?

2009-09-13T11:29:00.000-07:00

There was a discussion on WNYC's "Soundcheck" show a few weeks ago about whether single song and EP releases are going to replace album-length releases. I am not sure that albums are completely dead, but the changing avenues of release, financial reality in the music biz, and the human attention span certainly will dictate more short releases.

The music business no longer has a near-monopoly on the ability to release songs or collections thereof to the public. Pretty much anyone with a computer and an internet connection can create music and make it available to the public. In such a case, there seems to be little justification for compiling a collection of a dozen or so songs before releasing them. In fact, it is easier and more reflective of the artist's state at any given time to just release them "as you go."

As for the financial aspect, it takes just about as much money to create a CD with a few songs on it, reproduce it in large numbers, and advertise and distribute it as it does to do so with an album-length CD. And you can charge more for the CD with more songs (since you are including more product per package), which helps to offset the expenses involved. This is probably why albums are favored by record companies. This business model no longer holds as much water. The growing use of downloads over CDs means that the financial justification for album-length releases has largely been nullified.

Just as newspaper and magazine articles are too long to keep the attention of today's Twittering mentality, albums are too long for many of those same people. The idea of a concept album that requires someone to apply attention over the span of many minutes flies in the face of the contemporary one-unpuncuated-uncapitalized-nongrammatical-phrase-at-a-time state of mind and general communication.

So, yeah, I suspect that the album will be going away more and more for a while. But life tends to be like a pendulum, so things may change and we may see the return of the album someday. This sort of change has happened before.

As I will discuss more in a future post, I have been working to put together a side band project based on rockabilly and surf music. Those who know me already realize that this means a great deal of research on my part. I have been, of course, researching songs and artists, as is necessary, but I have also been researching the history behind the music, and this history includes a change like we are seeing now, but in reverse.

When rockabilly was at its peak (ca. 1954-1958), 45's were the medium of choice. A 45, for those of you who never have seen them, is a small record contains two songs, one on each side (SEE NOTE). The decline of rockabilly as a widely popular musical genre in America roughly coincides with the decline of 45s and the rise of albums in the 1960s.

Rather than stopping in a studio every couple of weeks or so to record something that was hot "now," bands worked longer to assemble a more comprehensive approach to releases. Instead of several 45s over the course of months, bands started releasing albums -- more songs, but less frequent releases. This stayed as the standard form of popular musical release for about 40 years. We are now seeing the pendulum swing back.

So while the fate of the album seems largely sealed, fans of that approach can take solace in the fact that these things can, and have, come around -- the pendulum does tend to swing back.

XXX

NOTE: For those of you who don't know, 45s were named for the speed at which they had to be rotated on a turntable for them to be in the right time-frame. Less than 45rpm meant a drop in pitch as the music was played below its recorded speed. Above 45 rpm, the recording would go up in pitch (think of The Chipmunks). Album's were intended to be played at 33 1/3 rpm. And there were even 78s. A form of amusement used to be to play a record at a rate different than that for which it was intended. It sounded funny. Heck, fear-mongering religious fundamentalists used to spin records backward to try to prove there were hidden satanic messages in the recordings. Seriously.

September 11 Thoughts. Eight Years Later.

2009-09-11T14:13:00.000-07:00

As I was driving around at work today, I pondered two opposing interpretations of the September 11 attacks and their implications. I thought about it in terms of faith, and in terms of reason (you'll notice that neither of these involves the "9/11 truther" movement), both as interpretations of the events and the obvious implications of those interpretations.

I. Interpretations

1. To a reasonable person, the events of September 11, 2001 seem to have been committed by people driven mad by a literal interpretation of a violent mythology (SEE NOTE 1), combined with innovation, good planning, hard work, and a dedication to an ideology (i.e., faith). All of these things were put together to kill thousands of their fellow human beings, none of whom they knew -- or cared -- anything about.

2. If, on the other hand, you are a supernaturalist, believing on faith over reason as a way of understanding the world, you must have a different view. I will break this down into two groups: a. supernaturalists who do not believe in the Abrahamic god and b. supernaturalists who do believe in the Abrahamic god.

a. Supernaturalists who do not believe in the Abrahamic god have it easy. The problem appears simple: The victims and the perpetrators obviously believed in the wrong god(s) and they were punished for it.

b. The interpretation for supernaturalists who do believe in the Abrahamic god (i.e., an omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent god or gods -- SEE NOTE 2) is similarly simple: It was God's will. There is no other way. Believing anything less is a betrayal of faith in that god. You either have complete faith in a deity, or you do not. God sent servants to kill thousands of people. We must accept that. This is an M.O., by the way, that is very common in Abrahamic mythology, and one of the "Clear Signs" that this god uses to show its existence (SEE NOTE 3).

II. Implications

Now let's look at the implications of these interpretations of the events.

1. A reasonable person will most likely come to the conclusion that we must work to help people to stop believing in absurd (and childish) notions of killing to appease an invisible friend. This means, among other things,

a. The teaching of critical thinking skills, so that people can judge reality from bullshit for themselves (this is just the old timeless classic "teach a man to fish" parable).

b . The teaching of factual information that shows our interrelatedness with other humans and even non-humans. An understanding of this interrelatedness will raise compassion.

c. The raising of awareness of mental illness, and a dedication to finding ways to treat it (if you don't believe that the terrorists were totally fucking insane, you don't belong in the "reasonable person" group).

To a reasonable person, the above three steps would be a great start, and a positive way to respond to the truly senseless violence of September 11, 2001.

2a. For supernaturalists who do not believe in the Abrahamic god, the implication is simple: The world needs to convert to their religion, then they won't be punished/fooled like this. It is a simple answer. Occam's razor, anyone?

b. For supernaturalists who do believe in the Abrahamic god, it is even easier: There is nothing to be done. All is God's will (SEE NOTE 4). The only thing that might need to be done is to work to dissipate any question there may be of that god's will. Faith can be hard work (but it is easier than assembling facts and thinking about them in a large context).

I'll admit that this is an off-the-cuff argument. I have never pondered this prior to today (9/11/09), so there must be holes in my analysis (if we may call it that). This is further exacerbated by my anger regarding this matter (I can still remember the smell of the towers burning). Feel free to point out any weaknesses.

Eight years after these events, we haven't even discussed the deeper causes of religious terrorism. I can't take a nail clipper on a plane, but there has been no public debate of the effects of brainwashing kids (or adults) with superstitious crap that hinders their ability to act as rational and compassionate human beings. Go ahead and explain that to me.

XXX

NOTE 1: I don't doubt for a second that there are people who will question my "driven mad" assertion. In pre-response, let me point out that there is no rational (i.e., sane) way to comprehend a literal interpretation of the Abrahamic mythology. The texts contradict themselves often, rarely express ideas in a reasonable fashion, evoke negative emotions such as fear and guilt, and repeatedly threaten the reader with punishment if they do not follow the idiotic instructions they are given. One must be pushed by such things into an irrational and emotionally-driven state. The result of this is much of what we read about in history books and in the daily newspapers.

NOTE 2: The reason I say "god or gods" is because of the Christian idea of the trinity (three-in-one god) concept. This is a major bone of contention with Muslims and Jews, and the Abrahamic God states quite plainly that it is blasphemous.

NOTE 3: I am tempted to post relevant scriptural passages here, but if you have spent any time with the Abrahamic scriptures, you don't need me to show how this god nails people it doesn't like.

NOTE 4: Please don't try the tired old "free will" crap. The Abrahamic God makes it quite clear in scriptures that it determines all outcomes. You could argue that a belief in free will is an outcome intended by that god, and that is a fair argument, but you might slip into a feedback loop that could explode your brain. Of course, that would just be God's will, as well.

On the Second Day of Ramadan

2009-08-23T16:27:00.000-07:00

Yesterday (Saturday) was the first day of Ramadan, the holiest month in the Muslim calendar. In this sacred time, which celebrates the revealing of the Quran to Mohamed, followers of the god of the Old Testament, New Testament and Quran have three major reponsibilities: Fasting from sunrise to sunset, prayer, and reflection upon the Quran (the final book sent to Man by God). In honor of the start of Ramadan, and since I have been reading the Quran at bedtime the last several weeks, I thought we might celebrate this holy time with some inspirational messages from God. At the end, I will also post President Obama's official video marking the start of this holy month.

I will conduct this celebration of Quranic wisdom over the course of several posts. If you wish to follow along with me and celebrate the perfect religion, as sent to earth by God, you can either get your own free copy of the Quran at www.yourmuslimneighbor.com, as I did, or buy a copy (use the link at the bottom of this post).

It is worth pointing out that the god of the Quran is the same god who authored the Old Testament and New Testament. The Quran, this god tells us, is the final revelation, the perfection of religion. If you are a Christian or Jew, this is your God talking to you. We know this the same way we know of the validity of his previous works: because he says so.

Below are some passages that I have highlighted (with my Holy Highliter). Verses from the Quran will be italicized (These were not cut and pasted, I typed them directly from the Quran, so any typographical mistakes are mine). My comments will reflect, I hope, an open mind and an open heart, both of which my friends at yourmuslimneighbor.com said were required to read the Quran. I have tried not to read anything into the passages.

I will start with Chapter Two, since Chapter One doesn't have much content:

2:2 - This is the Book; in it is guidance sure, without doubt, to those who fear God.

2:6 - As to those who reject Faith, it is the same to them whether you warn them or do not warn them; they will not believe.

2:7 - God has set a seal on their hearts and on their hearing, and on their eyes is a veil; great is the penalty they (incur).

2:10 - In their hearts is a disease; and God has increased their disease; and grievous is the penalty they (incur), because they are false (to themselves).

If I understand the above correctly, this god chooses who will believe, and then gives those chosen to choose not to believe heart disease. This is something quite verifiable: Muslims, according to the Quran, should not get heart disease -- only non-Muslims should get heart disease. Has this study been done? If the results of such a study showed that some Muslims do get heart disease, we could conclude that they are obviously not true Muslims.

And since heart disease is a direct result of the actions of this god, I think we could safely conclude that fighting heart disease is a direct affront to this god. Therefore, anyone who works to cure heart disease, no matter how indirectly (funding heart disease research, investing in companies that make heart drugs or related technology, etc.) must be a Unbelievers.

Such a study could be cross-referenced during Ramadan. Since true believers will be observing Ramadan, then anyone eating between sunrise and sunset could easily be identified as Unbelievers and as such, will either have or will be getting heart disease.

Some might think that the use of the word "heart" is metaphoric in nature, but I would counter that God would not mislead His Believers like that. Also, having a full knowledge of human anatomy (he invented it, right?), if he meant the prefrontal cortex or whatever part(s) of the brain is/are involved in such matters, He could have said so.

In 2:65, about those "who trangressed in the matter of the Sabbath" this god points out "[b]e you apes, despised and rejected."

Wow, that's a little rough on the apes. I find it odd for two main reasons: 1. Apes must be a creation of this god, so why should they be despised and rejected? Why (and how) would a perfect god create something that is to be despised and rejected? And why the apes? If something in creation was to be despised, why that which is closest to humans and not viruses, or tapeworms, or other things that harm the pinnacle of creation? Which brings us to 2. Humans are a type of ape. If you believe in the creation of all existence by a god such as the one in the Quran, you have to suspect that the fact that we are nearly identical to other ape species might imply that the other ape species should be held in higher esteem, not despised and rejected. Odd.

As for people who do not worship the god of the Quran: 2:170 - When it is said to them: "Follow what God has revealed:" they say: "Nay! we shall follow the ways of our fathers." What! even though their fathers were void of wisdom and guidance?

I have actually had a similar discussion with some Christians on MySpace. One of these Unbelievers, as predicted by the Quran, wanted proof of God's word. Many, many times in the Quran, the fate of those who question Faith is made explicit: they will be "Companions of the Fire" and no help will be given to them despite their cries. These discussions, I have to remind myself at some point, are useless, because we know that God decides who will be the Believers and Unbelievers.

2:213 - Mankind was one single nation, and God sent Messengers with glad tidings and warnings; and with them He sent the Book in truth, to judge between people in matters wherein they differed; but the People of the Book, after clear Signs came to them, did not differ among themselves, except through selfish contumacy. God by His grace guided the Believers to the Truth; concerning that wherein they differed. For God guides whom He will to a path that is straight.

Chapter Two touches on the fairer sex (there will be much more about this later, as Chapter Four's title is "The Women")...

2:221 - Do not marry unbelieving women (idolaters), until they believe: a slave woman who believes is better than an unbelieving woman, even though she allure you.

2:222 - They ask you concerning a woman's courses. Say: They are a hurt and a pollution: so keep away from women in their courses, and do not approach them until they are clean.

The above two verses point out a couple of interesting facts:

1. It becomes clear as one reads the Quran that it is written for men (and maybe butch lesbians, I haven't seen anything prohibiting that yet).

2. The fact that atheism never condemns women for their reproductive biology or professes slavery, shows just how evil it is. This could be used as another test of true Muslims, by the way. We can pretty safely assume that men who approach women during their "courses" are not true believers (and, therefore, will be suffering from heart disease at some point).

2:256 - Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in God has grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And God hears and knows all things.

The "no compulsion" clause, while I agree with it wholeheartedly, seems to conflict with all the threats in the Quran, as does the idea that truth is self-evident. I would think that the very need to write that something is self-evident negates that claim.

2:267 - ... And know that God if Free of all wants, and Worthy of all praise.

If this god is free of wants, then why does it care what we believe? Or if we praise it?

2:272 - ...God sets right on the path whom He pleases

Again, the Unbelievers are such because God intended it that way. This is made very clear throughout the Quran.

2:276 - ... He does not love ungrateful and wicked creatures.

The fact that this god made things that he does not love is odd. But who am I to question that?

That is a nice start, for now. I suggest that you get your own copy of the Quran and read it with an open mind and an open heart.

As you watch President Obama's message to Muslims below, keep in mind that fact that the Quran makes it quite clear, as we shall see in upcoming chapters, that Unbelievers, including Christians, are to be fought, slain, and subdued (9:29, among others).

Since it is now after sunset, I am going to go find something to eat. Have a lovely week. :-)

"Immigration Reform."

2009-08-17T14:33:00.001-07:00

There are a few things in this world that will piss me off pretty quickly. One of them is when people try to manipulate others, and influence public policy, with rhetoric (AKA, bullshit). I am okay with arguments for just about anything -- in fact, I enjoy hearing various viewpoints. But I get ticked when people try to slip bullshit past me (and you).

One way people try to sneak their agenda into policy decisions is by changing names or phrases. I believe George Carlin used to point this out sometimes.

One current one that bugs me is "undocumented immigrant." The subliminal image is of some innocent person showing up at a point of immigration and goings "Oops, I seem to have lost my documents." Ummm... No.

By "undocumented immigrant," these people mean someone who came into the country without an invitation or without obtaining permission. This would mean that the "immigrant" crossed international borders without legal authority. In a case like this, I prefer the term "international criminal."

If someone refuses to go through the proper legal channels before arriving in a new nation (i.e., they lack respect for the law of the land before they even step foot in it), a precedent of criminality and disrespect for that nation's laws has been set. Based on those demonstrated values, what should we expect next from such a person and their family? Not much, if you ask me.

I hear talk about "immigration reform," but I don't hear what the problem is that needs reforming. Most Americans are descendants of people who managed to immigrate legally (SEE NOTE 1). My maternal great-grandparents and paternal grandparents managed to get here legally and assimilate into American culture. In fact, one of my father's older sisters was turned back at Ellis Island and had to return to Germany and come back later when things were in order. Were her civil rights violated? Was "immigration reform" needed? No. She needed to be in compliance with US regulations, even if it meant that she had to go back while her parents and some of her siblings stayed here. Was it a hardship? You betcha. Repeat after me: "Life is not fair." If necessary, go cry a little when you say that. Then dry your tears and say it again. Repeat as necessary. Eventually, you'll grow up and take responsibility for your own actions and not feel like you need to apologize for the requirement of others to do the same.

Despite this horrendous civil rights offense on my family, we assimilated and have become, in my opinion, productive members of American society (SEE NOTE 2). We even learned to read, write and speak English, without American taxpayers having to fund my family's obligation to learn the language in which the nation's documents are written. Those hard-working, honest, law-abiding, do-something-for-America values have carried on in my family largely because of the honest example set by my ancestors.

We have more than enough things to spend tax money (i.e., money borrowed from foreigners because we can't afford our government) on without financing lawlessness and civic irresponsibility. One ridiculous argument I have heard is that we can't afford to process and deport international criminals. Absolutely. But we should not be responsible for paying for the actions of criminals who are citizens of other nations. If a citizen of Nation X requires an expenditure of our federal dollars because of their criminality, that nation gets a bill (or gets the amount deducted from whatever financial aid we are borrowing money for to send them). There's my idea of "immigration reform:" responsibility.

Another manipulative buzz word is that we should seek ways to "legalize" "undocumented immigrants." Nice: Compound bullshit. Very creative. What other criminals should we "legalize?" Thieves? Drunk drivers? Kidnappers? Murderers? After all, if we "legalized" more criminals, crime statistics would drop, as would the number of incarcerated Americans. That's a fact, based on cold, hard definitions and statistics.

And I'll add one more thing: The idea that we need to lower the standards for immigration is an insult to those who are currently immigrating to America, legally or otherwise. Given that in most of the talk about immigration, the implication is quietly that of meaning Latino immigration, I might argue that this constitutes "hate speech" (SEE NOTE 3). Are proponents of "immigration reform" saying that immigrants from Ireland, Germany, Italy, and so many other European nations were somehow more able or willing to meet immigration requirements than those of Latino descent -- that is, that they were intellectually or ethically superior? If not, then why do we need to lower standards for them? I reject your implication. Take your "hate speech" and racism elsewhere.

Maybe I am way off base here. Perhaps my views reflect ignorance (or perhaps I am just not buying the rhetoric). As always, I am open to discourse based on fact, reason, and compassion. Feel free to enlighten me as to why we should borrow money to accommodate international criminals and accept them as members of our society with the same rights and benefits as law-abiding citizens. In all of the debates, I am not hearing real arguments, only buzzwords meant to manipulate the general public.

XXX

NOTE 1: There are exceptions, of course, most notably those who are descendants of the early colonists who showed up on American shores and knowingly and purposely decimated the native populations. It's worth pointing out that these early settlers were Christians and justified their genocidal rampages with the will of their god and his lovely son. I am not making this up, nor am I exaggerating. I have even seen this in my regional historical research. The first time I saw mention in some local historic documents of the local "savages" being removed by the grace of god for the good of the pious, I was pretty shocked. I shouldn't have been, but I was a bit more naive about the real effects and motives of religionists at the time.

NOTE 2: Descendants of my aunt who was sent back to Europe have included a school teacher, college professor, business owners, member of the military, author, nonprofit officer and other respectable and productive parts of American society.

NOTE 3: "Hate speech" is another manipulative phrase, primarily used by the same people who like the phrase "immigration reform." In the current immigration arena, it is intended to keep people from pointing out the discriminatory nature of "immigration reform."

Too Bad I Don't Believe In Ghosts

2009-08-12T15:14:00.000-07:00

I received a call from a writer (producer?) at the Travel Channel today. He wanted me to consult on a program (SEE NOTE 1). If I was as credulous or dishonest as much of the human population, I could get myself on TV. That's too high of a price, though.

The program is an episode of Ghost Adventures (or something like that). They are doing an episode on the Execution Rocks Lighthouse. This lighthouse, in the western part of the Long Island Sound, has a mystique related to its name.

There's a tireless story that says the rocks are named for a British practice of chaining revolutionary colonists to the rocks at low tide and allowing the rising tide to claim them (and take them off to Davey Jones' locker, I suppose). This story has also been told as one of local natives killing early colonists this way. In my 2004 book, Long Island's Lighthouses: Past and Present, I quoted two highly respected local historians from about 1800 that showed that the name of the rocks came from their knack for claiming ships bound to or from New York and the Hudson River. Not quite as exciting, right? (SEE NOTE 2)

I suspect that my skeptical historian attitude came through in the phone conversation. Not only is the story of tabloid-quality historicity -- actually, it's pretty safe to say that it is just plain BS -- I also have not yet been persuaded that ghosts exist. I am open to the possibility, as I am with most things, but I have yet to see any serious research that showed anything resembling proof. On the other hand, I have seen lots of respectable research in neuroscience that shows that the brain is not to be trusted too easily; that it plays lots of tricks on us that are easy to demonstrate but tough to control in everyday life.

I was invited to come along for the filming of the episode, but I doubt I will do it. Sure, it'd be nice to take a day off of work, take a boat ride, get on TV again and establish some new contacts in the media, but I value my reputation as a reliable source of information and don't need to be associated with ghost stories. Besides, a guy quoting reliable sources and questioning sensationalist stories is not as marketable to the American-Idolized general public as someone with a "gee whiz, I once heard something go bump in the night and I felt cold and got goose bumps and nearly wet myself" story. I'll probably be listed in the credits and that's about as close as I need to get (unless they want a counter-point, which I doubt).

XXX

NOTE 1: Those of you who don't really know me might be surprised by this, but I have been in a couple of documentaries, been interviewed on TV and radio, consulted on movies, magazine and newspaper articles, books, etc., been the subject of some newspaper articles, blah, blah, blah. It's not as common as it used to be, but every so often I get a message that someone saw me -- or saw me mentioned -- somewhere. Although my wife likes to joke that I am a "media whore," I prefer to remain largely anonymous (what's more anonymous than being a bass player?). If there is a cause that's needs and deserves publicity, I'll step up, but it requires a major gear change for me.

NOTE 2: My experience as a historical researcher is part of the reason I don't read religious scripture as historical texts. Humans are much better at being storytellers than historians. Even very recent events get distorted with sensationalism and various agenda. Expand that over multiple (often anonymous) authors, various translators, and hundreds or thousands of years and you end up with extremely poor resources for history. Think about all the people you know: How many of them are trustworthy historians? Now how many are quite often full of shit? See what I mean?

Why Darwin, and Not Einstein? Or Newton?

2009-08-03T18:52:00.000-07:00

Superstitionists really, really don't like Charles Darwin. I sometimes find this odd.

Darwin is generally regarded as the father of evolutionary biology, a field that has become the central point of all modern biological thought. Remove evolution from the sciences and lots of things don't make sense.

Things unavailable to Darwin when he was alive, like a massive (and ever-increasing) fossil record and the discovery of DNA, have independently shown the brilliance of Darwin's ideas. In fact, it can be argued that Darwin predicted the discovery of DNA, which happened about a hundred years after he published On The Origin Of Species.

Einstein and Newton, however, somehow escape the wrath of the supernaturalists. This despite the fact that their work, especially with regard to gravity, is much more assailable than Darwin's. Gravity is a problem. Newton's calculations have proven to be only estimates (this was verified by the work of the Apollo missions, which showed that the moon was not where Newton's equations said it should be). Einstein's General Relativity, which is essentially a theory of gravity, does not fit in with the Standard Model of physics, which has proiven to be quite accurate (if not yet complete). Einstein spent the last thirty of years of his life unsuccessfully trying to get gravity to make sense in a quantum world. The greatest physicists of all time have yet to crack this one (although string theory MAY be on the right path, but it requires a bunch more dimensions than written in any scripture).

Wouldn't the work of Einstein and Newton be easier targets for religious fundamentalists? You bet it would. Especially since "gravity is just a theory" and is not something you can see. Gravity could easily be dimsissed by these people as their god just putting things where it wants them. So why not tackle Einstein and Newton, two of the biggest names in the history of science, in the name of their god? Why Darwin? I have two suspicions:

1. Elitism. Religionists have a proven track record of thinking that they are better than others (and killing millions to prove it, if necessary). Sure, their god is better than other gods, and their culture is superior to other cultures, and their race is superior to other races, and their myths are true while other myths are just stories. It is all part of the tribal ideology. But tell them that their species isn't really that miraculous, and that it fits right in with the rest of life on earth, and you hit at the core of their arrogance. They freak out. Of course they are special: Their mommies told them so, and so did Jesus, and Jesus' invisible daddy in the sky. Darwin's work, and the mass of evidence since discovered to support it, shows that we are a part -- a twig at the end of a nondescript branch -- of the tree of life, not its Johnny Appleseed. While we have great abilities, we owe them to the work of the life that has come before us and around us.

2. It is precisely the ridiculous amount of confirmation of Darwin's work and its centrality in modern science that makes it a target. If you can convince the masses, in an Orwellian manner, that there is some sort of controversy or question about the most successful theory in science, then you can use that as a keystone to discredit scientific thought as a whole. If you can persuade people that gravity is wrong, no big deal. It doesn't fit anyway. But if you convince people that evolution is wrong, you crack the foundation of science (and the progress of mankind, while you are at it). Aim big.

The hideously dishonest irrationalists would have you believe that evolution somehow tarnishes the nobility of life; that it makes it less special. Well, I can't scream "bullshit" loud enough to express my disagreement.

For the last 36-or-so hours, I have been spending lots of time with a cat and her newborn kitten. When I look at them, or hold that kitten, I see grandeur and awesomeness that those xenophobic freaks will never allow themselves to experience (lest they become -- gasp -- compassionate to all living beings). I don't see these two felines as lesser animals. I see them as other animals: Fellow mammalian travelers through space and time who are able to experience much of what I do and have the ability to teach me about the important things in life. I am not better than them; I am different than them and have the ability to make decisions that greatly affect their lives.

If we want to progress as a species, we would do well to accept the facts of life, even if they don't massage our egos. We should continue to encourage critical thought and compassion. We should encourage people to be nice AND to constantly ask questions about the world around them.

Take a little time and think about what that would be like. I'm going to go hold a kitten. If we were keeping him, I'd name him Darwin, just to remind me how special life is.

Why Abrahamic Fundamentalists Hate America

2009-08-02T09:29:00.000-07:00

In a recent online discussion prompted by Glenn Beck's desire for people to pray against President Obama, someone asked why fundamentalist Christians hate America. It seems obvious to me...

The two main reasons for the Christian hatred for America, as I see it, are:

1. Christianity is a Middle Eastern religion, not an American one (notice how our spending on that area of the world, both in dollars and in American lives, has gone WAY up since Christian fundamentalists have taken a great portion of control of the federal government -- ca. 1980?).

2: The Constitutional ideal of LIBERTY is anathema to most religions (Buddhism being the sole exception of which I am aware), especially superstitious Middle East ones. Liberty breeds critical thinking, honesty, scientific inquiry, and a diverse array of religious thought (AKA, religious freedom). These things are bad for phony foreign ideologies trying to grab power in the US.

There are more reasons, but those two are enough to explain most of what these anti-American freaks do and say. It makes sense that Beck wants people to pray to his Middle East god against an American president educated about the Constitution: An American president who has studied the Constitution is not an easy pawn to control.

Fortunately, prayer has proven that it ranks with homeopathy, rain dances, pyramid power, Uri Geller, and ghost-hunting in its efficacy. Don't worry about the prayers; worry about the anti-American sociopaths who have been loading up on weapons and ammo since the presidential election.

Punishing Doers of Good Deeds

2009-07-24T17:28:00.000-07:00

It's a good thing that good people do good things for reasons other than monetary reward or other personal gain because, as the saying goes, "No good deed goes unpunished."

Okay, maybe that is a little extra cynical, but the current federal "Cash For Clunkers" program sure does seem to prove that old adage. It might be better framed, in this case, as "No bad deed goes unrewarded."

What the Cash For Clunkers program does is reward people -- to the tune of $4500 -- for past car-buying behavior that hurts the environment (and other aspects of life in the real world). If you have previously lacked the intelligence or common sense or compassion or sense of responsibility to buy a car that gets decent fuel mileage, you can now get a cash reward for that behavior. Positive reinforcement for negative behavior. It's like giving the well-behaved kids in a rowdy classroom detention while the bad kids go for ice cream.

Of course, we live in the real world, where Pavlovian behavioral patterns have to be accepted as a real part of the animal nature of humans. Evolution has built our brains in layers, from primitive to advanced, and those primitive parts run the show in many (probably most) humans. So you need to have doggie-bone-like rewards if you want people to behave well. Ring-ring!

Our two cars don't qualify for the trade-in cash reward, although they would qualify as cars to buy under this program. Damn.

For those of you driving high-MPG cars: Try not to get pissed off or too angry as the federal government gives your tax dollars (borrowed from foreigners until you or your kids or grandkids can afford to pay up) to people who are not as responsible as you. Take some solace in the fact that you are ahead of the curve and perhaps a little less Neanderthal than many folks.

Here's the web site for the program: http://www.cashforclunkers.com/index.htm

I Tried to Ignore This Bit of Treason, But Just Couldn't.

2009-07-22T16:18:00.001-07:00

Below is a recent op-ed piece by Chuck Norris (yes, Walker Texas Ranger, and the guy on the late-night infomercials). These days, when Chuck isn't selling exercise equipment‚ he's not kicking the hell out of bad guys. No, these days, he's kicking the hell out of the US Constitution and the ideals for which America stands.

Please take some time to read his column below. I will address some of his points below (addressing all the errors would -- quite literally -- require writing a book).

Atheists in the Capitol's foxhole by Chuck Norris
World Net Daily
Posted: July 20, 2009
© 2009

I'm a fighter for the freedoms of speech and religion. They are our constitutional rights – what the First Amendment is all about. But those freedoms don't give atheists the entitlement to eliminate or revise America's religious heritage in the new $621 million taxpayer-provided Capitol Visitors Center, or CVC, in Washington, D.C.

In July, the House and Senate passed identical resolutions, approving the engravings of the National Motto ("In God We Trust") and the Pledge of Allegiance in prominent places in CVC – 580,000 square feet facility under the Capitol where 15,500 guests visit each day.

Spearheading the measures were leaders like Rep. Daniel Lungren, R-Calif.; Rep. Randy Forbes, R-Va.; and Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., who have also drawn attention to the oversight of religious heritage in the CVC. The YouTube video of Rep. Forbes addressing the House on this matter ("Our Judeo Christian Nation") has received to date more than 2.5 million hits, making it one of the most widely viewed floor speeches in YouTube history. Some of the 19 omissions and inaccuracies in the CVC can also be seen on Sen. DeMint's YouTube posting "War on God."

Forget for a moment the fact that the national motto is on all of our currency. Forget for a moment the fact that the pledge is recited every day in a myriad of settings across this land. Forget for a moment the fact that the Capitol is exceedingly rich in religious history and usage, including its usage for church services all the way up through the Civil War – in 1867 the Capitol was the largest church in Washington with 2,000 people attending weekly. (Rick Tyler, the founding director of Newt Gingrich's Renewing American Leadership, has done an excellent job documenting the Capitol's religious history and the subsequent inaccuracies and omissions in the CVC.)

How could anyone have anything against the engraving of our nation's motto, which is above the very speaker's rostrum in the House of Representatives? How could anyone have anything against the same for the Pledge of Allegiance, which has been recited each day since its inception in both houses of Congress?

Engraving the motto and pledge in the CVC sounds so basic and reasonable, doesn't it? Apparently not to the Freedom from Religion Foundation, the nation's largest group of atheists and agnostics, who filed suit in an effort to prevent the engraving of "In God We Trust" and the Pledge of Allegiance within the CVC.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation is suing to prevent these engravings because, it says, that "both the motto and the words 'under God' in the pledge were adopted during the Cold War as anti-communism measures. Engraving them at the entrance to the U.S. Capitol would discriminate against those who do not practice religion and unfairly promote a Judeo-Christian perspective." (I guess that also transforms our currency with "In God We Trust" on them into Christian tracts?) How preposterous!

Some members of Congress who supported the measure are already denouncing the lawsuit as ludicrous.

"This lawsuit is another attempt by liberal activists to rewrite history and deny that America's Judeo-Christian heritage is an essential foundation stone of our great nation," said Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa.

Rep. Daniel Lungren, R-Calif., said he was expecting a lawsuit but called the claims "patently absurd."

And Rep. Forbes recently stated in an official memo from his offices:

This lawsuit sheds light on the lengths that a small minority will take to remove our nation's faith history from this generation and future generations of Americans. I, along with many members of the Congressional Prayer Caucus, intend to fight this unabashed and dangerous effort to silence our nation's history. Truly even our Pledge of Allegiance and our national motto are not spared from these efforts. Our Declaration of Independence states that our rights are "endowed by our Creator." If the plaintiffs in this lawsuit are successful, they will succeed not only in removing the history for which our fathers and founders sacrificed so much, but also in removing the very source our founders believed provided our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Eliminating or revising our Christian heritage seems to be in vogue these days at America's historic sites. In 2006, tour guides at the Jamestown Settlement, the replica of the first (1607) English colony in America, were caught intentionally leaving out its Christian heritage when discussing the purpose for the colony. In early 2007, the government explained that the inscription "In God We Trust" was "accidentally left off" the initial minting of the new presidential dollar coins, only to correct the mistake by placing the words on the very edge of the coins – and not until major public pressure was placed upon them did our Congress require the treasury to place the words back upon the face. In mid 2007, the Architect of the Capitol removed any mention of God from the flag-folding ceremonies at veterans' funerals and earlier attempted to remove "God" from congressional flag certificates. And in late 2007 the chaplain of my organizations discovered that someone in the hierarchy of the Washington Monument had deliberately altered its display of the capstone replica, so that the visiting public would have absolutely no idea that the Latin words "Laus Deo" (meaning "Praise be to God") were actually inscribed on the very top of the monument as a celebratory finish and dedication (see the live Fox News story from the Washington Monument).

Religious revisionism has even come to the doors of the White House, as our own president denied our country's Judeo-Christian heritage and make up when he spoke in Turkey on April 6: "We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation."

Is it merely coincidental that so many acts of revisionism have occurred over the last couple years at governmental and historical sites? Is it merely coincidental that the more modern memorials in Washington (like the Roosevelt and World War II memorials) bear virtually no religious inscriptions at all, while all the former ones do? Is it merely coincidental that the new CVC is the next fighting ground to erase any display of America's Judeo-Christian heritage?

So, could the lawsuit by the Freedom of Religion Foundation prevail and prevent the engravings in the CVC? Are you kidding? Mark my words: If a few liberal judges get the case, and we the people do nothing, it will. And then that precedent will be used to extend their next argument that our national motto "In God We Trust" is unconstitutional.

That is why I am encouraging Americans to write or call the Architect of the Capitol's communications officer at (202) 228-1793 and also their representatives.. to inform them about what they think of the national motto and the Pledge of Allegiance being engraved within the CVC. While you're at it, remind them that you, the taxpayer, paid for that $621 million facility and that you think some corner of its 580,000 square feet deserves to be dedicated to a permanent display of the Capitol's rich religious history.

Atheists might not be found in every foxhole, but the bunker called the Capitol Visitors Center has a couple in there right now. I think it's time that Americans let them know that the motto and pledge are not only at the heart of our country, but that whitewashing God from the walls of history is actually an unfair promotion of atheism and an injustice to all that is America.

Alrighty, then, let's skim over and see if I can refute anything without even opening a reference book...

"I'm a fighter for the freedoms of speech and religion."

Really... let's see about that.

"...those freedoms don't give atheists the entitlement to eliminate or revise America's religious heritage in the new $621 million taxpayer-provided Capitol Visitors Center, or CVC, in Washington, D.C."

That's simply what is known as rhetoric. Actually, here's what the First Amendment says about this: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech..." Let's break this down a little here:

1. The First Amendment deals with Congress making federal law. That's the first thing you need to realize. It doesn't apply to anything else. You don't have a "right" to just say whatever you want anywhere at any time. In this case, Congress passed a law specifying the inclusion of a specific god on a government, taxpayer-funded, facility. Not all gods, a specific god.

2. The Founding Fathers were horribly aware of what happens when a religion gets governmental power. For instance, King George was not only the head of the British government, he was also head of the state church. This nation was initially colonized (at Plymouth) by people trying to escape persecution from that Christian government (And they, somewhat ironically -- yet predictably -- proceeded to carry on the Christian traditions of religious intolerance, oppression, violence and genocide when they got here). The other initial colonization, in Virginia, was state-sponsored and included the official state religion. The Christian traditions were carried on there, too, as anyone other than an Anglican (and even Anglicans who weren't quite Anglican enough) suffered from the usual traditional Christian recipe of oppression and abuse. This carried on right into the days of the American Revolution. Not long beforehand, Alexander Hamilton (AKA "The Father of the Constitution") worked to help stop the imprisonment and human rights abuses leveled at Baptists by the Anglican establishment. Mixing religion and politics was realized as a bad thing by many at the time (adherents to the majority religion tend not to acknowledge that). If you want to understand why freedom of religion, especially expressed as a separation of church and state, is so important, study the religious happenings of colonial America (yes, the witch burnings, but a bunch more than that).

As far as "eliminat[ing] or revis[ing] America's religious heritage," there's no desire on the part of the FFRF to do that. The track record of the actions of religionists is exactly what causes people to realize what a detriment religion is to humanity. This why rationalists/humanists/ atheists/Brights/etc. encourage education and critical thinking skills, and why people like you oppose it.

The revisionist shoe is on the other foot, as we will see shortly.

"In July, the House and Senate passed identical resolutions, approving the engravings of the National Motto ("In God We Trust") and the Pledge of Allegiance in prominent places in CVC – 580,000 square feet facility under the Capitol where 15,500 guests visit each day."

Yes, where 15,500 impressionable people visit and take the engravings on public buildings as being statements of governmental stances. Absolutely, Chuck. Thank you. Please see the discussion of the First Amendment above.

"The YouTube video of Rep. Forbes addressing the House on this matter ("Our Judeo Christian Nation") has received to date more than 2.5 million hits, making it one of the most widely viewed floor speeches in YouTube history."

He is citing YouTube as a source of legitimacy. Do I even need to comment on that?

"Forget for a moment the fact that the national motto is on all of our currency."

Speaking of forgetting, Chuck: You forgot to mention the source of this "national motto." Was it the Declaration of Independence? Nope. Was it the Constitution? Nope. Any of the works of the Founding Fathers? Nope. Actually, Congress passed that law in 1956, in the midst o the Cold War/McCarthyism era. Religionists strike when their enemies are weak or otherwise occupied. Speaking of which...

Chuck, you forgot to mention the motto on the first US coinage, from 1792. It read: "Liberty: Parent of Science and Industry." Now why would you leave that out, Chuck? Maybe it is pure coincidence that you are a biblical creationist, meaning that you are anti-science? Hmmm... is this the sort of thing you mean by historical revision?

And when did US currency get the "IGWT" added? First, on coins in 1864 (notice the timing, again during a period when Americans were weakened and distracted by political turmoil). It didn't show up on paper money until the 1960s. At that point, the legislative (notice I didn't say "legal") establishment of it as a "national motto" several years prior made its inclusion hard to argue with.

"Forget for a moment the fact that the pledge is recited every day in a myriad of settings across this land."

And a horrible pledge it is, substituting a colorful piece of cloth for the source of our nation's strength (that would be the Constitution, Chuck). And the "under God" part wasn't even an original part of it, Chuck. You forgot that, too.

"Forget for a moment the fact that the Capitol is exceedingly rich in religious history and usage, including its usage for church services all the way up through the Civil War – in 1867 the Capitol was the largest church in Washington with 2,000 people attending weekly."

That's wonderful, but irrelevant. It has nothing to do with Congress passing a law. (SEE NOTE 1)

"How could anyone have anything against the engraving of our nation's motto, which is above the very speaker's rostrum in the House of Representatives?"

Oooh, this one is simple: They could READ, THINK, and APPLY KNOWLEDGE! That is generally the best way to "have anything against" anything.

"How could anyone have anything against the same for the Pledge of Allegiance, which has been recited each day since its inception in both houses of Congress?"

I have stated before, and will happily do so again, that our Pledge of Allegiance is an embarrassment and an offense against the Constitution. It needs to be rewritten to reflect the legitimate source of American ideals (SEE NOTE 2).

"Engraving the motto and pledge in the CVC sounds so basic and reasonable, doesn't it?"

The reader is supposed to offer an empty-headed nod here. Sorry, not me. Not to adopt an ad hominem approach here, but a creationist using any variation of the word "reason" has to make rational people either piss their pants or get mighty angry. What is basic and reasonable is challenging governmental actions that go against the Constitution and try to drag America down into a morass of irrationalism, dishonesty, oppression, and tribalistic power-grabbing.

"The Freedom From Religion Foundation is suing to prevent these engravings because, it says, that "both the motto and the words 'under God' in the pledge were adopted during the Cold War as anti-communism measures. Engraving them at the entrance to the U.S. Capitol would discriminate against those who do not practice religion and unfairly promote a Judeo-Christian perspective." (I guess that also transforms our currency with "In God We Trust" on them into Christian tracts?) How preposterous!"

Yes, Chuck, "how preposterous?" You left that out. How is it preposterous?

"'This lawsuit is another attempt by liberal activists to rewrite history and deny that America's Judeo-Christian heritage is an essential foundation stone of our great nation,'" said Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa."

No, Steve. It is a group of people who respect the Constitution and the "great nation" it created trying to keep it from being further corrupted and weakened. (SEE NOTE 3)

"This lawsuit sheds light on the lengths that a small minority will take to remove our nation's faith history from this generation and future generations of Americans. I, along with many members of the Congressional Prayer Caucus, intend to fight this unabashed and dangerous effort to silence our nation's history. Truly even our Pledge of Allegiance and our national motto are not spared from these efforts. Our Declaration of Independence states that our rights are "endowed by our Creator." If the plaintiffs in this lawsuit are successful, they will succeed not only in removing the history for which our fathers and founders sacrificed so much, but also in removing the very source our founders believed provided our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Wow, where do I start with this one?

1. "[L]engths a small minority will take to remove our nation's faith history from this generation and future generations of Americans." Yes, we call them Christians. They want people now and in the future to believe their revisionist histories. See the tactic here: Oppress the "small minority." This is the sort of mob-rule thinking that religionists like (but only when they are in the majority in a given situation). It might be pointed out that the "small minority" that Steve King wishes to marginalize and oppress is actually now a larger demographic group than Jews. I would not be surprised if he has a problem with that "small minority," too.

2. "I, along with many members of the Congressional Prayer Caucus, intend to fight this." Well, duh, Einstein. Of course you do: It challenges your efforts to grab power. The very existence of your caucus exposes your intentions. Guys like this lend credence to the "Revenge of the C Student" theory of politics.

3. "Truly even our Pledge of Allegiance and our national motto are not spared from these efforts." You bet your ass! If it is anti-Constitution -- and, thereby, anti-American -- every effort needs to be made to correct the offense. If you'll pardon the irony of the phrasing: Thank god someone has the nerve to stand up for America.

"Eliminating or revising our Christian heritage seems to be in vogue these days at America's historic sites. In 2006, tour guides at the Jamestown Settlement, the replica of the first (1607) English colony in America, were caught intentionally leaving out its Christian heritage when discussing the purpose for the colony."

Hmmm... I'd like to have more specifics on this 2006 action, Chuck. I doubt you'd actually want a realistic version of that part of colonial history discussed with visitors. That history is not exactly a real member-getter for you folks. Your version would probably have George Washington stepping off the Mayflower in 1492 onto American soil and singing God Bless America with a flag with 50 stars waved behind him by smiling native children wearing crosses around their necks while they spoke the Pledge of Allegiance in perfect (American) English (Actually, that sounds like a Creation Museum display... if you put the kids on dinosaurs).

"In early 2007, the government explained that the inscription 'In God We Trust' was 'accidentally left off' the initial minting of the new presidential dollar coins, only to correct the mistake by placing the words on the very edge of the coins – and not until major public pressure was placed upon them did our Congress require the treasury to place the words back upon the face."

LOL. "Major public pressure." Man, did you write that with a straight face? I never even heard about this and I pay more attention to current events and governmental matters than most Americans. Anyone want to wager some of those dollars where the "pressure" came from?

Ooh! Actually, I'm glad you brought up coins, Chuck. Here are four I just broke free from my piggy bank. Let's take a look at them:

On the top are two quarters; one from 1991 and one from 2002. Look at the top of the 1991. In big letters, at the top of the coin: "LIBERTY" In small letters: IGWT. Now look at the 2003 edition: LIBERTY and IGWT in almost identical size letters, and LIBERTY is lower on the coin. The fact that one is higher than the other is very symbolically important (SEE NOTE 4).

Under the quarters, as if the conspiracy needed more exposure, are two nickels. The first, from 1984, shows LIBERTY and IGWT at the same height and font size (treasonous in itself, if you ask me). The 2008 nickel, lo and behold, has IGWT at the top of the coin, in a nice, easy-to-read, all-upper-case serif font. "Liberty" not only gets demoted to the lower part of the coin, it also gets put in harder-to-read script (SEE NOTE 5).

What makes this all the more offensive is the fact that this is being done on a coin on which Thomas Jefferson appears. "Why does that matter?" you ask. I will allow a copy and paste excerpt from www.jesus-is-savior.com to address that:

the following quotes from Mr. Jefferson make it quite clear that he was NO Christian:

"It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are 20 gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

"History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose. " — Thomas Jefferson to Baron von Humboldt, 1813

"Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites" –Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782.

"Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and importers led by Paul, the first great corrupter of the teaching of Jesus."

"The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind and adulterated by artificial constructions into a contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves...these clergy, in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ."

"And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors." –Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

"Religions are all alike – founded upon fables and mythologies."

"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature."

Somehow, Chuck, you managed not to mention any of the above in your discussion of coinage-as-legitimacy points. Back to your column...

"In mid 2007, the Architect of the Capitol removed any mention of God from the flag-folding ceremonies at veterans' funerals and earlier attempted to remove "God" from congressional flag certificates."

Wonderful! I do hope that words like Freedom and Liberty and other American ideals are included in these things, though. When it comes time for the flag-folding ceremony at my national cemetery funeral, I want someone to read the Constitution and note that THAT is what America is about and THAT is what we veterans took an oath to protect "against all enemies, foreign and domestic" (Write that down, Diane, and make sure we put it in my will).

Actually, Chuck, I am surprised you didn't mention anywhere that the military oath of enlistment includes mention of your God. You even could -- and, I am sure, would -- have left out the fact that it was not so until about the time your god was forced onto paper money, nearly 200 years after the founding of our nation.

"And in late 2007 the chaplain of my organizations discovered that someone in the hierarchy of the Washington Monument had deliberately altered its display of the capstone replica, so that the visiting public would have absolutely no idea that the Latin words "Laus Deo" (meaning "Praise be to God") were actually inscribed on the very top of the monument as a celebratory finish and dedication (see the live Fox News story from the Washington Monument)."

LOL. This is classic. Being a fan of online videos, Chuck, I am sure that you have seen videos of Muslims exclaiming a phrase as they blow up Americans. That phrase you have heard (as have I) is "Allahu Akbar." It translates as "God is great." Quite similar to your beloved Washington Monument inscription, no? Perhaps we should inscribe Allahu Akbar on the Washington Monument -- in the names of freedom of speech and freedom of religion, of course.

"Religious revisionism has even come to the doors of the White House, as our own president denied our country's Judeo-Christian heritage and make up when he spoke in Turkey on April 6: 'We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation.'"

You know, I have read something similar to what the President said somewhere... Oh yeah, in the official treaties of the United States of America. Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli, negotiated under Washington and signed by Adams after being read aloud to, and unanimously passed by, the US Senate in June 1797, states quite clearly:

As 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; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Here's an image of that treaty, as approved by many of our nation's founders:

Umm... Chuck... Our current President has actually read the Constitution and was a Constitutional professor. He may know a little bit more about US law than you; just maybe. Yes, I know your religion warns you to beware of learned men. But you don't need a PH.D. to read. Try it.

"Is it merely coincidental that so many acts of revisionism have occurred over the last couple years at governmental and historical sites? Is it merely coincidental that the more modern memorials in Washington (like the Roosevelt and World War II memorials) bear virtually no religious inscriptions at all, while all the former ones do? Is it merely coincidental that the new CVC is the next fighting ground to erase any display of America's Judeo-Christian heritage?"

Ooh, I think you meant to say: "Is it merely coincidental that so many acts of revisionism have occurred since the Founding Fathers have passed away? Is it merely coincidental that the political rise of religious fundamentalists has coincided with the rewriting of American laws to include their god? Is it merely coincidental that nations based on religions are breeding grounds of violence, intolerance, oppression, and a lack of freedom? Is it merely coincidental that only one of the 2500-or-so-plus gods created by man gets official props in a land where religious freedom is supposed to be esteemed? Is it merely coincidental that you happen to believe in THAT god, and not others?" My answer would be... ummm... no. Asshole.

"So, could the lawsuit by the Freedom of Religion Foundation prevail and prevent the engravings in the CVC? Are you kidding?"

I don't kid about the history and future of the greatest nation ever to stand on earth. I also, unlike you, don't betray my oath to the Constitution by putting tribal concerns ahead of the ideals upon which America was founded. You took the oath of enlistment, too, Chuck (probably before it contained any mention of your god, ironically enough). And you betray it with your superstitionist, tribal, treasonist attacks on America. That, to me, is terrorism. No, I'm not kidding.

"that precedent will be used to extend their next argument that our national motto 'In God We Trust' is unconstitutional."

As you know it is, yes. Hence your fear. Again, irony: Some of the founding fathers made it quite plain that to commingle religion and government would not only be detrimental to the nation (i.e., treasonous), but it would also proclaim the religion in question to be weak, to be in need of law in order to survive and flourish. That is to say that the god and scriptures of that religion were not powerful enough or true enough to stand on their own (wouldn't that be a form of blasphemy?). You know this. So do your education-hating, fact-hating, reason-hating, history-hating, Constitution-hating, anti-American brethren.

"That is why I am encouraging Americans to write or call the Architect of the Capitol's communications officer at (202) 228-1793 and also their representatives.. to inform them about what they think of the national motto and the Pledge of Allegiance being engraved within the CVC. While you're at it, remind them that you, the taxpayer, paid for that $621 million facility and that you think some corner of its 580,000 square feet deserves to be dedicated to a permanent display of the Capitol's rich religious history."

And I encourage all American citizens to contact your government representatives and tell them that our tax money (actually, Chuck, it is money we are borrowing from foreigners, since we don't have the money to fund our own government) should not be spent trying to glorify the history of ANY special interest group while weakening the Constitution. Remind them that they are supposed to serve the US Constitution, not monied and powerful special interests. Let them know, as I do, that you won't vote for politicians who don't serve or respect the Constitution.

"Atheists might not be found in every foxhole, but the bunker called the Capitol Visitors Center has a couple in there right now."

LOL. I understand the intent there, Chuck, but it is a tired an ineffectual tool. Kind of like you.

"I think it's time that Americans let them know that the motto and pledge are not only at the heart of our country"

And we see, yet again, the religionists' disregard for the source of US power and greatness. If you took out the word "only" in the above, you'd have it nailed.

"but that whitewashing God from the walls of history is actually an unfair promotion of atheism and an injustice to all that is America."

You can say "two plus two equals five" all you want, but that doesn't make it true. Honoring the Constitution does not unfairly promote atheism. And "all that is America" begins with Liberty and the Constitution, like it or not.

Mr. Norris, I sincerely regret that I find myself having to point out your patriotic inadequacies. It hurts me as someone who values compassion and cooperation as means toward a better world, but I can't roll over and allow you to trash my country. We are both veterans, and I thank you for your service. I appreciate your passion; I really do. And I even believe that somewhere inside, buried beneath the superstitionist brainwashing that has victimized you, you may even have some affection for America. But inflicting your tribal god upon all Americans, with their own borrowed-from-foreigners tax money, is not fighting for freedom of speech or freedom of religion. In fact, you have aligned yourself with factions that have a long, documented tradition of fighting against such things, often violently.

You may believe and say what you will, and for that you should thank the very Constitution that you are fighting against. If you and your ilk succeed in toppling it, future Americans won't have that luxury.

XXX

NOTE 1: And I suspect that the Capitol does not exclude any religions or gods. If one wants to celebrate religious freedom, shouldn't all religions be celebrated, not just YOURS?

NOTE 2: We also need to stop forcing children to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. When they are old enough to decide if they want to, then they can. Forcing them to, which is nothing less than brainwashing, is a violation of their human rights. You can't get much more unAmerican than violating the human rights of children (even if it is an integral part of Christian history -- no revisionism there, Chuck).

NOTE 3: I was going to insert the line "Nothing corrupts like religion" but immediately realized that some might object, claiming that money or power is the ultimate corruptor. I would agree with this, but would point out that these two are inherent in the sort of religionist activism that we see in these situation. It is the religionists' thirst for power that is exactly what we are seeing when they work so hard to impose their religion on government.

NOTE 4: If you don't believe that the symbolism of height is important, then the next time to go to your job at McDonald's, go ahead and hoist the MickeyD flag higher than the American flag. By the time you get to ask "Would you like fries with that?" for the first time on your shift, someone will point out the importance of having one thing displayed higher than another.

NOTE 5: Is it merely coincidental that both of these changes in coinage have happened in the period when religious fundamentalism took demonstrable steps toward grabbing greater American political power? You can go to one of Chuck Norris' favorite historical reference documents -- YouTube -- and get lots of info on this period from David Domke, author of The God Strategy.

PS - If I can pick apart his BS without even lifting my ass from this chair (except to get those coins from the piggy bank) or opening a book, imagine what an educated, energetic American could do to his "arguments!"

Mixed Results In The Garden Thus Far, and a Mama Cat Update.

2009-07-09T17:27:00.000-07:00

My vegetable garden reclamation project has largely what I expected overall, although it has differed in the specifics.

I knew going into the growing season that it would be somewhat of a trial and error year, as it has been probably a dozen years since I last maintained a vegetable garden. Ridding the plot of vines, weeds, and trees and trying to establish non-native vegetable species had no guarantee of success. I did expect, though, to have certain types do well, most likely those early crops with which I have had great luck in the past, such as peas, beans, spinach, radishes, carrots and beets.

Oddly, most of those, aside from the beans have been less productive than I expected. On the other hand, some that I have not done as well with, such as Romaine lettuce and broccoli, did well this year. We're still getting lots -- and I do mean lots -- of lettuce. Although I didn't get as many pea plants as expected, those that we do have have been quite productive. We are having nearly as much trouble keeping up with them as with the lettuce.

The beans are really starting to come on now, too. The green pole beans are on a tear, outgrowing their poles by quite a bit, and the yellow wax bush beans are starting. I'll be harvesting my first pepper quite soon, and it looks like plenty more will follow. Tomatoes, of course, are doing fine. And this looks like it will be a banner year for cucumbers. My acorn squash plants are getting huge. Even the corn stalks, at least those that weren't dug up by some little monster, look to be doing well.

With me being who I am, I am never satisfied with anything under 100% success, but I can't complain about the level of success I have thus far achieved in my first year back in the backyard vegetable garden business. I have been keeping some pretty detailed notes, and will look to make some adjustments before next year's planting begins.

In other news, we took Pumpkin to the veterinarian on Tuesday. She is doing very well, and has adapted to life in the music room quite well in the little over a week since we tricked her into capture. She likes to be petted now, and enjoys a good back rub, too. We didn't try picking her up before we went to the vet; we figured we'd leave that experiment to the professionals. She cried a bit in the car on the way, but our vet is in Oakdale, a little more than five minutes away, so the stress of the ride was short.

The stress in the waiting room was probably worse -- at least it was for Diane and me. A woman was in the cat waiting room with two dogs and, worse yet, two undisciplined children. The kids, between pulling tissues from a box and throwing them up into the air, kept wanting to see Pumpkin. Unfortunately, I am pretty good with kids and explained that Pumpkin was scared and needed to be left alone (I say "unfortunately" because if I had been mean or scary, I probably would have only had to tell them once). We kept a towel over the carrier for the whole ride and waiting period, in order to reduce Pumpkin's stress (this is one of the oldest tricks in the animal rescue book).

Pumpkin handled the exam pretty well, squirming only a few times -- when getting her nails clipped, her ears cleaned, and a tick pulled off her butt. She showed no aggression, which was a great sign. The vet said that Pumpkin is definitely pregnant (we pretty much knew that), and thinks she probably has a few more weeks to go before giving birth. She also said that it looks like Pumpkin has had litters before, and is at least a few years old (you can hazard a general guess about age based on the condition of the teeth, which I was not willing to check by force prior to this vet visit).

She was happy to get it all over with and went back into the carrier quite willingly. She went right back into her cage when we got home, and has been quite content since. Here, I'll take a photo of her right now:

I leave the cage open when I am down here (I am keeping her in the music room so she dopes not interact with our animals until we get all her bloodwork done and make sure she is fully disease-free, which we won't do until after she gives birth). She never comes out of the cage, and is content to hang out on the big platform, nap and purr.

She's a great cat, and I don't expect any problems with her allowing us to handle the kittens early on. We want the kittens to be well-adapted to people so they will be more adoptable, so we'll be working with them a lot and making sure they are physically, intellectually, and emotionally healthy. If you are interested in kittens, let me know (expect to be asked lots of questions). We'd prefer to adopt them out in pairs (kitten/kitten or Mama/kitten), but we don't yet know how many there will be.

We have her nest box set, and she has already checked it out a few times. We have her on a diet of moist food and dry kitten food, and are avoiding everything the vet said to avoid in her diet (beef, dairy, fish, wheat, and plastic bowls). We are working to get her used to being handled and picked up (she's not big on that one yet).

So now we wait.

Pain

2009-07-07T13:15:00.000-07:00

Since I was a kid, I have been a bit of an observer. I have always liked to look around, take in the goings-on, and ponder their causes and effects. One aspect of animate life that has long been of interest to me, as odd as this may sound, is pain.

I have lots of experience with pain. I have tended to live a bit on the edge at times, and have paid the price physically. I broke my elbow bicycle racing at the age of five. I have had some pretty decent motorcycle crashes (on the street and on the track.... well, off the track, actually), plenty of little sports injuries, and suffered my share of damage in the military. I had two back injuries by the time I was 24, and had been run over, head to toe, by a car (Oldsmobile Cutlass). I've broken and sprained enough things, and have some decent scars from my younger days. I was diagnosed with a form of rheumatoid arthritis (specifically, seronegative spondyloarthropathy) at the age of 31 that flares up every now and then and causes a variety of issues. Aside from the two back injuries, which occurred in the span of about ten months, I haven't been too disturbed for any length of time by pain.

I noticed when I was a kid that I dealt with pain different than many other kids. I noticed that some kids would practically scream in pain just knowing that it was coming. That told me that the experience of pain was not 100% physical; that there was a brain-related aspect (call it emotional, or whatever). They actually seemed to add to their own discomfort -- an odd thing to do, it seemed. I really noticed this in fifth grade, when some kid learned that he could get reactions out of people by snapping them on the hand or arm with a rubber band. When he got to me, I just kind of looked at him. Not the reaction he was expecting. Sure, there was a red line on the back of my left hand, but it wasn't like I was going to die or anything. Some of the other kids thought it was odd too. "Didn't that hurt?" "Yeah, I guess." To prove that it was no big deal, I took the rubber band and did it to myself. I became sort of a curiosity for that. It amused people to see me willingly snap myself with a rubber band (and their reaction amused me). I'm sure some of those kids, now in their mid-40s, still think that was odd. That was about the time I started to really think about pain.

Over time, experiencing, observing, and considering pain here and there, I came to believe that it wasn't necessarily the actual pain that was the cause of the majority of suffering, but the fear associated with it. Specifically, the fear that it would continue. This of course, was pain from the future.

I have also long been quite aware of the suffering of animals. Sick, injured, orphaned, abused and otherwise in-need animals have always had a way of finding me (I write this as a pregnant feral cat relaxes in a cage not eight feet behind me). It started when I was a young kid riding my bicycle along Carleton Avenue and found a baby bird on the ground. It had no eyes. I scooped it up, wrapped it up in my Mets hat (SEE NOTE 1) and took little Tweety home. She lived with us for several years. I have assisted many other animals over the years (working as a licensed wildlife rehabilitator and an SPCA cruelty investigator, as well as doing plenty of animal rescues on my own). One thing I have long wondered about is how animals experience pain.

I have seen animals in some pretty horrible circumstances, both in person and on video. There has never been any doubt in my mind that they experience pain, and that they can have some level of an emotional aspect to it. They definitely experience fear. But I have never been sure if their more limited cognitive abilities are a plus for them when it comes to pain, or a minus. On one hand, they have a limited ability to conceptualize the future. Obviously, they do have some concept of it -- it certainly appears that evolution has equipped them with some sort of predictive abilities -- but whether that applies to their experience of pain is tough to say (the fact that a previously abused animal will wince greatly when threatened seems to show an ability to predict discomfort). Another aspect of their different brains is the differing ability to rationalize and understand cause and effect. Humans have much more advanced abilities in this respect (this is how I could, even as a kid, dismiss some level of pain from the rubber band). So, while on one hand I sometimes think they may have less of an emotional pain factor, they also have less of an ability to rationalize pain away. In the end, I find myself still wondering about how animals experience pain.

When I got into religious studies and found my way into Buddhism, this topic came back to me. Buddhism, after all, was prompted, as the stories go, by the young prince Siddhartha Gautama seeking a way to relieve the suffering that was inherent in the world. Advanced practitioners of Buddhist practice are able to achieve a certain power over pain, such as the Buddhist monks that burned themselves alive as protests during the Vietnam War (which was not a legitimate war, by the way), sitting calmly as the flames claimed their lives. I came to learn that this was largely a result of their ability to live in the present moment (SEE NOTE 2).

This present moment idea meshed with my "fear/pain from the future" idea.

The last couple of years I have been including books on neuroscience in my reading. The one I am reading now is The Accidental Mind. I won't go into the details (read the book, it is a good one), but it has confirmed my observation of the importance of an emotional aspect to pain. Both Buddhism and science, then, have confirmed some of my hypothesizing about the experience of pain (Buddhism is pretty scientific in its approach to the world, actually).

With all the suffering I willingly expose myself to, and all the thought I have put into it over the years, I think I have developed some underastanding of pain, but I will continue to watch and learn more. While I don't think I'll ever see any major difference in the way we experience pain, I believe my my observations have helped me help those around me deal with it. That's worth something.

XXX

NOTE 1: Dad raised me to be a Mets fan, and to hate the formerly-of-Brooklyn Dodgers -- I sometimes feel guilty for not having anything to do with the sport these days. I started to drift away from the sport in the late 80s as I thought that Major League Baseball was getting away from the spirit of the game. This was confirmed when the 1994 World Series was canceled, for the first time ever, for business reasons. I'm glad my father wasn't alive to see that. The game survived two world wars, the Great Depression, and other major disturbances, but succumbed to greed. I don't believe I have watched a single pro game since.

NOTE 2: Thich Nhat Hanh teaches awareness of the present moment as a central part, perhaps THE central part, of his Buddhist practice. As one breathing awareness mantra goes: "Breathing in, I feel my body relax. Breathing out, I smile. Living in the present moment; This is a wonderful moment."

My 4th of July Morning.

2009-07-05T19:34:00.000-07:00

My Fourth of July was busy, and pretty cool.

The day started out by leaving the house at 8AM to catch a boat out of Port Washington (about 45 or so minutes from my house). The boat took us out to the first-ever public tour of the offshore Execution Rocks Lighthouse. This is one of my favorite lighthouses, and one that I had suggested as a possible project to my board of directors at the LI Lighthouse Society when I was the organization's president. When it was made available for acquisition last year, no local groups applied for it and it was awarded to a new group from Philadelphia called Historically Significant Structures. I had had a conversation or two with its president, Craig Morrison, a couple of years ago or so, but nothing big.

Now that they have ownership of the lighthouse (SEE NOTE 1), they are seeking ways to assemble a board and get the project underway. They estimate five years and about a million-and-a-half dollars. I don't agree with those numbers, but it is their project. Anyway...

Let me interject a little history about this light station:

The Execution Rocks were a series of rocks just under the surface in the middle of the western end of the Long Island Sound, just north of Sands Point. This has long been a very busy area for shipping, and still is. There is a legend that the name came from a British practice pf chaining revolutionaries to the rocks at low tide and letting the tide drown them as a sort of cautionary tale to the colonists. This tale has less frequently been told as that of the natives doing the same to the colonists. Both tales are folklore. As I more fully prove in my book on Long Island lighthouses (by quoting eminent local figures of the time), the rocks were given their name because they claimed many ships.

A lighthouse was built at Sands Point in 1809 (the fourth lighthouse to be built on Long Island, after Montauk Point -- 1796, Eatons Neck - 1799, and Little Gull Island - 1806). Part of its job was to warn people about the Execution Rocks, but that was tough to do from land, especially with the inferior lighting apparatus that was standard in the US at that time.

A bouy was set at Execution Rocks in 1827, and by 1837 there was talk of trying to establish a lightship on site. As was common in the 1820-1852 period of American lighthouse administration, there was plenty of talk and confusion for years, but no contract awarded until 1847. The law at the time demanded that the contract go to the lowest bidder, a man named Thomas Butler. After the contract was awarded, it was learned that Butler lacked the skills and experience necessary to do the project. Most of the job was subsequently done by subcontractors, and the lighthouse was put into service in 1850. Even after completion, the station had problems, the most notable of which was probably the nasty waters of the Long Island Sound washing away the rocks of the artificial island that had been built for the lighthouse. This would be an ongoing problem.

When the white tower (it did not get its brown stripe until 1899) was first built, there were no other buildings on site. The light was intended to be maintained by the keepers at Sands Point. This worked for a while, but it was eventually decided that this lighthouse would be better served by an on-site keeper. After the War Between The States, when many light stations in the Third District (essentially, Rhode Island, Connecticut, southern New York and northern New Jersey) were being repaired or rebuilt, Execution Rocks received a keepers' dwelling. A fog signal building was later added (it burned down in 1918 and was rebuilt in 1920) and, eventually, radio equipment was also put on site.

The station was manned until 1979, when it was automated. This meant that the site was pretty much abandoned, aside from occasional maintenance visits by Coast Guard personnel. As with any abandoned building, time took its toll (as you can see in the photos I have posted on MySpace).

Back to the present:

I guess there were about 35 of us on the first tour (SEE NOTE 2). We had access to the entire island and the entire keepers' dwelling and tower (except for the dwelling's attic). With the safety issues at hand in a situation like that (lead, asbestos, falling plaster, etc. etc.), you don't usually get that kind of access.

The interior of the tower was much roomier than I had expected. The original stairs and landings are long gone, replaced by steel stairs and steel-grate landings supprted by steel I-beams. It looks kind of ad hoc, but at least the tower is still there. Getting into the lantern room and out onto the catwalk is tricky in this lighthouse. It was not at all easy, nor was the trip back into the lantern room and down the ladder. This is going to be a primary safety concern at this site. The view from the catwalk, which is in very good shape, was nice. You can see the Manhattan skyline, the Throgs Neck and Whitestone bridges, Long Island's fabled Gold Coast, historic Hart Island, the Sands Point lighthouse, and much more. Very cool.

We spent more than an hour on site. I went through the keepers' quarters, climbed the tower, and looked at various aspects of the current condition of the station. I had plenty of thoughts about the stabilization of the site, its restoration, its future use, public access, environmental impacts, and all that, which I will share with the president and treasurer (I believe they are the only two current board members for the orgaqnization at this early point) via e-mail this week. They have enthusiasm, which is good, and some experience with grant-writing, which is very good. They will need to build a strong board of directors (I am definitely saying no to that one) and a solid volunteer corps (which I will be willing to help out with) if they are to make any real progress.

These sorts of projects usually start out with a bang: Excited people, some early donations, press copverage, etc., but can fizzle when the real world steps in with logistical problems, fundraising difficulties, environmental considerations (there are birds nesting on the island, and one egg got stepped on while we were on the island), complaining neighbors, insurance issues, growing disillusionment, etc.. This lighthouse is too historically important for this project to fail, so I am going to see what I can do to help out (probably offer to be their historian and main tour guide, and see what I can do spread the word). The most important thing that they need to do, though, is build a board of directors that can and will raise serious money. If the money is raised, the rest can happen. No money, no lighthouse.

Diane and I took lots of photos, and I took some helmetcam video. I am still on a learning curve with the audio on that camera, so I added a live Juke House soundtrack to the video I posted on MySpace. I am still digesting the sites and discussions of the day, and will probably talk about this more as time goes on.

I had planned on writing about the afternoon and evening of the 4th, but it is late and this is already way too long. I'll try to add that tomorrow.

XXX

NOTE 1: The National Historic Lighthouse Preservation Act of 2000 set specific guidelines for stewardship of historic lighthouses that were to be transferred out of government ownership, so don't start scheming to get yourself a lighthouse and make it your home. It doesn't work that way.

NOTE 2: In the years Diane and I spent in the "lighthouse business," we made the acquaintance of lots of lighthouse aficionados, as well as preservationists and historians. I expected to see some of the "usuals" on this trip, but only met one man that I had previously met in my life as a lighthouse czar.

Another Backwards Church Sign.

2009-07-01T19:49:00.001-07:00

I am okay with the variety of beliefs in the world. I am cool with whatever religion you are. I enjoy studying religions, and continue to do so. Hey, if everyone was a rationalist (i.e., they based their worldview on facts and reason) there'd be that many fewer people to make fun of. What I don't like, and refuse to tolerate, though, is dishonesty, misinformation, and attacks on the US Constitution and the nation which it created.

Today, I saw a church sign that, although it added to the evidence for my statements about the anti-Americanism inherent in religion, pissed me off.

The sign said: "The Cross. Our Real Statue of Liberty."

I could probably write a book about how wrong that sign is, why they say stuff like that, and all, but I will point out two quick and ridiculously obvious points:

1. The attack on America, and the motivation behind it, is pretty obvious. Perhaps nothing symbolizes American ideals more than the Statue of Liberty. This sign -- this church -- says that the Statue of Liberty is not a "real" symbol of Liberty. If you want Liberty, you have to toss aside that which the Statue symbolizes and embrace THEIR symbol. As I argued in a recent post about a different church sign (not too far away from this one), this is evidence of the religionists' desire to undermine the Constitution and the ideals for which it stands. You don't need to be a conspiracy theorist to see this. Just open your eyes, look around you, and ask questions.

2. This is a lovely example of the "tell people the exact opposite of the truth often enough and they will believe it" strategy that religions rely on to survive. Why do you think they start brainwashing kids early on? They know that if they wait until kids are old enough to decide for themsleves, that they are going to see that the stories of Jesus, Mohamed, Moses, Noah, Zeus, Odin, Yahweh, Gilgamesh, etc. would all struggle to be as believable as the story of Santa Claus to a free mind. The Truth is that religious doctrine is ANTI-LIBERTY! Religions tend to tell you what you must do, as commanded by [insert deity here]. Your free will can go to hell (pardon the pun). What is important is submission (my materials from Mohamed's staff tell me that "Islam" means "submission"). Let's make this quite clear: The Christian cross is a symbol, not of Liberty, but of subservience. That sign is nothing more than an outright fucking lie.

It is not just a lie, though. It is also an attack on Liberty and on the ideals upon which America was based (SEE NOTE). It is a purposeful undermining of the power and strength of the United Sattes and its Constitution in order to gain more power and money for themselves.

Again, we are forced to ponder the question of why religionists hate America, and the answer once again is because it competes with religion for power and money, and it allows for Liberty, which is antagonistic and, indeed, antithetical to their designs.

I think that's enough about that. I am going to go pet Pumpkin (that's what we named the pregnant feral cat) and calm down a bit, then set some sleep so I can be sharp as I scoot around town in my Mini-E tomorrow (It's not exactly a "zoom," more of a "whoosh.").

XXX

NOTE: Yes, there were Christians among the Founding Fathers. And yes, some of them wanted religion in the Constitution (probably most notably Patrick Henry). If you want to challenge my statements about American ideals based on the religiosity of America at the time of its founding, have at it. I'll be happy to point out examples of why religion was purposely kept out of the Constitution.

An Electric Car and A Pregnant Cat. Just Another Day.

2009-06-30T16:48:00.000-07:00

I keep wondering when something bad is going to happen this year (Way to be positive, Bob!). It seems that 2009 just keeps piling on good stuff...

Today was the one-year anniversary at my "new" full-time job (my part-time job is my old full-time job). Today is also the day I picked up my new work vehicle: a brand new electric-powered Mini Cooper. Our municipality is taking part in a nationwide test of these cars as one way of "going green." Our municipality was to get six of these cars: Four for Code Enforcement and two for Engineering Services. I was told yesterday that the Director of Engineering Services had suggested that I get one. That was a bit of a surprise, considering that I am the newest employee in the department -- I guess I've been making a good impression.

There was a press conference at the dealer this morning, and we drove away with the cars right after that and a very brief orientation. We'll be testing the viability of these Mini-E's as fleet cars, driving them in our daily duties. I probably average around 40-60 miles a day at work. The range on the Mini-E is supposed to be 95 miles on a full charge, but using the AC/radio/GPS will probably drop that mileage a bit.

If it wasn't for the special graphics, you'd never know the car was electric just by looking at it. It looks like a regular gray Mini Cooper with a black interior. It has a huge speedometer in the middle of the dash (like other Minis, I guess, except for the little "power" meter), but the gauge mounted on the steering column is not a tachometer. That gauge shows the amount of power in the battery. It goes, as you might expect, from 0 to 100%. When the car is "on," there is a digital readout at the bottom of that gauge that shows miles left before running out of charge, as well as some other bits of "normal" info. Where the rear seats would be is where the batteries are, so it is a two-seater. It has power everything, a CD player, and even adjustable lumbar support in the driver's seat. No sunroof (darn). Under the "gas cap" is the plug-in for recharging. I haven't opened the hood yet, but opening the rear hatch exposes a very small storage area, with room for not much more than the "extension cord" that we have to use to plug in for recharging at the end of the day.

I will write up some more impressions of the car as time goes on (my task is to evaluate it, after all), and take some photos and video, but my initial impression is pretty good. It handles nice, and my 6-foot-250-pound self fits fine. It is a small car, and sits low (it is definitely lower than my PT Cruiser or Diane's HHR). The little bugger has some power. It is kind of freaky to not hear an engine, or experience gear changes. Hit the "gas pedal" and it moves; the more you depress the pedal, the faster it goes, seamlessly. If you let the pedal up all the way, it has a sort of automatic braking feel, which is the deceleration recharging the battery. In the 30 or so miles I drove it this afternoon, I started learning to feather the pedal to modulate this feature -- if I leave a little pressure on the pedal, the car doesn't have as much of that deceleration aspect. If you work the timing and pedal pressure right, you can avoid using the brakes much of the time.

One time you do need to use the brakes is stopped on an incline. It is like a manual transmission car in that respect. When the car stops, I guess the motor disengages, so if you happen to stop on an incline, it will want to roll downhill. That takes a little getting used to, as it seems odd to drive a one-speed automatic that behaves like a manual shift when stopped on an incline.

After one inspection today, I drove down the road to a job by one of the contractors I have come to know fairly well. He was just getting there, and when I pulled up next to him and rolled down my window, he asked "So this is how the town is spending tax money -- getting sports cars for you guys to drive?" He was surprised to hear that it was an electric car. I think this car is going to prompt lots of discussions as I drive around. Being a long-time motorcyclist, I am used to that sort of thing, as people seem to like to strike up discussions with motorcyclists (SEE NOTE). In fact, I suspect that my greater-than-average experience with public interactions may have been a factor in me being selected to get one of these cars. They are, after all, partly a PR campaign for politicians to get votes.

As long as we are confronting not-so-warm-and-fuzzy realities: While electric cars do not have an internal combustion engine, don't be fooled into thinking that they do not use fossil fuels. Most electrical power generation in the US (which is what is really powering these cars) is based on fossil fuels. While I couldn't tell you what the exact statistics are regarding the amount of fossil fuels needed for electric cars versus that for internal combustion cars, I can tell you that it is a step in the right direction. Breaking free of gasoline-powered vehicles is a good thing.

The after-work part of my day consisted of catching a pregnant feral cat and setting her up in a large cage in my music/computer room (she's napping about six feet away from me right now). It took a fair amount of time, patience, effort and animal psychology to catch her without incident. Fortunately, I've done this sort of thing several times before and have a long history of working with stray, feral and wild animals. Diane has been around me long enough to get good at it, too.

This little cat has been hanging around for probably a month or more. She is an adorable little shorthair, colored like our cat Goldie. In fact, she also has the extra toes on the front feet that Goldie's family (the Fuzzyfoots) has. I suspect that she is a relative of some sort, although I am not sure how that could be. We didn't initially realize that she was pregnant (I don't have a vet's confirmation of it yet, but I've been through this before), but we knew we needed to catch her regardless, as it was unlikely that she was spayed and had her tests and shots.

We attracted her with food (the best way to gain the friendship of animals) and worked bit by bit to get her closer to us by hanging around when we put food outside. Dry food is usually enough to get them to share some space with you, but if you really want to catch them, moist food is a better bait, with tuna being the coup de grace. Tuna is a short step away from catnip, and it is more filling for a hungry cat. Once she got a taste of the moist food and tuna, we started holding out moist food/tuna on a spoon, and she cautiously fell for that. I started petting her a little bit at a time, getting her used to it bit by bit (remember: patience). Of course, I wasn't just petting her -- I was checking her health. She was definitely a little underweight, but seemed hydrated enough. Eventually, I felt her belly and that's when I became pretty sure she was pregnant. A roundish, hard belly and prominent nipples are a give-away.

Then we started putting a food dish in a cat carrier and luring her toward it with the spoon of food. After a few days of her getting brave enough to walk into the carrier, tonight we quietly closed the doors on it, put a blanket over the carrier (the dark helps to keep them calm) and quietly brought her down here and released her into the hospital cage (which we keep ready at all times for wild/feral/stray emergencies).

She has been complaining a bit here and there but, for the most part, has been taking it well. We have been careful to create an environment that is as low-stress as possible, given her pregnancy. Hopefully, she won't get stressed or stir-crazy at any point. I have used these cages for cat birthing twice before (in 2002 and 2004), so I know they can work well for momma and babies.

I am going to set up a vet appointment for her for next week. That will give us time to get her used to interacting with people on our terms. Hopefully, she won't give birth before that (I don't think she's that far along).

So, an electric Mini Cooper and catching a pregnant feral cat. Just another day in my life. :-)

XXX

NOTE: This fact of motorcycling was the basis for one of the most successful ad campaigns in history: Honda's "You meet the nicest people on a Honda" campaign in the 60s. That campaign resulted in Honda's motorcycle sales increasing approximately five-fold.

Results From Last Night's Gig.

2009-06-28T16:14:00.000-07:00

Last night's gig at Bartini was great, and I am still recovering.

Stone Blue started out with Glenn playing some acoustic tunes, then the whole band going electric. They were awesome. I have known Glenn, the guitar player, for a couple of years (SEE NOTE), but had never seen him play with Stone Blue. He played well, sang well, and is also a good showman. His bassist, Greg, is real good, and shares the vocal duties quite competently. And Bill, the drummer, is a good drummer. In all, they don't really seem to have any weak spots. Heopfully, we'll get to share some more gigs with them. If you get the chance, check them out.

Stone Blue played so well that it put pressure on us to perform well when our time came. And I think we played the best we ever have. We had a pretty big audience (thanks to Mike and Scott), which always makes things better. The whole band played well and seemed to have more fun than ever. We did two sets, starting out at around 11PM. We did a set of 15 songs, then a set of 10. We played several things that we have never done live before, and all went well. (I've noticed that I using the word "well" a lot in this post. Hmm.)

Mike used his blue Vintage '62 Fender Stratocaster last night. He only had one rehearsal on it after having a new pickguard and pickups installed. What a beautiful guitar. And he debuted his new Budda 30-watt head (thorugh his Vox speaker cabinet). He also had his G&L along, which had been his main guitar the last few times out, but didn't use it.

Scott played his own drum set, for a change. Many of the performances we do involve multiple bands, so the drummers usually share a kit. It is usually not Scott's set, but last night it was.

I used both of my Fender basses: the Aerodyne Jazz for the first set and the Vintage '57 Precision for the second set. My amp rig was the Carvin BX120 (1x12) combo and the Ashdown 2x10 extension cab. I was happy with my tone and volume. The basses have different sounds, but both worked well through that rig. I had just picked up my Precision from a neck adjustment the day before, and hadn't been playing it much before that because it had developed some fret buzz, so I figured I'd go with my trusty old Jazz bass for the bulk of the work. Also, the Jazz was set up with the basscam mount...

I tested the basscam last night. It didn't affect my playing at all, and had only the slightest effect on the balance of the bass. The lighting was real bad, and the audio picked up mostly the bass (since I was standing right in front of my amp). I am going to try to dub some of the audio that Mike recorded over the video that I recorded. Our next gig is at the Iron Shields Law Enforcement Motorcycle Club BBQ on July 26. I'll have daylight for that one and I won't have to stand right next to my amp, so that should get me better results with the basscam.

See the basscam mounted on the head of my Jazz Bass?

We got home about 3 or so last night. That's a bit tougher on the 45-year-old version of me, but I did get some chores and garden work done today, and I'm going out riding with Dave tonight (I am going to try the helmet cam in photo-every-five-seconds mode), so today hasn't been a total loss.

Last night was the good side of the music scene. I am not shy about my abhorrence of many of the people, and the BS that goes on, in the music biz (even at the local level), but last night involved none of that side of it. Heck, we even made money (I have already donated my portion to Little Shelter via their web site: http://littleshelter.com/fundraisers/donations.htm). I think that will be my plan from now on: Any money I get from music performances goes to Little Shelter.

A big "Thanks!" goes out to everyone who attended or helped out, especially my bandmates (Joe, Mike, and Scott), my wife (Diane, who took a bunch of photos and drove my drunk ass home), Dave Drew (who organizes the gigs at Bartini and does much for local musicians), Joe (the owner of Bartini), Jackie (the bartender at Bartini), Stone Blue (Glen, Greg, and Bill), and the Harborfields contingent.

Time to get ready to ride. Have agreat week! And keep smiling! :-)

Last night: Joe, Me (with my Precision Bass), Mike, Scott.

XXX

NOTE: Glenn had tried out for Juke House when Mike had to take a sabbatical a couple of years ago, and we didn't choose him, by a hair. He has never been bitter about it and we have stayed in touch, and hung out a couple of times. Things have worked out great for both of us. He is a perfect fit for Stone Blue, and Juke House reformed last year with its original four members and is doing well, so it's all good. On a sidenote, when Stone Blue was playing last night, Diane leaned over to me and asked "WHY didn't you guys choose him?" Scott also commented that we didn't know he could sing like that. Again, it has worked out well for all, so it's cool.

Turning A Quick Prophet.

2009-06-24T14:22:00.000-07:00

On Sunday (the 21st) I filled out the form at www.yourmuslimneighbor.com to get my free copy of the Qu'ran. The next day, it was mailed (First Class, of course) and I received it Wednesday. I suspect it would have been in the mail sooner, but the US Postal Service apparently doesn't work Sundays for anybody.

Here's what I received:

The package included a welcome note, an "Introduction to Islamic Beliefs & Practice" and a pocket-size copy of The Holy Qu'ran.

The welcome note from YourMuslimNeighbor.com is a very brief introduction to the Quran. It lists some of the messengers Allah has spoken through (Abraham, Moses, David, Jesus, Muhammad) and advises me to contact the senders of the package if I have any questions. It also says that the "best way to read this book is with an open mind and heart," which I will absolutely do. It warns me to "[s]eek refuge in God from the accursed satan before reading The Quran, for the goal of satan is to turn us away from the Word(s) of God," but, since I as yet see no evidence of a being who could be called satan (SEE NOTE 1) that's a tough one. The note also asks that I treat the "Holy Book" with care and respect" (which I will, as I do with all books) and that I "keep it away from filth and impure places." There goes my idea of reading it in the bathroom or carrying it in a pants pocket, I guess.

The next item is a 22-page introduction to "The Basics." It starts out with "Peaceful greetings and a warm welcome" (in Kristen ITC font). That's a neighborly greeting, for sure. It includes a great deal of information, including definitions, which, as I mention every so often, are important to establish for productive conversation (SEE NOTE 2). Also included are sections such as "Our Belief As Muslims," "Learning About God (SEE NOTE 3)," "The 5 Pillars of Islam, (SEE NOTE 4)" how to pray, and more. It really is a good primer on the topic: concise, yet quite explanatory.

The coup de grace of the package is, of course The Holy Qu'ran itself. This particular one, a pocket-sized version translated by Abdullah Yusuf Ali, has a photo on the cover that would certainly make for a nice background for any meditative practice. Don't let its diminutive size fool you -- there are 114 chapters of messages from Allah to mankind via Mohamed and Ali's translation, plus a thorough index (Camels are mentioned in 23 sections!) and a list of various translations of the Qu'ran. In all, 555 pages of Allah-powered text.

These people were nice enough to send me a free book and a polite letter, so I will give them every chance to convert me. I am going to read every word of everything they sent me, once I finish up with the book I am reading right now. You can be pretty sure I'll post some of my thoughts on it as I progress.

XXX

NOTE 1: I am tempted to name some people who might be satan, but I am trying to be serious here, so I won't... (cough -- Sarah Palin -- cough)

NOTE 2: An important part of "The Basics" are the definitions (you know how I love definitions) of Islam ("Submission") and Muslim ("One who submits"). By this definition, all who have submitted to Allah have been Muslims. This must, by definition, include all the prophets prior to Mohamed. I have to admit that I never have heard Jesus referred to as a Muslim, and it makes me wonder if Christians are trying to hide this fact. One concern I do have, is that I hope somewhere there is a definition of "God," as this term is thrown around so sloppily by the general public that it is practically meaningless in everyday conversation.

NOTE 3: Under "Learning About God," we are told that "[t]hrough observation and critical thinking, we can learn about God and see His mercy and supreme design in action. It is one of our duties to reflect and ponder upon the natural world." Wow, this Islam thing might work out well for me -- just check my last two blogs, which encourage critical thinking and honest observation. Very cool.

NOTE 4: The "5 Pillars of Islam" are Testimony, Prayer, Charity, Fasting, and Pilgrimage.

Three Misunderstood Terms: Skepticism, Argument, and Theory

2009-06-22T15:13:00.000-07:00

Many misunderstandings come about as a result of a lack, or misunderstanding, of definitions of terms. Without terms that are properly and consistently defined, productive discussion can be difficult or impossible. And without productive discussions, civilization can be difficult or impossible. I'd like to look at three terms today that are often misused: Skepticism, Argument, and Theory. I have chosen these terms because they relate to things I discuss here fairly often and I'd like my meanings to be clear.

1. Skepticism is often confused with cynicism. Perhaps it is best if I allow the words of the Skeptic Society (www.skeptic.com) to explain:

***

Some people believe that skepticism is the rejection of new ideas, or worse, they confuse “skeptic” with “cynic” and think that skeptics are a bunch of grumpy curmudgeons unwilling to accept any claim that challenges the status quo. This is wrong. Skepticism is a provisional approach to claims. It is the application of reason to any and all ideas — no sacred cows allowed. In other words, skepticism is a method, not a position. Ideally, skeptics do not go into an investigation closed to the possibility that a phenomenon might be real or that a claim might be true. When we say we are “skeptical,” we mean that we must see compelling evidence before we believe.

Modern skepticism is embodied in the scientific method, which involves gathering data to formulate and test naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena. A claim becomes factual when it is confirmed to such an extent it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement. But all facts in science are provisional and subject to challenge, and therefore skepticism is a method leading to provisional conclusions. Some claims, such as water dowsing, ESP, and creationism, have been tested (and failed the tests) often enough that we can provisionally conclude that they are not valid. Other claims, such as hypnosis, the origins of language, and black holes, have been tested but results are inconclusive so we must continue formulating and testing hypotheses and theories until we can reach a provisional conclusion.

The key to skepticism is to continuously and vigorously apply the methods of science to navigate the treacherous straits between “know nothing” skepticism and “anything goes” credulity.

***

Skepticism, by definition, is a very good thing. The opposite of being skeptical is being gullible, believing things too easily. In the gullible, or credulous, state, we are susceptible to being misled by a variety of people ("snake oil salesmen," televangelists, used car salesmen, conspiracy theorists, telemarketers, etc.) and organizations (marketing firms, governments, cults, various groups with nefarious intentions, etc.). Such lack of skepticism can lead to great financial, emotional, intellectual, and/or physical harm to us, our loved ones, and society. Skepticism is a sort of smoke alarm for BS: it can save lives, but must be maintained and kept operable.

2. An Argument is not when you and someone else yell at each other. An argument is "a coherent series of statements leading from a premise to a conclusion" (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/argument), or a "discourse intended to persuade" (Ibid.). According to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (http://www.iep.utm.edu/a/argument.htm), an argument is: "a connected series of statements or propositions, some of which are intended to provide support, justification or evidence for the truth of another statement or proposition. Arguments consist of one or more premises and a conclusion. The premises are those statements that are taken to provide the support or evidence; the conclusion is that which the premises allegedly support." You can see examples and more discussion of this at the website noted above.

3. A Theory, when used in a scientific sense, does not mean anything at all like "a hunch" or "a guess." I found a pretty good explanation at http://www.wilstar.com/theories.htm:

***

A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

In fact, some laws, such as the law of gravity, can also be theories when taken more generally. The law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical expression and is presumed to be true all over the universe and all through time. Without such an assumption, we can do no science based on gravity's effects. But from the law, we derived Einstein's General Theory of Relativity in which gravity plays a crucial role. The basic law is intact, but the theory expands it to include various and complex situations involving space and time.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law describes a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena.

***

This is why anyone referring to some established scientific theory as "just a theory" is either ignorant of the basis for their claim or purposely dishonest (either way, it is a pretty good indicator that much of what they say has little factual value). For a scientific theory to become accepted by the scientific community, it must undergo "peer review." The peer review process is similar to jumping into a river filled with piranha. Scientists are always looking to either find that next great discovery or shoot down someone else's great discovery -- that's what makes careers and wins awards (and grant money). It is largely this democratic nature of science that makes it trustworthy and productive. It is tough to get sloppy, inaccurate, or incomplete ideas past the scientific community. I am pretty familiar with the process, not only because I have long been a fan of science, but because my wife has been an editor at one of the world's most prestigious biology journals for the last twelve years. I hear lots of "behind the scenes" stuff, and I know how competitive and vicous the field can be. For something to reach the level of a theory accepted by the scientific community is pretty impressive, and carries a very high degree of being true.

In conclusion, I hope that I have provided a little insight into some proper definitions, and perhaps given you a way to work on your own theories, arguments, and skepticism. Learning these definitions and putting them into use will enhance your life and the lives of others by helping to decrease the amount of BS that flows freely around the world. Defeating such BS also promotes liberty by freeing us from the chains of lies and misinformation and allowing us to make better decisions in our daily lives. As the adage goes, "Garbage in, garbage out."

As The Wrench Turns -- Rediscovering the Mechanical Me

2009-06-21T09:02:00.000-07:00

Doing some carburetor work on my Honda (motorcycle) today made me realize some things, including how our skill sets change with the passing of time.

As a kid, I would watch my father tinker with everything. He was a machinist by trade, and was always building something or tearing something apart and rebuilding it. In the 1930s, he had built a midget race car (he got rid of that and his Harley Davidson when he married Mom). I picked up on some of that tinkering instinct and, despite my fondness for book learning, I would imitate my father. I rebuilt some bicycles and generally farted around with mechanical stuff here and there as a kid.

All three of my brothers picked up Dad's mechanical enjoyment, as well. They all did a fair amount of work on cars, especially Henry. I never got too into cars. No, the (then) black sheep of the family had to be different. I had to have two less wheels. And then I traded wheels for wings, to some extent.

I spent my first eight years out of high school as a military aircraft mechanic. Most of that time was spent as a helicopter mechanic, and I was a good one. My attention to detail, obsessive level of focus, ability to comprehend written material, ability to learn quickly, and perfect eyesight were assets in that line of work. The main thing that worked against me was my lack of patience and my disdain for getting dirty (I know: odd). I really loved being a military helicopter mechanic and door gunner, but I disliked many things about the military itself (that's a blog for another day). When I left the military, I had no desire to work in commercial aviation. The idea of being under pressure as a mechanic to ensure profitability was not appealing. I had talked to other mechanics who had worked in the civil aviation field and they had remarked on the pressure to try to get more time out of (admittedly expensive) parts in the interest of preserving profit. That wasn't a situation I was willing to put myself in.

Back then, I also would work on motorcycles and bicycles here and there, and even tinker with some auto maintenance. I had a pretty thorough set of tools (see my recent blog on equipment).

These days, I do very little mechanical work. The cars go to mechanics for oil changes and darn near everything. One of the reasons I bought a new Ducati was because I wanted something computer-controlled so I wouldn't have to worry about synchronizing carburetors, adjusting this and that, etc. Just turn the key on, hit the starter button, and haul ass -- The ideal Cycletherapy program contains just those three steps.

But my '95 Honda CBR1000F developed a carburetor issue last year. One of the starter plungers (AKA, choke thingies) was hanging up. With four carburetors, a whole bunch of tubes and wires under the tank, and my desire for things dirty and mechanical well behind me, I really didn't have much desire to tackle it. I procrastinated.

Now that I have been back riding this year, I miss the chance to switch bikes every so often. The Honda is more comfortable than the Ducati for longer trips, and it has a totally different feel and sound. It probably has a little more top-end speed, too, but I have never gone any faster on it than I have on the Ducati. I also can't (won't) take passengers on the Ducati, due to its passenger-unfriendly accommodations and the fact that I like to whack the throttle on the Duc every so often just to feel that cool midrange lunge that it has. My sister has expressed an interest in going for a ride on a motorcycle, and I've heard that my niece's kids might be interested, as well. That means getting the Honda back on the road.

So a week or so ago, I went online and bought the parts I thought I'd need to fix the problem. Being me, I bought some other parts, too, just in case the problem was more than I had diagnosed. Since they arrived, I have been waiting for decent weather. It has rained almost every day in June on Long Island. I don't recall ever having seen such a rainy period here.

Today, it was overcast but not raining, so I decided to go work on the Honda. I had to disassemble a fair amount of stuff and work in some dark, tight spaces with some tiny parts. While working on it, I realized some things about the 45-year-old mechanical me, versus the 25-year-old mechanical me that did this stuff more often. My manual dexterity is still good, handling tiny screws in unseeable spaces just fine. My eyesight is no where near what it used to be, though. That's pretty frustrating. On the positive side, I am wiser in my approach, seeing the big picture and watching for any potential problems, rather than just diving in. This probably is largely a function of the other positive change I noticed: Patience. Sure, I could feel the edge of impatience when I couldn't find my 1/4-inch ratchet, but I adapted (pardon the pun) and moved forward without freaking out.

My lack of patience almost got me into trouble twice while working on military helicopters. Once, I got really pissed off about something and slammed a screwdriver into the side of a Blackhawk helicopter, leaving a hole in the skin. Thankfully, the sheetmetal guy quietly fixed it for me. On another occasion, when I was in the 101st Airborne Division (B Company, 158th Aviation Battalion), I was under a Blackhawk safety-wiring a switch on the left lending gear. I was having a tough time of it for some reason or another, so I yelled at it: "You bitch!" Well, little did I know that our maintenance officer -- our female maintenance officer -- was in the hangar. I got a nasty stare, and probably turned red as a beet, but nothing ever came of it.

The whole process with the Honda went well today, though, and the neighborhood kids weren't treated to any new and creative language usage or flying tools. The choke seems to be operating fine, now. Unfortunately, the battery is toast, so I have to wait for my eBay seller to get the new one in the mail.

Spending a little time turning wrenches made me realize that I actually liked doing that sort of stuff, perhaps because it was a part of my childhood, presented some challenges, and was something that made me feel connected with my family tradition. I almost had fun, even, and might consider taking on more mechanical tasks in the future. Of course, that'll have to wait until I clean out the garage...

I Can't Believe I Still Get These Calls

2009-06-18T18:35:00.000-07:00

I got a message on my cell phone today: "Hi. I need directions to the lighthouse. Please call me at: XXX-XXX-XXXX. Thank you." Of course, he didn't actually say "XXX-XXX-XXXX." And he didn't say WHICH lighthouse - there are 20 on and around Long Island (assuming he was talking about a Long Island lighthouse).

I have been largely out of the lighthouse business for several years. Yet I still get these calls on my personal cell phone. My phone used to ring constantly. I was a victim of my own success. The group that I started grew quickly and gained a good reputation, I volunteered and spoke at many places and events, my web site had high visitation, and my research and preservation efforts became fairly widely known (I won a national historic lighthouse preservation award in 2005). I heard as recently as last year of people still showing up at local lighthouses asking if I was around.

Oh, and I still have a stalker. Yes, you read that right.

One of the reasons I left the lighthouse business was because I was becoming too popular (as odd as that might sound). My e-mail and phone were always full of questions and - too often -- demands. The questions were fine, if they were polite (I hate unsolicited e-mails that do not start off with a greeting -- "Hi Bob," "Dear Mr. Muller," "Good afternoon, sir," "Hey Shit-For-Brains" or whatever shows at least a modicum of civility and respect), and if was not just someone obviously looking for me to do their homework or term paper. In fact, one of my favorite things about my lighthouse work was when people asked me new and interesting questions, as that meant an opportunity for me to learn more. Those questions were not the majority, though.

I got lots of e-mail about lighthouse photos, too. I always gave permission if someone asked to use a photo for a company logo, personal web site, or whatever (SEE NOTE). I would even do special photo shoots in some cases. As the photo work became too much, I started handing those off to others.

Sometimes, I was asked for travel advice. I always did my best, and even arranged to meet some people visiting Long Island to give them some personal tour guidance.

As I started gaining some popularity, though, I started to become uncomfortable with it. I always made sure that my neighbor had a larger lighthouse on the front lawn than me. I just had one little one with a solar light in it; my neighbor had a much larger, and more colorful, one. That strategy worked, as at least once (it may have been twice) someone went to my neighbor's house looking for me.

I am, by nature, a private and shy individual. I am not comfortable being the center of attention. I don't need the attention or any sort of external validation. I prefer to quietly sit back and observe the world. That's how I learn. Having someone in my face all the time prevents me from doing that. And being someone who is any sort of even-a-really-minor-celebrity reduces your freedom. I may not have much respect for celebrities, but I do have some sympathy for the loss of freedom that they suffer.

My goal for the future is to remain somewhat of a moving target. Part of that is to keep expanding my horizons, and to keep from being stuck in one subject too long, but part of it is also my distaste for being the center of (often undesired) attention.

XXX

NOTE: The 2002 movie, A Rumor of Angels, with Ray Liotta and Vanessa Redgrave, includes one of my lighthouse photos digitally inserted into the scenery. I also did a poster, a calendar, donated some photos for books and magazines, and some other stuff. The lobby of Stony Brook Hospital includes five of my lighthouse photos, which I had forgotten about until I went in for my heart procedure in 2007 and saw them on the wall. Newsday used one of my photos once without my permission, as did Lighthouse Digest. I also saw one of the photos from my web site on -- get this -- a decorative bar of soap at a local craft fair.

Adding To My Prophet Margin

2009-06-17T18:59:00.000-07:00

Being the open-minded sort of person that I am, I have decided to open my heart and mind to a couple of prophets who have long been seeking my alliance.

Allah, probably through some of Mohamed's staff, posted a sign on Deer Park Avenue because he wants me to have a copy of the Quran. The sign said to go to a web site to get a free copy. It seems pretty obvious that if Allah was not a real god, then he could not have inspired one of his followers to post that sign. So the fact that that sign is even there is evidence of the existence of this god. And it wants me to read the Quran, so the Quran must be the word of that god. I have read bits of the Quran, but I don't have my own copy. Allah, being all-knowing, knew that and had that sign posted in the very place I would be that day. Coincidence? Only to an infidel. Creepy, huh?

Allah wants me to spread the word, so go to http://yourmuslimneighbor.com/ to get your copy.

Mohamed isn't the only prophet who has me on a mailing list, though. A while back, Jesus sent me a letter. I think I wrote about that at the time. I didn't respond right away. Jesus has probably been wondering why -- I envision him pacing back and forth on some ocean, just off the beach (do you think the big waves affect his balance?), contemplating whether to follow up with an e-mail or text message. Well, I just wasn't ready at the time to receive all the money and such that he was promising. Miracles have tax consequences, you know. I work two jobs, get royalties from writing, have some interest income... throwing money from miracles into the mix could really screw up my TurboTax filing. How does one report miracle income? Is it considered royalties from my writings on religion? Is it a gift? Do I get a 1099? Do I need to submit quarterly estimated taxes?

Well, I decided to upgrade my TurboTax program, and I think I am now ready to receive my promised miracle riches. It's not that I need it, but if I don't take it, some unsavory type who doesn't give as much to charity as me just might take it. And that would be unethical.

So I sent the reply card back to Jesus (Well, not actually to him, that would be crazy. He has people.). And I checked off the box to get my "Church Blessed Deuterotomy 8:18 Prosperity Cross." It'll be tough to sleep knowing that my cross and its promised riches will be on the way soon.

I have scanned the letter from Jesus and made a special folder on my MySpace page (it's the folder with the rays of sunshine converging upon it). Hopefully, you can read it and gain some faith from it. Although, if you didn't get the letter, then maybe, unlike me, you have been Judged unworthy.

When I get a response from the offices of Mohamed and Jesus (in these tough economic times, they should consider consolidating, and maybe downsizing a few of those high-maintenance televangelists), I'll spread the word by posting more on my blogs. And I will post photos, too.

Some Personal Updates

2009-06-13T15:56:00.000-07:00

After work I met Diane and Judy for dinner, and planned to get some riding in tonight. But since it is raining out (for the 12th day straight), now might be a good time to post some personal updates for those far-away friends who only know what I've been up to from reading my online blabberings...

The garden is doing fairly well, except for the spinach, and the peas are a bit of a disappointment. But we've been picking Romaine lettuce. The radishes, carrots, broccoli, mixed lettuce, beets, tomatoes, peppers, green beans, wax beans, and cucumbers seem to be on schedule. I am also trying a little experiment with the old Iroquois "three sisters" method, which combines plantings of corn, beans and squash. The idea is that the corn provides a pole for the beans to climb, the beans provide nitrogen for the corn and squash and help stabilize the stalks, and the squash vines keep weeds down and moisture in the ground. The corn is tall enough now for me to plant the beans and squash.

The band is doing well. Juke House is progressing nicely. One of major changes we have made is to lower our volume, which allows Joe to sing more and yell less. Mike's guitar tone is consistently great, and he has been taking lessons, which is making his already-impressive playing that much better (I sometimes get distracted when we are playing because I'm listening to what he's doing). Scott and I have been developing into a pretty solid rhythm section -- Scott practices more, now that he has a set of electronic drums for practicing without waking the neighbors, and I have been working on learning and applying more theory. I can't overplay in this band, but I am looking to add little bits of flavoring here and there.

Juke House is my only band right now, as my responsibilities in life weren't allowing me to give 100% to Triple Seven. It was a tough decision, but I wasn't able to prepare well enough and I don't like performing below optimum levels. Hopefully, I'll get to see them play live soon.

We had hoped to play live with Juke House once a month and that's about the pace we are keeping right now. We played May 23 and June 7, and have performances coming up on June 27, July 26, August 1, August 28, and September 19. We'll probably take a break then, as Autumn is a super-busy time of year for Mike and Scott.

We have official Juke House T-shirts now, available at: http://www.zazzle.com/juke+house+gifts. They are high quality -- I have tested them personally onstage, on the motorcycle, and napping on my recliner.

Among the biggest supporters of Juke House lately have been Dave Drew, Karl "Big Daddy" Reamer, and my friend Gail Roach.

I have several writing projects going on right now...

1. I am in the process of tearing apart and slashing the Wobbles manuscript to reassemble in shorter form. I need to get from about 2500 words or so down to around 1000 for the book I want to do. Figuring out where in Wob's life to start this book is the tough part. I will probably start with his first lighthouse adventure. If there is a demand in the future, I can do a prequel about his early days. I'd like this book to be out in 2012.

2. I am working with one of my brothers on a history book about the Studebaker car company. I need to get a query out to the publisher within the next couple of weeks. This book should be out in 2010.

3. I am working on a piece of historical fiction with a woman whose father was a lighthouse keeper. The story won't be totally about life at the lighthouse. The story line actually is based upon some other major historical happenings. This historical fiction book will tie world history, regional history, human interest, and a bit of a "coming of age" thing. I was surprised to be chosen by her over a bunch of people, including English professors and other people with advanced degrees. She thought my historic research and preservation background, writing style, and interest in the human side of history fit the story she wants to tell. We have set two years for the writing, then we have a big marketing thing ahead of us. I am in research mode right now, trying to understand the region and the history being made at the time. I would expect this book to be out around 2012-2014.

4. As I mentioned in an earlier blog, I am going to write a book about my sister's life and how her mental retardation has affected her, me, and the world around us. I have asked my mother to assemble as many old photos of Judy as possible, and I have begun asking her questions about Judy's childhood. Since Mom is now 90, there's a limit to how long I can gather information from her -- thankfully, her mind is still sharp and she remembers lots of stuff. I don't expect to publish this book for years, though. I'd prefer to wait until Judy has passed away and have it be a memorial to her (and keep her from any unwanted attention), but she's in great health at 66 and there's a fair chance she could outlive me, so I have decided to step it up a bit.

5. I have the cemetery research on a bit of a backburner right now, since I have more pressing book projects. I may look to do an article about the subject sometime this year, though.

This year has thus far not been great for motorcycling. The weather has been sub par, and my health was a concern through the winter and pretty much up until early May. I have been getting out on the Ducati here and there, and we have a ride planned for tomorrow morning -- if the weather holds up. The Honda needs some carburetor work. I have ordered the parts and hope to get that done by the end of the month. I also bought a new helmet (which should be here Monday). It is an HJC FS-10. It has a second visor inside the helmet, so you can have a clear visor on the outside, wear glasses (which I do now), and just slide down the inner smoked visor if the sun is out. I got it in plain silver (like the old Simpson that saved my life twice) and will personalize it with some decals.

I've been at my building inspector job for almost a year now, and that is going well. Plus I am still working Thursday nights and Saturdays designing and selling kitchens and baths. The economy has made that job a bit tougher, but the company is hanging in there.

I made two major New Year's resolutions this year, and feel -- at the halfway point -- that I am doing well with them. Resolution 1: Stay home more. I have a tendency not to sit still, and it keeps me from spending enough time at home. I have trimmed my extracurricular schedule, have reclaimed my vegetable garden, and have even been cooking some meals from scratch. This resolution has also allowed me to make progress on my other resolution. Resolution 2: Become smarter. I wanted to end 2009 appreciably smarter than I started it. I have concentrated on my critical thinking skills, recent developments in science, and the workings of the brain/mind. Reading about the workings of the brain has been especially helpful. The brain is the tool that we use to guide our journey through spacetime and, like any tool, knowing more about it helps one to use it better. Overall, my level of study has been higher, and the result has been that I see things much more clearly. I have also stepped up my old religious studies a bit, partly because of conversations about such things with one of my friends. So far so good with the 2009 resolutions.

I think that covers much of what has been going on lately. It's not terribly exciting, but it keeps me out of trouble.

My Two State Solution

2009-06-09T13:59:00.000-07:00

All this talk in the news of a "two state solution" has had me thinking that it is a very good idea... For America.

Instead of forcing those fundamentalist Christians who want a "Christian nation" to be traitors to America, why not just give them what they want? It could be -- not dissimilar to the good old Confederate States of America of days gone by -- The Christian States of America.

I think it is a great solution. The USA gets to keep its revolutionary form of government, and the god-fearing citizens of the CSA get to go back to a more traditional sort: a monarchy, since that is the divinely chosen form of government ("If it's good enough for heaven, it's good enough for the CSA.").

I have worked out some of the arrangements...

Currency: The dollar can remain the currency for both nations. We can keep Liberty on our money, they can keep In God We Trust on theirs. That's a much better arrangement, since fundamentalist religion and freedom are anathema, anyway.

They will need a new Constitution. But that is simple: Slap a second label on the bible. That way, there will be a Constitution in every motel room (which will be handy for the Catholic priests with little boys and the televangelists with hookers). That will make for an involved citizenry; something that every nation should have. And they can leave our Constitution, with absolutely no mention of any gods, alone.

We should, upon the formal split, elect a body of scientists, historians, ethicists, lawyers (funny to see ethicists and lawyers mentioned in the same sentence, huh?) and logicians to review US Code and make sure that everything in there is fact-based, compassion-based, and reasonable. Freedom of religion is already spelled out in the Bill of Rights, but I, for one, would like to see one of the first acts of the new Congress be a resolution declaring a renewed dedication to freedom of religion and conscience in the US.

They will need a government. Pretty simple. 1: No legislature is necessary. The Law has already been handed down and put in place. 2. A judiciary will be necessary to interpret the finer points of the application of biblical law (e.g., What specific acts of defiance justify stoning children to death? If a woman is raped by several men at once, which one must marry her? Stuff like that.). 3. I am not sure if an executive will be needed, as the head honcho is already in place for them. He'll just need spokespeople, which he already has on TV. So that is pretty much set.

Both nations will need flags. Ours can be pretty much the same, with the number of stars adjusted (Personally, I'd love to add the word "Liberty" somewhere). I am not sure what they might choose, but you can be pretty sure it'd be funny.

Our Pledge of Allegiance can revert back to its original, patriotic form, without having to defer to any supernatural power. (Personally, I'd love it to be: "I voluntarily pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America, and to the Ideals for which it stands, with Liberty, Justice, Dignity, and Compassion for all.)

While the US will probably continue to struggle with healthcare issues, the CS will have no such problems. Faith Healing and prayer will suffice. Consider it a sort of "single provider" system.

What geographic region will make up this new nation? I figure we can work something out that will be approximately what we now call The Bible Belt, which is pretty much synonymous with the old CSA/slave states (coincidence?).

There are lots of little things to iron out, of course. As they say, "the devil is in the details." But that's not a problem for a nation that is based on the inerrant word of one of the thousands of gods who have existed throughout human history, is it?

There are, I admit, some pitfalls to the idea.

1. They will inevitably end up in a civil war, as they disagree which Christianity is right and whose version should be the one used by police for enforcement and by the courts for interpretation. This was happening in the American colonies and early states (which is why the Constitution was written the way it was) and I see no evidence that it would be any different now. For this reason, I think we will need to immediately establish a treaty establishing our neutrality in matters involving gods/doctrines/dogmas/etc.

2. The new nation will immediately be a human rights concern on the world stage. Travelers to the CS will need to be warned that they could be considered enemies of the CS if they associate with any second-class citizens (which will be, by definition, anyone that does not prescribe to the official religious doctrine). In fact, any foreigner should expect to be considered a minion of some demonic force (if they were on the side of the right God, they'd already be CS citizens, after all). Once the civil war is over, the oppression of the "wrong" Christians will be a huge human rights issue.

3. As a result of 1 and 2, the US will need to prepare for a flood of refugees. Theocracies have a solid record of abusing their citizens, and we will need to expend resources to help these people. In fact, our initial treaty might well include a clause that allows for payments from the CS to the US for any refugees we take in. These payments can help the CS refugees quickly settle in and become productive citizens of our nation without taking resources away from our own citizens.

4. It will be expensive to move any science-related facilities that are in soon-to-be CSA states to the US. The CS will have no need for such facilities (they already have all the answers they need), so the equipment and staff will need to be relocated before the properties are turned into churches, bible schools, bible camps, and creationist "museums." Some of the cost of this relocation can be recouped by the collection of taxes from US churches (just as we tax other businesses), the technological and innovative edges the US will gain from a dedication to science and industry (Remember the motto on the first US coin: "Liberty: Parent of Science and Industry"), and the lower criminal system costs we will have to incur.

There are lots of things to iron out, but it can be done, God willing.

Thanks for your time. And God Bless the CSA.

Atheists Need To Be Careful What They Wish For.

2009-06-08T17:47:00.000-07:00

Many atheists/humanists/rationalists/etc. like to envision a world where everyone relies on fact and reason to make their decisions about life. But that might not seem like a utopian idea, if they think it through.

Right now, non-supernaturalists enjoy a documented superiority in ethics and education (among other things). Some of that, though, is the result of a sort of natural selection. In order to be free from the need for invisible friends in a world where invisible friends and the stories written about them are largely accepted, one needs a certain level of courage, fortitude, intelligence, self-discipline, self-responsibility, and morality to stand for act and freason.

Meanwhile, the morally and intellectually lazy folk are naturally more likely to use supernatural crutches. If, however, the realization of the silliness and fallacy of supernaturalism ever gains widespread acceptance, then those feeble-minded, weak-willed supernaturalists are going to screw up the stats.

It is very simple: Exceptional people create exceptional results (and statistics), while common folk create common results. If/when the common folk come to reject supernaturalism, they are going to lower the standards of the rationalist demographic. Yes, overall, things will be better in the world, but that air of statistical superiority that reasonable people currently possess will no longer be tenable.

Testing. Testing. Is This Thing On?

2009-06-07T15:26:00.000-07:00

I just finished changing the keyboard on my Dell Inspiron laptop. This is the second time I have done so on the nearly-four-years I have had it.

No, it's not Dell's fault. The first time I spilled iced tea on it (Duh) and my friend Alfred, who is a computer tech for NASA, changed the keyboard while he was here visiting. This time, it was due to the fact that I left the laptop open on the kitchen table and one of the cats thought the keyboard looked like a scratching pad.

This isn't the first time they've done this. I have been without a couple of keys for probably over a year, but they were keys I didn't use anyway. The last time they did it, I was able to get the necessary keys back in place, even if the A required a little extra shove for a while. This time, the A was a problem again, and the S kept popping back off. So I went to eBay and got a new keyboard. Pop a cover, remove two screws, disconnect the connector, pull the keyboard, and then do that in reverse with the new keyboard and all is well. Very simple and inexpensive.

And it apparently works, or else this space would be blank.

This morning, Juke House played at the annual Hounds on the Sound fundraiser for Save-A-Pet. The weather was perfect for playing outdoors.

Joe made me a bit nauseous by showing up just before show time. If anyone is MIA with a half-hour or less to go, I get freaky. I like to be prepared, and there are usually a few things to talk over before playing.

But we went on in time and played well. I felt great and had a blast, even if Diane says I looked annoyed the whole time -- It must be that stoicism.

I used the Carvin LB20 and she felt like butter today. It's funny how different instruments feel right on different days. I played through a Behringer head and Hartke 4x10 cabinet that one of the sounds guys had brought along. I didn't touch the tone or volume knobs and felt like I had great tone. I was enjoying the sound. I could have gone on playing for hours.

Scott said he was having trouble hearing the rest of the band, even with a monitor back by him. That's a rough thing to deal with, but he handled it well. I thought we were pretty tight.

Last year, there was a doggie fashion show onstage between the previous band and us, which was pretty weird to experience as we set up. This year, they paused us after the opening song (Linus & Lucy -- the theme from Charlie Brown) so they could do the blessing of the animals. The pastor did his blessing from my side of the stage and then, as he left the stage, turned and gave me a thumbs-up. Maybe he reads my blogs on religion. Diane got some photos of the pastor with me behind him. One of them is funny -- check my Music photo album on MySpace.

We played Voodoo Woman today, which I dedicated to the memory of Koko Taylor. It is one of my favorite Koko Taylor songs (Susan Tedeschi's version is blasphemy).

Just as we were done playing, some guy yelled "Bass solo!" I talked to him after I broke my equipment down. He was, as you might expect, a bass player. We talked equipment, and I let him check out my Carvin. He may buy my Carvin five-string, which I have been not using. I enjoy talking to my bassist brothers. In a world filled with guitarists, we need to stick together.

It was a fun day. This the thrid year in a row that Karl "Big Daddy" Reamer has asked me to play at this event, and I am very grateful. I have a long history of working with animals and enjoy spending time among my four-legged friends (especially the beagles).

Speaking of playing for charity, I never did a blog on the All Peace All Night event from a couple of weeks ago. We raised over $1000 for Suffolk County United Veterans, and they were quite appreciative.

I spent that entire day, from about 2PM to 2AM, at Bartini. Juke House, as one of about 20 bands performing, played about 6 songs or so that night. I used my Fender Aerodyne Jazz Bass, with the pickguard with military stickers on it, through the house amp. It wasn't loud enough, though, and the recordings have me way down in the mix. I debuted a new necklace with a peace sign on it, which I have been wearing since (right after that, my Kwan Yin pendant was showing such signs of years of abuse that I replaced it with one of a Buddha on a bodhi leaf). Big thanks go to Dave Drew for arranging that whole event.

So it was good to play two gigs for charity in two weeks. Joe, Scott, Mike and I enjoy doing that. It helps those in need, and it allows us a fair amount of freedom in our set lists, since we're not concerned with the commercial aspect of music. We have agreed that whatever money we may get from playing will go back into the band or to charity.

Also, I must thank Gail for attending both performances. Today, she brought her son, Daniel, who is a cool kid. All Peace All Night was the first time she had seen us and she said, afterward, "You guys are really good!" I asked her not to sound so surprised. :-)

I'm going to look at the day's photos and post some on MySpace, and later on the Juke House web site: www.JukeHouseBlues.com . More soon...

A Few Home Safety Tips

2009-06-05T13:56:00.001-07:00

A couple of problems at an inspection I did today reminded me how many dangerous home situations there probably are out there, just due to a lack of available knowledge. Since I don't want any of my friends -- or even non-friends -- to suffer an unnecessary tragedy, I figured I'd pass along a few things you might not have thought of. These are based on New York State codes.

Smoke detectors are an obvious one. Have at least one in each bedroom, one outside each sleeping area (in the hall, etc.), one in any area where there may be an open flame (basement if you have fuel-fired appliances, kitchen if you have a gas stove. etc.). It is best if they are hard-wired and interconnected, so if one goes off, they all activate.

Carbon monoxide detectors. One on any floor where there are sleeping areas, and one in the basement if you have fuel-fired appliances (your electrician may tell you this is not necessary, because it is not in the National Electrical Code, but it is in the New York State codes and the law requires that the more restrictive safety code applies.

Thumb locks on the inside of doors. Don't have a lock that requires a key to open from the inside. If there is a fire, you and your family will not have time to find the key.

If your basement is finished, have two ways out of the area. It could be two doors, or a door and an egress window (that is a window large enough to open fully and get out through -- you'll probably need to dig a window well and maybe put in a small ladder).

If you have stairs that are four steps or 30" high or more, have a railing on at least one side.

If you have an attached garage, make sure there is a fire barrier between the garage and the house, including 5/8" sheetrock and a self-closing fire door. I have seen several home rebuilds because of fires that started in the garage.

If you open the walls up to do any work, make sure you fireblock the walls between floors before you close them back up. You can use firecaulk in the holes from electrical wires, plumbing, ductwork, etc., and if your house has balloon construction (it'd probably have to be pretty old), put a vertical 2x4 (or whatever size your wall studs are) at the top and bottom of each floor to prohibit the spread of any fires that might get into the walls.

Of course, you should also develop an emergency escape plan for all the inhabitants of the house (including the pets) and make sure everyone understands what they should do in an emergency.

If you live in New York State, your local building or housing department can provide more specific details about the above.

Drop me a line if you'd like more info.

I know this isn't as controversial, philosophical, or provocative as most of my ramblings, but you can't read my blogs, articles, or books if you are dead. So stay safe.

Bad News In The Blues World

2009-06-03T18:45:00.001-07:00

One of the last of the blues singers from the heyday of the blues in Chicago died today. Koko Taylor was 80, and died from complications from surgery.

As I have often written, I am not terribly fond of most singers, and generally prefer instrumental music. Koko was one of the exceptions, though -- if you told me I had to be stranded on an island and only listen to singers, she'd be right up there with Howlin' Wolf, Dean Martin, and Bing Crosby for me (and maybe Willie Dixon and Bon Scott).

The interviews of her that I have heard, as well as the things I have read in magazines and blues history books, led me to believe that she lacked the diva attitude and lack of respect for musicians that plagues so many singers and helps drag the music business down. She was a regular person that made it in a world where the cards were stacked against her, in a business filled with liars, cheats and backstabbers. She was, and is, an inspiring figure.

Koko's passing leaves the blues community, and America, a little less talented and a little less classy. My heart goes out to her family and friends.

Perhaps The Best Birthday Yet

2009-05-31T18:57:00.000-07:00

At around 1:30 this afternoon, I completed my 45th circle around that star we call The Sun (SEE NOTE 1). It was probably my best of these lap-ending days.

Today wasn't a great birthday because I got attention or money or gifts. I am not big on celebrating birthdays, as I have probably mentioned before. No, today was great partly for the fact that few of the fifty-plus people I hung out with today remembered my birthday.

You see, me and my siblings and siblings-in-law decided to have my mother's 90th birthday party on my birthday. Mom's birthday is May 29th, mine the 31st. Sunday afternoon seemed to be the day that would work best, so we shot for it. We invited over 50 people, and didn't tell Mom about it until about a week ago. The wives did most of the planning, of course -- the boys in the family inherited our father's lack of party hosting/planning sense.

We had just under 50 people at the party. All five of her kids, all five of her grandkids, both of her great-grandkids, several of her nephews and nieces, and a bunch of other people, both related and unrelated. All of Mom's brothers are dead, and her one remaining sister hasn't spoken to the family in thirty or so years (no one seems to know why, aside from the fact that she was always pretty much considered to be a nasty bitch). My Aunt Mary was there, who, I believe, is the last of my mother's remaining sisters-in-law -- she sat next to Mom, with my sister on the other side.

It was cool to see my oft-curmudgeonly mother smiling pretty much the whole afternoon. She almost cried when the whole room sang "Happy Birthday" to her -- "almost" is a big deal in my stoic German family -- and she nearly blew out all the "HAPPY BIRTHDAY" shaped candles in one shot. She had to use a second breath to get the last two. Not bad for a woman who didn't think she'd make it to 65 (SEE NOTE 2).

The weather was at first overcast, but the sun came out in the afternoon, adding a cheerier lighting effect in the restaurant at the marina in Center Moriches. After the party, some of us went over to my brother's house in East Moriches, where Mom lives, and hung out. Mom opened her gifts and presents -- she had forgotten to in all the excitement at the restaurant, and she hung out talking to several of us some more.

Today was the first time I met my niece's two kids. My niece moved back to Long Island with her kids a couple of months ago, after having her second marriage go bad, and I had not yet found the time to go see them (SEE NOTE 3). The girl, who turned 12 today -- same birthday as me -- and her younger brother both seemed to take to me okay, and I probed their little minds to see what kind of stuff they do and don't like. I am already working on some cool stuff to do with them this summer.

Eventually, I gathered up my sister and headed home (Diane had already gone home). When I got home, Dave and I went for a ride. We decided to stop out and let him say Happy Birthday to Mom. She likes Dave -- which leads me to believe she is losing some long-term memory. ;-) She was thrilled to see Dave, and told him that she had had "the best day of [her] life." That's a lot of days when you're 90, so that was quite a feat. She wanted to show Dave some of the photos that were on display at the party, going as far back as her high school graduation photo (Bay Shore, Class of '37). She said she was still excited from the day and didn't think she'd be able to get to sleep tonight. That poor old woman is going to be tired on Monday, that's for sure.

I did get a few cards and such for my birthday. My mother-in-law (who lives in Florida, with most of the rest of my in-laws) topped the funny gifts this year... Each year, she gets a me a gift card to either Lowe's or Home Depot. I always use some of the money on the card to buy marigolds -- partly because I really like marigolds, and partly because my mother-in-law hates marigolds. I believe the first time I did that she told Diane I was out of the will. This year, she out-smart-assed me and sent not only a gift card to Lowe's but also a packet of marigold seeds. Chalk one up for "that woman," as I call her. She has upped the ante, indeed. The seeds gave me a great idea, though. I was unsure what to do with one of the flower beds in the side yard. Now, I am going to plant it in honor of our mothers, including lots of marigolds.

On the ride back home from seeing Mom tonight, riding my Ducati alongside an old friend at the end of a day that my mother considers perhaps her best, and having spent some time with my grand-niece and grand-nephew, I figured that there's a good chance that this was my best birthday ever. What could be better than hanging out with family and friends on your birthday and having your 90-year-old mother get all the attention and have perhaps the best day of her life? It'll be tough to beat this birthday for me.

XXX

NOTE 1: I find it not at all coincidental that we tend to talk about our star as if it is the only one around which planets revolve in the same way that some people speak of God as if it was the only god ever invented. Both result from a rather small worldview that is increasingly untenable and dangerous in this smaller world in which we live. By the way, when I say "smaller," I do mean it literally. In the four-dimensional world in which we live, the ability to get to other parts of the world faster than in the past makes the world literally smaller.

NOTE 2: Mom's mother died young, when my mother was about 11, so I think that is why my mother has used the phrase "next year, if I am still around" for as long as I can remember. One story my mother talks about now, but didn't in years past, is that when I was born -- Mom was 45 years and 2 days old -- one of the first things she thought of was that she hoped she'd be alive until I was at least 16 years old.

NOTE 3: When my niece and her kids moved here, I decided I needed to clear up my schedule a bit so I would have time to spend with them all, and I quit one of my bands and my VP position with the LI Authors Group to help facilitate that. I still work six days and one night a week, but I will take some time off this summer to hang with the kids and give my niece some time off from them. The kids have never been to a lighthouse, and who better to introduce them to such things than me?

Odd Town Rule

2009-05-29T14:13:00.000-07:00

My day job involves enforcing state and town building codes, but I occasionally look at other town codes, just for fun. Here's one I found today:

"No person in a park shall give or offer or attempt to give to any animal or bird any tobacco, alcohol, or other known noxious substances."

You just can't help but wonder what sort of odd incident made someone propose those code. And wouldn't you love to see photo on the faces of everyone in attendance at the meeting at which this code was proposed?

I have done a fair amount of domestic/feral/wild animal rescue and investigation, but I have never heard of this sort of offense (even in a park). Sure, kids sometimes offer beer or pot to pets (that's totally uncool, of course), but to "OFFER" tobacco or alcohol to an animal or bird (a bird is an animal, by the way)? "Hey Mr. Squirrel. How about a beer?""Hi there, Blue Jay! How about a smoke?"

Pretty odd.

Uncommon Truth

2009-05-26T18:19:00.001-07:00

Here's a quote I like. One of my MySpace friends recently sent it around.

"It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people." -- Giordano Bruno (who was eventually burned alive by the Roman Inquisition in 1600 after seven years of imprisonment for heresy)

Whether it is because of something that I realized at a young age, or just a propensity for anti-authoritarianism, I have long found that truth is generally not found in the worldviews of the masses. In fact, I often seem to find that the facts are often exactly the opposite of the public perception.

Common sense, for instance, is rarely common, especially among the common folk. This makes sense, though, since history bears out that common folk do not make history: Uncommon folk do.

On thing the masses provide is inertia. As with any great mass, it takes a great deal of energy to move the human masses. This is what leadership is, and it can only be provided by uncommon people. Once those masses are in motion, though, they can tend to stay in motion and carry things too far (think of revolutions that went too far, as in France, Cambodia, USSR, etc.) unless great deal of energy can stop them. Again, great leadership from uncommon people provides such a mediating force (maybe this is the true greatness of Franklin, Jefferson, Washington, Adams, Madison, et. al. -- not that they started a revolution, but that they were able to stabilize it).

It is hard to talk about the foibles of common folk without sounding like an "elitist." But it is the elite who make things happen. There's just no way around that. Masses do not lead themselves. Once a commoner does something uncommon, then he/she, by definition, becomes uncommon, i.e., elite.

I have tried to be a champion of "the common man," but my attempts to get common people to do uncommon things has always led to disappointment, and the stinging realization that commoners are common because they do common things.

Taking this back to Giordano Bruno's quote: If something is held as truth by the masses, there is good chance that it is, at best, incomplete and behind the times. Part of the reason that commoners are common is because they do not make the effort required to be uncommon, and keeping up with the advancing understanding of reality requires effort. What MOST people in this world believe to be reality is a result of the trickling down of fact and thought, and that inevitably lags behind the cutting edge.

So if you find, when you express your views on the world, that most people agree with you and/or nod their heads, there is s good chance that your views are either wrong or incomplete when compared to the best current understanding of the universe. You need to learn and think more.

This reminds me of a quote from Albert Einstein, one of my intellectual idols:

"Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices, but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence and fulfills the duty to express the results of his thought in clear form." (quoted in the New York Times, March 19, 1940)

If you dare to blaze a trail, to beat back the bushes of mediocrity that is the worldview of the masses, expect to be met with opposition. As Einstein knew, and Giordano Bruno learned long before he was burned alive, believing as the masses do will only make you a part of those masses. Believing what is ahead of the knowledge of the masses will make you a part of history.

Memorial Day Thoughts

2009-05-25T16:55:00.000-07:00

I hadn't planned on writing anything about Memorial Day, since I find most holiday celebrations to be hypocritical at best, but maybe just a few words...

Dave and I rode with a couple of other guys this morning, including one guy, Frank, with whom I work. Frank wanted to stop at the national cemetery in Calverton (SEE NOTE 1) to see his father's grave. Naturally, we said it was okay.

When I visit cemeteries, I have a variety of emotions and thoughts in my mind, many of which I have mentioned here when I have written about my ongoing cemetery history research. Military cemeteries, though, mostly fill me with rage, to the point where my eyes start to water.

Standing by the side of the road, with my riding jacket with US Army logos, digital camo, and an American flag on it, I looked out over just two of the many fields at Calverton, with those little white headstones going on and on and on, practically paving the fields. My thoughts turned immediately to the 4000-plus lives lost -- correction: wasted -- in Iraq. A bullshit "war" caused by a bullshit federal administration (SEE NOTE 2).

Yet on this day of remembrance, few will actually ponder the often-needless loss of life; the impact on families, neighborhoods and businesses; the actual horrors -- both physical and mental -- of war; or how our daily activities affect such things.

The remembrance services that do pretend to honor the dead overwhelmingly do so in a shallow, pedantic, faux-patriotic manner, adding insult to injury by invoking the sick, twisted violent mythology of a psychotic god-figure as somehow being inspirational.

A more appropriate memorial service would highlight the efforts of those who work for peace (yes, the people who actually would like to stop seeing people die for idiotic reasons), point out the mistakes of the past (and present) that have cost so many military members their lives, and point out the things we can do in our everyday lives to help decrease the carnage. There could be videos shown on big screens of dead and wounded military members -- this is a day to remember those people, right? If there was a need to have a religious invocation of any sort, how about using a religion that actually values peace (SEE NOTE 3)? Yes, in my admittedly-minority view of Memorial Day, we just might FEEL the loss and THINK about how it has happened and how we can decrease it.

As is, a majority of Memorial Day activities are a farce and an insult to those who have died as military representatives of the US. This holiday will continue to be such as long as we insist on cramming our heads up our asses and hoping the real world will go away if we just spend a few hundred billion more on "defense," put a magnet on our trunks, and ask a make-believe friend to favor our nation over all others.

Reality may be a bitch, but if we don't start to accept it soon, there may be no real estate left at Calverton when my time comes.

XXX

NOTE 1: Calverton is across the street from the abandoned Grumman airfield, where F-14s and A-6s used to thunder across the sky. I expect to be buried at Calverton. I had desired cremation until my longtime friend Joe (the vocalist in Juke House) noted that Uncle Sam owes us a little real estate for our military service and he was damn sure going to get his. I thought about it and decided, "Me too." With any luck, they'll bury me near Joe.

NOTE 2: Notice that I said "administration." My eight-plus years of military service left me with a taboo about criticizing a commander-in-chief, and I still struggle with that. Despite all that has happened, I still find that I must respect the office of the Presidency of the United States. I am such a tool.

NOTE 3: The only such religion of which I am aware is Buddhism, but I am open to suggestions for others.

Sidney Poitier, Racism, Labels, and Me

2009-05-20T17:27:00.000-07:00

I heard an interview with Sidney Poitier on the radio on the way to work this morning. It was a bit inspiring, and it also made me realize something about myself.

Mr Poitier spent his early years living poor on Cat Island, in the Bahamas. He didn't see such things as cars or a mirror until he was about ten years old, around the time he went to live with a brother in Miami.

One thing that shocked him about Florida in those days (he was born in 1927) was the racism. His interpretation of that racism was what I found to be fascinating, and it probably was a huge part of his success in life. He viewed racism as other people trying to tell him who he was. He rejected those opinions.

His reaction to racism struck a chord in me. It made me realize why I dislike labels -- I strongly dislike people telling me what or who I should be. Labels, like racism, are an attempt at a narrow definition. In this case, the definition of people. These definitions are restrictive. They attempt to restrict personal liberty.

I believe in Liberty as a strong source of human power. Liberty is why I am a supporter of the US Constitution and a detractor of religious indoctrination. Liberty, at the personal and societal levels, allows people or societies to be great (or losers, if that is their choice). I cannot help but refer, yet again, to the motto on the first US coinage: "Lib[erty] Par[ent] of Science and Industry". Labels, such as those employed by racism, are an assault on Liberty, and on the potential greatness of individuals and societies.

I don't like it when people try to label me (or try to force me to label myself), and I don't like to see anyone labeled, by themselves or others. The freedom to be who/what we want is one of the most precious things we can possess. A little bit of Liberty dies each time a label sticks, and so does a little bit of human greatness.

Sidney Poitier rejected the labels of racism (and other labels, I would expect) and went on to become a noted individual. He not only gained awards and notoriety in his chosen field, he also helped to break down racial divides, and brought great respect to himself. He was even knighted in 1974. All this from a boy born and raised in poverty. And largely because he rejected the labels others tried to impose upon him.

So don't label yourself. You are merely you, not "a doctor" or "a soldier" or "a musician" or " a carpenter" or whatever labels you may put upon yourself. Break free from the confines of such narrow, freedom-inhibiting ways. And definitely don't allow others to put labels on you. Life is too short to not be free.

Even Buddhism...

2009-05-20T16:51:00.000-07:00

I make no secret of the fact that I am quite fond of Buddhism. When I started researching world religions, it became apparent to me that this was the religion that was the most honest, inquisitive, and compassionate. It also possesses the faith to doubt itself, and welcomes scientific inquiry as a way to further understand the world around, and in, us. Unfortunately, it is also susceptible to human alteration.

I heard a story on the radio recently about one family's life in China since losing a son and parents in a 2008 earthquake. The husband was still too distraught to talk about the incident and life since, but his sister was willing to talk about it. She said that her brother had lost his faith, that he had prayed to the Buddha faithfully and apparently thought that such worship would magically exempt him from suffering. This is about as anathema to the truth of Buddhism as is possible.

One of the prime statements in Buddhism is the First Noble Truth, which simply states that "Life Is Suffering." Buddhism begins with the acceptance of this fact. According to Buddhist mythology, the young prince snuck out of his sheltered existence, was stunned when he saw sickness, old age and death, and was deeply affected by this, so much so that he took on a long quest to discover how to escape this suffering. In short, the result was that one needs to accept the suffering of life as a fact, then follow "the Eightfold Path," a way of thinking and acting that allowed one to be more in touch with the world and its suffering and eventually find a release from that suffering (a state of enlightenment called Nirvana).

One of the key mental attitudes involved in Buddhism is non-attachment. It is people's grasping at things that creates much suffering. Another key attitude is living in the present moment, as the past and future are only mental formations and do not exist at any given time. Another important step is the understanding of impermanence. These, and other practical tips, are part of the early Buddhist teachings. Yet this poor man in China was not benefiting from these key teachings of his own tradition. That is a shame.

What is NOT part of the central part of Buddhism is the idea of any Buddha as being a supernatural entity. The original Buddha, a man named Siddhartha Gautama Sakyamuni, was simply the guy who figured this stuff out. His intent, at that point, was to share this knowledge with others, so that they might one day also become Buddhas and be free from the suffering that is inherent in the world. When you see one Buddhist bow to another, they are honoring the "Buddha-to-be" in front of them. It is a gesture of great reverence. It is not, in any way, a worship of some supernatural entity.

Unfortunately, time takes its toll on everything. In the great game of Telephone that we call history, things get distorted. Even great ideas can get trivialized and turned into useless or even counterproductive doctrines.

Garden Progress

2009-05-13T15:42:00.000-07:00

I've been working on the garden quite a bit. Here's what I have planted so far:

Peas: 66 feet (two 33-foot double rows)
Broccoli: 26 feet (two 13-foot rows)
Spinach: 22 feet (12 loose leaf plants, the rest loose leaf and curly seeds)
Lettuce: 22 feet (12 Romaine plants, the rest assorted seeds/
Radishes: 21 feet (three 7-foot rows)
Carrots: 35 feet (five 7-foot rows)
Wax beans: 4 plants
Pole Beans: 4 plants
Tomatoes: 1 Unknown, 1 Cherry, 1 Lemon Boy
Peppers: 2 bell, 1 sweet yellow, 1 hot yellow

Yet to be planted: Beets, Cucumbers, Acorn Squash, Bush beans, Watermelon, Cantaloupe, blueberry bush, and some flowers. I should plant at least one pumpkin plant, too.

I've been able to get in at least a little time after work every day this week. Sunday I had about five hours in the garden. Tomorrow night I work until 7:00, so that's a lost day. If it is nice Friday, I can probably get the beets, cucumbers and acorn squash planted. By then, I will need to clear more brush, stumps and vines to create more garden space. I also have to rebuild the arbor for the grapes.

As I am doing all this work, I am cringing a bit at the fact that I know this will not be a great year in the garden. Having just started reclaiming it, I will have a constant battle with weeds. And the late start I got with some of the crops will hurt the yield. I expect the radishes, beets, and carrots to be a little deformed, as the soil still contains debris (there wasn't time to sift the soil for the root crops). I won't use chemical fertilizers in the garden, and I didn't get any compost or manure mixed into the soil, so I am not sure how nutritious the soil is right now -- it does have a nice dark color, that's usually a good sign.

The gardening has been good for me. I am not the kind of person that relaxes well, and I have no patience for sitting meditation, so gardening fills that void pretty well for me. I enjoy the quiet, the smell of the dirt, the occasional bird sighting, and the chance to let my mind be free from the barrage of input that modern life insists upon. No radio, no TV, no phone, no e-mail. If I believed in a heaven, it would have to be a garden. It would be one without stumps, roots and vines, though.

The Coming Discovery of Life

2009-05-12T19:14:00.000-07:00

Anyone who pays attention to the advances of science probably has come to believe that it is just a matter of time until we find extraterrestrial life. The question that intrigues me -- after the nature of such life -- is how it will affect humanity.

Robotic planetary explorers, like the Mars Lander, are making it possible to -- if you will pardon the use of this word -- unearth more about the planets in our solar system. The finding of ice on Mars is a huge discovery. Although it only seems natural that we would make such a discovery, actually seeing the proof is wild. What makes it even more exciting is that life, as we know it, requires water.

When I was a kid, I never thought that we would have the ability to detect planets in other solar systems in my lifetime, and I was a bit of a science geek and a dreamer. With today's powerful telescopes and computers, though, planets in orbit around other stars are being detected by the effects of their pull on their host stars.

Gravity is a two-way street. Stars keep planets in orbit around them with their greater mass, which warps spacetime in such a way that the planets do not fly away. But planets also have a fair amount of mass, which warps spacetime in such a way to cause the host stars to wobble a little bit as the planets orbit. In fact, they wobble enough to be detected from earth, if you have the right instruments. We have those instruments now.

Not only can we detect such planets, we can also now tell if they are within "habitable zones," those orbits around stars where liquid water is possible. If a planet is too close to a star, its water will boil away. If it is too far, it will freeze. Somewhere in between, though, is the Goldilocks Zone, where the orbit is "just right" for liquid water.

Of course, the location of a planet in a habitable orbit does not mean that all the factors necessary for life are present. There are lots of variables that affect the possibility, including the chemical makeup of the planet, and the specifics of its star. That eases the excitement a bit, until we realize that the number of stars in the known universe are estimated at around 50 billion times 100 billion (50,000,000,000 x 100,000,000,000 = 5,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 or 5 times 10 to the 21st power). That is a huge number.

I think there is a very good chance that we'll see evidence of extraterrestrial life within the next 50 years. Looking to that time, I can't help but wonder how that will affect the mind of humanity (Religious fundamentalists will fight the discovery, of course, perhaps violently). For the children born into a world where the presence of life on other planets is a known fact, it will seem as ho-hum as the internet and cell phones are to today's 10-year-olds. The late mythologist Joseph Campbell used to say that we needed a new mythology to guide is in an era when we can see images of the earth from space. I suspect he'd say we'll need a new mythology when we find life elsewhere in the universe, too.

XXX

Here's a story on the Mars Lander finding ice, from about a year ago: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/06/080620-ice-mars-photo.html

Musician Bailout Packages

2009-05-10T18:05:00.000-07:00

I got excited tonight when I found out that ZZ Top is coming to Jones Beach on June 26. "I have to go," I thought as I got ready to e-mail my usual concert buddies (Dave, Dave, Don, Don, Bill and Scott). I decided to check the prices and seating first.

The first sign of bad news was that they were playing with Aerosmith. I'm not a "fan" of Aerosmith, but I wouldn't mind seeing them. Then I went to Live Nation's web site and looked at the prices for the seats: Orchestra: $207 or $155. Stadium: $155 or $95. Mezzanine (You have to duck for planes headed for JFK Airport): $41. And those are before th ridiculous "screw you" fees that Live Nation adds.

So the e-mail did not get written or sent. There is no way I am spending that much money to see a band. I'm not a cheap guy when it comes to stuff like that, and I have spent around $100 to see Rush at Jones Beach each of the last two summers. I've paid around $50-70 in recent times to see George Thorogood, Ted Nugent, Yngwie Malmsteen and (coming up soon) Buddy Guy with BB King at Westbury. I am not spending $150-plus to see a band. I don't care who it is.

Maybe I just need to wait until ZZ Top tours with a band with a less expensive drug habit.

XXX

PS - The odd thing was that when I checked the Click 'n' Pick button to see how many seats were available, and where, it said that only 46 seats were left. Recession? What recession?

Iron Maiden To The Rescue

2009-05-09T08:04:00.000-07:00

One of the things that I use to help me think or write under pressure is aggressive, guitar-based music. Think of it as sort of a performance enhancer.

When I wrote my first book -- a 384 page regional history book that was widely acclaimed by historic researchers and preservationists in the area and was a major cause of my receiving a national historic preservation award the following year -- I was essentially late for my deadline. New information was coming in as I was trying to "complete" the book, and I was, in my usual way, nearly paralyzed by my insistence on perfection. With a deadline coming up -- and eventually, behind me -- I turned to an old friend to help me focus: Heavy metal music.

My living room, where I had set up a table exclusively for finishing the book (although the cats thought it was for them to look out the front windows), rocked hard in late 2003. Pantera, Black Label Society, System Of A Down, Iron Maiden, Michael Schenker, Yngwie Malmsteen, AC/DC, and others filled the room with the inspiring sounds of tube amplifiers pushed past their comfort zones.

Long Island's Lighthouses: Past and Present is probably the only history book in the world that credits people like Zakk Wylde, Yngwie Malmsteen, Angus Young, etc. Of course, these guys didn't actually contribute any information to the text, but they did help me get it done. The end result, I think partially speaks for the power of music.

It was such a big help that I have continued to turn to my metal friends in time of need. A couple of years ago, I was designing a kitchen and several bathrooms for a local, fairly wealthy, man. I had the kitchen done, the downstairs baths, and one of the upstairs baths, but I could not come up with something for the master bath. The layout of the room was just wrong. It was long and narrow, with several features that stumped every idea I could come up with.

This was, as you might imagine, a pretty high-dollar project, which meant it was important. One day, I decided to come in to the showroom early and try to nail it. I sat down and, realizing that I needed a boost, pulled up i-Tunes on the computer at my desk. I looked through the list of artists and albums, and decided on one of my favorite albums of all time: Powerslave, by Iron Maiden. I clicked on it and cranked up the speakers. The aggressive power of Mssrs. Dickinson, Murray, Smith, Harris, and McBrain started in with Aces High, through 2 Minutes to Midnight, the instrumental Losfer Words, Flash of the Blade, The Duellists, Back In The Village (one of my favorites), and Powerslave, ending with the epic (13 minutes 34 seconds) Rime of The Ancient Mariner. By the end of it all, nearly an hour later, I had THE design for the bathroom. It was dual-guitar-harmony inspired perfection.

No further changes were needed. The design was a hit, the entire job sold for close to $200,000, and Iron Maiden had further cemented their place in my heart.

This morning, I was again under the gun. I had lost some time at my kitchen and bath job the previous weekend because of my mother's trip to the emergency room, so I was behind in my work. I had to get to the showroom early to try to finish up one estimate and be ready for another customer coming in at 11:00 (which is when our showroom opens on Saturdays). Once again, I turned to Iron Maiden. I considered RL Burnside, Howlin Wolf, and some of my other favorite bluesmen, but nothing drives a kitchen design quite like Iron Maiden. Once again, they delivered. I was done in no time.

Whether this kitchen will sell is yet to be seen, but at least I know I have done my best and that, as always, rock and roll was there by my side.