Stupid Shit!!!

2012-01-08T09:36:00.003-07:00

Andrew Sullivan at The Daily Beast
comments on a review of a book called A Universe From Nothing.

The review is presented in the form of an interview on a blog belonging to Sam Harris. Andrew says this about the author:

"Cosmologist Lawrence M. Krauss believes that the universe probably came from nothingness:"

Now, I know Andrew he has 'faith', and he also tries to come across as showing respect for, and giving voice if not credence to, concepts contrary to his point of view, but it seems a subtle ridicule of the ideas in this book, and the assertions made by the author. The excerpt from the interview certainly suggests the author does not adhere to any religious doctrine, and in fact he refers to Darwin's demonstration of natural selection, and states that he wants "to show something similar about the Universe."

This would certainly suggest to one doing a quick read that the author actually believes there is no god, but the author avoids that with the statement, as well he should. He in fact qualifies his ideas with "We may never prove by science that a Creator is impossible,..." and thus confirms that his ideas are speculation, and have to be considered as such.

It is disappointing that Andrew Sullivan would use such a fallacy in one of his posts.

2012-01-01T07:28:00.002-07:00

Finished many, many books since the last post, primarily because I posted them to facebook or G+. I've turned the FB account off, and don't post anything to Google, just read other posts.

So, the books I can remember...

The Darling by Russell Banks
The Reserve by Russell Banks
Lost Memory of Skin by Russell Banks
Lush Life by Richard Price
WWW Series by Robert J Sawyer
The Road to Serfdom by Friedrich Hayek
Augustus by Anthony Everitt
James Madison and the Struggle for the Bill of Rights by Richard Labunski
God, No by Penn Jellette
Adams vs Jefferson by John Ferling
The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks by Rebecca Skloot
Wicked by Gregory Maquire
No One Would Listen by Harry Markopolos
The Ghost Mountain Boys by James Campbell
No Simple Victory by Norman Davies
Brother Fish by Bryce Courtenay
Martyr by Rory Clements
The Demon Under the Microscope by Thomas Hager
Room by Emma Donoghue

This by no means completes the list, but is most of what I've read over the past several months. Beyond that I cannot say, and I have no desire yet to complete the list I started years ago to keep track.

2011-12-10T10:25:00.003-07:00

This is an update of my Ebay debacle. I sent the package on it's way, but my wife didn't send it priority mail, which upset the buyer. Here is the end tracking information.

Package Services

Delivered
December 14, 2011, 10:41 am
LUDLOW, MA 01056

Expected Delivery By:
December 8, 2011
Delivery Confirmation™
Insured

Processed through USPS Sort Facility
December 12, 2011, 1:02 am
SPRINGFIELD, MA 01152

Processed through USPS Sort Facility
December 11, 2011, 10:40 pm
SPRINGFIELD, MA 01152

Processed through USPS Sort Facility
December 10, 2011, 12:52 am
JERSEY CITY, NJ 07097

Depart USPS Sort Facility
December 09, 2011
SPRINGFIELD, MA 01152

Processed through USPS Sort Facility
December 08, 2011, 4:46 pm
SPRINGFIELD, MA 01152

Depart USPS Sort Facility
December 03, 2011
BELL GARDENS, CA 90201

Processed through USPS Sort Facility
December 03, 2011, 1:00 am
BELL GARDENS, CA 90201

Dispatched to Sort Facility
December 01, 2011, 5:04 pm

You will note that the package made it to MA, then for some reason was diverted to NJ. Who the fuck knows.

The email exchange during all this is entertaining, almost worth the loss of the iPad, should I actually lose it. Still waiting for another email, but the conversation so far is below.

Sent Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Hello Jennie,

Thank you for bidding on the iPad. I have received your payment and will put the tablet, iPad Serial # GB0291JRZ39 in the mail within the next few days and email you the details when I do so.

Cheers,

I received no communication after this email, complete silence.
Then...
Received Wednesday, December 7

hI,
i STILL NOT NOT RECEIVE THE IPAD FOR $13.95 SHIPPING DID YOU SHIP THIS PRIORTY MAIL?
JENNIE

I noted the caps, nice touch.

Received Wednesday, December 7
THIS WAS A BIRTHDAY GIFT I NEEDED IT FOR SUNDAY. FOR A BIRTHDAY GIFT. I AM SO DISCUSTED IT IS STILL IN CALIF.

I replied to this one.

Sent Wednesday, December 7
Hello Jennie,

The USPS tracking isn't the greatest, I know. I was surprised to see it was going to CA, but they expect it to be delivered tomorrow. This is what I get from Track & Confirm;

Label/Receipt Number: 0311 2550 0002 5925 4725
Expected Delivery Date: December 8, 2011
Class: Package Services
Service(s): Delivery Confirmation™
Insured
Status: Depart USPS Sort Facility
Your item departed our BELL GARDENS, CA 90201 sort facility on December 03, 2011.

Regards

Received Wednesday, December 7
DID YOU SHIP PRIORTY MAIL?

Sent Wednesday, December 7
No, asked my wife to do it and I didn't specify, thought it was a given. I can refund the shipping if you like.

Things started to get ugly, and I didn't reply to the next one.

Received Wednesday, December 7
why would you ship a 400.00 item with cheap shipping? would you like that done to you?

Nor did I reply to this next one, things were still ugly, and the caps continued.

Received Wednesday, December 8
IT IS STILL IN CALIFORNIA , IF I DON'T GET IT TODAY THEN YOU CAN KEEP IT.
JENNIE

I thought about pointing out in an email that the latest update on the Post Office site was dated December 3rd, but I'd already pointed out that the updates weren't the greatest, and the expected delivery date was that day. I figured I was dealing with a psuedo psycho, and didn't want to fan the flames. So, I just let it sit

Received Friday, December 9
today is the dec 9th and it is not here. you sugested you would refund my shipping , that would be a good idea since i am 5 days late on my daughters birthday gift.
jennie

I noticed the caps lock came off, but she is still being rude. I refrained from pointing out that never did I guarantee that I would get the thing there for the alleged birthday.

Received Friday, December 9
IT IS DEC 9 AND I HAVE STILL NOT RECEIVED THE IPAD.
JENNIE

No fucking shit, and the caps are back.

Received Saturday, December 10
yes you can reund my shipping like you said. did did not get it.
jennie

Received Saturday, December 10
Hi,
now i am confused why it it in new jersey? did you request it back?
jennie

Caps are off again, and it seems she is making an attempt at being polite, but I'd already had it. What I wanted to say was that she is more than just confused, hence my lack of response.

Received Saturday, December 10
Hi,
now i am confused why it it in new jersey? did you request it back? I still want it . Thought for sure i would get it today. Please answer. Sorry i was so upset.
jennie

Yep, an attempt at politeness, but still I'd had enough. There was nothing I could do, the question about whether I requested it back was just stupid because that isn't possible. This was the last email. There were attempts to get my phone number from Ebay, but I hadn't updated that information to replace our old disconnected landline with cell phones. It took four more days to get routed back to MA and get delivered. The Post Office isn't the greatest, and it probably would have been less painful had we sent it priority. My wife tried to take responsibility for that, but I didn't specify that, just the return receipt request and insurance. I sent an email today acknowledging delivery...

Sent Thursday, December 15
Hello Jennie,

I see that the iPad was delivered. If you want to keep it, I will refund the shipping via paypal. If you no longer want it and send it back, I will submit a full refund when I receive it.

Regards,

Worst case scenario, she tries to send it back without insurance and it gets lost, or arrives broken. I would prefer she just take the shipping charges and be done with it. She is an idiot, and I expected something different from someone with 100% feedback over 14,000+ transactions.

2011-12-04T12:37:00.000-07:00

My latest experience with ebay.

I had an iPad I bought used about a year ago, I paid $360 or $380 for it from someone locally that was replacing it with an iPad II. I had decided to check Craigslist the day Apple put iPad II on the market, and sure enough there were many there. I used it for a while, then let my wife use it after I bought a Samsung Tab 10.1.

Now, my wife and I handle our finances unconventionally. We keep our finances separate and split our expenditures. So, she wasn't surprised when I asked her for some money if she wanted to keep the iPad. She didn't think it was worth the $350 I was asking, so I put it out on Craigslist. Apparently nobody locally thought it was worthwhile enough to pursue with anything more than emails asking if I still had it, because that was all I got. There was one person that did actually come to the house to look at it, but he left empty handed after I turned down his lowball offer of $315.

So, I decided to go to ebay. I've used them before, but it has been years. I put it up for $350, and there was no activity until the last day besides a few 'watchers'. At the end there was a flurry of bids, and it ended at $395. I was surprised, but it turns out the extra $45 came in handy after Paypal took their fee of $12.14, and ebay's fee turned out to be a total of $37.19. In the end I got about what I wanted for the machine, but those fees are killer, more so than I remember.

I found this article from way back in 2008, long after my last transaction on the website before the latest....

The fee came out to be close to 10%, and now with that in mind the dude making the lowball offer probably had that in mind. I've heard about the lowballing that goes on on Craigslist, and I'm sure it's probably a given that savvy sellers will post at 10% above what they what to take this into account. I don't know that I would have had many serious responses had I asked for $385. I certainly wouldn't pay that much.

Still waiting for my positive feedback on ebay before I consider the transaction final, even though the money is already in my bank account. Still apprehensive about the whole thing, waiting for an email that the tablet is DOA, but the buyer had very good feedback.

2011-09-04T08:03:00.004-07:00

I enjoy reading the blog over at Ernie the Attorney. The latest post has this link.

A Lesson on Elementary, Worldly Wisdom As It Relates To Investment Management & Business
Charles Munger, USC Business School, 1994

Informative, but kind of boring. I decided to look up some of the terms he uses in the first part of the article. Here are some of the things I've found.

Decision Analysis

Elementary Probability

Basic Accounting

Five W's rule

Microeconomics

There is a lot of free information out there. I used Google for most everything I looked up, of course.

In the end, the Internet includes an enormous amount of information that is easily accessible to anyone. Sometimes when people use this phrase they say anyone with a computer. More and more, computers have become synonymous with Internet access, and in fact are useless without some kind of network connection. The $100 computer first envisioned for children of developing nations, evolving into the One Laptop Per Child program, necessarily included connectivity of some kind.

We aim to provide each child with a rugged, low-cost, low-power, connected laptop. To this end, we have designed hardware, content and software for collaborative, joyful, and self-empowered learning.

Over at The Khan Academy, Salman Khan has put together a website of lectures and information that could form the foundation of a basic education for anyone, with practical application, real world problems, and step by step solutions to those practice problems.

2011-08-29T10:11:00.002-07:00

There is a post here at the Daily Dish, which links to an article here at The New Yorker. I just had to email The Daily Dish, because they don't do comments.

The article referenced is filled with disjointed arguments.

"The very frequency with which this question is being asked these days
should make people take notice,"

No, these are tactics used by pundits on the Fox network. Should we
really stoop so low?

"How about posing the question this way: Are more events like Irene
what you would expect in a warming world? Here the answer is a
straightforward “yes.”

The author's asserts an expectation, then qualifies it with 'warnings'
that experts have put forth if some of the situations that have been
theorized come to pass. Most of the dangers are "very likely", but of
course none of these dangers can conclusively be attributed to rising
temperatures, which themselves can't be conclusively attributed to
anthropological sources, simply because the data set is so vast.
Then, after stating all this, situations that might happen because
global warming might truly be a worldwide phenomenon, they can be
lumped together and assertions can be made "with a great deal of
confidence" that more events like Irene (which is really just average
as hurricanes go) will be forthcoming. All of this "squishy"
reasoning leads to, in the author's mind, the conclusion that we
should acknowledge the truth.

This woo belongs at the Huffington Post, not in the New Yorker, and is
not worthy of the Dish.

2011-08-20T08:42:00.002-07:00

I am listening to a presentation on Liberty, as produced by The Cato Institute. Although I haven't yet searched out specific evidence, I'm pretty sure this institute is conservative in nature when it comes to economic and political issues. Not the political issues of those extremists that have forced abdication of more mainstream conservatives of today, but the traditional conservatism of limited government and sound fiscal policy.

In this presentation, they talk about Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations. I found this passage very interesting:

The interest of the dealers, however, in any particular branch of trade or manufactures, is always in some respects different from, and even opposite to, that of the public. To widen the market and to narrow the competition, is always the interest of the dealers. To widen the market may frequently be agreeable enough to the interest of the public; but to narrow the competition must always be against it, and can serve only to enable the dealers, by raising their profits above what they naturally would be, to levy, for their own benefit, an absurd tax upon the rest of their fellow-citizens. The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order, ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it.

When conservative leaders today espouse Smith's work, they simply state talking points such as 'free trade', and 'the invisible hand'. Left out are the passages like the one above, that directly oppose systems that govern the interaction of our legislative process and private players in the world of economics. The passage above could be cited as an argument against the institution of lobbying that permeates our government today. These lobbyists should be "carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention."

2011-08-10T06:25:00.002-07:00

Yep, it's awkward when this happens. Andrew Sullivan re-posted this here, then got some interesting responses here. This has happened to me many, many times, and it really is awkward. I can remember once the gesture was sincere, and while at the post office a few years back the person was so enthusiastic about it I thought I was getting carjacked.

So why the need to say thank you? Perhaps there are some feel ashamed for asking volunteers, even if indirectly, to do the fucked up shit they have to do. We have people in places we don't belong, but few citizens are willing to speak up and demand we get out of a bad situation.

Some excerpts from the above posts;

But having witnessed these bizarre, fleeting scenes, I have come to believe that they are a poor substitute for something more difficult and painful -- a conversation about what war does to the people who serve and to the people who don’t.

There's this;

Not to sound rude, but I neither need nor want your thanks.

Finally this;

The objective part of me tries to see the innocent intention behind the words, but mostly it feels like we are avoiding a real conversation about the responsibilities of citizenship in wartime.

I tell people there is no need, I get a thank you once a month. :-)

2011-08-08T13:05:00.002-07:00

Remarks about something else Andrew Sullivan posted here. The link points to an opinion piece at The Washington Post.

Andrew pulls a quote that suggests that similar religious phenomena among different cultures is evidence for the truth of the phenomena, and also suggests that this notion is similar to scientific theories.

What Andrew doesn't pull out of the piece are the fallacies that abound in the 'logic'. The whole opinion is rife with assertions that really have no basis in reality, but are made simply because others have made the same claims. For instance, Aslan talks extensively of the "new atheists" movement, and suggests that simply because some have cooperated in making public statements recently, this sets said groups firmly in a category populated exclusively with religious zealots, and that there is something 'new' about it. "It is no exaggeration to describe the movement popularized by the likes of Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens as a new and particularly zealous form of fundamentalism--an atheist fundamentalism. The parallels with religious fundamentalism are obvious and startling:"

No, the parallels are not obvious.

It is no exaggeration to describe the movement popularized by the likes of Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens as a new and particularly zealous form of fundamentalism

Yes, it is an exaggeration. Simply because the four people mentioned above have been more outspoken than most does not make them leaders as Aslan implies. Sam Harris has gone so far as to denounce the 'atheist' label. They are not giving weekly sermons to crowds of atheists, they do not denounce the actions of others based on their interpretation of mythical books. They are not imploring 'followers' to support lavish lifestyles with offerings.

Aslan claims atheists are of the "conviction that they are in sole possession of the truth." Of course, any atheist that claims they know for a fact there is no 'god' has no concept of fundamental reasoning, but certainly most atheists do not make this claim. He also claims the four listed above spearhead an intolerance of religious people and views. The four above have debated countless religious apologists, and never make statements with the same vigor religious leaders spout their 'sisdom', of which many examples exist on the Internet. They are usually reasoned and soft spoken, and if not - usually Hitchens is passionate in this respect - they are pointing out injustices carried out in the name of religion; people that are brutal to others, in many instances fatally so.

The principle error of the new atheists lies in their inability to understand religion outside of its simplistic, exoteric, and absolutist connotations.

The problem with those outspoken about religion is their knowledge of religions, all religions, not a lack of knowledge. Aslan is ignoring Bart Ehrman, an author with many books in which he explains his understanding of religion and their doctrines, and how that understanding forced ever deeper criticism of religion. Christopher Hitchens cites religion classes early in life, and the inspiration of a specific teacher, as the catalyst for his rejection of religious notions. So, Aslan's assertions that there is an "utter lack of literacy in the subject" simply is not true. His suggested relief for this non-existent problem is the stock response; immersion in religious doctrine of all kinds.

He insists people should "at the very least have a sense of what the term "God" means." This of course is counter to the notion toward the end of the piece that nobody can really know.

What the new atheists do not do, and what makes them so much like the religious fundamentalists they abhor, is admit that all metaphysical claims--be they about the possibility of a transcendent presence in the universe or the birth of the incarnate God on earth--are ultimately unknowable and, perhaps, beyond the purview of science. That may not be a slogan easily pasted on the side of a bus. But it is the hallmark of the scientific intellect.

He implies, in the same sentence, that he 'knows', but that these claims are "ultimately unknowable". The twisted reasoning is truly amazing to behold.

2011-08-05T19:58:00.002-07:00

Finished reading In The Garden of the Beasts by Erik Larson. While reading I came across mention of a speech made by Vice Chancellor Papen, the German text of which can be found here. Below is the speech in English, via Google Translate. I'm sure it isn't perfect, but I will read it nonetheless.

Wording of the Marburg speech
Documents in REGIN PUBLISHING
Portrait_Jung_sepia_mit_Name.jpg

The following text is from the book, the other German Revolution (2009) by Sebastian Maass (p. 135-149) and taken along the wording of the printed publication of the June 1934 (Berlin: Germany AG, 1934). - The Marburg speech was on 17 June 1934 the German Vice Chancellor Franz von Papen (1879-1969) held at the University of Marburg, as the author of the speech is now a lawyer and Conservative politician Edgar Julius Jung (1894-1934).

Jung tried to talk "with to provide leader-friendly phrases'" [1] to make in advance not to destroy any chance of success. Because of the change in government due to the peaceful holding of the 30th January 1933 and the upheavals associated with it a general enthusiasm prevailed, so that "an open declaration of war against the Nazis had little chance of success" would have [2].

Jung gave the speech "a conscious style, criticism from within" [...] in order not to get into the embarrassment of being classified as a state and leaders hostile "[3]. Nevertheless, "Papen's Marburg speech [...] the sharpest public criticism, which has experienced Nazism in Germany, depending on such a scale and breadth of impact of such a leading man" [4].

In retrospect, is the 17th June 1934, "a symbol of conservative resistance" [5]. Jung, who was shot a few days later, has admitted his life for his conviction.

On 21 February 1933, then in the heady days when the Nazis began his reign in the German Reich, I tried in a speech to the Berlin student body to explain the meaning of time reversal. I should say - so I took time off - at one point, which is dedicated to the exploration of truth and intellectual freedom. So I would not admit me to the liberal ideas of truth and freedom. The ultimate truth would be alone with God, and the researchers were only after their exit from this standpoint, its ultimate meaning. At my former versions I tie today, when it's my turn, granted on academic ground - in the medieval jewel in the city of Saint Elizabeth - to stand on, and add that, also like the ideal of objective truth can not be disputed the duty to subjective truth, that is the truth from us Germans is required, we do not want to forgo the most basic foundation of human civilization. This site dedicated to the science seems therefore to be particularly useful to take an account of the veracity of the German people. Because the voices that demand that I should take basic position on the German current affairs and the German states, are becoming more numerous and more urgent. It says I have through the elimination of the Weimar regime and Prussia by the summary of the national movement took such a decisive role in the development of German that my incumbent duty to observe this development sharper than most other Germans. I do not intend to deprive me of this duty. On the contrary - my inner commitment to Adolf Hitler and his work is so great, and so I am connected to the tackled renewal of Germany with my heart and soul, that it would be the human as the statesmanlike point of a mortal sin not to say that, what must be said at this crucial section of the German revolution.

The events of the past fifteen years has gripped the entire German nation and stirred to its depths. Almost like a dream, it is about us that we have from the valley of sorrow, hopelessness, hatred and found the cleavage back to the community of the German nation. The enormous tensions in which we stood since the days of August 1914, broken up, and from them rises again once the German soul, before the glorious and yet so painful history of our people, by the legends of the German hero up to the trenches of Verdun, even down to the street battles of our day passes by.

The unknown soldier of World War II, with the captivating energy and unshakable faith conquered the hearts of his countrymen, has made this soul free. With his field marshal, he has been in the forefront of the nation to the fate of Germany in a new book page aufzuschlagen and restore the spiritual unity.

This unity of spirit we have seen over the noise of a thousand rallies, banners and festivals again place a nation. But now that the enthusiasm flattened, the tough work demands her rights in this process, it appears that the purification process of such historic proportions also produces waste products, of which he has to cleanse itself. Slags of this type are found in all districts of our life in the material and spiritual. Abroad, which are viewed with disfavor, has his finger on these slags and interprets them as a serious process of decomposition. Let it not rejoice too soon, because if we muster the energy to free us from these waste products, then we just show it best, how strong we are as internally and decided to falsify the path of the German revolution does not leave. We know that the rumors and the whispers from the darkness into which they escape, must be pulled out. An open discussion and male avails the German people more than, say, the valve-less state of a press, which is determined by the Reich Minister for Popular Enlightenment and Propaganda was that she was "no face" did. This shortcoming is without a doubt. The press was actually there to inform the government about where the defects have crept in, which has corruption entrenched, where serious mistakes are made, where unsuitable men standing in the wrong place, is sin where the spirit of the German Revolution . Like an anonymous or secret intelligence service, he still be so well organized, this task can never replace the press. Because the editor is under certain legal and excessive responsibility, the supplier of anonymous messages, however, are uncontrollable and exposed to the risk of the Byzantine. But if not possible, the appointed organs of public opinion, the mysterious darkness, which seems to spread over time, the German national mood, enough so the statesman himself to intervene and call a spade a spade. Such an approach should prove that the government is strong enough to sustain decent criticism that they are reminded of the old principle, that only weaklings suffer no criticism.

If the foreign claims in the German states had the freedom dies, it will be taught by the openness of my statements above that the German government can afford to put out of the burning questions of the nation to debate. This right, however, only acquire this, who has put himself unreservedly to the Nazis and his works available to him and proved his loyalty. These introductory words were needed to show the spirit in which I store in my job, unreserved account of the German state and German targets, go approach. Now let me briefly outline the situation as I found them, as the fate of my co-responsible for the management of German fortunes made.

The state authorities were in decline and could the resolution of all natural and willed by God not to control connections. The lack of leadership and energy had reached a level that made the German people's desire for a firm hand are getting stronger. The opposition of the front generation and the youth had become irresistible. Corresponded to the general Parteienzerklüftung the spread of a fatal despondency. Unemployment grew and with it the social radicalism. That this evil is not to meet with small means, but through a spiritual and political upheaval, saw not only the right-wing groups of the German people, especially the National Socialist German Workers' Party, but was the general view of the non-party lines bound best of our people. The revaluation of all values, as Nietzsche says, was being prepared mentally, and it is therefore an injustice to the legitimate fight against a certain "intellectualism" is now in such against the "spirit" at all umgemünzt. The historical truth is that the need for a fundamental change of course recognized by such people and operated, was spared the way before the change of a mass party. A claim to a revolutionary or national monopoly for certain groups therefore appears to me as exaggerated, quite apart from that it interferes with the national community.

I'm on 17 March 1933 in Breslau noted, that has evolved in the postwar years, a kind of conservative-revolutionary movement, which differed significantly from Nazism only by the tactics. Since the German revolution against the democratization and its disastrous consequences fought, the new conservatism declined consistently from any further democratization and believed in the possibility of switching off of pluralistic forces from above. National Socialism, however, first went the way of democracy to an end, only to face the not easy questions, however, as the ideas of absolute leadership, the relentless authority of the aristocratic elite and the principle of organic order of the people are realizing. History has given the Nazi tactics right, a finding which prompted the conservative statesmen to the alliance with the Nazi movement during those hours at the beginning of 1933.

On these facts must be referenced when overzealous, sometimes even too young revolutionaries with the slogan "reactionary" and want to dismiss those who underwent in full awareness of the problem which they presented at the time. Because for the real politicians, only the following attitudes are possible: He may misunderstand the needs of the time, and fail at this deficiency, he may be the course of time to pit and therefore subject, but he can make even the champion of what is done relentlessly must be and thus fulfill the commandment of the story. Those who have adopted this attitude is beyond hollow slogans, especially recalls about the reaction, which was suspicious of the way, thank God overcome Marxist passage of time.

In addition, the statesman must still be clear on a second requirement, namely the fact that a new era is indeed a total, recorded so all manifestations of life and life circumstances and changes, but that before this stunning backdrop, the political events of the foreground is going on, on which alone the term of the policy must be applied. The statesman and politician can reform the state, but not life itself the tasks of the life of the reformer and politician are fundamentally different. Realizing this, the leader has in his book "Mein Kampf" does not explain the task of the movement was a religious reformation, but of a political reorganization of our people. The watershed as a total concept defies reason, to a certain degree of state formation. Not all life can be organized, because otherwise mechanized. The state organization is that life is growth. Certainly exist between the living and the organizational relationships and interactions, but they have limits, without risk to life must not be exceeded. Just because it is the essence of a revolution, that the living spirit anrennt against the mechanics. Bolshevism is therefore not the real revolution of the 20th Century, but a slave uprising that would bring about the final mechanization of life. The real revolution of the 20th Century - so I brought out in my speech in Berlin University - is the heroic and god-related personality to lifeless fetters, against suppression of the divine spark, against mechanization and collectivization, which is none other than last degeneration of bourgeois liberalism. Collectivism is the individualism of the mass, which is no longer the whole, but only wants himself.

As a new sense of time arises in a people and growing, it usually knows very little of which is itself at a turning point. He does not make it easy to grasp their meaning. But this much we know from history that a revolution is only a sense of political stamp on a document presented by the story. The new man, as the result of a new era grows, however, the state must be created by human reason. Well-formed, the state also to the people, it would be an illusion to suppose that the fundamental alteration of the human-esteem could be made out by the State. Thus the state may well encourage a view of history and their unification to be concerned. But he can not command them. But it springs from the belief, rooted beyond the State. It is based on accurate research, the disregard of revenge ever. When I think about the problem of historical interpretation for the present, I remember with pleasure the question, who used my history professor to address to me: "How could the German story develops, if Frederick had married the great Maria Theresa?"

The point of the turning point is clear: It's about the choice between believing and the unbelieving people, it is about whether all the eternal values to be secularized or not, whether the process of secularization, the desecration of how he used several centuries ago, to de-divinization of the human spirit and thus leads to the collapse of all civilization, or whether the belief in the transcendent and the eternal world order again feeling, thinking and acting of human beings fundamentally determined. On this historical background, takes the political process and the German revolution. The statesman's task, rotten and decayed forms depreciated values, which promote a new life after pressing eternal values in their growth, they put on the state-based creative design.

Was the liberal revolution of 1789 the revolution against the religio of nationalism, against the bond, then the counter-revolution, which is now in the 20th Century takes place, only to be a conservative in the sense, as it rationalizes and not dissolve, but all life is back under the natural laws of creation. This is probably the reason why also the cultural leader of the Nazi party, Alfred Rosenberg, in Königsberg, spoke of a conservative revolution.

This results in the political field the following clear conclusions: the time of the emancipation of the lowest class against the upper classes is over. It's not about to hold down a level - that would be reactionary - but to prevent getting up one level to the state, and prides itself on being seized claim to totality. Any natural and divine order must be lost so it threatens the revolution in permanence. The state is the rule rather middle of the nation as a whole, in which each state will be separated and each one is biologically by natural selection in its place. True domination but involves the whole nation and pushes back any special status or claim of any one class. The aim of the German revolution, if it wants to be valid and a model for Europe must therefore be the creation of a natural social order, which makes the incessant struggle for mastery over. True power can not be derived from a state or a class.

In this class rule but is still the principle of popular sovereignty gemündet. Therefore, an anti-democratic revolution are intended only to end when it breaks with the principle of popular sovereignty and returns to the natural and divine rule. So should not the disenfranchisement of the people are confused.

Out of democracy can be an anonymous tyranny, while in charge of real rule never to destroy the people's freedom can be derived.

I know how very much wants the leaders that the people a sense of genuine, responsible, righteous rule remains alive. So I think, is the German state dermaleinst his coronation see a head of state, the one-on is always caught the political struggles, the demagoguery and the strife of the economic and class interests.

In addition to the requirement of a rule is the principle of greater responsibility and personal life - are mutually dependent - the need for the foundation of a new social order. The feeling of necessity moved all European nations, which have undergone tremendous changes in industrialization, urbanization, mechanization and capitalization. That these lives longing for social reform especially in Fascism and National Socialism, need not be emphasized. On the other hand, we realize how incredibly difficult it is to revert mass, which lost its connection with blood and soil, back into people, but because the healthy sized bonds and hierarchies have been lost in the liberal era. The Nazis therefore attaches significant importance to the soul of the masses, first to recover for the nation and state. This is done mainly through education, discipline and propaganda. The National Socialist system meets the first task to which the parliamentary system had become too weak: the direct contact with the masses to be restored. It is a kind of direct democracy emerged, which has succeeded to win the state of slippage in the masses again. Behind these time-related need is a revolutionary but a much bigger target: the foundation of a social order based on generally applicable organic forms, not just a deft mastery of the material. During the French Revolution in the parliament and universal suffrage, creating basic shapes, it must be the goal of the conservative revolution to advance through organic development of such estates generally accepted accounting principles. The predominance of a single party in place of the missing multi-party system with law seems to me historically as a transition state, which only has permission as long as it requires the assurance of change and to the new personnel selection comes into operation.

Because the logic of the anti-liberal development requires the principle of an organic political will-formation that is voluntary for all sections of the people. Only organic compounds to overcome the liberal party and provide the kind of national community, which must be at the end of this revolution.

Another crucial fact of this revolution of the 20th Century is the end of cosmopolitanism, which is nothing but the fruit of the liberal idea of the dominating power in the world economy. Contrasts with the nationalist awakening that almost metaphysical reflection on one's own blood sources, the intellectual roots, their shared history and habitat. Only today again that we develop healthy sense of the historical unity of body and soul, language and customs, by their very nature is necessary apart from the state and as a counterpoint to the state. Flow together while in the National Heritage and democracy in one state, we realize once again the fruitful tension between nation and state, from which the state of those forces are fed, without which it becomes clear mechanism. Therefore, even nationalist consciousness is something other than the nation-state perceived nationalism. During this closure to the peoples of each other, to mutual butchery and thus leads to the Balkanization of Europe, has strengthened the nationalist consciousness of the tendency to recognize the sanctity of all ethnic belongings. The nationalist awakening thus makes the way for cooperation übervölkische.

I have already pointed out in Dortmund, that modern technology requires the creation of economic conurbations; that the overseas continents of the fiercest competition taken Europe's living standards could only barely get if it were, the total European costs are lower. The road to this economic education metropolitan areas, as demanded by the age of the airplane and the truck is through sanctification of those people and belongings at the idea of big government mergers, which leave the people unharmed and untouched estates. But this requires the voluntary surrender of a Staatstotalismus who recognizes no intrinsic life grown. This includes above all the insight into the nature of state rule, which permits but nothing that goes against the state, but also does not claim that everything done by the state.

In developing this target image of the German revolution, I'm caught in the middle of the current problem situation, which I faithfully my opening remarks would not go out of his way. The question was raised as a fundamental problem of the era of me, believing in the divorce and unbelieving people affected, the dispute over the constitutional approach. A state must decide whether he wants to be religious or secular. The logic of history demands that the liberal, secular state in 1789 founded the religious state follow the German counter-revolution. One should, however, the religious state, based on a living God's commitment not to confuse, as with a secular state in which worldly values in place of the afterlife beliefs and are set embellished with religious honors. Again a word of the leader from the book "Mein Kampf" where he writes: "I do not hesitate to explain that I was in the men who drag today, the Nationalist movement in the crisis of religious disputes, worse enemies of my people see than the next best set international communists. "Certainly the outward respect for the religious commitment an advance over those irreverent attitude, as it brings to a degenerated rationalism. But we must not forget that religion is the real commitment to God and not to those substitutes that have been introduced precisely because of the materialistic conception of history of Karl Marx in the consciousness of the peoples. Now, if large sections, especially from the standpoint of the totalitarian state and the relentless melting of the people out, a common doctrinal basis demand, so they should not forget that we must be happy to have such a basis in Christianity. You should also consider whether or not the alleged crisis of Christianity - is often claimed to be - a consequence of the arrogance or the lifelessness of the Christian truth of salvation, but if not perhaps the rationalized and liberalized people largely the inner ability to grasp the mystery of Christ, is lost. I am convinced that Christian doctrine is simply the religious form of all Western thought, and that with the reawakening of a new religious forces penetration of the German people also taking place with good Christian, one whose ultimate depth by the 19th Previous century mankind hardly guessed. To this decision, whether the new German Reich will be the Christian or loses in semi-religious sectarianism and materialism will be wrestled. It will be easy if all attempts to influence the state of violence in direction of a violent reformation do not occur. It must be admitted that the resistance is in Christian circles against state or partisan interference in the church a political moment. But only because political interference in the religious district of forcing the victims, for religious reasons to reject unnatural in this area claim to totality. Even as a Catholic, I understand that one built on freedom of conscience, religious belief, it refuses to let the command of politics in her very own. One should therefore not obscure the fact that some forces would trigger forced religious wars in which violence must also fail. It should also be in those circles who hope a new, species-specific religious agreement, once put the question of how they see the fulfillment of the German role in Europe if we turn ourselves voluntarily from the series of Christian nations. Each activity in the European region into seems to be impossible under such conditions. The fact of a common European culture and civilization for which we have contributed so much himself obliged, in spite of all the ethnic specificity of the cultural achievement. We can not conclude at the borders and mentally go voluntarily into a ghetto. Here lies the real reaction, self-closing the face of historical necessity and mission of a nation that, if it was a truly great nation, would still have the idea of empire. The old dichotomy between Welf and Waiblingen, which extends through the whole of German history is alive again and asks for a decision.

Who has been informed about what is taking place in Europe today in the best minds and the noblest souls who feels literally like a new Ghibellines party begins to germinate in Europe, in the ideal bears that aristocratic basic idea of the nature of the the leader speaks, and which is driven by the desire for happy one continent. Innovators have to say, look beyond the temporal advantages and prejudices, to strive for those eternal laws, who lived at all times and among all nations in the yearning of the best.

There is no use to hide from themselves that a certain gap between the intellectual will and the daily practice of the German revolution has opened up. This is not surprising! To counter this danger, one should ask himself the question of the causes of this condition. They are found in the fact that the German revolution - meets the spiritual conversion with a social upheaval - as is often the case in history. The spiritual aims to reverse the aforementioned aristocratic spirit of the nature of social upheaval on the other hand is liable to be influenced to some extent by those dynamics, which at the time helped already political Marxism. In such a situation the leadership faces a tremendous task, the solution of the entire heavy and great resolve of true statesmanship requires. This task has a similar historical situation, Conrad Ferdinand Meyer in his masterful novel, "The Temptation of Pescara" paraphrased exhausting, when he outlines Martin Luther's attitude to the peasant wars as follows: "A world-shaking man has two offices: he takes what the times require but then - and this is a difficult job - it stands like a giant against the splashing spray of the century and throws behind the excited crowds and bad guys who want to join in, just work on the driving and who are a disgrace. "

That this huge office, which is given to all the revolutionary times, exercise is still is not misunderstood. The guide will have to see to it that no new class struggle under other field signs are repeated. She wants to divide the nation as a whole and therefore rejects it as a national merit recognition at all, the people for all time in a privileged class, and in such lesser rights. Such an attitude does not correspond to the almost one hundred percent commitment of the German people from 12 November 1933 for new governance.

While it is obvious that the carriers of the revolutionary principle occupy the first positions of power. But a revolution is completed, so the government only represents the people as a whole, but it is never an exponent of individual groups, they would otherwise fail in the formation of the national community. It must also break with false romantic notions, the 20th in the Century do not fit. So we can not remember to repeat the classification of people according to ancient Greek Spartans and Helots in pattern. At the end of such a development, the Spartans had to do was to keep down the helots, so that the foreign affairs power of Sparta was weakened. In the state of true national community has finally silenced the domestic political battle. Surely there must be a selection. But the spin-off and natural selection principle is not to replace it with a commitment to a particular formation, while the motives remain inscrutable in this confession. That is why National Socialism has always fought to dislodge the party membership by probation and human performance. On the other hand, is not only a noble blood, but also a spiritual principle. It is therefore not to dismiss the mind with the slogan intellectualism. Lack of or entitle primitive intellect not to fight against intellectualism. And if today we sometimes complain about 150 percent Nazis, then there are those intellectuals without soil, such that scientists want to deny their existence by reputation, because they do not have a book party. Which is rooted in the essence and spirit in the blood but full of character, incorruptible, arrested the knowledge and conscience. He is under all circumstances the respect of the nation, because they commit a sin against the creation and denies himself, if she denies the spirit. Let us beware of the danger, the spiritual people of the nation ruled, and we are mindful of the fact that all great things come out of the spirit, even in politics. Let it not that people lacked the spiritual vitality, without which a nation can not be performed. The true spirit is so vital that he sacrifices himself for his beliefs. The confusion of vitality and brutality would betray a worship of violence that would be dangerous for a nation.

Most intellectualism is bad, however, the rule of the slogan. Since there are fundamentally liberal people who speak a sentence without misusing the word liberal. They think that the real humanity would be liberal, but where it is the antique-Christian culture is really a flower. They describe as the liberal concept of freedom, but where it is in fact essentially Germanic. They go against the equality before the judge, the degeneracy is denounced as a liberal, but where it really is just the condition each award. These people suppress that foundation of the state, nor ever, not only in liberal times, Justice said. Their attacks are directed against the security and freedom of the private sphere of life, which has won the German people in the heaviest fighting for centuries.

Even the phrase "men make history" is often misunderstood. Rightly therefore turns the government against a false personality cult, which is the un-Prussian thing you can imagine. Great men are not made by propaganda but by their deeds grow and be recognized by history. Also can not hide these Byzantine laws. Who speaks thus of Prussia is, at first silent and impersonal service, but until recently, did not think, to recognize and reward the best.

The education of a people to serve the state is an obvious imperative and must use all the harder, more translucent it was nursed by the Weimar regime. But we should not fool about the biological and psychological limits of education nothing. The necessity of ending the self-assertion of the real personality. Dangerous for the reactions to the compulsion. As an old soldier I know that strictest discipline must be supplemented by certain freedoms. Even the good soldier, who fell out with unconditional obedience, joy, counted the days of his service time, because the need for freedom is rooted in human nature. The use of military discipline to the total life of a people must therefore keep within limits that do not contravene the human system. Everyone needs hours in which he is the family, recreation or even heard. Recognizing this, the Reich Minister of Education has decreed the Sunday to take back to a day that belongs to the Church and the family. Would be reprehensible but the belief that a people can do with a terrorist. The government will then meet ongoing trials, because they know that every terrorist is the outcome of an evil conscience, which is about the worst consultant who can not afford to lead. The real education, which is always growing, can only be derived from moral principles. Truly moral principles but can only faith in a higher world order to mediate. Patriotism, sacrifice and dedication can only be an issue, if it as a divine commandment rooted in individual human beings.

We should therefore not go into the spell of the polemical slogan of individuals, means nothing. The leader calls on his motion, "that she must never forget that the personal value of the value lies all that is human, that every idea and every performance is the result of the creative power of a man is and that admiration for the greatness is not only a thank-inch these represent, but also wraps a unifying bond to the ends of thanks. "

I have therefore the problems of the German revolution and to outline my position as sharp, because the talk of the second wave, which will complete the revolution, will have no end. Who is playing irresponsibly with such thoughts that should not be denied that a second wave may easily follow a third, that those who threatened with the guillotine, most likely falls under the guillotine. Nor does it appear, to lead where this second wave. There is much talk of the coming socialization. Have we seen an anti-Marxist revolution, to carry out the program of Marxism? For Marxism, any attempt by the social question collectivization of property to solve. This will make the German people richer, its national income grows, it is perhaps better than anyone where the suspect in such a raid loot? Certainly there is a social problem, caused by economic and population policy processes. These are to be mastered but only if the property is again placed under responsibility, not the fact that the collective irresponsibility will be charged at the prevailing principle. It may therefore not be made to the principle of a more and more of their own initiative and accountability remove plan economy. Because who has not noticed that every form of collectivism leads to ineradicable corruption that is so far gone through the world blind.

No nation can afford the eternal revolt from below, if it wants to stand before history. Once the movement must come to an end, once a solid social fabric, held together by an uncontrollable result of justice and an undeniable state power. With eternal dynamics can not be made. Germany may not be a train into the blue, and nobody knows when it comes to a halt. The story flows by itself, it is not necessary to drive them relentlessly. If so should go a second wave of new life through the German Revolution, not as a social revolution, but as a creative accomplishment of the work begun. The statesman is there to create forms, and his only concern is for the state and nation. The state is the sole power and the final guarantor of that to which every citizen is entitled: iron on justice. The state can therefore bear no dualism in the long run, and the question of whether it is possible to feed the duality between the party and state a satisfactory solution, depends on the success of the German revolution and the future of our people.

Would like the government is well informed about all the things that spread to selfishness, lack of character, dishonesty, and arrogance Unritterlichkeit under the guise of the German revolution. She is mistaken not hide the fact that the rich treasure of faith, whom you gave the German people are threatened. If you want people near and solidarity with the people, so one should not underestimate the intelligence of the people, must reciprocate his confidence and did not want to patronize them incessantly. The German people know that his situation is serious, it is feeling the economic hardship, it detects exactly the shortcomings of many born out of need laws, it has a fine sense of violence and injustice, it smiles on clumsy attempts, whether by a false embellishment to deceive. No organization, no matter how loud propaganda in the long run be able alone to maintain confidence. I have therefore the wave of propaganda against the so-called "criticism Aster" interpreted differently, as this was done by some. Not through incitement, especially the youth, not by threats against helpless people parts, but only by trusting the people can debate with the confidence and enthusiasm to be lifted. The people know that he inflicted heavy casualties are expected. It will tolerate it and follow the leader in unshakable loyalty, if you did it with Audience and leaves, although not every word of criticism is construed as bad faith, and if despairing patriots are not branded as enemies of the state.

When the German U-boat war in the lifeblood of England, met the English press, the English people's attention to the full gravity of the danger. The result was that the Englishman stood together as one man for defense. Especially considering the spiritual and material boycott, which we are exposed to the world, this example shows how strong the relationship between leadership and people must be built on trust when it comes to ultimate things. An incapacitated people have no trust to give away.

It is time, in brotherly love and respect for the fellow to close ranks, not to disturb the work of serious men and bring doctrinaire fanatics to silence. The government warns those who see do not want the Germans are a people among peoples heart of Europe, that the sparse, traditional goods, we have saved, must be held together and we can not afford careless destruction of traditional values. We deny the great cultural heritage, we ignore or mistreat the thousand-year history of our people, the three thousand years of our continent, we are the great opportunities that the 20 Century once the core people in Europe, offering miss. World history is now made there, where one looks down smiling to the sick Europe. If Europe wants to maintain his claim to leadership in the world, then another hour to lose in order to devote all his powers of spiritual revival and bury the petty squabbles.

The world is in tremendous changes that lead to only a responsible, disciplined people will. We Germans can work ourselves up from powerlessness to the proper position when we pair with spirit energy, wisdom, with power, experience with intention to commit. History is waiting for us, but only if we prove ourselves worthy of her.

2011-08-03T10:27:00.002-07:00

From this post at The Dish.

Wife: But he (Breivik) identified himself as a Christian.
My friend: Nope, he couldn't be a Christian.
Wife: I know, not any Christian we know or could identify with.
My friend: Ridiculous how he says he's Christian.
Wife: But it got me thinking about how a lot of Muslims say the terrorists aren't true Muslims.
My friend (I was holding my breath at this point): Yea, I'm starting to see that. This crazy guy wants to represent Christians. He's fucking insane. Maybe the 9/11 guys were insane too and didn't represent Muslims?

And then at the end;

maybe there are other Christianists seeing that there are extremists who don't represent all Christians just as there are Islamists who don't represent all of Islam?

Nope. It makes sense, and religion is based on faith in spite of reason.

2011-08-03T10:25:00.001-07:00

A very good point from this post.

"I wonder when Israel was founded if its leaders ever dreamed of a day when their most stalwart allies for Greater Israel would be neo-fascist movements in Europe. There are ironies and then there are tragedies."

2011-06-13T07:27:00.002-07:00

Andrew Sullivan has been posting commentary for himself and others about assisted suicide. The latest shares some emails relaying personal experiences.

It is sad to contemplate the situation today. Just a few in this country that dwell on our fragile existence, and are concerned only with events surrounding expiration, they are the minority no matter their volume. Yet they have forced the rest of us to state individually, formally, what is considered basic humane treatment. These few would have us suffer, and proclaim that suffering a virtue bestowed graciously by a fantasy benevolent entity, when the norm is to treat our animals with more dignity.

2011-06-05T20:39:00.003-07:00

I've been listening to Ayn Rand and the World She Made by Anne Heller.

This is the first thing I've come across in a long time that attempts a truly objective approach to the woman that defined her own philosophy and called it Objectivism. Doing some digging, I found an interview that I've not seen before, at least I don't remember seeing it. This spurred me to find one of the basic premises for her system, or rather the reference in which she states it plainly. It can be found in her book For The New Intellectual.
Of course I have a digital copy on my computer (doesn't everyone?), so I did a search.

The New Intellectuals must remind the world that the basic premise of the Founding Fathers was man’s right to his own life, to his own liberty, to the pursuit of his own happiness—which means: man’s right to exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself; and that the political implementation of this right is a society where men deal with one another as traders, by voluntary exchange to mutual benefit.

In the book she says that "Capitalism and altruism are incompatible; they are philosophical opposites; they cannot co-exist in the same man or in the same society." This is why liberals today have such a hard time with Ayn Rand, because bleeding hearts see altruism as a noble goal of the highest order. Ayn Rand, as stated in her book, sees the consequences of altruism are " slavery, brute force, stagnant terror and sacrificial furnaces."

Strong words indeed.

2011-06-03T17:44:00.002-07:00

I have finished History of the American People by Paul Johnson. Definitly more entertaining than a lot of things I've read on American History.

The author's bias is evident throughout the book. As I stated in an earlier post, he makes the case in several parts of the book for our country founded on christian values. With this in mind, he is true to form of the standard christian conservative mindset. His support for the political parties switches right around the time that party values most obviously change, so that his support of Democratic figures early in the nation's history wanes right around the Truman/Eisenhower transition. After that he has nothing good to say about a Democrat, and his support of Republican figures thereafter wanes not even for Nixon, for whom he makes many excuses.

An example of this bias is blatant with his attempt to portray Eisenhower as an upstanding christian in the American tradition.

Eisenhower presided benignly over what was termed `Piety on the Potomac', a generalized form of the Christian religion very much in the American tradition, with no stress on dogma but insistence on moral propriety and good works. He announced in 1954: `Our government makes no sense unless it is founded on a deeply felt religious faith-and I don't care what it is.’ By this he did not mean, of course, that he was indifferent to the articles of faith, far from it, but that he believed sinchttp://beta.blogger.com/img/blank.gifere faith was conducive to moral conformity, and that religion was the best, cheapest, and least oppressive form of social control. He had made his own personal sacrifice to the demands of conformity. While on active service abroad, 1942-5, he had fallen in love with his Anglo Irish driver, Kay Summersby, and in June 1945, after Germany was beaten, had even considered divorce and remarriage. But this proposal (according to Truman) had been vetoed by a blistering letter from his military superior, General Marshall, who threatened to `bust him out of the army' unless he gave up the idea.

I had to look this up, I knew nothing about such an affair. Not only does the author attempt to bolster the image of Eisenhower with this 'affair', but it seems the affair is based on circumstantial evidence at best. A Google search of Kay Summersby leads to this, and the best source that can be provided as evidence for such an affair comes from a book ghost written on Kay Summersby's deathbed. So, even that is suspect. I am not suggesting that the affair didn't happen, or insinuating any import, I only bring it up because there is no direct evidence for such a situation, but the author presents it as fact, which he then uses to further his subjective theme. Later in the book he reports on the very same situation that Kennedy usually found himself in, but this time the activities are proof of Kennedy's deplorable character.

Although it was entertaining, I regret having paid for such propaganda.

2011-05-15T11:06:00.005-07:00

I am loathe to put aside a book once I've started it. I am trying desperately to finish a current read, but it is becoming difficult to take.

I am in the middle of A History of the American People by Paul Johnson. I discovered this book while searching for hard copies of US History in the Oxford series in a Bookman's store in Phoenix. I got a copy from Audible without too much research, and it proved to be a bad decision.

The book is horribly biased. Not only does the author argue that the USA was founded as a christian nation, an assertion put forth today by the likes of David Barton and supposed presidential candidate Huckabee, but it also idolizes Andrew Jackson. The book makes very light of the push to rid the States of Indians by Jackson, and although the "Trail of Tears" is not a specific event, it is a scar on historical US policy, and is mentioned only formally in the book as the Indian Removal Act of 1830.

Here is a passage that describes Indian removal:

Some whites supported the Cherokee Republic at the time. When Congress, in response to the Georgia petition, decreed that, after January 1, 1830, all state laws applied to Indians, and five months later passed a Removal Bill authorizing the President to drive any eastern Indians still organized tribally across the Mississippi, if necessary by force, a group of missionaries encouraged the Cherokee Republic to challenge the law in the Supreme Court. But in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, the Marshall Court ruled that the tribe did not constitute a nation within the meaning of the US Constitution and so could not bring suit. The missionaries then counselled resistance and on September 15, 1831 eleven of them were convicted of violating state law and sentenced to four years' hard labor. Nine had their convictions overturned by submitting and swearing an oath of allegiance to Georgia. Two appealed to the Supreme Court and had their convictions overturned. But Georgia, encouraged by President Jackson, defied the Court's ruling. The end came over the next few years, brought about by a combination of force, harassment-stopping of annuities, cancellations of debts-and bribery. The Treaty of New Echota, signed in December 1835 by a greedy minority led by Chief Major Ridge, ceded the last lands in return for $5.6 million, the republic broke up, and the final Cherokee stragglers were herded across the Mississippi by US cavalry three years later.

The following few paragraphs are an attempt at unbiased criticism of the treatment of the American aboriginal. The author ends his description with a quote from a Frenchman that washes over the whole affair.

Under President Jackson, he noted, all was done lawfully and constitutionally. The Indians were deprived of their rights, enjoyed since time immemorial, `with singular felicity, tranquilly, legally, philanthropically, without shedding blood and without violating a single great principle of morality in the eyes of the world.' It was, he concluded, impossible to exterminate a race with `more respect for the laws of humanity.’

How an author of history can allow such words describing extermination is beyond me.

In a paragraph discussing Jackson, the author compares Jackson to Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, and describes instictive convictions as a positive attribute.

Jackson was one of those self-confident, strong-willed people (one thinks of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher in our own time) who are not in the least disturbed if the overwhelming majority of `expert opinion,' the `right-thinking,' and the intelligentsia are opposed to their own deep-felt, instinctive convictions. He simply pressed on, justifying his veto by producing a curious constitutional theory of his own: `Each public officer who takes an oath to support the Constitution swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others ... The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both.'`,' The fury of the right-thinking was unbounded. Biddle himself described Jackson, in his stupidity and ignorance giving vent to `the fury of a chained panther biting the bars of his cage.' His statement was `a manifesto of anarchy such as Marat or Robespierre might have issued to the mobs.' The Jacksonian press hailed it as a `Second Declaration of Independence' and his organ, the Globe, said, `It is difficult to describe in adequate language the sublimity of the moral spectacle now presented to the American people in the person of Andrew Jackson.'

Jackson, according to the paragraph above, felt that one man's opinion should be allowed to overrule the deliberations of a panel of men formed for the purpose of deliberating such questions. This policy of Jackson's, striking in its variance to what American government is all about, is described as 'curious'.

Not sure if I will finish it, there are so many other things to read it is difficult rationalize going on. But there is the notion of learning things from such material as put forth by Christopher Hitchens. In a speech defending free expression, and opposing a hate speech law in Canada, Hitchens says this;

"...David Irving’s edition of the Goebbel’s diaries for example, out of which I learned more about the Third Reich than I had from studying Hugh and A. J. B. Taylor combined when I was at Oxford."

2011-03-28T08:38:00.002-07:00

Leave it to The Rolling Stone

The Kill Team
How U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan murdered innocent civilians and mutilated their corpses – and how their officers failed to stop them.

Will the American public care?

Andrew Sullivan highlights a story about a soldier from Wasilla, in line with his campaign against all things Palin. The article talks about Morlock's trial for war crimes, and interviews some people from his past.

While stationed in Washington, Morlock got married and had a child. Reached by phone, his wife, Danica, said the two were no longer married and hung up. The Seattle Times reports that Morlock was charged with assault after allegedly throwing a glass at his wife and pressing a lighted cigarette against her chest. He was convicted of a lesser charge and paid a fine.

Interesting.

2011-03-24T08:16:00.002-07:00

There are many blogs and news sites I peruse every day, or try to anyway. I read this one frequently, maybe every other day. He lives in the same city and sometimes posts pictures and commentary about the city, which makes it slightly more interesting. He commented on the overabundance of posts one day in a post, and I commented. I either did something wrong and it didn't get posted, or it got posted and he deleted it.

I compare it to Andrew Sullivan's blog who posts a lot of shit and extensive commentary on some of it. Of course, Sullivan probably has a shitload of people mining information for him, and I wouldn't be surprised if he had people writing things for him to tweak and post as well. There is a lot of content on his page, too much to keep up with sometimes. It is varied too, so I'm sure much of it is skipped over by most readers.

Yours is one of the blogs I read every day, seems a good balance of content and commentary, and no extreme BS.

Not sure. Thought about reposting, then I would know for sure. Or maybe another comment like, "Was it something I said?" Only with Firefox history was I able to retrieve my comment.

2011-03-24T08:03:00.002-07:00

Isn't this true for everyone?

Why don’t journalists link to primary sources?

I mean, doesn't everyone know, or even assume that everything they read should not be taken at face value? I would like to think critical thinking is inherent with most people, and it's only a few extreme cases where its absence is evident.

But then again, given the snow job that is religion, and the number of people not willing to fess up and assert their inability to buy into that fairy tale, one has to wonder. At the end of the above article he says this:

if you don’t link to primary sources, I just don’t trust you.

I guess I go even more extreme, because I am skeptical of everything; even the authors of primary sources have biases.

2011-03-22T09:20:00.002-07:00

So when I press "1" for English, why is it I still get someone on the other end I can barely understand?

This is a foolish statement found on Facebook, and all over the Internet of course. An equally terse reply from someone touting an opposing viewpoint could say that conservative capitalists have moved their operations to places where the labor is cheaper. Or, to where the people are willing to work for less. This would imply that Americans demand too much compensation for their labors, or that capitalists are being unpatriotic. The simplistic sentiments disregard many more issues at hand.

There are many other simplistic comments asserted over the internet, which, it could be said go a long way toward hindering a true world community that could otherwise foster more understanding about the differences that divide the people of this world. These simplistic views encourage someone to lament the absence of like minded individuals and be done with it, rather than further the critical thinking process and focus on real injustices perpetrated by individuals intent on fostering hate and discontent for personal objectives.

2011-03-16T08:26:00.002-07:00

Found this today on Conservapedia.

Looking at the margin, the byline is "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia". Further investigation reveals their disclaimer.

USERS RELY ON INFORMATION HERE ENTIRELY AT THEIR OWN RISK. Conservapedia and its editors, contributors, sponsors, affiliates or anyone associated in any way with this project cannot guarantee the validity of any information found here, and shall not be responsible or liable in any way for any inaccurate or libelous information found here.

Wikipedia's disclaimer.

That is not to say that you will not find valuable and accurate information in Wikipedia; much of the time you will. However, Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here. The content of any given article may recently have been changed, vandalized or altered by someone whose opinion does not correspond with the state of knowledge in the relevant fields.

2011-03-15T09:35:00.002-07:00

So, after checking back on this, it seems even the link to the cached version of his comments has been pulled, the main reason I copied the substance of the post.

Not sure if I posted a link to the reason the column was pulled, but here it is.

2011-03-15T09:26:00.001-07:00

I really couldn't believe someone would say something like this, but it seems to be true after doing a little digging.

It looks like to me if shooting these immigrating feral hogs works maybe we have found a [solution] to our illegal immigration problem

2011-03-15T09:21:00.003-07:00

A post here about social security and individuals.

Do we cut social security benefits to ensure individuals don't filch the taxpayers, or do we keep it to ensure people like the one below get humane treatment? People like Rush hear about freeloaders, and want to cut off benefits to those that truly need it to avoid freeloading.

As a disabled American, I have read with particular interest your commentary on Limbaugh's latest attack on the most vulnerable members of our society. Without citing any evidence, Limbaugh does not hesitate to assert that many, if not most, people receiving Social Security disability benefits are frauds who are freeloading on the taxpayers. You correctly point out, however, that Limbaugh has difficulty defending his position when confronted by a real human being living with a serious disability. Here's my story.

I was raised in the Bronx in a secure and loving family living in very modest economic conditions. Blessed with academic abilities and strongly influenced by my parents teaching me the value of hard work, I became the first member of my family to earn a college degree and then went on to earn a law degree. I did well enough in law school to be selected for the Law Review. I received an appointment as a law clerk at a federal circuit court of appeals, which led to my being hired by a major international law firm.

Before I reached my thirtieth birthday, I was earning a six-figure income. I worked very hard for my success. Seventy hour weeks under stressful conditions were the norm. Perhaps most importantly, I genuinely loved my chosen career at a firm that gave me the opportunity to work on challenging legal matters for both major corporations and indigent prison inmates. In my early thirties, my career was flourishing. My wife and I were approaching the closing of the purchase of our first home and eagerly anticipating the birth of our first child.

Then I began to notice that I was having difficulties with my body's coordination. I had been an above average athlete all my life, but now I was becoming clumsy with the simplest of tasks.

My doctor sent me to a specialist, who ordered a series of increasingly invasive tests. After a month of testing, my wife and I sat in the specialist's office. We held hands as we listened to the words no one ever wants to hear from a doctor, "I am very sorry to have to tell you that . . . ." What I learned was that I had a disease that was causing the neurons in my central nervous system to die slowly. There was no cure or even effective treatment. The disease would cause increasing disabilities and eventually death. Blessed with an incredibly brave wife, and supportive family members and friends, I knew I would not have to face the future alone.

I continued to work full time for almost two years, making the adjustments required by my failing health. When I could no longer work full time at my office, I continued to work as best I could from my home. Eventually, despite my best efforts, I came to the difficult realization that the state of my health would no longer allow me to meet my clients' needs. My application for Social Security disability benefits (and the vitally important Medicare coverage that goes with them) was approved.

I will not live long enough to collect Social Security retirement benefits. My disability benefits and Medicare coverage have allowed me to remain in my home without bankrupting my family.

While there may be cases of people fraudulently obtaining Social Security disability benefits, it is hard for me to believe that they are more than a very small percentage of the total claims. I am grateful that I live in a country that still believes in providing a system of social insurance for all its citizens. I paid my premiums into that system for more than a decade, and I do not believe I am a "freeloader" now that I have been forced to claim the benefits of that social insurance.

P.S. For those of us who are mainly confined to our homes, the internet is a tremendous gift of maintaining contact with the world. Thanks for all you do.

Later he posts another email. This person tells of people he knows that could work but don't because they are filching. This statement the reader makes is not sound.

So while your reader's story seems legitimate, I can guarantee you there at least two stories that are not. Disability is a safety net for people like your reader, not the two men I know.

Of course they don't back up their claim. This is the biggest problem with how information is disseminated; people assert things they have no way of knowing, based on anecdotal evidence.

Critical thinking needs more champions.

2011-03-10T08:26:00.001-07:00

What's wrong with America? Other than the fact god hates our fags and abortions, according to this post inequality is the culprit.

Andrew Sullivan talks about it here at the Daily Dish. This line caused a flurry of email apparently...

To many on the right, this inequality is a non-issue, and in an abstract sense, I agree. Penalizing people for their success does not help the less successful.

Andrew doesn't allow comments on his blog, but he will post a lot of the email he gets. He did so here with his Dissents for yesterday.

2011-02-15T10:35:00.002-07:00

So, I use IRC to get books that I don't want to pay for, or that I want in a particular format that I can't get anywhere else if I already have the book.

I was looking for a book that is a collection of writings by Bertrand Russell. I got into chat using MIrc, and put the book on my tablet with relative ease.

Getting ready to close chat, I noticed this...

!maj Neil White - In the Sanctuary of Outcasts (v5.0) (epub).rar
NIGGER nigger NIGGER nigger NIGGER nigger NIGGER nigger NIGGER nigger NIGGER nigger NIGGER nigger NIGGER nigger NIGGER nigger NIGGER nigger NIGGER nigger NIGGER nigger NIGGER nigger NIGGER nigger NIGGER nigger NIGGER nigger NIGGER nigger NIGGER nigger NIGGER nigger NIGGER nigger NIGGER nigger
@search ken follet
* angelbabe has quit IRC (Ping timeout )
NIGGER nigger NIGGER nigger NIGGER nigger NIGGER nigger NIGGER nigger NIGGER nigger NIGGER nigger NIGGER nigger NIGGER nigger NIGGER nigger NIGGER nigger NIGGER nigger NIGGER nigger NIGGER nigger NIGGER nigger NIGGER nigger NIGGER nigger NIGGER nigger NIGGER nigger NIGGER nigger NIGGER nigger
* Immortalis sets mode: +b *!*@139.57.226.159
* stratzilla was kicked by Immortalis (multiple repeat floods )
@all_romance-new

Interesting. Was the perp just wanting to fuck with the room, or were they making reference to the recent editorial adjustments make to Huckelberry Finn?

2011-02-12T21:21:00.000-07:00

Bryan Fisher. Stupid Shit.

Will even this be pulled?

Native Americans Morally Disqualified Themselves From the Land

By Bryan Fischer

In all the discussions about the European settlement of the New World, one feature has been conspicuously absent: the role that the superstition, savagery and sexual immorality of native Americans played in making them morally disqualified from sovereign control of American soil.

International legal scholars have always recognized that sovereign control of land is legitimately transferred in at least three ways: settlement, purchase, and conquest. Europeans have to this day a legitimate claim on American soil for all three of those reasons.

They established permanent settlements on the land, moving gradually from east to west, while Indian tribes remained relentlessly nomadic.

Much of the early territory in North American that came into possession of the Europeans came into their possession when the land was purchased from local tribes, Peter Minuit’s purchase of Manhattan being merely the first.

And the Europeans proved superior in battle, taking possession of contested lands through right of conquest. So in all respects, Europeans gained rightful and legal sovereign control of American soil.

But another factor has rarely been discussed, and that is the moral factor.

In the ancient tradition of the Hebrews, God made it clear to Abraham that the land of Canaan was promised to his descendants. But he told Abraham the transfer of land to his heirs could not happen for 400 years, for one simple reason: “[T]he iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete” (Gen. 15:16).

The Amorites, or Canaanite peoples, practiced one moral abomination after another, whether it was incest, adultery, sexual immorality, homosexuality, bestiality or child sacrifice, and God finally said “Enough!”

By the time he brought the nascent nation of Israel to the borders of the land flowing with milk and honey, he had already been patient with the native tribes for 400 years, waiting for them to come to the place of repentance for their socially and spiritually degrading practices.

His patience was not rewarded, and finally the day came when the sin had reached its full measure. The slop bucket was full, and it was time to empty it out. Israel under Joshua was God’s custodian to empty the bucket and start over.

The native American tribes at the time of the European settlement and founding of the United States were, virtually without exception, steeped in the basest forms of superstition, had been guilty of savagery in warfare for hundreds of years, and practiced the most debased forms of sexuality.

One of the complaints listed by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence was that King George “has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.”

The Lewis and Clark journals record the constant warfare between the nomadic Indian tribes on the frontier, and the implacable hostility of the Sioux Indians in particular.

The journals record the morally abhorrent practice of many native American chiefs, who offered their own wives to the Corps of Discovery for their twisted sexual pleasure. (Regrettably, many members of the Corps, Lewis and Clark excepted, took advantage of these offers and contracted numerous and debilitating sexually transmitted diseases as a result.)

The native American tribes ultimately resisted the appeal of Christian Europeans to leave behind their superstition and occult practices for the light of Christianity and civilization. They in the end resisted every attempt to “Christianize the Savages of the Wilderness,” to use George Washington’s phrase.

They rejected Washington’s direct counsel to the Delaware chiefs in 1779, “You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ.”

Thomas Jefferson three times signed legislation appropriating federal tax dollars for the evangelizing of the Native American tribes. It all came to nought, as one tribe after another rejected the offer of spiritual light and advanced civilization.

Missionaries were murdered in cold blood, including Marcus Whitman, who was tomahawked to death in his own house in 1848 by the Cayuse and Umatilla Indians in what became the Oregon Territory.

God explained to the nation of Israel that because of the “abomination(s)” of the indigenous Canaanite tribes, the land had become unclean and “vomited out its inhabitants (Lev. 18:25).”

Is this to say the same holds true for native American tribes today? In many respects, the answer is of course no. But in some senses, the answer is yes. Many of the tribal reservations today remain mired in poverty and alcoholism because many native Americans continue to cling to the darkness of indigenous superstition instead of coming into the light of Christianity and assimilating into Christian culture.

The continued presence of native American superstition was on full display at the memorial service for the victims of the Tucson shooter, when the “invocation” (such as it was) was offered by a native American who sought inspiration from the “Seven Directions,” including “Father Sky” and “Mother Earth,” rather than the God of the Bible.

Sadly, this column will likely generate a firestorm of nuclear proportions among wingers on the left rather than the thoughtful reflection the thesis deserves.

Even worse, the reaction will likely obscure the sobering lesson for today. America in 2011 is as guilty of “abominations” as the native American tribes we replaced. We have the blood of 53 million babies on our hands through abortion. We have normalized sexual immorality, adultery, and homosexuality, all horrors in the eyes of God, and are witnessing a surge in incest, pedophilia and even bestiality in our midst.

God warned the ancient nation of Israel not to lapse into the abominable practices of the native peoples “lest the land vomit you out…as it vomited out the nation that was before you” (Lev. 18:28).

Time eventually ran out for the Canaanites, because they filled up the full measure of their iniquity. Time ran out for the native American tribes for the same reason.

The only question that matters today is this one: how much time does America have left to repent of its superstition, its savagery and its sexual immorality before it is too late, before we will have filled up our own slop bucket and will have morally disqualified ourselves from sovereign control of our own land?

Thomas Jefferson wrote at the time of the Founding, “I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever.” It is long past time for us once again to tremble for our country.

(Unless otherwise noted, the opinions expressed are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the views of the American Family Association or American Family Radio.)

The Moral Liberal contributing editor, Bryan Fischer, is Director of Issue Analysis for Government and Public Policy at the American Family Association, and is the host of the daily ‘Focal Point’ radio talk program on AFR Talk, a division of the American Family Association. ‘Focal Point’ airs live from 1-3 pm Central Time, and is also simulcast on the AFA Channel, which can be seen on the Sky Angel network. Follow Bryan on Twitter.

2010-08-31T15:54:00.002-07:00

The Oxford English Dictionary is an awesome piece of work. Painstakingly assembled over the course of several decades, it is a testament to the will of the individual compilation scholar.

I'm sure the true original project manager, James Murray, who became the backbone that brought it to fruition, would have loved a more efficient system than the one he was forced to employ. Quotations illustrating word usage were kept on slips of paper sent in by individual volunteers from all over the world, and filing was a nightmare. It was housed in what Murray called the Scriptorium.

Technology has allowed employment of much more efficient cataloging, so why would we lament such progress? It boggles the mind, those that hold out for paper based storage.

2010-08-31T06:59:00.002-07:00

This shit is just fucking loony! This book has an article called THE INTELLECTUAL SCHIZOPHRENIA OF THE NEW CHRISTIAN RIGHT By Gary North. He says some crazy shit.

So let us be blunt about it: we must use the doctrine of religious liberty to gain independence for Christian schools until we rack up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutral- it y, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government. Then they will get busy in constructing a Bible-based social, political, and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God.

The quote can be found on this page. This is so anti-American it isn't funny. There are many that actually believe this though, stemming from the fact that people seriously believe if only the rest of the world thought as they did, utopia would be inevitable.

2010-08-30T23:31:00.002-07:00

Beck selling snake oil.

This is Divine Providence. This is the Lord's hand at work. This is a miracle.

Holy fuck!! It's a miracle this guy still has an audience.

2010-07-01T07:37:00.002-07:00

Finland is making it mandatory for ISPs to deliver internet access to everyone. It's kind of like the law here in the States that cable companies are required to deliver local channels to customers at nominal cost. The story is here.

2010-06-29T22:20:00.003-07:00

The book illustrates the point that highly technical words and phrases can simply be smokescreen, striving to lull the reader into a false sense of trustworthiness toward the author by using complicated language. They point to a product on Amazon.com, a supposed advanced cable that is sold for thousands, but isn't any better than similar cables selling for a few dollars.

Made of high-purity copper wire, it's designed to thoroughly eliminate adverse effects from vibration and helps stabilize the digital transmission from occurrences of jitter and ripple. A tin-bearing copper alloy is used for the cable's shield while the insulation is made of a fluoropolymer material with superior heat resistance, weather resistance, and anti-aging properties. The connector features a rounded plug lever to prevent bending or breaking and direction marks to indicate correct direction for connecting cable.

There is a review of the book that illustrates this point nicely, although I don't think the author of the review intended it as such. The authors of the book call it 'neuro-babble'. The review can be found here, but below is the relevant passage...

The authors belong to a psychological school of thought that celebrates methodical, rational analysis over rapid, intuitive decision making. They say little about research that has revealed intuition’s strengths, such as its ability to aid firefighters, pilots and other professionals in making critical decisions under time pressure. Nor do the authors address the possibility that experimentally induced mental illusions stem from thinking strategies that are generally useful, just as optical illusions stem from a largely effective visual system.

The whole point of the book is found in the subtitle of the book, that intuition is a false sense that we know something we really don't. The author of the review doesn't like this, and I would guess it's because he is prone to believing fairy tales, and lending credence to the likes of Uri Geller and John Edward.

2010-06-29T08:47:00.001-07:00

“How to maintain faith while fully pursuing science” ~ A course in sustaining cognitive dissonance.

2010-06-28T10:39:00.003-07:00

It has been a looong time. I tend to think it's because I'm able to post links and comments over at Facebook, but I realize I don't get nearly as detailed there as I do here. That is because I really don't want to hurt anyone's feelings, because actually telling someone that is even slightly religious that religious stories are simply fairy tales is ridiculing their beliefs, and of course ridicule can seem malicious even when it truly is not.

Ok, enough about that. I've started reading The Invisible Gorilla by Daniel Simons and Christopher F. Chabris. Interesting read. At times it reminded me of Black Swan and Don't Think of an Elephant. Black Swan is about unpredicted events and their influence, and the other describes how people use words and phrases to influence what others think and believe.

The opening quote from Benjamin Franklin says it all; it is hard to know oneself. The authors demonstrate why people should be critical of how they view and interpret existence. The book has been personal in a number of ways. They talk about things that distract a driver, and I listen to books when I'm behind the wheel. I've been an x-ray tech for two years now, and they talk about Radiologists and how they interpret diagnostic imgages.

They also talk about doctors and their confidence levels, or rather the fact that people prefer confident doctors, even though it has little bearing on competence. I work in a teaching hospital, and my confidence of how our medical professionals are educated and trained has decreased significantly based on my observations of my own experiences and observing other students, especially residents.

The authors also talk about people's own perception of their knowledge, and demonstrate how much it can be skewed. My own experiences have made me painfully aware of how unreliable my perceptions are. Two experiences I remember vividly. I was in a classroom learning about systems of the EA-6B Prowler aircraft. The instructor was a belligerent technical representative from the Grumman Corp., the company that produced the plane. He asked if anyone could explain how computers deal with computational errors, explicitly how parity bits work. I raised my hand, because I was familiar with them, although when I tried to explain I failed miserably. The instructor pounced, exclaiming in a booming voice, literally, that I didn't know if I couldn't explain it.

One other incident is illustrative. During a discussion about hard drives, I was explaining partitioning. Another individual pointed out that I was wrong, and of course I looked it up. I was wrong of course, and of course my understanding improved. The individual was exasperated at the time at my willingness to pass along misinformation.

Halfway through the book, and looking forward to the rest.

2010-05-09T18:02:00.003-07:00

Over at Andrew Sullivan's blog, he says this...

For me, the core argument for some force behind the universe, revealed metaphorically in Scripture, is affirmed by science as we currently have it. Our universe came from nothing and is still expanding. What conceivable force made this possible? The second question is the nature of that force. The core revelation of Jesus - and the Buddha, for that matter, in some respects - is that the force is good, not evil. There is hope. Death is not what it seems. Love prevails. In this tragic, fallen, cruel world, this is not an easy doctrine. It cannot be inferred from the evidence. Which is why it is the gift of faith, from some source so deep, so great and so benign it defies any human description. Even metaphor fails.

To shear theology of its architecture and expose the rawest of its foundations is, I believe, part of what we need to do now as Christians. As our organized faith crumbles into archaism and fundamentalism, we need to re-imagine again what we already know, to take the so-familiar concepts, and make them real again.

First off, he asserts that science has revealed the truth about the origins of the universe. Here is where he first runs into problems, because although the current theory is that the universe began with the big bang, it is still just a theory. The universe and the physical laws that govern everything are so complicated that we haven't even begun to approach anything that resembles a true understanding. But he asserts this as fact, and continues to build toward his determined conclusion of a higher power using this as a foundation.

This is necessary though if he is to reach the foregone conclusion, the next step of which is the question of the force behind the assertion. This is of course the worn out rhetoric of the uncaused causer, the concept that the existence of the universe precludes a beginning. This reasoning fails with the question of, if everything has a cause, then why stop at 'God'. He barrels over this obstacle however, obviously never having considered the full import of his argument, and asserts there must have been a creator if there was a beginning.

His reason for believing? Hope. His argument for this? There is none, because, "It cannot be inferred from the evidence." Thus he falls back to the crutch that has been used for centuries, that "it defies any human description". This is akin to the argument that 'God' is unknowable, which refutes any assertions made in the name of religion, and is essentially a circular argument because any assertion made that refutes critique with "God is unknowable" invites the question of how this is known.

2010-05-01T07:18:00.004-07:00

There is a story here about a person that was arrested and stood trial, and was indeed convicted of blasphemy. Here was his crime, from the link above...

religiously aggravated intentional harassment, alarm or distress

That's just great. It's against the law to offend someone else - especially if the offending exposition or material is connected with religion somehow.

So I was just following some links and googling shit, basically just surfing the web looking at related material, and I came across another post which addressed similar issues. A good point is made in the post.

It is a common accusation that the “new” atheists are bullies who gang up on poor innocent bystanders like Mooney and De Dora and other Be Quieters.

The point is that a majority of people hold a certain viewpoint, and at times use various methods to shut down any opposition. In the case above, they silence the guy by making his actions illegal, rationalizing that it's not nice to fuck with someone else, especially if it involves ridiculing their religious beliefs. His actions should therefore be punishable in a court of law.

I don't recall how this connection was made, whose post I read that pointed to a similar situation, but I found this 'statement' made by the majority white folk in an effort to shut up the leaders of the civil rights leaders half a century ago.

The following is the public statement
directed to Martin Luther King, Jr.,
by eight Alabama clergymen

We the undersigned clergymen are among those who, in January, issued "an appeal for law and order and common sense," in dealing with racial problems in Alabama. We expressed understanding that honest convictions in racial matters could properly be pursued in the courts, but urged that decisions of those courts should in the meantime be peacefully obeyed.

Since that time there had been some evidence of increased forbearance and a willingness to face facts. Responsible citizens have undertaken to work on various problems which cause racial friction and unrest. In Birmingham, recent public events have given indication that we all have opportunity for a new constructive and realistic approach to racial problems.

However, we are now confronted by a series of demonstrations by some of our Negro citizens, directed and led in part by outsiders. We recognize the natural impatience of people who feel that their hopes are slow in being realized. But we are convinced that these demonstrations are unwise and untimely.

We agree rather with certain local Negro leadership which has called for honest and open negotiation of racial issues in our area. And we believe this kind of facing of issues can best be accomplished by citizens of our own metropolitan area, white and Negro, meeting with their knowledge and experience of the local situation. All of us need to face that responsibility and find proper channels for its accomplishment.

Just as we formerly pointed out that "hatred and violence have no sanction in our religious and political traditions," we also point out that such actions as incite to hatred and violence, however technically peaceful those actions may be, have not contributed to the resolution of our local problems. We do not believe that these days of new hope are days when extreme measures are justified in Birmingham.

We commend the community as a whole, and the local news media and law enforcement officials in particular, on the calm manner in which these demonstrations have been handled. We urge the public to continue to show restraint should the demonstrations continue, and the law enforcement officials to remain calm and continue to protect our city from violence.

We further strongly urge our own Negro community to withdraw support from these demonstrations, and to unite locally in working peacefully for a better Birmingham. When rights are consistently denied, a cause should be pressed in the courts and in negotiations among local leaders, and not in the streets. We appeal to both our white and Negro citizenry to observe the principles of law and order and common sense.

Bishop C.C.J. Carpenter, D.D., LL.D., Episcopalian Bishop of Alabama

Bishop Joseph A. Durick, D.D., Auxiliary Bishop, Roman Catholic Diocese of Mobile, Birmingham

Rabbi Milton L. Grafman, Temple Emanu-El, Birmingham, Alabama

Bishop Paul Hardin, Methodist Bishop of the Alabama-West Florida Conference

Bishop Nolan B. Harmon, Bishop of the North Alabama Conference of the Methodist Church

Rev. George M. Murray, D.D., LL.D, Bishop Coadjutor, Episcopal Diocese of Alabama

Rev. Edward V. Ramage, Moderator, Synod of the Alabama Presbyterian Church in the United States

Rev. Earl Stallings, Pastor, First Baptist Church, Birmingham, Alabama

April 12, 1963

I have yet to read MLK's response from his prison cell, but it's interesting how these people wanted to resort to reason, and resolve the issues peacefully. They were unaware of their own hipocrasy. Violence was ok when the negroes were getting lynched. At least these same clergy were turning a blind eye. Only violence would make people take notice though, and in the wake of that the 'voice of reason' urged that the matter be allowed to be settled in court.

Funny; white men urging the black men to take their grievances to court. A court administered by the white men that still saw the black man as inferior.

2010-04-29T08:53:00.001-07:00

This stuff is embarrassing. It sure would be nice if we could rid ourselves of our inclinations to believe shit like this.

2010-04-25T07:26:00.002-07:00

There is an argument here for Christopher Hitchens' assertion that Religion Poisons Everything.

This website is awesome. They strive to bring to light the struggles, animosity and hypocrisy in situations that involve religious concepts.

2010-04-24T08:14:00.003-07:00

I found this here on a belief website, of all places. Of course the computers in this house rarely access web pages like that, but I followed this link from a blog I read. Anyway, the quote below...

Now, it must be stressed that this is not to say that we all have the right to decide on our own reality. It is, however, to say that while it is undoubtedly true that not all visions of reality are equally valid -- there is not, for example, a Goodyear blimp floating in the air outside my office window, and someone who insisted that there was would plainly be mad -- we should be cautious about asserting the triumphant truth of our own way of seeing the world. We don't always know what we think we know, and we never know what we don't know.

Things for human society will not change until this concept is second nature. Wouldn't that be something.

2010-04-23T09:57:00.000-07:00

The comments attached to this story are hilarious!

Then there is this article, which says this...

a bill that would require the president to show his birth certificate to get on the state's 2012 ballot.

Some are saying it will shut up future birthers. I think legislators should find more productive use of their time.

2010-04-22T08:21:00.001-07:00

In support of the creators of South Park.

2010-04-16T08:26:00.002-07:00

Jesus with a boner?

Found this interesting. People have become irritated about this depiction of jesus. After doing a little digging, it is evident this particular way to represent the crucifix has been copied for centuries.

2010-04-14T08:30:00.002-07:00

Finished Imperial Cruise. As I said in an earlier post, it is a book bashing Roosevelt. The author uses the word 'ayran' quite a bit, which seems to be a subtle way of associating Roosevelt with Hitler and the Nazi party. He found many quotes attributed to politicians of the day that include the term, and used it several times when referencing people's thoughts and actions at the time. I found it irritating, but not so much that I couldn't finish the book. It was irritating not because I don't believe Roosevelt was a racist, but because using the term is rather disingenuous. Roosevelt didn't have a monopoly on racial bias, racism back then was socially acceptable. What's more, it was supported 'scientifically' with the now debunked field of Eugenics. Disconcerting as it is, Hitler's ideas were not confined to the Nazi party. We had our own version of the concentration camps with Japanese internment. Although they were a milder version, the motivations behind them were the same.

Started listening to Winds of War by Herman Wouk. I've known of the book since its publication, but it is not the kind of book that has appealed to me up to this point. There is a sequel too, though I'm not resigned to doing that one as well.

2010-03-12T17:02:00.002-07:00

Began reading Imperial Cruise, by James Bradley. The author rips on Teddy Roosevelt so much it's hard to imagine he believes TDR has any redeeming qualities at all. That he believes Roosevelt is racist is evident, and cites passages from the former President's own writings as arguments for this view.

The following is from The Winning of the West, Volume Three by Theodore Roosevelt

The Ethics of Such Territorial Conquest.

Yet in its results, and viewed from the standpoint of applied ethics, the conquest and settlement by the whites of the Indian lands was necessary to the greatness of the race and to the well-being of civilized mankind. It was as ultimately beneficial as it was inevitable. Huge tomes might be filled with arguments as to the morality or immorality of such conquests. But these arguments appeal chiefly to the cultivated men in highly civilized communities who have neither the wish nor the power to lead warlike expeditions into savage lands. Such conquests are commonly undertaken by those reckless and daring adventurers who shape and guide each race's territorial growth. They are sure to come when a masterful people, still in its raw barbarian prime, finds itself face to face with a weaker and wholly alien race which holds a coveted prize in its feeble grasp.

Many good persons seem prone to speak of all wars of conquest as necessarily evil. This is, of course, a shortsighted view. In its after effects a conquest may be fraught either with evil or with good for mankind, according to the comparative worth of the conquering and conquered peoples. It is useless to try to generalize about conquests simply as such in the abstract; each case or set of cases must be judged by itself. The world would have halted had it not been for the Teutonic conquests in alien lands; but the victories of Moslem over Christian have always proved a curse in the end. Nothing but sheer evil has come from the victories of Turk and Tartar. This is true generally of the victories of barbarians of low racial characteristics over gentler, more moral, and more refined peoples, even though these people have, to their shame and discredit, lost the vigorous fighting virtues. Yet it remains no less true that the world would probably have gone forward very little, indeed would probably not have gone forward at all, had it not been for the displacement or submersion of savage and barbaric peoples as a consequence of the armed settlement in strange lands of the races who hold in their hands the fate of the years. Every such submersion or displacement of an inferior race, every such armed settlement or conquest by a superior race, means the infliction and suffering of hideous woe and misery. It is a sad and dreadful thing that there should of necessity be such throes of agony; and yet they are the birth-pangs of a new and vigorous people. That they are in truth birth-pangs does not lessen the grim and hopeless woe of the race supplanted; of the race outworn or overthrown. The wrongs done and suffered cannot be blinked. Neither can they be allowed to hide the results to mankind of what has been achieved.

It is not possible to justify the backwoodsmen by appeal to principles which we would accept as binding on their descendants, or on the mighty nation which has sprung up and flourished in the soil they first won and tilled. All that can be asked is that they shall be judged as other wilderness conquerors, as other slayers and quellers of savage peoples, are judged. The same standards must be applied to Sevier and his hard-faced horse-riflemen that we apply to the Greek colonist of Sicily and the Roman colonist of the valley of the Po; to the Cossack rough-rider who won for Russia the vast and melancholy Siberian steppes, and to the Boer who guided his ox-drawn wagon-trains to the hot grazing lands of the Transvaal; to the founders of Massachusetts and Virginia, of Oregon and icy Saskatchewan; and to the men who built up those far-off commonwealths whose coasts are lapped by the waters of the great South Sea.

He talks about "the comparative worth of the conquering and conquered peoples." It is hard to imagine someone making such statements is even slightly capable of seeing beyond their narrow view of the world.

2010-03-05T10:01:00.006-07:00

This is how I waste my time lately....

From this post here, I get this statement.

"Nowadays, if you’re not on Facebook, it’s possible you don’t actually exist."

I read this line and immediately sensed the possibility of a breakdown in reason. Still, after reading all but the interview of the linked post, I did some checking.

World population - 6,790,062,216

Current Adult Population in the World: 14-64 years: 63.72%

http://chartsbin.com/view/clk

6,790,062,216 x .6372 = 4,326,627,644

Facebook users - More than 400 million active users, according to their website. (roughly 425?)

http://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics

425,000,000 x 100
--------------------------
4,326,627,644

(The equation for the percentage of the world's population using Facebook)

Answer - < 10%

Although I probably shouldn't, I would presume this percentage is slightly higher in the US and other developed countries. But then consider that there are some people have more than one ID on FB, the number of users spending a lot of their time playing Mafia Wars and similar mindless pastimes, how many people would that leave that are actually using FB as their prime repository of contact info?

I'm not the only one senselessly wasting my time on nonsense.

2010-02-08T09:47:00.003-07:00

Still in the middle of a number of books. I finished Food of a Younger Land by Mark Kurlansky. I listened to this because I have listened to some of his other books. This one is less interesting than those, Salt and Cod. Still, it held my attention long enough to finish.

On a suggestion from someone I work with I bought and listened to The Road by Cormac McCarthy. Very good book, really good reading. Just a man and his boy traveling through a post apocalyptic future.

I've also read again Anthem by Ayn Rand, because some people at work are reading it.

2010-02-03T09:08:00.002-07:00

Perusing the news today, there is an article about Micheal Steele being interviewed. He was asked about running for president.

"Come on, don't ask me that," Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele said when presented with the inevitable question about his 2012 intentions and if his political aspirations included running for the White House next time around.

Half-way through his term as chairman of the Republican Party and wrapping up the RNC's annual winter meeting here at a beachside resort in President Obama's home state, Michael Steele clearly sees himself bringing a different style of leadership to a GOP in transition.

"In all honest-to-good seriousness, that is such silly Washington talk. It's just not even on my mind," Steele said about a possible presidential run.

"Let me tell you where my head and heart are," Steele added. "I'm a guy who thought it important to say, 'Put me in coach.' And when I help the party return to a governing majority, a stronger GOP, a party that really understands what it's about and what it believes in and is willing every day to go out there and fight for it."

Why not rule it out completely and keep those Washington tongues from wagging?

"I just did. I don't know how many different ways I can do that," Steele said. "How many different ways can you spell 'no'?"

Bullshit!! This is typical political sidestepping. He doesn't actually say "I will not run." He answers the question in such a way that is supposed to make the listener feel they missed something, or they are ignorant if they feel his answer wasn't definitive. This, to me, is just slimy.

Then there is this...

It is clear that one of the central challenges nationwide for Steele and his party this year will be to harness the significant enthusiasm and activism seen in the tea party movement -- home to much of the anti-incumbent, anti-establishment anger and frustration fueling American politics today.

It will be a very delicate dance for Republican leaders to seek to bring these newly politicized activists into their fold since they resist affiliation with both major political parties.

"It is clear..." Clear to fuckin who?! And where does this assertion originate that the enthusiasm and activism is significant? This 'movement' is only significant among the talking heads, or in the general media when there is nothing else to talk abut. Something like this, this "Tea party movement" is kept alive by the need to fill the 24 hour news cycle.

The author then says they resist political affiliation. Who is he fuckin trying to kid?! Am I biased if I think conservative Republican when I encounter the 'tea party' phrase? I do have to admit that the term that comes to mind even more is 'dumb-fuck'.

"I don't see stories about the internal operations of the DNC that I see about this operation. Why? Is it because Michael Steele is the chairman, or is it because a black man is chairman?" Steele is quoted as asking in the piece.

"It's not because of my race, but race is more of a factor than it ordinarily would be -- just as it is for Barack Obama," Steele said in response to a question following up on the Washingtonian piece.

Here Steele also has the balls to equate himself with Obama, and in the same breath plays the martyr.

2010-01-15T18:37:00.000-07:00

Good argument.

http://www.ianwelsh.net/it%E2%80%99s-not-your-money/

It’s Not Your Money
2010 January 12
by Ian Welsh

You also didn’t earn most of it.

It seems like every time I discuss taxation, some libertarian will waltz in and say “it’s my money and I don’t see why the government should be able to take it.”

So let’s run through why, no, it isn’t your money. We’ll start with two numbers. The income per capita for the US in 2005 was $43,740. The income per capita for Bangladesh was $470.

Now I want you to ask yourself the following question: are Bengalis genetically inferior to Americans? Since not too many FDLers think white sheets look great at a lynching, I’ll assume everyone aswered no.

Right then, being American is worth $43,270 more than being Bengali and it’s not due to Americans being superior human beings. If it isn’t because Americans are superior, then what is it?

The answer is that if it isn’t individual, it must be social. On the individual but still social level, Americans are in fact smarter than Bengalis because as children they are far less likely to suffer from malnutrition. However not suffering from malnutrition when you’re a baby, toddler or young child has nothing to do with you and everything to do with the society you live in and your family–two things you have zero influence over (perhaps you chose your mother, I didn’t.)

Bengalis won’t, on average, get as good an education. They won’t get as much education either, since every child is needed to help earn a living as soon as possible. For most Bengalis there’s no room for having the extended childhood and adolescence westerners are used to, which often stretches into the late twenties or even early thirties, amongst those seeking Ph.D’s or becoming doctors or lawyers.

When a Bengali grows up the jobs available aren’t as good. If he or she starts a business it will earn much less money than the equivalent American business. If he or she speculates in land and is very successful, they will still be much less rich than an American would be.

One could go on and on. I trust the point is obvious — the vast majority of money that an American earns is due to being born an American. Certainly the qualities that make America a good place to live and a good place to make money are things that were created by Americans, but mostly they were created by Americans long dead or they are created by all Americans working together and are not located in the individual.

Now the same is true of the really rich. Forbes keeps track of the world’s billionaires, and almost half of them are in the US. This is because US society and the US government in particular, is very set up to create billionaires. Your odds of being a billionaire take a massive jump if you’re born in the US. Your odds of being a billionaire if you’re born in Bangladesh? Essentially zero. Now one could point out that billionaires are still so rare that the odds are always essentially zero (how many billionaires in your circle of friends?) Nonetheless the US in 2005 had 371. Germany, with the second most, had 55.

Bangladesh, you won’t be surprised to hear, had zero.

If you’re a billionaire in the US, you’re a billionaire in large part because you live in the US.

So, if you’re American, a large chunk of the reason you make a lot of money (relative to the rest of the world) is that you are American. The main cause of your relative wealth is not that you work hard, or that you’re innately smarter than members of other nations (though you may be since you weren’t starved as a child). It’s because you had opportunities given to you that most people will never had, and those opportunities existed due to the pure accident of your birth or because you or your family chose to come to the US. The same is true of most first world nations.

Immigrants understand this very well. There’s a reason why Mexicans, for example, are willing to risk death to cross the border. Their average income is $7,310, compared to the US average income of $43,740. They won’t make up all the difference just by crossing the border, but they’ll make up enough that it’s more than worth it. They haven’t personally changed, they don’t work harder now that they’re across the border. They aren’t smarter and they aren’t stronger. They just changed where they lived and suddenly the opportunities open to them were so much better that their income went up.

So let’s bring this back to our typical Libertarian with his whine that he earned it, and the government shouldn’t take it away. He didn’t earn most of it. Most of it is just because in global terms, he was born on third and thinks he hit a triple. That doesn’t mean he doesn’t have to work for it, but it does mean most of the value of his work has nothing to do with him (and Ayn Rand aside, it’s almost always a him).

Now what a government is, in a democratic society, is the vehicle that the population as a whole chooses to use to organize collective action. Government is, imperfect as it is, the closest approximation to the “will of society” that we’ve got.

Since the majority of the money any American earns is a function of being American, not of their own individual virtues, the government has the moral right to tax. And since those who are rich get more from being American than those who are poor, it also has the moral right to take more money from them.

More importantly than the moral right, it has the pragmatic duty to do so. The roads and bridges that government builds and maintains; the schools that it funds, the police and courts that keep the peace; the investment in R&D that produced the internet; the sewage systems that make real estate speculation possible, and on and on, are a huge chunk of what makes being American worth so much more than being a Bengali. Failure to reinvest in both human and inanimate infrastructure is like killing the golden goose, and America, for decades now, has not been keeping its infrastructure properly maintained, let alone building it up.

And money itself is something that government provides for its people. It’s not your money, it’s America’s money and it’s a damn good thing too. If you don’t believe me, try issuing your own money and see how many people accept it. Some will, because what money is, when an individual issues, is an IOU. I’ve written a few in my life. In every case the person I gave it to was less happy to receive it than he would have been to get some nice crisp dollars. And I rested my IOU’s on dollars — I promised to repay in my country’s currency. If you don’t want to do that you’d have to issue an IOU saying “I will repay you with a bundle of rice” or gold, or a service. And then you come to the question of enforcement (one thing even libertarians admit the government should do) because what if I refuse to meet the conditions of the IOU. Even an IOU is based on the sanction of the government, if it isn’t it’s worth only as much as the good will of the person issuing it or the strong arm of the person holding it.

So no, it isn’t your money, and it’s a good thing it isn’t. And while you may have worked your butt off for it, you also didn’t earn most of it. The value you impute to yourself “I’m worth my 80K salary” is mostly a function of where you live, of where you were born and of who your parents are.

Originally published Feb 9, 2008.

2009-12-31T09:24:00.004-07:00

Books. There have been a number in the last few weeks. It is surprising how many I can get through just doing audio books.

Just finished Under The Dome by Stephen King. Very long book. It wasn't as good as it could have been, he got too technical about what conditions would be like if a dome suddenly covered a small town. Better than his last though, Cell.

Before that it was Bright Sided by Barbara Ehrenreich. Not much research went into this, mostly personal anecdotes about her breast cancer experience and research from older works rehashed. Full of interesting information though.

I got through The Portable Atheist by Christopher Hitchens as editor. He put together excerpts of works by known atheists, and as one would guess, could be very boring at times. I found the quotes by Einstein interesting. Theists love to throw a few quotes out that show him coming out with the 'god' word, but they completely disregard context, and in light of his many assertions contrary to the god concept should be considered an agnostic, with a strong distaste for the idea of an anthropomorphic deity.

Started The Golden Compass series by Philip Pullman. I am almost through The Subtle Knife and have Amber Spyglass loaded and ready to read. Actually reading this one on the Nokia N800 Internet tablet. The writing in these books is really bad at times, but the story is a good one. It wouldn't matter though, I have to get through them to see what all the fuss was about coming from 'good christians'.

Some others:

Ubik by Philip K. Dick
The Blind Assassin by Margaret Atwood
The Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison
Black Swan by Nassim Nicholas Taleb
Superfreakonomics by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner
Fingerprints of God by Barbara Bradley Hagerty

I think that was all. I am in the middle of Audacity of Hope by Barack Obama on the player I use around the house, but it's boring, and I tend to keep away from listening to things at home if what I have on that player is boring. I don't know if I will finish it. Next up is something by James Mitchner, Poland I think, though I haven't really decided yet.

2009-12-09T10:34:00.003-07:00

The wording at the top says, "Stay in school, don't a be fat, ignorant, stinky & ugly driver like me."

The self deprivation seems to give license to advise the world.

2009-11-10T07:46:00.004-07:00

These pictures were on CNN.com this morning. One expresses the wish to avoid the trials of the hurricane coming ashore, one is a display of unity among cops.

Neither action does anything useful.

2009-10-28T23:50:00.002-07:00

Recently there has been discussion about legislation specifically targeting perpetrators of 'hate crimes'. On a particular blog I made the following comment....

I don't have mixed feelings about such legislation, I think it is a waste of time and energy. Any crime committed because one person hates something about another is punishable as a crime sans the hate. Such intent should not come with more severe punishment. This insinuates that perpetrators of such crimes are more dangerous, and I'm not sure this is the case. In my opinion, a person that is capable of executing such crimes simply for pleasure is far more reprehensible than one that is capable of targeting a specific group.

Someone didn't like it, and they took me to task....

Congratulations on your avoiding all the arguments presented in this thread advocating for hate crime protections in order to defend a preconceived position that has little to do with core arguments proposing such legislation. Your argument reminds me of the old YEC adage where the advocate proclaims his 'grandpappy weren't no monkey'.

I had a rather lengthy response (his arguments in bold)...

Mr Heath, the only arguments I saw were yours, did you feel slighted that I ignored you? Your arguments don't seriously suggest that such legislation will make much difference.

1) Hate Crime laws provide federal resources to local law enforcement when a hate crime is committed and can't be readily resolved. Consider a group burning Baptist Churches in a certain part of a state. The group terrorized isn't only those members who've churches have been set on fire, but all surrounding Baptist or even evanglical/fundie churches. Most local law enforcement entities lack the resources and skill set to investigate such crimes given the scope of who are both indirect victims and possible future direct victims.

This is bullshit. Consider a group burning ANY number of buildings in an area. The same thing applies, the whole area is terrorized. Why would federal resources not be provided? A crime streak as you suggest will certainly raise interest on a federal level, regardless of the institutions targeted.

2) The fact is that hate crimes are intended to inflict harm well beyond their direct victims. Hate crimes are a form of terrorism. It's asymetrical warfare where the criminal(s) conspires (not merely intends) to harm those of a protected group well beyond their direct victims.

Where did you come up with this gem? I don't see how you can make such an assertion. You can't possibly have any evidence for it. You are suggesting that a group of people that target an individual due to race or sexual orientation, do so with the intent of impacting the surrounding community. I find it difficult to imagine such a group with the ability to think beyond the succeeding few hours, let alone any far reaching effects such as you suggest. It may have been the case back when most people were outspoken, for instance, in their belief that black people were inferior, but the difference now is there is no support for such attitudes, spoken or implied, among the general population. If there were, those that conduct such crimes would generally assume community support, and would also assume some level of impunity. Do you really suspect that such crimes are committed assuming such impunity?

3) Given the reality that many geographical areas' members of the legal community reject and fail to execute the Constitutional principle of equal protection under the law and due process for protected groups given their bigotry, a federal hate crimes law obligates the federal government to do what the Constitution already obligates them to do - defend the Constitutional rights of its citizens, even from the tyranny or mistreatment by state and local governments. Given the FBI can provide empirical evidence such injustice occurs, by both perps and the justice system, it's consistent with our founding ideals for federal resources to insure a judicious amount of energy is used to investigate, prosecute, and sentence such crimes.

Please enlighten us as to exactly how, if existing laws fail to encourage members of the legal community to execute the Constitutional principle of equal protection, additional legislation would change anything. You said it yourself, the Constitution already obligates them to defend the rights of the citizens. Another law saying, basically, "we really mean it" will rid us of bigotry?

The point is, further legislation targeting actions that are based on social shortcomings of the perpetrators is akin to legislating morality. Historically speaking, it doesn't work. Existing legislation already deals with the actions. Insisting on additional punishment if, in someone's opinion, a criminal acted with hateful intent, is suggesting that laws can change a person's attitude's towards others. This has no basis in reality.

2009-09-28T13:05:00.000-07:00

Some stuff about photography I want to save....

There is another technique for digital photo editing I've come across. One of the hurdles to overcome with macro photography is the depth of field. Macro shots are pictures of things close to the lens, and with that distance the plane that the lens can focus on is extremely narrow. A small aperture gets you a deeper plane, so that more of the object front-to-back is in focus. So, in order to get the back legs of a grasshopper in focus in the same picture with the eyes, a narrow aperture would be used. The problem with this is the small aperture lets in less light, so that either more light is required on the subject, or a longer exposure, which in turn create their own problems.

2009-09-20T11:51:00.002-07:00

Been a month. First off, books I've been doing...

I finished Hawaii, then watched the movie. Interesting contrast, the movie makers tried to capture on film what they thought would be the most compelling aspects of the book. They left out the leper colony, that would have been good movie material, but probably not for the time. They only took it to the preacher's wife's death. The book brings it to what was then closer to present day. I might do another Mitchner, he's on my list, but it might be a while.

Another book my wife suggested was The Thornbirds by Colleen McCullough. I've finished that one. Much better than Hawaii. Less history than Hawaii, but written better. Along with that I've finished The #1 Ladies Detective Agency, and the Sunday Philosophy club by Alexander McCall Smith. That was in the car, and now The Blind Assassin is there, it's next on the list for the book gathering. At home on the MP3 player I have The Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison. Similar to Black Boy, but fiction. It is interesting for the most part, but drones on at times, unnecessarily in my opinion.

Lately I've been recovering from my school days. It is nice to be able to come home and have fewer responsibilities. I've been hitting the PS3 more often, as well as working with the computers in the house. There is also Librivox.org, been doing some of that and it's much more time consuming than it would seem.

Then there is the digital camera. Can't remember if I've mentioned that, I bought a Canon Rebel before going to Hawaii, and I've been experimenting. There is a post-processing technique called High Dynamic Range, or HDR for short, which is interesting. It is a method for taking 3 or more exposures of a scene at various exposures, then combining them with software dedicated to these types of files and coming up with some interesting effects. It is what compelled me to get the SLR in the first place, only I've just discovered the technique. The pictures are popular, for good reason, and I use them as desktop backgrounds. More about this later, maybe.

2009-08-22T09:48:00.000-07:00

Just a test of what Picasa 3 can do. I just downloaded it to try it.

2009-08-16T08:05:00.003-07:00

There are some in this country that have a problem with the shit coming out lately by atheists. Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens all have books out, primarily railing about the ill effects of religion on society. Someone came up with a modifier to the atheist label. 'Militant' atheists have been lambasted by the more vocal apologists of theistic culture.

So this comes to mind as I'm perusing my new Facebook page, put up to display pictures taken with my digital camera. There are a couple of 'friends', some are avowed christians. One of them responded to a poll about believing in Jesus, and it shows up on their page when they do. I generally don't read others' pages, and rarely make comments, but I made a comment about this poll. Someone asked, in relation to the poll, that if Jesus is made up, why are we still talking about him 2000 years later. My response...

Muhammad is a hot topic too. So is the Quran. There are people that still believe the earth is flat as well.

I had many more harsher statements ready, but figured I should be nice in an effort to stave off the 'militant' label.

The point is that even making such comments as the one above will evoke the label. It is derogatory in nature, of course, but people that tend to use the term fail to see the hypocrisy of doing so. Back to the polls, there are many on facebook that ask the question about a deity or faith in general, but in their view this is ok. If I started spouting about atheistic concepts there, many would take offense at being exposed to such ideas, yet the same thing is perpetrated by 'christians' from behind their religious shield. It is unthinkable that someone should attack them, because the faithful are virtuous beyond measure. Historically though, hypocrites are blind to their own hypocrisy.

2009-08-14T11:02:00.006-07:00

I read shit on the Internet just about every day. Most of it is just the same old thing, and today is no different. I like reading Dispatches From the Culture Wars. Reading today, and following some links and comment threads I eventually found Gribbit Online. Funny stuff, you can almost see the spittle flying.

I was perusing the site and found this gem. I think this is the root of the problem with closed minded people like this.

Trolls don’t actually read what they comment on. They cherry pick key phrases out of context and assume they know where you are going. Since Owen Bideway hasn’t left enough information to judge his political loyalties other than his comment seemed to be condescending to Conservatives leading me to believe that he is a libtarded Obama drone. He, along with the rest of his ilk, should be ignored and avoided at all cost.

He castigates cherry pickers as unworthy of attention, then advocates judging the points people make by the make of their political loyalties. Bigotry with people like this is a virtue.

I wasn't sure the term 'bigotry' was the word I was looking for, so I looked it up.

A bigot is a person who is obstinately and irrationally, often intolerantly, devoted to his or her own religion, political party, organization, belief, or opinion, especially one who regards or treats those of differing devotion with hatred and intolerance.

This definition is the perfect description of the mindset behind the excerpt above.

Further reading shows there are no comments allowed. He explains himself in a long diatribe about the sad state of affairs under an Obama Presidency. Then, in big bold letters, reiterates his bigotry.

This site isn’t about what you think, it’s about what I think. I couldn’t care less about what you think. So don’t expect to have a voice here because you have none. And you never will.

Amazing.

2009-07-29T11:09:00.003-07:00

Opinions vary on the whole Gates/Crowley thing. There are some people making comments to a post here about speech and other basic freedoms, and some are misguided. (Of course, I recognize this is in many ways my opinion, not an assertion of fact per se.)

I made some comments, mostly in response to one particular individual, about the differences between objective and subjective reasoning, and what that means as far as legislation goes concerning basic liberties. (Other commentator's statements in bold)

1.

I think the way speech is legislated in the UK and other European countries is wrong. It comes awfully close to an attempt to legislate morality, and that simply does not work. The problem is that we cannot allow the opinion of one person to arbitrarily dictate the actions of another. When legislation includes ambiguous words that is exactly what the situation can lead to. Statements like 'behavior likely to cause a breach of the peace', and 'yelling at anyone in a public place in a manner likely to cause alarm to other people is (illegal)' leave too much to interpretation. The question is, who gets to decide? Laws written in such a manner leave too much leeway to individual police and judges.

"It is better for them to stop legal behavior when it interferes with their ability to enforce the law and restore order in a dangerous situation."

It is never ok for anyone to stop legal behavior, period.

"Actually, we do indeed give them that power, to a significant extent, every time we call them to deal with a situation and hold them responsible for resolving it."

This statement is utter nonsense. A citizen calling the police to resolve a situation in which they really don't have authority does NOT infer any rights or authority. Law enforcement action is dictated by law, not citizens on the spot in any given situation. That would be like making shit up as we went along.

As I understand it, (commenter), the cops had ascertained what they needed to know. They had gained access to the residence, and Gates showed proof he had a legal right to be there. Everything in question happened AFTER this, which is what a lot of the stink is about.

"Public officials have jobs to do, and obligations to the community, and being insulting and abusive to their faces while they're on the job should not be considered a 'right'."

Well, it is a right, and no amount of moral indignation from you or anyone else will change this simple fact. What you advocate is morality legislation, and it is much too oppressive, regardless of the form it takes, or the lofty intentions of those that try it.

What is wrong with "exercising a decent respect for the opinions of mankind" is that it depends on an opinion. What is "sensible" to one is ludicrous to another. Decent respect would be fine for you, as long as YOU decide what is decent and what isn't. I refuse to allow someone else to make that decision for me. Kindness is not objective, it is subjective and open to interpretation, and I again refuse to allow anyone to decide for me what is kind and what is not.

I have nothing against a society in which the inhabitants are civil to one another, but in a truly civil society the members understand the differences between objective and subjective reasoning, and between opinions which can be varied and diverse, and basic truths which are few.

After all that, one commentator posted this...

Not all people are disorderly dangerous assholes, but cops have to deal regularly with those who are; and many times, in that jungle, such arbitrary assertions of authority are necessary to command respect and keep the peace.

"Arbitrary assertions of authority." It is hard for me to fathom that a citizen of a free society, as the US is supposed to be, is capable of such a statement, even after much reflection that I assume was practiced while following the thread of the conversation.

Wait, there's more...

Some of those blowhards got arrested because some cop decided (rightly or wrongly) that he had reason to consider said blowhard an immediate threat to someone else's life or safety. And some of them get arrested on a bogus charge to give the cops a pretext to get evidence for a more serious charge.

Un-fucking-believable. This is blatant advocacy of illegal search and seizure. For some reason this statement brings to mind the court scene described in a song on an album by Pink Floyd called The Wall. The song is called Trial.

2009-07-27T12:01:00.004-07:00

I found this in Slate today. It is interesting he makes exactly the same point I was making earlier, although he says it so much better....

More recently, I was walking at night in the wooded California suburb where I spend the summer, trying to think about an essay I was writing. Suddenly, a police cruiser was growling quietly next to me and shining a light. "What are you doing?" I don't know quite what it was—I'd been bored and delayed that week at airport security—but I abruptly decided that I was in no mood, so I responded, "Who wants to know?" and continued walking. "Where do you live?" said the voice. "None of your business," said I. "What's under your jacket?" "What's your probable cause for asking?" I was now almost intoxicated by my mere possession of constitutional rights. There was a pause, and then the cop asked almost pleadingly how he was to know if I was an intruder or burglar, or not. "You can't know that," I said. "It's for me to know and for you to find out. I hope you can come up with probable cause." The car gurgled alongside me for a bit and then pulled away. No doubt the driver then ran some sort of check, but he didn't come back.

In the first instance, I found again what everyone knows, which is that there are a lot of warped misfits and inadequates who are somehow allowed to join the police force. In the second instance, I found that a good cop even at dead of night can and will use his judgment, even if the "suspect" is being a slight pain in the ass. But seriously, do you think I could have pulled the second act, or would even have tried it, or been given the chance to try it, if I had been black?

It is not surprising it is said so much better, I just realized Hitchens is the author. However, after reading it again, I don't think "warped misfits and inadequates" is the correct way to describe those he is speaking of, I think that many of them surely have those tendencies before they join, and those tendencies push them in the direction of law enforcement, but I don't think these qualities really come out until they are subjected to the line of work. They deal with the miscreants of society, and, as I said before, are subject to more than their share of respect and submissive people, so much so that their world view becomes skewed. The cop in the scenario above knew where to draw the line, but the observation that the skin color of the pedestrian may have clouded his thinking, and the line would have blurred somewhat.

That is his point. Hitchens wasn't harassed further possibly because he was white. A black pedestrian doesn't have that luxury, and the chances of continued harassment in that case would be good, even if he responded to the cop's inquiries in exactly the same manner.

2009-07-27T08:23:00.002-07:00

So there is a professor at a university, which I do not know, that forgot the key to his home, and had to deal with the police after an attempt to go through a window. The Professor's name is Gates, he is black, and the cops were white. He was arrested after talking shit to the police outside his him after they had ascertained his identity as the homeowner, which they did inside the home just before.

Andrew Sullivan makes an attempt at diplomacy while supporting an obvious injustice to Gates.

And Obama is right that cops like Crowley are good men in general (although I can't pass a judgment on someone I don't know). I also believe in being respectful and polite to policemen as a rule, and do not recall any moment in my life when I haven't been. But I do think it's necessary to remember that policemen are our servants, not our masters. We pay their salary - and they'd better treat us right. And I find the many comments that we should always show deference to the man with the gun and the badge and never publicly criticize cops to be alarmingly authoritarian in its implications.

He is right about the show of deference, but his assertion of a rule of respect to policemen is an almost one-eighty contridiction. Cops only deserve the treatment we afford anyone else. The fact that people believe they somehow should get more simply because they carry a badge is part of the problem. One of the things that draws men to police work is the power that comes with carrying a badge and a gun. Of course men like this are going to be corrupted to varying degrees due to this alone, not to mention everything they encounter after being on the job. When people "respectful and polite to policemen as a rule", it simply adds to this tendency.

This is just my opinion of course. I think cops for the most part are jerks, simply because the few times I have had to deal with them this is how they present themselves. It seems they are incapable of keeping their feelings out of their dealings with the public. It would be impossible to completely keep one's emotions at bay for sure, but it seems they don't even bother trying for the level that they should.

2009-07-21T13:58:00.002-07:00

At times I visit a site called The Agonist. There is an article about the financial state of JP Morgan Chase there. Below is a snippet.

etail Financial Services
There are two parts to this division: retail banking, which manages checking and savings accounts at over 5,200 branches nationwide, and consumer lending for mortgages, home equity lines of credit (HELOCs), auto loans, and student loans. The first part of the business did well, producing $970 million of net income, through wider deposit spreads (we’ll talk about this in a minute), and “higher deposit-related fees.” Banks are ratcheting up fees in retail banking to obscene levels, and engaging in predatory practices like pushing consumers into overdrafts and charging them a small fortune in usury interest. They are doing this because they can, and because they have to.

What gets me is the author says they have to. In essence, the implication is the company cannot survive without trying things as they did with us with our last payment, and it has become a practice so common they don't even have to hide the fact that they engage in such things any more. In other words, exploitation of others to their detriment is understood as part of the game. What does that say about our society?

2009-07-19T07:16:00.003-07:00

So while discussing with my wife the banking debacle yesterday, we came up with this scenario. I see a person on the street holding a large sum of money. I snatch the money from them, but soon after the police are involved and I have to give the money back. If this person decides to press charges, I go to court. Whatever the outcome, I am guilty of being a thief, and I'm treated like the common criminal I am; a person that takes money from others. It wouldn't matter that I gave it back. It might make a difference in punishment, but not the fact that I would be guilty of that specific crime, and there would be no other conclusion to come to.

But replace these two individuals with two different players in the same situation, and another conclusion is arrived at entirely. In essence, Chase bank plucked money right off the top of the funds we sent them, arbitrarily three months worth of payments, charged us interest on that money that had not even accrued yet, and used the rest as we intended. Their assets and resources are in the billions, ours meager in comparison, so the conclusion is that they are just doing what they do, and we were fortunate enough to be watching what they do and thwart the loss. Funny how that works.

On another note, interesting video here. This guy is spouting some doom and gloom, but at one point he says something I've not heard anyone else talk about. He espouses people working in community, sharing helpful information over a cup of coffee, and people interacting in a way that doesn't involve economic concepts but still improves the lives of individuals in a community.

About books I've read. Since reading Ender's game for the group, I've listened to Speaker For The Dead, Ender's Shadow, and I'm in the middle of Shadow of the Hegemon. Speaker for the Dead was somewhat interesting, but not enough to say it was a good book. The first two books in the Shadow series are much better. I will probably move on to the next one. I'm also listening to Hawaii, by James Mitchner. My wife kept asking me if I had reached the time of Pearl Harbor in the book, and I finally did yesterday. It is a good story, but the writing is atrocious. He moves from talking about generalities to specific situations in a way that makes it difficult for the reader to discern just when the transition occurs. For instance, he will talk about an annual event and describe it's re-occurrence, then isolate one particular event and describe it so that it is not clear a particular descriptor pertains to every event or the particular individual event he ends up speaking about. It's very frustrating. He also describes events in detail, even if they include human interaction. This isn't as bothersome, but it is considered taboo nowadays. Important writers today usually advise other writers to allow a story to be come out with dialog. This only becomes a nuisance when the scene becomes long winded because it is filled with extraneous bullshit. It's not bad enough that I won't do another though, so I have to decide which to listen to when I finish this one.

A friend suggested I listen to some Alexander McCall Smith, particularly The #1 Ladies Detective Agency. A lot of research went into this series of books, so I'm told. He's written quite a few novels though, to me a sure sign the first few are the best, but later additions, especially of serials, turn out to be churned out just to put something out and therefor are less interesting. Contrary to the suggestion I started the first book of a series called The Sunday Philosophy Club by the same author. Too early to give an opinion, but I did start it and should at least find it interesting enough to finish.

2009-07-17T13:38:00.002-07:00

Stupid Shit. That's what I call this little corner. Usually it's stupid shit in my head, but today it's shit perpetrated by someone that is supposed to be providing me with financial services. I'm am livid!! I'm so fucking furious there is spittle running down my chin. (ok, not really, but my blood pressure has increased dramatically, I'm sure) Here's the story.

I have a mortgage. Just like lots of homeowners I don't own my house outright, instead there is a bank, Chase Bank to be precise, that has leverage as to how my property is disposed of. We have come to an agreement that I will dispose of it as I see fit (live in it), as long as I pay them back monies they made available to me that allowed me to acquire the home. In some cases, though not ours, the bank stands to triple the amount loaned over 30 years.

As part of that agreement, interest is compounded so that we pay just over 5% every year of whatever is left over, the principal. Also as part of that agreement, I can send the bank extra funds in an effort to reduce the principle even further, so that the interest charged will be just a little less. Right now when I make a payment, the bank gets just over $500 every month. Let's call that my 'rent' for squatting on that teenie tiny portion of the economy. No problem, that's the way things work.

Well, I've finally got a job that pays a bit more than I've had coming in the past few years. After careful investigation I found I can save over $60,000 if I start making payments on the principle over the minimum. Last year I sold my house back east, and finally feel, because I have another steady source of income, that I can part with some of the proceeds from that.

I am fucking furious!!!! Did I mention that?

So I did, figuring it is a fair return, just over 5%, for what little I have in the bank. Better than what the bank is paying. So, I sent them a large sum. Well, my wife did, took it to the branch up the street. She had misgivings about it, but not too much.

We got our statement today, and it was extra long. Usually there is just an extra row showing the extra payment going toward the principle. There were a lot more rows this time, some showing what they called 'suspense funds' at over $500 a pop. I was ready to get up to the branch down the street and see what was what, but my wife called instead. It turns out they decided to use an arbitrary 3 months payments worth of the extra and pay the loan ahead, rather than apply it all to the principle. Can you fuckin believe it?!?! In essence, someone at the bank decided to try and filch us for over $1000.

Fuckin furious, I am just fuckin nuts over this!

2009-07-16T09:36:00.003-07:00

Got an email from a friend, who happens to love watching Fox news unfortunately. It was a spoof ad, the contents of which are below....

Messianic Pharmaceuticals presents

Hydrogen Barackside
- Kills capitalism on contact
- Kills jobs on contact
- Stimulates Marxist tendencies
- No oversight needed
- Endorsed by unions
For general destruction of wealth. If you catch a nasty case of free market capitalism, try hydrogen baraackside - it will cure you of all your money issues. Our solution is right on the marx!!

This is supposed to be funny, but to me it isn't. Humor is supposed to have a ring of truth, and I guess I don't find it funny because there aren't any underlying truths here, as I see it. Any stand up comedian has to at least give the impression that their bits are based in reality in some way. It reminds me the few episodes of The Half Hour News Hour show, Fox News effort to answer The Daily Show. It was painful to watch, because they assumed the conservative talking points and agenda as truth. As long as you are poking fun at the truth, it works. Even on with Jon Stewart, it doesn't work all the time, because they strain to pull the humor out of something and it's obvious. Or when they obviously stage humor for a guest, it can sometimes become painful to watch.

2009-07-08T11:23:00.002-07:00

Heard this today in a video snippet, about euthanasia....

It's not about terminating life, it's about terminating suffering.

But in my opinion, it's not just about suffering for the person considering ending their own suffering, it's about someone considering ending their own suffering, and easing the inevitable burden that individual places on society when they are less than 100%.

2009-07-07T13:11:00.003-07:00

This is one of the things Palin said in her speech when she announced she was stepping down as governor.

Life is too short to compromise time and resources... it may be tempting and more comfortable to just keep your head down, plod along, and appease those who demand: "Sit down and shut up", but that's the worthless, easy path; that's a quitter's way out. And a problem in our country today is apathy. It would be apathetic to just hunker down and "go with the flow".

The assumption is that she has only two choices, apathy or resignation. There are others of course, staying and doing the job she was elected to do, without apathy, is one.

I found this in the driveway when I got home from work around midnight...

It was about 2 1/2 to 3 inches long. It didn't like the flash of the camera.

2009-06-22T06:56:00.005-07:00

I had some time yesterday, and decided to watch some Daily Show after seeing a link to an interview on Norm's blog. That link pointed to a long interview Jon Stewart had with Mike Huckabee. It was long for the Daily Show, but they put up the unedited version on their website at Comedy Central.

Jon starts out telling Mike that the last time he was on the show, he promised Mike the topic would be of Mike's choosing. It ends up being about abortion, which Huckabee refers to as pro-life issues. Mike Huckabee uses an analogy of people dealing with aging parents. He equates children and their would be selfishness, should they become distressed at the costs both financially and mentally of caring for an elderly parent, and should they also seek relief, with a woman seeking an abortion for the same reason. He says the life of the parent is equivalent to the life of a fetus, and the selfishness a woman with child seeking relief is the same selfishness people feel should they tire of caring for elderly parents.

He refuses to bring up the difference of the elderly parent and the fetus. He focuses on the unsavory aspects of the woman's reasons for seeking an abortion, as well as the reasons of those dealing with elderly parents. There is a disparity there. In my opinion, it is the parent that is exhibiting selfish behavior that is willing to put their children through such an ordeal, if indeed it is an ordeal.

I was surprised when Jon didn't bring up this problem with Huckabee's rationalization. It is the person that wishes NOT to burden others with their infirmity in old age that seems to me to be the morally superior, rather than the family members that wish to keep such a person alive at all costs. It seems to be the way with religious people, and it seems the easy way out. They would rather insist that "life is precious, all life", and on that notion force others to care for another, even if it is a full time occupation, and one would be financially and mentally strapped in the process. It is easy, rather than deal with any arguments to the contrary, because they are disregarded as belonging to morally inferior concepts. It is a contract between one who needs care, and those that would provide that care, and the fact that one needs care does not afford them the right to burden another with supplying that care.

In essence, the situation between an elderly person and their children should be dealt with as they agree, however they agree to handle it. Religious people seek to shanghai the decision, imposing their version of morality into the mix, a version that can likely be contrary to a rational agreement made between consenting adults.

2009-06-19T05:48:00.002-07:00

So now that I have some time, I've been fucking with the computers I have. I have a Gateway laptop convertible and a Samsung Q1 UMPC. I was thinking of replacing both with a single unit, a Fujitsu Lifebook, one of the smaller ones not much bigger than the Samsung, but with a screen that rotates around like the laptop. In preparation I put the laptop on Craigslist, for probably way too much. What follows are some of the email responses...

Hello,

I would like to tell you that I will offer you $1200 for the item because it is needed urgently and I would have love to come down to your side to pick it up but I'm not available due to the nature of my Job....I was just awarded a big project and I won't be able to do the shipment on my own.I want to send it to someone Overseas.What is then shipping fee via USPS Priority Mail? Kindly email me so that I can send the money to you asap through PayPal.

Thanks

Is this item still available?Let me know the condition?The last
price?Pls reply asap..

Thanks for your quick response to my enquiry...I am really satisfied with the condition and price of the item and i contacted you early just because of the urgent need of this item...I will be sending the item to one of of my store in west Africa and i will add $100 for the shipping and Handling of the item and i will like you to get back to me with your PayPal email so as to proceed with the payment of the item...I will like you to ship it out via USPS-EMS Global Mail(1st Class Shipping)...You can talk to me on my Instant messaging on yahoo messenger at larrywillis1000@yahoo.com for more conversations on the item.Get back to me asap....

lukky ,i will like you to get back to me with you valid paypal address so that i can proceed with the payment and know that paypal is safe and secure so you will receive your money in your account

Thanks for getting back to me; I am delighted to hear that the item is still available as I extremely needed it as soon as possible. I do located at Reno NV, I could have come over today and pick It up but due to some circumstances i couldn't be able to make it. I have negotiated the shipping from United states postal service,(USPS) and will be adding the additional fee for the shipment when sending you the payment of the item, Please provide me with your Full name and address so that I will send the payment via money order or western union or provide me with your Paypal account ( Invoice) to enable me make the payment. Immediately I get the information as asked above, I will send the payment immediately, Please start getting the item ready for shipped out after you receive this email.
Thanks while I wait to hear from you soon.
Regards

The last two were sent because I responded to an email that simply asked if the laptop were still available. I replied to two of them that I would rather deal locally, and with someone that could write a complete sentence in English. I've edited the ad to ask for local inquiries only.

2009-06-15T16:21:00.003-07:00

CNN has started reporting on the situation in Iran. They have described some of the pictures on the Internet, but also put in a disclaimer about them, saying they are establishing independent confirmation. This is a direct result of the problems they had in the past accepting any source based more on its sensational value rather than its authenticity.

Then there is this from Andrew at the Dish. He links to this, although he prefaces it with the fact that he can't confirm the credentials of the source.

In my opinion, this is irresponsible at best. If you can't vet the source, it shouldn't be used, because its use can only be for its sensational value, everything else being meaningless due to a lack of credibility.

2009-06-15T12:29:00.005-07:00

I try to read The Daily Dish every day, but that might change. Andrew is posting virtually nothing else, displaying Twitter messages and pictures from the region. It is quite unnerving.

I don't mean the story is unnerving, I mean his treatment is. He verifies almost nothing, and a lot of the pictures are reminiscent of the Reuters scandal concerning the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

Over at The Big Picture, they have a vivid pictorial account. Most of the bloody victims show lots of blood but no actual damage to the bodies. In one of the photos, civilians are running from police on motorbikes, and two of them look like teenagers out for some mischievous fun. I made up a story of the picture; two kids decided to use the situation for some fun. They found and taunted some cops on motorbikes and, the cops being not much older, gave in to the verbal abuse and started chasing them into a crowd. Below is the picture in question;

There is a long post on the doctored photos here.

2009-06-01T13:13:00.002-07:00

To become a radiographic technologist in this state, two years of classroom study, along with the same amount of clinical time (three 8 hour days a week), and passing a 200 question national exam are required to get licensed. Classes ended earlier last month, clinicals a few weeks later, and today I sat for what is known as the 'Registry'. Passing means it is really, finally over. We leave for Hawaii Wed morning, and I have absolutely nothing that needs my immediate attention until I start work at the end of the month. I worked weekends, and the program consumed most of my week days. It's fuckin over, and I don't know what to do with myself... except maybe try out various concoctions with the limoncello I made.

2009-05-31T15:17:00.003-07:00

I finished Ender's Game today. Much more interesting than the first time I read it oh so many years ago. I knew there were books Card wrote to extend the story, but I don't usually care for books of this sort, because it has been my experience they are never as good as the first book, and I tire of such books of a series quickly. Still, I went looking again to find out more about the series, because the idea is an interesting one, and because I've heard of Card expounding his opinion recently on controversial issues.

I found this. He certainly goes all out apologizing for his uncertainty of the authenticity of the book of mormon. The article has me considering reading more of his stuff, just to see if he makes his belief plain, or rather if an agenda gets in the way of telling a good story. An agenda behind a story will usually ruin it for me, even if it is an agenda I support.

At least it gives me more to bring up when we converge to talk about the book.

2009-05-28T20:17:00.002-07:00

My wife participates in book discussions with friends every once in a while. It can't really be called a book club, it is much too informal for that. Someone picks a book to read, then they meet for breakfast or lunch to talk about it.

School is finally over for me. This makes it possible to participate as well, and we had a gathering to talk about the latest book called The Meaning of Everything by Simon Winchester. How this book made it into the discussion is interesting in itself. One of the ladies picked a book by the same author called The Madman And The Professor (or is it The Professor and the Madman?). Well, she discussed the choice with another woman in the group, and this woman got it confused with the first book, The Meaning of Everything, and spread it around that this was the book to read. The ensuing controversy over the matter piqued my interest, so I decided to get them both and listen.

The gathering was interesting; most of the discussion centered on the confusion rather than the book itself. The first written was about the professor, one James Murray, and a madman, Dr W C Minor, and their correspondence concerning The Oxford English Dictionary in the late 1800s. The second written later was about getting the Dictionary itself into print. I won't bother with details, a search will bring up plenty of information about both books and the subject.

Right now I'm in the middle of Three Cups of Tea by David Relin. The book is about one Greg Mortenson and his ordeal installing buildings for children in remote regions of Pakistan, starting with a village called Korphe (pronounced kor-fey). I picked this up after a recommendation by someone I work with.

Along with that, I'm listening to Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card. This is the next book for the discussion group. I read it many years ago but remember little. The writing is pretty basic, but it was his first published work. In spite of that the story is a good one most of the time, and it won awards and has spawned many books that detail the further adventures of the characters. I tried reading some of these, but couldn't get through them. This is usually the case with serial books of this type, for me anyway.

2009-05-28T20:01:00.002-07:00

A few months ago I started some limencello. I found some recipes on the Internet and went to it. Most recipes call for two bottles of vodka, 15-20 lemons, and simple syrup (sugar and water).

This is what I did. I peeled 18 lemons, taking just the zest of the lemon (the yellow part of the peel), and put them into a mason jar. They were covered with Everclear next, right to the rim, and the jar was sealed. It is sitting in the closet now.

For the next batch, since I could only find one bottle of Everclear, I used vodka. This time however, I blended it slightly together before putting it in the mason jar. Today I took this jar out, and filtered it through a coffee filter. The liquid came out clear and dark yellow, with a strong lemon scent. For the simple syrup I dissolved 2 cups of sugar into 2 cups of boiling water. After letting it cool to room temperature I mixed it with the strained liquid, and came up with two mason jars filled 3/4 full. Some recipes call for leaving this mixture sit for weeks, but I will taste it periodically. The other batch should be ready to strain, but that's the good batch with the Everclear, and I want to refine the technique for everything a little before doing that batch up.

2009-04-28T22:56:00.003-07:00

There is a poll out here, which I found reading this site. Below is an excerpt from that commentary.

The church failed to spiritually feed 71 percent of those who became Protestants. This was the second leading reason for Protestants – 51 percent of them said the church had failed them on a spiritual level.

This should be a wake-up call for all churches – Catholic or Protestant, Evangelical or Mainline. For some reason, the church is failing to capture the imagination of its flock. Overall, the church is failing in important ways to build a sustainable and thriving community that will attract, feed, nurture, and hold people throughout their lifetime. Instead, church is becoming stale, uninviting and boring. It no longer provides spiritual sustenance or holds any deep meaning for its congregations. Instead of building excitement and a commitment to social justice, the Good News is producing yawns – and not just from those who haunt the back rows, but those who otherwise would be committed to the church and its mission. That has led to the largest group being those who are unaffiliated with any religion.

This little tidbit insinuates that churches once upon a time were able to "build a sustainable and thriving community." This doesn't necessarily hold true. I'm only speaking from experience, but the statement that "church is becoming stale, uninviting and boring", is false in the sense that those descriptors have always applied. Things aren't changing at all, what's changing is the taboo against talking about it, acknowledging that one feels this way.

2009-03-23T19:02:00.002-07:00

The marketing strategy of Apple. There are different version of the latest Ipod touch. The cheapest is just above $200, the most expensive is $375. The difference? As far as I can tell, is the storage capacity. The cheap one's capacity is 8GB. The most expensive is 32GB, but there is an intermediate player at 16GB for $280. The only difference between them is the capacities.

So, for almost $200 more, one can get 32GB of storage. This is why they didn't put an SD card slot in the thing, they would only be able to sell one model, and leave storage up to the consumer, which can be had much cheaper with common media such as the SD card.

2009-03-21T05:21:00.002-07:00

In the headlines today...

Obamas plant organic kitchen garden at White House

Such bullshit. They even have a picture of Michelle using a shovel. There is no fucking way she is going to be maintaining a garden like that, and it's dishonest at best. This excerpt from the clip I read just adds to the disingenuousness of it.

"We're just hoping that a lot of families look at us and say this is something that they can do and talk to their own kids about and think a little bit critically about the food choices that they make," said Marian Robinson, the president's mother-in-law.

Who the fuck are they trying to kid? They will pay someone else to work this thing, if they keep it up, something most people will not be able to afford to do. They are hoping it will be an example people will follow, but it isn't something people will do, because it isn't a true example.

Then again, you gotta wonder if they can figure something like this out, and whether or not they realize it's a publicity stunt that nobody will fall for.

2009-03-20T10:47:00.002-07:00

Doing a search for stuff on the characters in the book Monster of Florence, I came across the blog of one John Baker, and this post concerning cell phones. Below is an excerpt...

Have you locked your keys in the car?

Does your car have remote keyless entry? This may come in handy someday. Good reason to own a cell phone: If you lock your keys in the car and the spare keys are at home, call someone at home on their mobile phone from your cell phone.

Hold your cell phone about a foot from your car door and have the person at your home press the unlock button, holding it near the mobile phone on their end. Your car will unlock. Saves someone from having to drive your keys to you. Distance is no object. You could be hundreds of miles away, and if you can reach someone who has the other ‘remote’ for your car, you can unlock the doors (or the trunk).

He says it works. I have got to try this.

2009-03-20T10:17:00.002-07:00

I finished Monster of Florence by Douglas Preston and Mario Spezi. What I find interesting is how it displays the blatant inadequacies of the Italian justice system. The things a public minister can do with impunity is unfortunate. He eventually paid for his mistakes, Judge Giuliano Mignini did, but the damage he did throughout his career must be immeasurable. Not only that, how many other public ministers operate the same way and get away with it?

The most telling fact in the book, if it is true, is the safe house of one Antonio Vinci supposedly used to keep an armoire to sequester the pistol and artifacts from some of the victims. Spezi and Preston were thwarted in their attempts to bring the place to light because of stupid law enforcement officials bent on doing things their way, following impossible lines of investigation.

I also watched a movie last night called The Man From Earth. Fascinating movie. It is about a college professor that leaves his post after 10 years. His colleagues want to know why, and he decides to break a vow and tell them his reasons. He is 14,000 years old. The movie is about their conversation afterward. I especially enjoyed the part of the conversation that goes into biblical figures. The man says he attempted to affect human events by preaching what he learned from the original Buddha, and inadvertently started the Christian religion. The abhorrence displayed by the biblical literalist was awesome.

2009-03-16T20:49:00.000-07:00

Why do they do this to themselves?

2009-03-10T16:55:00.002-07:00

Over at Daily Dish the author points to column about republicans. He doesn't quote the whole paragraph, but I've put it here. The original column can be found here.

In fact, House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, has been up front about his party's stance in a chamber in which Republicans hold only 178 of the 435 seats. "I have been trying to get my Republican colleagues to understand that we are not in the legislative business," he said at a recent lunch with reporters hosted by the Christian Science Monitor. "We will spend more time communicating [with the American people], because that is what we can do." Boehner has often said since the election that he prefers to cooperate with Obama but that Democrats need to open their arms.

This to me is the biggest problem most people have with republicans today, and why they are failing miserably. We pay these people to legislate, not politic. Right now some of them feel they should legislate to politic, meaning they see the legislative process not as their job, but as the means to the end, which is to acquire and stay in power.

2009-02-27T17:52:00.001-07:00

Comic by Don Addis

2009-02-25T19:12:00.003-07:00

I found this at the Daily Dish.

He's right. I have been on the patio with my laptop, that weighs less than 5 pounds, watching the President's speech from yesterday. Literally a television I can hold in my lap, anywhere in the house, with almost unlimited re-runs. The day I was born radio was popular, and it was the only source of mass media. Today one can buy a laptop for less than $300. With it one can access the Internet and get news, an encyclopedia, and books... for nothing more than the cost of an Internet connection, which can be found for free if one is willing to look.

One of the first televisions back in 1945 was about $325. The price of a bottle of Coke was 5¢, and a Hershey's candy bar was the same. A television was 6500 times the cost of a bottle of pop or a candy bar. Today a can costs $1, so does a candy bar, so a laptop costs just 300 times that of a soda.

So, not only can I do more with this set I have (I looked up all this information on the same machine), but the relative cost is not even comparable. Our children have the world at their fingertips, when back then a set of encyclopedias alone was thousands.

The point is that information technology has come a long way, and it is cheaper now than it ever was. It really is amazing...

2009-02-23T18:30:00.002-07:00

Give me a fucking break! This is ridiculous, do they actually think enough people will be persuaded to soften their opinions of Obama by this picture?

On another note, (it took the Dragon software four times to get those last three words right) I finished reading The Borderlands of Science: Where Sense Meets Nonsense by Michael Shermer. The book was entertaining as I said before, with interesting facts about Carl Sagan, Russell Wallace, and some things that Michael Shermer himself has done. I found it very telling how Carl Sagan's first wife described his insistent behavior while trying to convince her not to divorce him. According to her, his argument was that it would be a mistake because he was going to be an important person. The impression I get of Carl Sagan, or have had of him, is that he was not a scientist in his own right but more a proponent and popularizer of science. Michael Shermer puts forth that this is the general impression or perception of him in general, then gives evidence for arguing an alternative point of view. His inclusion of the subject in the book is rationalized by the fact that Carl Sagan was such an outspoken proponent of SETI. This is a borderland science in Michael Shermer's view.

Now I need to find something else to listen to

2009-02-19T14:46:00.003-07:00

So, here we are again. I tried to start a book called the Middle East by Bernard Lewis. I just couldn't get through it. He tried to show the middle east, or rather a history of the Middle East, not from a power perspective but from an individual perspective, the perspective of the individual citizen. He tried to do this by anchoring what he had to say with a hypothetical Café patron in the Middle East. He peppered his narrative with details of the scene, and tried to show how history had dictated each detail. This made it very difficult to follow because he jumped around in time and place way too much. I finally gave up and went on to something else.

I started a book called the borderlands of science by Michael Shermer. It promises to be entertaining but not very informative.

On another note, my wife and me went shopping at Costco. I couldn't help but watch the other patrons as we shopped. If one were to judge the economic situation in this country using only the parking lot of this store as a reference, one would not be able to discern an economic recession. The parking lot at this Costco is always jam packed with cars. Even before crossing the threshold of the store we witnessed a lady jump out of the passenger seat of the SUV she was in and rush to the door in a frenzy. It prompted me to watch the other patrons as we shopped. Many of the faces displayed a wide eyed hysteria, as if their shopping were a matter of life and death. It is amazing to see, and to wonder at the mindset of the average American. Granted, the average American probably does not shop at Costco, and Costco, it could be argued, is a haven for frenzied shoppers. As we were leaving the store, my wife mentioned that her employees seemed more normal when compared to the employees at Wal-Mart.

On still another note, we are one month into the semester, with only three to go. Then, assuming I pass the course and the registry, I will be a licensed technologist without a job. The hospital that employs me now has recently instituted a hiring freeze, and there are few jobs in the city to be had for a licensed tech. The prospects are not promising.

2009-02-18T16:42:00.002-07:00

This is a test. I just installed Dragon NaturallySpeaking on my laptop.

Just trying to get the hang of working the dictation. It is amazingly accurate.

I installed it because, it is not easy typing the notes I take in class, or rather typing the notes that I need to from listening to the recording of the lecture. I can listen in and talk at the same time and do not have to stop the recording quite as often.

On another note, I just finished the book Black boy by Richard Wright. It ended up more abruptly than I thought it would, I assumed the story would follow him to New York and at least on to Europe. I just wasn't thinking. I had read the Wikipedia article and did not really put two and two together, if I would have assessed it more closely, the original publishing date with is a, I would have known it would not go that far.

It is odd, if I am typing what I say, or rather what goes down, and is different than what I would say.it is all new to me though, personally, because although I have watched radiologists dictate reports, I have not tried it myself. I am also trying the commands. For instance, "open -- quote" and "new line" and "new paragraph" I'll work as commands sad properly. Also, "line up" and "line down" work equally well when said in the proper manner.

That last paragraph took a while to dictate with all the quotations, a rather quotation marks. I'm hoping I'll get the hang of it though. I find it interesting that the program will space between words, and double spaced between sentences. I learned writing that way in the military and have found very few actually type this way. Anyway, with practice it should be much easier to transcribe the recording of the lecture rather than stop and start the recording is often as I have to. It can take up to three times as long to transcribe, or rather Garner the appropriate notes from the lecture. There is also a feature that will transcribe a recording Rummy Sony recorder, which I have. I'm anxious to try that as well.

Like I said it is amazingly accurate, and based on this post it seems to me, with just a little practice, I will be foregoing typing altogether, or at least as much as I can.

2009-02-03T20:26:00.002-07:00

I got an email from my god fearin brother today. That is stupid shit, but that isn't the topic. Talking with my wife about it, she stated he is very presumptuous.

My response was just a reiteration of how I see religious people as a whole, at least those that wear their 'faith' on their sleeves. Such people live their lives being presumptuous, because that is what they expect from others. Stating their 'faith' at every opportunity invites many presumptions that may or may not be warranted. The big one is morality. A person proclaiming submission to a supernatural authority claims silently for themselves the highest of moral virtues. They assume for themselves all the qualities that are deemed 'good' by their religious affiliates, and act on the expectation of acceptance. It is the veneer that allows such people to assume others see only their best, that allows them to be themselves beneath a guise of assumed good intentions.

Although I don't like analogies, I use one to show how I interpret these things. Everyone has a face they show the world, that is different than their true face. (My brother explained this to me, it's ironic that it's validity explains some of the hypocrisy of religion.) This face is a barrier that hides from the rest of the world the true inner self, and the 'thickness' of that barrier depends on the true character of the person. The worse the character, the thicker the barrier.

Those that inject religion into their relationships with others do so because it is their way of shoring up the facade. Thus, frequency with which the religious inject their supernatural philosophy is directly proportional to the facade that needs to be sustained, and an indication of the questionable character lurking beneath.

2009-01-29T17:33:00.002-07:00

Click on the picture.

Found this in the religion forum on Craigslist. Funny stuff....

Yep, I'm wasting time there. Someone posted this...

One side of the debate "believes" there is no God, and the other side "believes" there isn't any God.

My response. (I know, it's pointless really)

An atheist does not believe there is no god, there is an absence of such a belief. It is not the same thing.
The atheist label is only necessary when the concept of a higher power is introduced.

Their response..

that one I will admit that I cannot understand.
are you sure that it isn't that the atheist just does not like the term belief?
do you have a more suitable term?

My response...

The term would not need to be associated with someone that disagrees with the concept of a higher power if there were no such concept.

You are assuming a person has to believe in something. The choices, as you see them, are
"A person believes there is a god."
or
"A person believes there is no god."

I'm saying the choices are,
"A person believes there is a god."
or
"A person does not believe."

There is a distinct difference. A belief requires proof from a rational person, that is why theist like to put the choices in such a way, it assumes to force the requirement of proof on the person that does not believe. A negative, asserting something doesn't exist, requires no proof, but by saying an atheist has a 'belief', changes it to a positive, which then must be proved.

2009-01-27T10:11:00.002-07:00

This really Stupid Shit!

Fueled by a crop of books, Web sites with countdown clocks, and claims about ancient timekeepers, interest is growing in what some see as the dawn of a new era, and others as an expiration date for Earth: December 21, 2012.

The date marks the end of a 5,126-year cycle on the Long Count calendar developed by the Maya, the ancient civilization known for its advanced understanding of astronomy and for the great cities it left behind in Mexico and Central America.

(Some scholars believe the cycle ends a bit later -- on December 23, 2012.)

Speculation in some circles about whether the Maya chose this particular time because they thought something ominous would happen has sparked a number of doomsday theories.

It will be interesting to see the intensity level of the masses as this date draws near. Here's hoping it is on a par with the level displayed for the Y2K hysteria.

2009-01-27T07:23:00.003-07:00

It hit the news recently that Ted Haggard and his former church tried to silence another, a volunteer at the church.

The church agreed to pay the man in exchange for his pledges not to talk publicly about the relationship, Boyd said, referring to a settlement reached by the man's lawyer and the church's insurance company. Under the settlement, the church provided the man money to pay his college tuition, moving expenses and counseling, Boyd said.

Boyd is a senior member of the church, and the reason for this post. At the end of the article I read he is quoted,

Despite the fresh scandal, Boyd said he is hopeful for the future.

"We've added 1,500 people in the last 18 months," he said. "We're trying to adopt 100 orphans into families in the church.

"We had a leader with flawed character and we're trying to clean up from the residue of the past. This will not always define us. I can promise you that in the days ahead, we won't be identified with scandal, but helping the widows and orphans."

When I see something like this, I see a theist announcing the promotion of his religion by assimilation, and selling it as commendable. I'm sure he truly believes his actions deserve the highest praise. What he probably wouldn't even consider though, is that he is purporting to 'help' those that are most susceptible to coercion and indoctrination. I've talked to other theists, and even if the concept of indoctrination is allowed, the rationalization is that it is for the inductee's own good.

2009-01-25T05:30:00.002-07:00

I'm almost done listening to The Question of God, by Armand M. Nicholi Jr. Blatantly biased. I wrote a review for Amazon, in part because I was frustrated that I didn't look deep enough to see what it was really all about. Below is the review in part.

It is a book contrasting three people actually; Freud, Lewis before and Lewis after his conversion.

Already it is obvious the author is making a case for happiness being exclusive to those that believe. He contrasts Lewis in the last part of his life with Freud and the younger Lewis. It is easy to skew any look at Freud simply because he is open and honest about any assertions he could make against the existence of a superior being.

If you are looking for an unbiased comparison of the two men, look elsewhere. The author simply uses Freud to assert a favorable view of Lewis.

The author does address the suffering issue, I thought that would be interesting. It turns out Lewis doesn't have an answer either, and goes so far as to say that his god is not really omnipotent. That to me is just a roundabout way of saying such a god as his is beyond understanding, which is a cop out. People like Lewis proclaim to understand the concept enough to live their lives by it, and demand others do the same, yet assert complexity beyond comprehension when it suits them. This is a contradiction.

I almost didn't finish the book. After less than half the book the author drops all pretenses of objectivity and thrashes Freud, almost proclaiming Lewis a saint in the process. When I read books like this there are lines that stick out, begging for formal refutation. I haven't the time for that however, not yet anyway.

2009-01-20T17:29:00.002-07:00

I'm already tired of hearing about how we have our first black president. All the grandstanding only proves that racism is alive and well. And the commentators, these are sposed to be smart people, people who should be aware of how overzealous proclamations about Obama's skin color cannot hide some of the disingenuousness of it. I think it would have been phenomenal if Obama would have said at the beginning of his speech something to the effect of, "cut the nonsense, the most important thing is not the color of my skin, but my being President of this nation. Let's focus on the nation itself, not a nation with a black man as President."

Everyone is falling all over themselves to say something of significance on 'this historical day'. It is annoying, this reference to 'history'. It would be nice to get beyond it.

2009-01-18T05:31:00.002-07:00

Everywhere, anyone that cares is talking about the origins of the economic situation. One of the big contenders for the top spot is the sub-prime mortgage problem. At least if anyone is talking about it, they feel inclined to bring up that can of worms. I thought it was considered a given that the real underlying problem, no matter what part of the economy we are talking about, is greed. The whole atmosphere in this country was that our wealth was growing astronomically, and any worthwhile enterprise just had to include a plan for getting in on the action.

During the Enron debacle I also thought it was common knowledge that the company was not an anomaly, but they just got caught. It seems the pervading concept is that it is ok unless you get caught. Acquiring wealth is ok, is in fact the most commendable goal in our society, and the yardstick used to judge the merit of the means was rate. In other words, people are judged by how much money they have, and how fast they acquired it.

I would venture to say that this hasn't changed. Americans are greedy. We love our stuff, and will stop at nothing to surround ourselves with it. Those that 'make it' are able to surround themselves with stuff that makes money for them with little or no effort on their part. It is the definition of a successful American.

2009-01-14T08:19:00.003-07:00

Reading some of the news today I find these interesting stories.

President-elect Barack Obama is expected to move swiftly to reverse executive orders regarding torture of terror suspects, the military prison at Guantanamo Bay and other controversial security policies, sources close to his transition said, in dramatic gestures aimed at reversing President Bush’s accumulation of executive power.

Then there's this...

On a Sunday, the Senate Votes Yes on a Lands Bill

The Senate conducted its first vote of the 111th Congress –- on a Sunday no less -– and overrode the objections of Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, to push forward a public lands bill.

On a vote of 66-12, the Senate agreed to take up a package of 160 different bills joined under an umbrella measure. The package has been dubbed a Tomnibus since the whole idea is to merge multiple proposals opposed by Mr. Coburn -– a physician known in the Senate as Dr. No. — and win passage all at once. Fifty-nine votes was the threshold.

It is amazing how similar things are in DC to ancient Rome. More and more, things happening in DC resemble how things went down back then, just before and during the transition from republic to empire.

2009-01-12T18:59:00.002-07:00

Good reading. They don't teach this stuff in school, at least they didn't in the schools I went to.

Stephen's Guide to the Logical Fallacies

I would say I was deprived. I don't see how someone could argue that knowing these kinds of things is unnecessary, but I know a lot of people who would.

So, I mosied on over to Amazon to do a search on logical fallacies. There are many books, and I started reading the reviews of some. I am always particularly interested in the reviewers that give books low marks, and read them with the notion they aren't going to be helpful.

Funny thing though, with the reviews of logic books, there is a distinct pattern. Logic books that leave out religion, or use such reasoning as Pascal's Wager as examples get low marks from religious people bitching about these examples. There are a few books that are written by believers, and it seems the reasoning contained in the books is peppered with positive religious examples, or so some of the reviewers reveal. Religious people give these books high praise. There is one in particular that gets great reviews by people that put up a facade of 'fun for young people' and make very little mention of the dogma it contains. This book is another example of a group of people with an agenda artificially propping up the grade of the book. I find it interesting that it is touted by homeschoolers for the most part, and for being 'great for kids.'

It is, after all, the younger years when people are most susceptible to indoctrination.

2009-01-09T20:40:00.003-07:00

I've been thinking a lot about the essay I mentioned earlier, The Economic Tendency of Freethought. It is a response to a statement made by one Cardinal Manning...

Freethought leads to Atheism, to the destruction of social and civil order, and to the overthrow of government.

Just the response to the first statement, she agrees with the assertion, then goes on to explain why she does. Here is the argument broken down to its basic components.

Freethought posits that a right is s fact, an innate quality of life itself.
This being so, it cannot be administered by another.
A core concept of deism is rights are bestowed by the 'creator'.

So, accepting the first, it is a direct contradiction of the last.

2008-12-29T05:24:00.004-07:00

God Wastes Miracle On Running Catch In Outfield

It's funny, but the scary part of this little barb is that some people believe 'miracles' are a force to be counted on, and worse, believe the mere mention of a miracle or its supposed origin is enough to influence another's actions.

For instance, there is a woman works in the same department I do, who is all but worthless. She has a terrible work ethic and the bare minimum of competence. Yet she gets smiles and nods because she is a 'nice' person, and is willing to invoke superstition at the drop of a hat if she feels the least bit threatened. Most everyone else showed a little passive-aggressiveness recently however. She wanted a day off during the holidays that she was scheduled to work, so she put it out in an email that she was looking to switch. Normally, she would simply call in sick and be done with it. This time she used a different tack which failed miserably. In an email she expressed a belief in miracles after asking if anyone would take her shift, and insisted in the next email she still believed when there was no response to the first. The lack of response was a resounding contradiction by everyone else. Collectively they are able to hide behind their anonymity and show her how they really feel.

The problem with this is it will not change her behavior, because she can convince herself of virtually any other reason for the fact that she ultimately had to work that day.

2008-12-26T09:44:00.003-07:00

It is refreshing when someone is able to efficiently verbalize what a lot of others are thinking. I've found two instances of this, sort of.

Here is a guy getting all riled up about other getting riled up over the so called 'war on christmas'.

Then there is this. I found this while visiting Librivox. Very interesting stuff. Below is a quote, but the whole essay isn't really that long. It is from a collection of writings by Voltairine de Cleyre, a copy of which I will have to have. The following quote is an argument against a deity, or at least a controlling deity. It is interesting because anyone that postulates any basic rights at all cannot, following the logic below, argue for an entity that has any dominion over that one possessing the rights. According to the logic below, a right granted is a contradiction in terms, because only privileges can be granted. The author also speaks a little of slavery. As I have stated before, I have long held the notion that the American ideal and religion are opposing forces, because the American ideal is all about autonomy of the individual, whereas religion is all about submitting to something supreme. Therefore, religion is the ultimate form of slavery, and as long as there are those willing to submit to the authority of their supposed deity, there will be those willing to force another to submit. According to the logic below, the concept of basic rights is the very antithesis of the concept of religion as it is practiced by most religious people today.

Anyway, interesting reading follows.....

Now, the idea of God is, in the first place, an exceeding contradiction. The sign God, so Deists tell us, was invented to express the inexpressible, the incomprehensible and infinite! Then they immediately set about defining it. These definitions prove to be about as self-contradictory and generally conflicting as the original absurdity. But there is a particular set of attributes which form a sort of common ground for all these definitions. They tell us that God is possessed of supreme wisdom, supreme justice, and supreme power. In all the catalogue of creeds, I never yet heard of one that had not for its nucleus unlimited potency.

Now, let us take the deist upon his own ground and prove to him either that his God is limited as to wisdom, or limited as to justice, or limited as to power, or else there is no such thing as justice.

First, then, God, being all-just, wishes to do justice; being all-wise, knows what justice is; being all-powerful, can do justice. Why then injustice? Either your God can do justice and won't or doesn't know what justice is, or he can not do it. The immediate reply is: "What appears to be injustice in our eyes, in the sight of omniscience may be justice. God's ways are not our ways."

Oh, but if he is the all-wise pattern, they should be; what is good enough for God ought to be good enough for man; but what is too mean for man won't do in a God. Else there is no such thing as justice or injustice, and every murder, every robbery, every lie, every crime in the calendar is right and upon that one premise of supreme authority you upset every fact in existence.

What right have you to condemn a murderer if you assume him necessary to "God's plan"? What logic can command the return of stolen property, or the branding of a thief, if the Almighty decreed it? Yet here, again, the Deist finds himself in a dilemma, for to suppose crime necessary to God's purpose is to impeach his wisdom or deny his omnipotence by limiting him as to means. The whole matter, then, hinges upon the one attribute of authority of the central idea of God.

But, you say, what has all this to do with the economic tendency of freethought? Everything. For upon that one idea of supreme authority is based every tyranny that was ever formulated. Why? Because, if God is, no human being no thing that lives, ever had a right! He simply had a privilege, bestowed, granted, conferred, gifted to him, for such a length of time as God sees fit.

This is the logic of my textator, the logic of Catholicism, the only logic of Authoritarianism. The Catholic Church says: "You who are blind, be grateful that you can hear: God could have made you deaf as well. You who are starving, be thankful that you can breathe; God could deprive you of air as well as food. You who are sick, be grateful that you are not dead: God is very merciful to let you live at all. Under all times and circumstances take what you can get, and be thankful." These are the beneficences, the privileges, given by Authority.

Note the difference between a right and a privilege. A right, in the abstract, is a fact; it is not a thing to be given, established, or conferred; it is. Of the exercise of a right power may deprive me; of the right itself, never.

Privilege, in the abstract, does not exist; there is no such thing. Rights recognized, privilege is destroyed.

But, in the practical, the moment you admit a supreme authority, you have denied rights. Practically the supremacy has all the rights, and no matter what the human race possesses, it does so merely at the caprice of that authority. The exercise of the respiratory function is not a right, but a privilege granted by God; the use of the soil is not a right, but a gracious allowance of Deity; the possession of product as the result of labor is not a right, but a boon bestowed. And the thievery of pure air, the withholding of land from use, the robbery of toil, are not wrongs (for if you have no rights, you cannot be wronged), but benign blessings bestowed by "the Giver of all Good" upon the air-thief, the landlord, and the labor-robber.

Hence the freethinker who recognizes the science of astronomy, the science of mathematics, and the equally positive and exact science of justice, is logically forced to the denial of supreme authority. For no human being who observes and reflects can admit a supreme tyrant and preserve his self-respect. No human mind can accept the dogma of divine despotism and the doctrine of eternal justice at the same time; they contradict each other, and it takes two brains to hold them. The cardinal is right: freethought does logically lead to atheism, if by atheism he means the denial of supreme authority.

2008-12-19T10:07:00.003-07:00

There is an interesting discussion going on over at Chez's blog. I've put my response to a comment here, adding to the rest of the stupid shit...

The fact that atheists gather in any way does not suggest there is an ideology behind the label. If this were true, computer geeks could be said to have an underlying ideology because IT people gather in the same ways you described above.

"People who had no ideology would have nothing to that needed reinforcing -- at, say, a convention or conference."

This assumes the purpose of such gatherings is reinforcement. It may be in some cases, but not all. I meet with other atheists on occassion, and we do so to interact with other rational people, not to reinforce our ideas. In fact, you could say an underlying objective to a person attending would be seeking out alternative ideas. On the other hand, the stated purpose when religious people congregate is explicit reinforcement, and a religious leader will have no problem stating this outright. Faith by definition, as it relates to a higher power, needs reinforcement due to its very nature, because a person naturally tends to rationalize and this is corrosive to religioius doctrine.

It IS amazing, as Chez puts it, that any proof is assumed to be shouldered by the atheist. Nobody evers mentions that fact that there would be no need for "proving" the non-existence of a deity, or a need for the atheist label, if there were no religions in the world. The whole notion would be irrelevant at best. Sam Harris articulates this well in a talk he gave (links below), and even goes so far as to reject the label because of this.

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/sam_harris/2007/10/the_problem_with_atheism.html
http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/aai-lecture-the-problem-with-atheism/

I had more to say, but I have little time, and there seems to be no point. The arguments are stale, and there is no reasoning with religious faith simply because any outlandish reasoning will do to shut the conversation down.

2008-12-17T05:45:00.001-07:00

Found this over at Calculated Risk. The questionable part is highlighted in the fine print of the ad...