Monday, March 16, 2009
Entry for March 16, 2009
Patience for people’s intellectual abilities should always be directly proportional to the opportunities that they have had to develop those skills.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
It's Good to be Well
Everywhere that I have lived has had some colloquial communication conundrums for those who are not from their area. In Jamaica “Seen” meant “Yes” or “Do you understand,” whereas in Michigan, “Seen” could be used in either past or present tense: “I seen him coming this way.” So when I moved to South Carolina I expected some provincial differences, but I instead noticed exaggerations of common grammatical mistakes. The most egregious, by sheer volume, is the inability of the local population to use “Good” and “Well” properly.
People often use good when they should use well, especially in speech. For those of you searching your brain for 6th grade English terminology, “Good” is an adjective (a word that describes nouns) and “Well” is usually an adverb (a word used to describe verbs). Good’s meaning indicates the noun is above average or better than normal. As an adverb, Well describes or qualifies an action or to tell how or to what extent an action is carried out. You also can use "well" to describe someone's health. The trick is to remember that you do not use good to describe verbs.
Before moving around the world I always assumed that certain spoken grammatical mistakes were either sloppy slips of the tongue or a sign or a poor education/upbringing. What I’ve learned is that some words or phrases can be local accepted by all classes and educational levels. While I find this uncomfortable, I am trying to see it as part of a dialectic difference. With any luck, I’ll maintain my good grasp of the English language and still fitting in well.
People often use good when they should use well, especially in speech. For those of you searching your brain for 6th grade English terminology, “Good” is an adjective (a word that describes nouns) and “Well” is usually an adverb (a word used to describe verbs). Good’s meaning indicates the noun is above average or better than normal. As an adverb, Well describes or qualifies an action or to tell how or to what extent an action is carried out. You also can use "well" to describe someone's health. The trick is to remember that you do not use good to describe verbs.
Before moving around the world I always assumed that certain spoken grammatical mistakes were either sloppy slips of the tongue or a sign or a poor education/upbringing. What I’ve learned is that some words or phrases can be local accepted by all classes and educational levels. While I find this uncomfortable, I am trying to see it as part of a dialectic difference. With any luck, I’ll maintain my good grasp of the English language and still fitting in well.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Seek Medical Attention
You may not know it, but your stink requires a health professional. If there was an emergency room for BO, you would need to go there. If you smelled any worse, it might be fatal. Your pits could kill Dracula. If you were slightly more malodorous, the military would preemptively invade you. You reek so bad that there should be a team of doctors examining your underarms.
But not to worry, Procter & Gamble has just launched prescription strength deodorant, because they know that you are so far above the normal level of reekatude, that your scent could make an onion cry, you odor is so foul that a priest couldn’t exercise stench off of you and if you were a color is could be called funky tuna.
That is why you need prescription strength deodorant – so that the bouquet of rotting corpses that is your natural aroma might become manageable. Humanity awaits your purchase.
But not to worry, Procter & Gamble has just launched prescription strength deodorant, because they know that you are so far above the normal level of reekatude, that your scent could make an onion cry, you odor is so foul that a priest couldn’t exercise stench off of you and if you were a color is could be called funky tuna.
That is why you need prescription strength deodorant – so that the bouquet of rotting corpses that is your natural aroma might become manageable. Humanity awaits your purchase.
Monday, March 09, 2009
You Are Not Alone
This is an article posted from the AP this week:
More Americans say they have no religion
By RACHEL ZOLL, AP – Mon Mar 9, 12:14 am ET
Children walk back to their pews after listening to the reading of a religious AP – Children walk back to their pews after listening to the reading of a religious story at the foot of the …
A wide-ranging study on American religious life found that the Roman Catholic population has been shifting out o of the Northeast to the Southwest, the percentage of Christians in the nation has declined and more people say they have no religion at all.
Fifteen percent of respondents said they had no religion, an increase from 14.2 percent in 2001 and 8.2 percent in 1990, according to the American Religious Identification Survey.
Northern New England surpassed the Pacific Northwest as the least religious region, with Vermont reporting the highest share of those claiming no religion, at 34 percent. Still, the study found that the numbers of Americans with no religion rose in every state.
"No other religious bloc has kept such a pace in every state," the study's authors said.
In the Northeast, self-identified Catholics made up 36 percent of adults last year, down from 43 percent in 1990. At the same time, however, Catholics grew to about one-third of the adult population in California and Texas, and one-quarter of Floridians, largely due to Latino immigration, according to the research.
Nationally, Catholics remain the largest religious group, with 57 million people saying they belong to the church. The tradition gained 11 million followers since 1990, but its share of the population fell by about a percentage point to 25 percent.
Christians who aren't Catholic also are a declining segment of the country.
In 2008, Christians comprised 76 percent of U.S. adults, compared to about 77 percent in 2001 and about 86 percent in 1990. Researchers said the dwindling ranks of mainline Protestants, including Methodists, Lutherans and Episcopalians, largely explains the shift. Over the last seven years, mainline Protestants dropped from just over 17 percent to 12.9 percent of the population.
The report from The Program on Public Values at Trinity College in Hartford, Conn., surveyed 54,461 adults in English or Spanish from February through November of last year. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 0.5 percentage points. The findings are part of a series of studies on American religion by the program that will later look more closely at reasons behind the trends.
The current survey, being released Monday, found traditional organized religion playing less of a role in many lives. Thirty percent of married couples did not have a religious wedding ceremony and 27 percent of respondents said they did not want a religious funeral.
About 12 percent of Americans believe in a higher power but not the personal God at the core of monotheistic faiths. And, since 1990, a slightly greater share of respondents — 1.2 percent — said they were part of new religious movements, including Scientology, Wicca and Santeria.
The study also found signs of a growing influence of churches that either don't belong to a denomination or play down their membership in a religious group.
Respondents who called themselves "non-denominational Christian" grew from 0.1 percent in 1990 to 3.5 percent last year. Congregations that most often use the term are megachurches considered "seeker sensitive." They use rock style music and less structured prayer to attract people who don't usually attend church. Researchers also found a small increase in those who prefer being called evangelical or born-again, rather than claim membership in a denomination.
Evangelical or born-again Americans make up 34 percent of all American adults and 45 percent of all Christians and Catholics, the study found. Researchers found that 18 percent of Catholics consider themselves born-again or evangelical, and nearly 39 percent of mainline Protestants prefer those labels. Many mainline Protestant groups are riven by conflict over how they should interpret what the Bible says about gay relationships, salvation and other issues.
The percentage of Pentecostals remained mostly steady since 1990 at 3.5 percent, a surprising finding considering the dramatic spread of the tradition worldwide. Pentecostals are known for a spirited form of Christianity that includes speaking in tongues and a belief in modern-day miracles.
Mormon numbers also held steady over the period at 1.4 percent of the population, while the number of Jews who described themselves as religiously observant continued to drop, from 1.8 percent in 1990 to 1.2 percent, or 2.7 million people, last year. Researchers plan a broader survey on people who consider themselves culturally Jewish but aren't religious.
The study found that the percentage of Americans who identified themselves as Muslim grew to 0.6 percent of the population, while growth in Eastern religions such as Buddhism slightly slowed.
More Americans say they have no religion
By RACHEL ZOLL, AP – Mon Mar 9, 12:14 am ET
Children walk back to their pews after listening to the reading of a religious AP – Children walk back to their pews after listening to the reading of a religious story at the foot of the …
A wide-ranging study on American religious life found that the Roman Catholic population has been shifting out o of the Northeast to the Southwest, the percentage of Christians in the nation has declined and more people say they have no religion at all.
Fifteen percent of respondents said they had no religion, an increase from 14.2 percent in 2001 and 8.2 percent in 1990, according to the American Religious Identification Survey.
Northern New England surpassed the Pacific Northwest as the least religious region, with Vermont reporting the highest share of those claiming no religion, at 34 percent. Still, the study found that the numbers of Americans with no religion rose in every state.
"No other religious bloc has kept such a pace in every state," the study's authors said.
In the Northeast, self-identified Catholics made up 36 percent of adults last year, down from 43 percent in 1990. At the same time, however, Catholics grew to about one-third of the adult population in California and Texas, and one-quarter of Floridians, largely due to Latino immigration, according to the research.
Nationally, Catholics remain the largest religious group, with 57 million people saying they belong to the church. The tradition gained 11 million followers since 1990, but its share of the population fell by about a percentage point to 25 percent.
Christians who aren't Catholic also are a declining segment of the country.
In 2008, Christians comprised 76 percent of U.S. adults, compared to about 77 percent in 2001 and about 86 percent in 1990. Researchers said the dwindling ranks of mainline Protestants, including Methodists, Lutherans and Episcopalians, largely explains the shift. Over the last seven years, mainline Protestants dropped from just over 17 percent to 12.9 percent of the population.
The report from The Program on Public Values at Trinity College in Hartford, Conn., surveyed 54,461 adults in English or Spanish from February through November of last year. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 0.5 percentage points. The findings are part of a series of studies on American religion by the program that will later look more closely at reasons behind the trends.
The current survey, being released Monday, found traditional organized religion playing less of a role in many lives. Thirty percent of married couples did not have a religious wedding ceremony and 27 percent of respondents said they did not want a religious funeral.
About 12 percent of Americans believe in a higher power but not the personal God at the core of monotheistic faiths. And, since 1990, a slightly greater share of respondents — 1.2 percent — said they were part of new religious movements, including Scientology, Wicca and Santeria.
The study also found signs of a growing influence of churches that either don't belong to a denomination or play down their membership in a religious group.
Respondents who called themselves "non-denominational Christian" grew from 0.1 percent in 1990 to 3.5 percent last year. Congregations that most often use the term are megachurches considered "seeker sensitive." They use rock style music and less structured prayer to attract people who don't usually attend church. Researchers also found a small increase in those who prefer being called evangelical or born-again, rather than claim membership in a denomination.
Evangelical or born-again Americans make up 34 percent of all American adults and 45 percent of all Christians and Catholics, the study found. Researchers found that 18 percent of Catholics consider themselves born-again or evangelical, and nearly 39 percent of mainline Protestants prefer those labels. Many mainline Protestant groups are riven by conflict over how they should interpret what the Bible says about gay relationships, salvation and other issues.
The percentage of Pentecostals remained mostly steady since 1990 at 3.5 percent, a surprising finding considering the dramatic spread of the tradition worldwide. Pentecostals are known for a spirited form of Christianity that includes speaking in tongues and a belief in modern-day miracles.
Mormon numbers also held steady over the period at 1.4 percent of the population, while the number of Jews who described themselves as religiously observant continued to drop, from 1.8 percent in 1990 to 1.2 percent, or 2.7 million people, last year. Researchers plan a broader survey on people who consider themselves culturally Jewish but aren't religious.
The study found that the percentage of Americans who identified themselves as Muslim grew to 0.6 percent of the population, while growth in Eastern religions such as Buddhism slightly slowed.
Sunday, March 08, 2009
Entry for March 08, 2009
Science and religion can only coexist if you don't mind letting your religion constantly evolve.
Saturday, March 07, 2009
The Anderson, SC Jockey Lot
On the northern county line of Anderson County in South Carolina exists a cultural anomaly of epic proportions. Anything, and I do mean anything, seems to exist for sale in this one location. It draws people from as far away as the swamps of Florida to the back woods of Gatlinburg, TN, and even from the parts of Alabama where the term relative humidity literally means the moisture between two cousins having sex. This 65 acre flea market is the largest in the Southern United States and goes by the simple name: The Jockey Lot.
Each visit to the Jockey Lot is an experience that everyone in my family cherishes - mostly because it makes us feel better about ourselves. Now I’m not saying that these individuals are below the national average of intelligence, hygiene or “correct” breeding, I’m just saying that a large percentage of them prove that there is no minimum or maximum amount of chromosomes required to successfully procreate. This is the crowd that makes Larry the Cable Guy culturally relevant and on job applications probably list smoking as a hobby.
I wouldn’t even mention that their personalities can be fully described in hat form, that they consider teeth something they’re going to have to buy, or that most of them have more invested in their trucks than in their homes, except that I neglected to mention you wouldn’t get a full picture of the people who will be your shopping companions if you should ever decide to visit the Lot de Jockey.
You see, the Jockey Lot is a place that allows people to openly sell live poultry, next to pirated DVDs of last week’s movie release, adjacent to a pile of used and unwashed clothes, down the row from open boxes of medication, across from someone serving food that could give diabetes to a sugar ant, and all from sellers who consider showering optional. It is a enormous garage sale of people who don’t have to look their neighbor in the eye while trying to sell them last year’s must have, and still boxed, As Seen on TV products.
Personally, I find the fact that their high art comes in DVD form, that they classify Sunny D a fruit juice and think of Jesus mostly as an accessory, as kind of endearing. In all honesty, there really isn’t anything more entertaining than waking up early on a Saturday morning, hurriedly driving to this mecca of shopping delights, hopping out of the car to immediately see a mullet-clad female using the term redneck as a complement to try to woo her hubby in the Buy American shirt to purchase a cheap Chinese knockoff of a European bag designer while their toddler is shooed away from the semi-automatic gun table. So if you do go and happen to see something like that, and you will, just know that it’s going to be a good day at the Anderson Jockey Lot.
Each visit to the Jockey Lot is an experience that everyone in my family cherishes - mostly because it makes us feel better about ourselves. Now I’m not saying that these individuals are below the national average of intelligence, hygiene or “correct” breeding, I’m just saying that a large percentage of them prove that there is no minimum or maximum amount of chromosomes required to successfully procreate. This is the crowd that makes Larry the Cable Guy culturally relevant and on job applications probably list smoking as a hobby.
I wouldn’t even mention that their personalities can be fully described in hat form, that they consider teeth something they’re going to have to buy, or that most of them have more invested in their trucks than in their homes, except that I neglected to mention you wouldn’t get a full picture of the people who will be your shopping companions if you should ever decide to visit the Lot de Jockey.
You see, the Jockey Lot is a place that allows people to openly sell live poultry, next to pirated DVDs of last week’s movie release, adjacent to a pile of used and unwashed clothes, down the row from open boxes of medication, across from someone serving food that could give diabetes to a sugar ant, and all from sellers who consider showering optional. It is a enormous garage sale of people who don’t have to look their neighbor in the eye while trying to sell them last year’s must have, and still boxed, As Seen on TV products.
Personally, I find the fact that their high art comes in DVD form, that they classify Sunny D a fruit juice and think of Jesus mostly as an accessory, as kind of endearing. In all honesty, there really isn’t anything more entertaining than waking up early on a Saturday morning, hurriedly driving to this mecca of shopping delights, hopping out of the car to immediately see a mullet-clad female using the term redneck as a complement to try to woo her hubby in the Buy American shirt to purchase a cheap Chinese knockoff of a European bag designer while their toddler is shooed away from the semi-automatic gun table. So if you do go and happen to see something like that, and you will, just know that it’s going to be a good day at the Anderson Jockey Lot.
Friday, March 06, 2009
Big Government
Here is the biggest secret in all of Washington: Both the Republicans and Democrats love big government. It guarantees them jobs, makes them more powerful and creates an almost unbreakable institution in which they can run the show. The only difference is that they like big government in different places.
Lately there has been a pseudo-outcry by Republicans over the stimulus bill heading through Congress. Their latest charge is the true and tried "borrow and spend" assault that has worked well for them. Yet when you look at their own history back through the 1980’s, they have done the exact same for their own pet causes.
During Reagan’s Administration government spending increased by 69%, with a 92% increase in defense spending as he built up the military to confront the Soviet Union (none of these numbers are adjusted for inflation). When he left office the economy was growing and the size of the government as a share of total economic production had shrunk slightly, from 22.2% to 21.2%. In contrast, Clinton’s Administration increased government spending by 32% during his time in office; which was decreased by the rapid slowdown in defense spending after the Cold War ended. When he left office, Clinton’s defense spending had increased by just 4%. So the combination of restrained growth in government and a booming economy meant that government's size as a percentage of the economy dropped from 21.4% to 18.5%.
Next up was George W. Bush, who boosted government spending by 68 % in his eight-year presidency, spearheaded by a 126% increase for defense as he waged wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Bush's spending totals don't include the $700 billion bank bailout added last fall to his final fiscal year, or the $787 billion stimulus package added early this year, but by the time he left office, Bush's government had grown as a share of the economy from 18.5% to 22%.
Over the last couple of weeks Republicans have done everything that they could to brand Obama as another Big Government liberal. And even while Obama speaks of hope and optimism about the economy, he will probably increase government spending for the next two years, only to lower if back down to that same 22% by the end of his first term – the same as George W. Bush at the end of his presidency and slightly more than Reagan at the end of his.
The interesting thing to watch is Republicans crying Big Government while approving of any spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, or on weapons systems such as the F-22 Raptor fighter jet being developed by Lockheed Martin. Even such Rush sycophants like Georgian Republican Representative Phil Gingrey has recently brought an argument to the floor that buying nearly 200 more of the F-22 Raptor jets (he attempted to claim that they were needed to defend ourselves from China and Russia) at $160 million each, is a good investment. If you’re trying to do the math in your head, that’s 32 billion dollars worth of Big Government on something even the military deemed unnecessary.
What it comes down to is that Obama and other Democrats want a big government that addresses their priorities, not the Republicans' agenda. Being a liberal myself, I see the military complex of Big Government that the Republicans pushed through over the last twenty years as wasteful, but the Big Government of education, energy conservation, health care… that the Democrats are now trying to push as worthwhile investments. So in the future, when you hear someone say that they are against Big Government, ask them what specifically they don’t wish to fund. I have a strange feeling that you’ll be able to pick out their political leanings fairly quickly.
Lately there has been a pseudo-outcry by Republicans over the stimulus bill heading through Congress. Their latest charge is the true and tried "borrow and spend" assault that has worked well for them. Yet when you look at their own history back through the 1980’s, they have done the exact same for their own pet causes.
During Reagan’s Administration government spending increased by 69%, with a 92% increase in defense spending as he built up the military to confront the Soviet Union (none of these numbers are adjusted for inflation). When he left office the economy was growing and the size of the government as a share of total economic production had shrunk slightly, from 22.2% to 21.2%. In contrast, Clinton’s Administration increased government spending by 32% during his time in office; which was decreased by the rapid slowdown in defense spending after the Cold War ended. When he left office, Clinton’s defense spending had increased by just 4%. So the combination of restrained growth in government and a booming economy meant that government's size as a percentage of the economy dropped from 21.4% to 18.5%.
Next up was George W. Bush, who boosted government spending by 68 % in his eight-year presidency, spearheaded by a 126% increase for defense as he waged wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Bush's spending totals don't include the $700 billion bank bailout added last fall to his final fiscal year, or the $787 billion stimulus package added early this year, but by the time he left office, Bush's government had grown as a share of the economy from 18.5% to 22%.
Over the last couple of weeks Republicans have done everything that they could to brand Obama as another Big Government liberal. And even while Obama speaks of hope and optimism about the economy, he will probably increase government spending for the next two years, only to lower if back down to that same 22% by the end of his first term – the same as George W. Bush at the end of his presidency and slightly more than Reagan at the end of his.
The interesting thing to watch is Republicans crying Big Government while approving of any spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, or on weapons systems such as the F-22 Raptor fighter jet being developed by Lockheed Martin. Even such Rush sycophants like Georgian Republican Representative Phil Gingrey has recently brought an argument to the floor that buying nearly 200 more of the F-22 Raptor jets (he attempted to claim that they were needed to defend ourselves from China and Russia) at $160 million each, is a good investment. If you’re trying to do the math in your head, that’s 32 billion dollars worth of Big Government on something even the military deemed unnecessary.
What it comes down to is that Obama and other Democrats want a big government that addresses their priorities, not the Republicans' agenda. Being a liberal myself, I see the military complex of Big Government that the Republicans pushed through over the last twenty years as wasteful, but the Big Government of education, energy conservation, health care… that the Democrats are now trying to push as worthwhile investments. So in the future, when you hear someone say that they are against Big Government, ask them what specifically they don’t wish to fund. I have a strange feeling that you’ll be able to pick out their political leanings fairly quickly.
Wednesday, March 04, 2009
Entry for March 04, 2009
If the voice of your political party is a talk show host, you should probably get ready for your party to reorganize.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Is Paying for Indulgences Wrong?
I am the first to admit that I am not Martin Luther. I can say this with all certainty because I am in no way religious and because I am not sure that paying for some modern-day indulgences is wrong. As we all work to deal with things like global warming and fair trade, certain moral negotiations are going to have to be made and simply paying our share may be the most inclusive solution.
A simple case in point is air travel. As of right now, there is no practical alternative to flight, but flying spews lots of CO2 into the atmosphere. To try and make up for the environmental damage, a growing number of travelers purchase carbon offsets, which goes towards worthwhile things like reforestation and alternative energy projects. It’s the 21st-century way of paying indulgences and it helps people travel with clearer consciences, but I’m not sure that we are dealing with the underlying issue. Instead, we are doing exactly what Martin Luther had a problem with: buying our way out of serious moral obligations or personal sin.
According to the Catholic Church there are two different types of sins: A mortal sin and a venial sin. “Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God's law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him. Venial sin allows charity to subsist, even though it offends and wounds it” (Vatican.va). Or in simpler terms, a mortal sin is one that was done with the knowledge of why it was wrong and a venial sin is one that was done without.
As you can imagine, the punishment for a premeditated sin is worse than one committed without full knowledge of the offense. Even once the sin has been paid the sinner still must "strive by works of mercy and charity, as well as by prayer and the various practices of penance, to put off completely the 'old man' and to put on the 'new man’” (Catechism of the Catholic Church: 1473).
Which brings us back to purchasing carbon offsets to make up for the environmental damage of flying and other modern-day indulgences. If you have to keep repurchasing the same indulgence, are you really sorry for what you are doing? (Surely there are better paths that have a more immediate and specific impact) So our purchasing of indulgences are doing nothing more than justifying our premeditated behavior and delaying the choices that we will eventually have to make.
Which again brings us back to Martin Luther’s 95 Theses. Luther did not deny the Pope’s right to grant pardons for penance imposed by the Catholic Church; he made it clear that preachers who claimed indulgences absolved buyers from all punishments and granted them salvation was wrong. And while the Council of Trent did away with the sale of the types of indulgences that sparked his door defacing act, the sale of indulgences for certain sins still remains in the Catholic Church to this day.
So is this simply a matter of something is better than nothing? Is it a deliverance from our wrongs because the alternative is individually unrealistic? A collective shrug and a hope that we’re doing a little, even if it is just a very little? The dance of the gray area between the lines of black and white? Does anyone actually feel absolved? Or do we all just wish that someone else would come up with a solution that we can all get behind? You know, someone who doesn’t have a plane to catch…
Over the next few years the number things like offsets and other modern indulgences will substantially increase, with some being voluntary and some being mandatory. Their money will go to important, needed things that will help work towards solutions to fix the underlying problem. My concern, as with Luther’s, is that we may be granting people moral salvation instead of actually asking people to take an active role to fix the problems that they helped caused.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a8.htm
A simple case in point is air travel. As of right now, there is no practical alternative to flight, but flying spews lots of CO2 into the atmosphere. To try and make up for the environmental damage, a growing number of travelers purchase carbon offsets, which goes towards worthwhile things like reforestation and alternative energy projects. It’s the 21st-century way of paying indulgences and it helps people travel with clearer consciences, but I’m not sure that we are dealing with the underlying issue. Instead, we are doing exactly what Martin Luther had a problem with: buying our way out of serious moral obligations or personal sin.
According to the Catholic Church there are two different types of sins: A mortal sin and a venial sin. “Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God's law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him. Venial sin allows charity to subsist, even though it offends and wounds it” (Vatican.va). Or in simpler terms, a mortal sin is one that was done with the knowledge of why it was wrong and a venial sin is one that was done without.
As you can imagine, the punishment for a premeditated sin is worse than one committed without full knowledge of the offense. Even once the sin has been paid the sinner still must "strive by works of mercy and charity, as well as by prayer and the various practices of penance, to put off completely the 'old man' and to put on the 'new man’” (Catechism of the Catholic Church: 1473).
Which brings us back to purchasing carbon offsets to make up for the environmental damage of flying and other modern-day indulgences. If you have to keep repurchasing the same indulgence, are you really sorry for what you are doing? (Surely there are better paths that have a more immediate and specific impact) So our purchasing of indulgences are doing nothing more than justifying our premeditated behavior and delaying the choices that we will eventually have to make.
Which again brings us back to Martin Luther’s 95 Theses. Luther did not deny the Pope’s right to grant pardons for penance imposed by the Catholic Church; he made it clear that preachers who claimed indulgences absolved buyers from all punishments and granted them salvation was wrong. And while the Council of Trent did away with the sale of the types of indulgences that sparked his door defacing act, the sale of indulgences for certain sins still remains in the Catholic Church to this day.
So is this simply a matter of something is better than nothing? Is it a deliverance from our wrongs because the alternative is individually unrealistic? A collective shrug and a hope that we’re doing a little, even if it is just a very little? The dance of the gray area between the lines of black and white? Does anyone actually feel absolved? Or do we all just wish that someone else would come up with a solution that we can all get behind? You know, someone who doesn’t have a plane to catch…
Over the next few years the number things like offsets and other modern indulgences will substantially increase, with some being voluntary and some being mandatory. Their money will go to important, needed things that will help work towards solutions to fix the underlying problem. My concern, as with Luther’s, is that we may be granting people moral salvation instead of actually asking people to take an active role to fix the problems that they helped caused.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a8.htm
Friday, February 27, 2009
Give it a Rest Already
For the sanity of humanity, I would like to clear up a couple things for those of you out there who think that everything that is happening right now, this very second, while you are wasting time reading this, is important:
These are not the “End Times”
Things are not any worse or better than they have ever been
The newest generation is no worse than yours
Each political party will get an equal chance to harm the country in time
Money and time have always been in short supply
Nothing powerful enough to create everything would ever care what you believe in
And lastly, none of this shit is new. Anyone telling you differently is selling something.
So please, for the love of all that is covered in chocolate, give it a fucking rest and stop taking yourself so damn seriously.
These are not the “End Times”
Things are not any worse or better than they have ever been
The newest generation is no worse than yours
Each political party will get an equal chance to harm the country in time
Money and time have always been in short supply
Nothing powerful enough to create everything would ever care what you believe in
And lastly, none of this shit is new. Anyone telling you differently is selling something.
So please, for the love of all that is covered in chocolate, give it a fucking rest and stop taking yourself so damn seriously.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Entry for February 26, 2009
Is it just me, or do you want to run into people wearing camouflage just so you can say, “Oh, sorry, didn’t see you there!”
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
The Peacock has Landed
In The Game: Penetrating the Secret Society of Pickup Artists, the author Neil Strauss (Styles) gives the word Peacocking the following definition: Peacock – verb: to dress in loud clothing or with flashy accoutrements in order to get attention from women. Peacocking items include bright shiny shirts, light-up jewelry, feather boas, colorful cowboy hats, or anything else that makes one stand out in a crowd. Origin: Mystery.
Mystery is a pick-up artist and part of the seduction community. In one of their adventures Styles describes Mystery as being “dressed in a top hat, flight goggles, six-inch platform boots, black latex pants, and a black T-shirt with a scrolling red digital sign that said "Mystery" on it.” Sure you may laugh, but that same guy ended up with his own VH1 reality television series The Pick-up Artist, now in its second season. His thought behind the theory rests in the belief that, in order to attract the most desirable female of the species, it's necessary to stand out in a flashy and colorful way.
His concept, now over a decade old, seems to have grown into the national dress code. So much so that, over the last year or so, I’ve complained about everything from gaudy clothing, to being an unpaid billboard, and even the ridiculous posturing-fashions that so many teens seem unable to resist. That being said, I have come to this conclusion because the style has reached its apex, crossed into the absurd, and will hopefully be soon laid to rest because of flagrant overuse. Moreover, this shift will affect more than just clothing. It represents a general cultural shift from one norm: peacocking for status, to the new norm: understatement for shown awareness – and I couldn’t be happier.
Bring on people trying to outdo each other for how subtle, subdued, or conscience they are by blending into the background. Sure it’s along the line of making something that is good for us overly trendy, but at least I’ll be able to get a drink at the pub without laughing so hard at someone’s clothing that I shoot Guinness out of my nose.
Mystery is a pick-up artist and part of the seduction community. In one of their adventures Styles describes Mystery as being “dressed in a top hat, flight goggles, six-inch platform boots, black latex pants, and a black T-shirt with a scrolling red digital sign that said "Mystery" on it.” Sure you may laugh, but that same guy ended up with his own VH1 reality television series The Pick-up Artist, now in its second season. His thought behind the theory rests in the belief that, in order to attract the most desirable female of the species, it's necessary to stand out in a flashy and colorful way.
His concept, now over a decade old, seems to have grown into the national dress code. So much so that, over the last year or so, I’ve complained about everything from gaudy clothing, to being an unpaid billboard, and even the ridiculous posturing-fashions that so many teens seem unable to resist. That being said, I have come to this conclusion because the style has reached its apex, crossed into the absurd, and will hopefully be soon laid to rest because of flagrant overuse. Moreover, this shift will affect more than just clothing. It represents a general cultural shift from one norm: peacocking for status, to the new norm: understatement for shown awareness – and I couldn’t be happier.
Bring on people trying to outdo each other for how subtle, subdued, or conscience they are by blending into the background. Sure it’s along the line of making something that is good for us overly trendy, but at least I’ll be able to get a drink at the pub without laughing so hard at someone’s clothing that I shoot Guinness out of my nose.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Darwin Day - February 12
Fossils Reveal Truth About Darwin's Theory
By Robin Lloyd, LiveScience Senior Editor
With the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin this week, people around the world are celebrating his role as the father of evolutionary theory. Events and press releases are geared, in part, to combat false claims made by some who would discredit the theory.
One frequently cited "hole" in the theory: Creationists claim there are no transitional fossils, aka missing links. Biologists and paleontologists, among others, know this claim is false.
As key evidence for evolution and species' gradual change over time, transitional creatures should resemble intermediate species, having skeletal and other body features in common with two distinct groups of animals, such as reptiles and mammals, or fish and amphibians.
These animals sound wild, but the fossil record - which is far from complete - is full of them nonetheless, as documented by Occidental College geologist Donald Prothero in his book "Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters" (Columbia University Press, 2007). Prothero discussed those fossils last month at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, along with transitional fossils that were announced since the book was published, including the "fishibian" and the "frogamander."
At least hundreds, possibly thousands, of transitional fossils have been found so far by researchers. The exact count is unclear because some lineages of organisms are continuously evolving.
Here is a short list of transitional fossils documented by Prothero and that add to the mountain of evidence for Charles Darwin's theory. A lot of us relate most to fossils of life closely related to humans, so the list focuses on mammals and other vertebrates, including dinosaurs.
Mammals, including us
* It is now clear that the evolutionary tree for early and modern humans looks more like a bush than the line represented in cartoons. All the hominid fossils found to date form a complex nexus of specimens, Prothero says, but Sahelanthropus tchadensis, found in 2001 and 2002, threw everyone for a loop because it walked upright 7 million years ago on two feet but is quite chimp-like in its skull size, teeth, brow ridges and face. It could be a common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees, but many paleoanthropologists will remain unsure until more fossils are found. Previously, the earliest ancestor of our Homo genus found in the fossil record dated back 6 million years.
* -Most fossil giraffes have short necks and today's have long necks, but anatomist Nikos Solounias of the New York Institute of Technology's New York College of Osteopathic Medicine is preparing a description of a giraffe fossil, Bohlinia, with a neck that is intermediate in length.
* Manatees, also called sea cows, are marine mammals that have flippers and a down-turned snout for grazing in warm shallow waters. In 2001, scientists discovered the fossil of a "walking manatee," Pezosiren portelli, which had feet rather than flippers and walked on land during the Eocene epoch (54.8 million years ago to 33.7 million years ago) in what is now Jamaica. Along with skull features like manatees (such as horizontal tooth replacement, like a conveyor belt), it also had heavy ribs for ballast, showing that it also had an aquatic lifestyle, like hippos.
* Scientists know that mastodons, mammoths and elephants all share a common ancestor, but it gets hard to tell apart some of the earliest members of this group, called proboscideans, going back to fossils from the Oligocene epoch (33.7 million years ago to 23.8 million years ago). The primitive members of this group can be traced back to what Prothero calls "the ultimate transitional fossil," Moeritherium, from the late Eocene of Egypt. It looked more like a small hippo than an elephant and probably lacked a long trunk, but it had short upper and lower tusks, the teeth of a primitive mastodon and ear features found only in other proboscideans.
* The Dimetrodon was a big predatory reptile with a tail and a large sail or fin-back. It is often mistaken for a dinosaur, but it's actually part of our mammalian lineage and more closely related to mammals than reptiles, which is seen in its specialized teeth for stabbing meat and skull features that only mammals and their ancestors had. It probably moved around like a lizard and had a jawbone made of multiple bones, like a reptile.
Dinosaurs and birds
* The classic fossil of Archaeopteryx, sometimes called the first bird, has a wishbone (fully fused clavicle) which is only found in modern birds and some dinosaurs. But it also shows impressions from feathers on its body, as seen on many of the theropod dinosaurs from which it evolved. Its body, capable of flight or gliding, also had many of dinosaur features - teeth (no birds alive today have teeth), a long bony tail (tails on modern birds are entirely feathers, not bony), long hind legs and toes, and a specialized hand with long bony fingers (unlike modern bird wings in which the fingers are fused into a single element), Prothero said.
* Sinornis was a bird that also has long bony fingers and teeth, like those seen in dinosaurs and not seen in modern birds.
* Yinlong is a small bipedal dinosaur which shares features with two groups of dinosaurs known to many kids - ceratopsians, the beaked dinosaurs like Triceratops, and pachycephalosaurs, known for having a thick dome of bone in their skulls protecting their brains. Yinlong has the thick rostral bone that is otherwise unique to ceratopsians dinosaurs, and the thick skull roof found in the pachycephalosaurs.
* Anchisaurus is a primitive sauropod dinosaur that has a lot of lizard-like features. It was only 8 feet long (the classic sauropods later on could be more than 100-feet long), had a short neck (sauropods are known for their long necks, while lizards are not), and delicate limbs and feet, unlike dinosaurs. Its spine was like that of a sauropod. The early sauropods were bipedal, while the latter were stood on all fours. Anchisaurus was probably capable of both stances, Prothero wrote.
Fish, frogs, turtles
* Tiktaalik, aka the fishibian or the fishapod, is a large scaled fish that shows a perfect transition between fins and feet, aquatic and land animals. It had fish-like scales, as well as fish-like fin rays and jaw and mouth elements, but it had a shortened skull roof and mobile neck to catch prey, an ear that could hear in both land and water, and a wrist joint that is like those seen in land animals.
* Last year, scientists announced the discovery of Gerobatrachus hottorni, aka the frogamander. Technically, it's a toothed amphibian, but it shows the common origins of frogs and salamanders, scientists say, with a wide skull and large ear drum (like frogs) and two fused ankle bones as seen in salamanders.
* A creature on the way to becoming a turtle, Odontochelys semistestacea, swam around in China's coastal waters 200 million years ago. It had a belly shell but its back was basically bare of armor. Odontochelys had an elongated, pointed snout. Most modern turtles have short snouts. In addition, the roof of its mouth, along with the upper and lower jaws, was equipped with teeth, which the researchers said is a primitive feature for turtles whose mugs are now tipped with beaks but contain no teeth.
By Robin Lloyd, LiveScience Senior Editor
With the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin this week, people around the world are celebrating his role as the father of evolutionary theory. Events and press releases are geared, in part, to combat false claims made by some who would discredit the theory.
One frequently cited "hole" in the theory: Creationists claim there are no transitional fossils, aka missing links. Biologists and paleontologists, among others, know this claim is false.
As key evidence for evolution and species' gradual change over time, transitional creatures should resemble intermediate species, having skeletal and other body features in common with two distinct groups of animals, such as reptiles and mammals, or fish and amphibians.
These animals sound wild, but the fossil record - which is far from complete - is full of them nonetheless, as documented by Occidental College geologist Donald Prothero in his book "Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters" (Columbia University Press, 2007). Prothero discussed those fossils last month at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, along with transitional fossils that were announced since the book was published, including the "fishibian" and the "frogamander."
At least hundreds, possibly thousands, of transitional fossils have been found so far by researchers. The exact count is unclear because some lineages of organisms are continuously evolving.
Here is a short list of transitional fossils documented by Prothero and that add to the mountain of evidence for Charles Darwin's theory. A lot of us relate most to fossils of life closely related to humans, so the list focuses on mammals and other vertebrates, including dinosaurs.
Mammals, including us
* It is now clear that the evolutionary tree for early and modern humans looks more like a bush than the line represented in cartoons. All the hominid fossils found to date form a complex nexus of specimens, Prothero says, but Sahelanthropus tchadensis, found in 2001 and 2002, threw everyone for a loop because it walked upright 7 million years ago on two feet but is quite chimp-like in its skull size, teeth, brow ridges and face. It could be a common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees, but many paleoanthropologists will remain unsure until more fossils are found. Previously, the earliest ancestor of our Homo genus found in the fossil record dated back 6 million years.
* -Most fossil giraffes have short necks and today's have long necks, but anatomist Nikos Solounias of the New York Institute of Technology's New York College of Osteopathic Medicine is preparing a description of a giraffe fossil, Bohlinia, with a neck that is intermediate in length.
* Manatees, also called sea cows, are marine mammals that have flippers and a down-turned snout for grazing in warm shallow waters. In 2001, scientists discovered the fossil of a "walking manatee," Pezosiren portelli, which had feet rather than flippers and walked on land during the Eocene epoch (54.8 million years ago to 33.7 million years ago) in what is now Jamaica. Along with skull features like manatees (such as horizontal tooth replacement, like a conveyor belt), it also had heavy ribs for ballast, showing that it also had an aquatic lifestyle, like hippos.
* Scientists know that mastodons, mammoths and elephants all share a common ancestor, but it gets hard to tell apart some of the earliest members of this group, called proboscideans, going back to fossils from the Oligocene epoch (33.7 million years ago to 23.8 million years ago). The primitive members of this group can be traced back to what Prothero calls "the ultimate transitional fossil," Moeritherium, from the late Eocene of Egypt. It looked more like a small hippo than an elephant and probably lacked a long trunk, but it had short upper and lower tusks, the teeth of a primitive mastodon and ear features found only in other proboscideans.
* The Dimetrodon was a big predatory reptile with a tail and a large sail or fin-back. It is often mistaken for a dinosaur, but it's actually part of our mammalian lineage and more closely related to mammals than reptiles, which is seen in its specialized teeth for stabbing meat and skull features that only mammals and their ancestors had. It probably moved around like a lizard and had a jawbone made of multiple bones, like a reptile.
Dinosaurs and birds
* The classic fossil of Archaeopteryx, sometimes called the first bird, has a wishbone (fully fused clavicle) which is only found in modern birds and some dinosaurs. But it also shows impressions from feathers on its body, as seen on many of the theropod dinosaurs from which it evolved. Its body, capable of flight or gliding, also had many of dinosaur features - teeth (no birds alive today have teeth), a long bony tail (tails on modern birds are entirely feathers, not bony), long hind legs and toes, and a specialized hand with long bony fingers (unlike modern bird wings in which the fingers are fused into a single element), Prothero said.
* Sinornis was a bird that also has long bony fingers and teeth, like those seen in dinosaurs and not seen in modern birds.
* Yinlong is a small bipedal dinosaur which shares features with two groups of dinosaurs known to many kids - ceratopsians, the beaked dinosaurs like Triceratops, and pachycephalosaurs, known for having a thick dome of bone in their skulls protecting their brains. Yinlong has the thick rostral bone that is otherwise unique to ceratopsians dinosaurs, and the thick skull roof found in the pachycephalosaurs.
* Anchisaurus is a primitive sauropod dinosaur that has a lot of lizard-like features. It was only 8 feet long (the classic sauropods later on could be more than 100-feet long), had a short neck (sauropods are known for their long necks, while lizards are not), and delicate limbs and feet, unlike dinosaurs. Its spine was like that of a sauropod. The early sauropods were bipedal, while the latter were stood on all fours. Anchisaurus was probably capable of both stances, Prothero wrote.
Fish, frogs, turtles
* Tiktaalik, aka the fishibian or the fishapod, is a large scaled fish that shows a perfect transition between fins and feet, aquatic and land animals. It had fish-like scales, as well as fish-like fin rays and jaw and mouth elements, but it had a shortened skull roof and mobile neck to catch prey, an ear that could hear in both land and water, and a wrist joint that is like those seen in land animals.
* Last year, scientists announced the discovery of Gerobatrachus hottorni, aka the frogamander. Technically, it's a toothed amphibian, but it shows the common origins of frogs and salamanders, scientists say, with a wide skull and large ear drum (like frogs) and two fused ankle bones as seen in salamanders.
* A creature on the way to becoming a turtle, Odontochelys semistestacea, swam around in China's coastal waters 200 million years ago. It had a belly shell but its back was basically bare of armor. Odontochelys had an elongated, pointed snout. Most modern turtles have short snouts. In addition, the roof of its mouth, along with the upper and lower jaws, was equipped with teeth, which the researchers said is a primitive feature for turtles whose mugs are now tipped with beaks but contain no teeth.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Death
I realized the other day that everything that I know about death I learned from Calvin and Hobbes Cartoons.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Expectations
April, 15, 1946 - It was a warm day for at Ebbets Field and the Brooklyn Dodgers were pitted against the Boston Braves. Jackie Robinson stepped up to a historic at bat, brought cheered and boos and ended approximately 60 years of baseball segregation. Everyone knew that it was the exact moment that the baseball color line broke. His at bat ended in a ground out to the pitcher and he went go 0-3 during the rest of the game. But viewed in the context of time, with the achievements that he would earn as he progressed throughout his career, he stands alone as an image of change and hope in our country.
Sixty years later we have our first black president stepping up to bat. Voted in as president in an overwhelming victory, he will face one of the most challenging administrations that our country has ever seen. As he inherits a list of problems that we expect him to solve, we also expect him to be as good as our previous president was bad. Like Jackie Robinson, it is true that he too represents progress, but it is unrealistic to think that he alone will bring change to the country.
During the election and immediately thereafter, he kept telling us that it wasn’t about him. He told us that it was about us - that we must all be part of the change - but we have never really listened. Instead, we have placed all of our hope on him and believed that Yes We Can, as long as he is leading the way. We see him as our hero, an icon, a symbol of who we are. And when he is sworn in tomorrow as our forty-forth president, it will be as all of our Jackie Robinson. My only hope is that we can see his example for what it is: another good start.
Sixty years later we have our first black president stepping up to bat. Voted in as president in an overwhelming victory, he will face one of the most challenging administrations that our country has ever seen. As he inherits a list of problems that we expect him to solve, we also expect him to be as good as our previous president was bad. Like Jackie Robinson, it is true that he too represents progress, but it is unrealistic to think that he alone will bring change to the country.
During the election and immediately thereafter, he kept telling us that it wasn’t about him. He told us that it was about us - that we must all be part of the change - but we have never really listened. Instead, we have placed all of our hope on him and believed that Yes We Can, as long as he is leading the way. We see him as our hero, an icon, a symbol of who we are. And when he is sworn in tomorrow as our forty-forth president, it will be as all of our Jackie Robinson. My only hope is that we can see his example for what it is: another good start.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
To the Two Young Ladies Behind Me
Women are strong, intelligent, beautiful, amazing creatures, which makes it all the more frustrating when they won’t shut up long enough to be admired.
I understand that a coffee shop is a well known place to air ones grievances, I’ve even written another blog about it, but there really needs to be a limit. While attempting to get some work done at The Victoria earlier this week I took the only seat available, directly behind two girls talking to each other about their lives, and attempted to write.
Over the next several minutes I was constantly interrupted by their every increasingly vapid conversation. It bounced from why one of their boyfriends was stunted emotionally because he didn't hug his father on a regular basis, that one of their sisters just doesn’t understand the value of exfoliating her feet, that one of them has reached a personal milestone and now felt confident in themselves, as long as they kept seeing their therapist once a week and continued to journal, that one of them had been struggling with depression, but a crush on Jim from the TV show The Office was helping her get through it, and that they were both a “rollercoaster of emotion because of their mothers”.
Throughout the entire conversation they became louder and more piercing. Eventually spiraled into such a high-pitch frenzy that I can only explain it as two Pekinese fighting over ownership of a heavily amplified dog whistle. Needless to say, I did not get much writing done and ended up heading home to attempt to write with the usual distractions of home.
The problem was that once all I could think about was how much I had been annoyed by the mindless chittering that had driven me back home. What I decided to do was sit down and try to become a female conversational apologist. This I thought, would either help me find peace with their process or turn me into a celibate monk.
Not really knowing where to start, I contemplated how men converse. We talk just enough to know what the other is thinking. Generalities, direction, examples and specifics about things that are only loosely relevant to the conversation at hand. In all reality, we talk less because we would rather know that there is someone out there like us, who shares the same tastes as us, with just enough conflict for us to continue to believe that we are different enough to matter. Our relationships are deep within our minds, but rarely expressed because allowing them to surface would smother their meaning. Male friendship is based on things that don’t need to be said.
Conversely, female relationships are built on the opposite: reassurance that they are not alone, community, and strength through vulnerability. What those two women behind me were saying was that the challenges in their lives were just obstacles that, with a little support and shared strength, they will overcome.
After reasoning it out, I thought about how both sides always ridicule the other on how shallow their methods seem to be. Women speak on men’s relationships as things built on grunts, technical data sharing, and physical confrontations. Men generally consider women’s interactions as insipid, pointless meanderings, with sporadic emotional outbursts. And while both sides seem to deal with their emotional wellbeing in different ways, they have the same final outcome.
For myself, I’m glad that I’m male. Not because I think that my way of communicating is superior, more efficient, or even just better. No, it’s because when I need to think, I can sit at the coffee shop, by myself, and find balance with my mind and life. And I can do all of that without annoying the people sitting around me.
I understand that a coffee shop is a well known place to air ones grievances, I’ve even written another blog about it, but there really needs to be a limit. While attempting to get some work done at The Victoria earlier this week I took the only seat available, directly behind two girls talking to each other about their lives, and attempted to write.
Over the next several minutes I was constantly interrupted by their every increasingly vapid conversation. It bounced from why one of their boyfriends was stunted emotionally because he didn't hug his father on a regular basis, that one of their sisters just doesn’t understand the value of exfoliating her feet, that one of them has reached a personal milestone and now felt confident in themselves, as long as they kept seeing their therapist once a week and continued to journal, that one of them had been struggling with depression, but a crush on Jim from the TV show The Office was helping her get through it, and that they were both a “rollercoaster of emotion because of their mothers”.
Throughout the entire conversation they became louder and more piercing. Eventually spiraled into such a high-pitch frenzy that I can only explain it as two Pekinese fighting over ownership of a heavily amplified dog whistle. Needless to say, I did not get much writing done and ended up heading home to attempt to write with the usual distractions of home.
The problem was that once all I could think about was how much I had been annoyed by the mindless chittering that had driven me back home. What I decided to do was sit down and try to become a female conversational apologist. This I thought, would either help me find peace with their process or turn me into a celibate monk.
Not really knowing where to start, I contemplated how men converse. We talk just enough to know what the other is thinking. Generalities, direction, examples and specifics about things that are only loosely relevant to the conversation at hand. In all reality, we talk less because we would rather know that there is someone out there like us, who shares the same tastes as us, with just enough conflict for us to continue to believe that we are different enough to matter. Our relationships are deep within our minds, but rarely expressed because allowing them to surface would smother their meaning. Male friendship is based on things that don’t need to be said.
Conversely, female relationships are built on the opposite: reassurance that they are not alone, community, and strength through vulnerability. What those two women behind me were saying was that the challenges in their lives were just obstacles that, with a little support and shared strength, they will overcome.
After reasoning it out, I thought about how both sides always ridicule the other on how shallow their methods seem to be. Women speak on men’s relationships as things built on grunts, technical data sharing, and physical confrontations. Men generally consider women’s interactions as insipid, pointless meanderings, with sporadic emotional outbursts. And while both sides seem to deal with their emotional wellbeing in different ways, they have the same final outcome.
For myself, I’m glad that I’m male. Not because I think that my way of communicating is superior, more efficient, or even just better. No, it’s because when I need to think, I can sit at the coffee shop, by myself, and find balance with my mind and life. And I can do all of that without annoying the people sitting around me.
Friday, January 02, 2009
The "Everything Happens for a Reason" Argument
For years I’ve had problems with the casually offered “well, everything happens for a reason” excuse. It always left a bad taste in my mouth, but I wasn’t able to pin down exactly why this seemingly innocuous phrase rubbed me the wrong way. Being the supposed deep thinker that I pretend to be, I attempted to logic out the argument for why everything may indeed happen for a reason.
When someone says that they believe that everything has a reason, it immediately causes a sequence of reasons, and this sequence must itself either be caused or not caused. So if there is a cause to the sequence, it must be outside the realm of causes, but if it is not caused, the sequence must be necessary, or its own cause. Their argument then is that the universe is composed of dependent parts and that there must be an outside, necessary being, God, as creator of the world to have caused it to happen. Since God assumedly knows all, the thing must then have been good and it is only our perspective of the thing that is faulty.
But this is a bad theory and incorrect reasoning. Just because one thing has a cause does not mean that it was dependant on another or that the good thing couldn’t have come either independently or without the bad thing happening. Moreover, it assumes that a God would not do bad things to us for us to learn a greater good, but that is another argument.
This took me back to the original intent of the saying. When people say, “everything happens for a reason” they seem to have three ways in which they intended their statement to come across. The first is that there is a God and that that God controls all minutias in the universe. So everything from the orbit of solar systems, to a fire that rips through a nursery, to you stubbing your toe is all part of a master plan by an all powerful, supernatural being, who controls so much of the universe as to cause your free will to be worthless and thereby debunks the need for a God in the first place.
The second is one of Karmic theory in which the there is a balance to the universe and that the good and bad will eventually wash. This assumes that there is a natural equilibrium to everything. This, while beautiful in its simplicity, is shot apart when observing the vast majority of the world around us. Equilibrium in math or science is a quantifiable outcome, but fails when applied most of life. You spraining your ankle getting the mail can only be Karmicly balanced out if it involves an elaborately fanciful story. Seeing things as balanced then becomes a lesson in denial, wherein everything is balanced only because you believe it so and fail to reason.
The thirds is used as a learning experience in that there is always something good to be taken from anything that has happened. But this theory fails in practice as the two paths from an event are rarely equal or necessarily dependent. Say that someone lost their child to Hurricane Katrina. Saying that they then found a deeper relationship with their dog is neither a fair transference nor impossible without the death of their child.
What bothers me about “everything happens for a reason” is that it cheapens reason itself. It takes someone who has had something that they deem as bad and attempts to gloss over that bad thing with someone else’s failed ideology or an extremely faulty thought process.
So next time something bad happens, don’t attempt to connect the universe with the thing, just accept that the bad thing has happened, work to repair the damage in the best possible way, and try to better enjoy when life is good.
When someone says that they believe that everything has a reason, it immediately causes a sequence of reasons, and this sequence must itself either be caused or not caused. So if there is a cause to the sequence, it must be outside the realm of causes, but if it is not caused, the sequence must be necessary, or its own cause. Their argument then is that the universe is composed of dependent parts and that there must be an outside, necessary being, God, as creator of the world to have caused it to happen. Since God assumedly knows all, the thing must then have been good and it is only our perspective of the thing that is faulty.
But this is a bad theory and incorrect reasoning. Just because one thing has a cause does not mean that it was dependant on another or that the good thing couldn’t have come either independently or without the bad thing happening. Moreover, it assumes that a God would not do bad things to us for us to learn a greater good, but that is another argument.
This took me back to the original intent of the saying. When people say, “everything happens for a reason” they seem to have three ways in which they intended their statement to come across. The first is that there is a God and that that God controls all minutias in the universe. So everything from the orbit of solar systems, to a fire that rips through a nursery, to you stubbing your toe is all part of a master plan by an all powerful, supernatural being, who controls so much of the universe as to cause your free will to be worthless and thereby debunks the need for a God in the first place.
The second is one of Karmic theory in which the there is a balance to the universe and that the good and bad will eventually wash. This assumes that there is a natural equilibrium to everything. This, while beautiful in its simplicity, is shot apart when observing the vast majority of the world around us. Equilibrium in math or science is a quantifiable outcome, but fails when applied most of life. You spraining your ankle getting the mail can only be Karmicly balanced out if it involves an elaborately fanciful story. Seeing things as balanced then becomes a lesson in denial, wherein everything is balanced only because you believe it so and fail to reason.
The thirds is used as a learning experience in that there is always something good to be taken from anything that has happened. But this theory fails in practice as the two paths from an event are rarely equal or necessarily dependent. Say that someone lost their child to Hurricane Katrina. Saying that they then found a deeper relationship with their dog is neither a fair transference nor impossible without the death of their child.
What bothers me about “everything happens for a reason” is that it cheapens reason itself. It takes someone who has had something that they deem as bad and attempts to gloss over that bad thing with someone else’s failed ideology or an extremely faulty thought process.
So next time something bad happens, don’t attempt to connect the universe with the thing, just accept that the bad thing has happened, work to repair the damage in the best possible way, and try to better enjoy when life is good.
Monday, December 29, 2008
Food needs 'fundamental rethink'
Excellent article from the BBC's Science and Environment Reporter Mark Kinver. Please read this and pass it on.
Food needs 'fundamental rethink'
A sustainable global food system in the 21st Century needs to be built on a series of "new fundamentals", according to a leading food expert.
Tim Lang warned that the current system, designed in the 1940s, was showing "structural failures", such as "astronomic" environmental costs.
The new approach needed to address key fundamentals like biodiversity, energy, water and urbanisation, he added.
Professor Lang is a member of the UK government's newly formed Food Council.
"Essentially, what we are dealing with at the moment is a food system that was laid down in the 1940s," he told BBC News.
"It followed on from the dust bowl in the US, the collapse of food production in Europe and starvation in Asia.
"At the time, there was clear evidence showing that there was a mismatch between producers and the need of consumers."
Professor Lang, from City University, London, added that during the post-war period, food scientists and policymakers also thought increasing production would reduce the cost of food, while improving people's diets and public health.
"But by the 1970s, evidence was beginning to emerge that the public health outcomes were not quite as expected," he explained.
"Secondly, there were a whole new set of problems associated with the environment."
Thirty years on and the world was now facing an even more complex situation, he added.
"The level of growth in food production per capita is dropping off, even dropping, and we have got huge problems ahead with an explosion in human population."
Fussy eaters
Professor Lang lists a series of "new fundamentals", which he outlined during a speech he made as the president-elect of charity Garden Organic, which will shape future food production, including:
* Oil and energy: "We have an entirely oil-based food economy, and yet oil is running out. The impact of that on agriculture is one of the drivers of the volatility in the world food commodity markets."
* Water scarcity: "One of the key things that I have been pushing is to get the UK government to start auditing food by water," Professor Lang said, adding that 50% of the UK's vegetables are imported, many from water-stressed nations.
* Biodiversity: "Biodiversity must not just be protected, it must be replaced and enhanced; but that is going to require a very different way growing food and using the land."
* Urbanisation: "Probably the most important thing within the social sphere. More people now live in towns than in the countryside. In which case, where do they get their food?"
Professor Lang said that in order to feed a projected nine billion people by 2050, policymakers and scientists face a fundamental challenge: how can food systems work with the planet and biodiversity, rather than raiding and pillaging it?
The UK's Environment Secretary, Hilary Benn, recently set up a Council of Food Policy Advisers in order to address the growing concern of food security and rising prices.
Mr Benn, speaking at the council's launch, warned: "Global food production will need to double just to meet demand.
"We have the knowledge and the technology to do this, as things stand, but the perfect storm of climate change, environmental degradation and water and oil scarcity, threatens our ability to succeed."
Professor Lang, who is a member of the council, offered a suggestion: "We are going to have to get biodiversity into gardens and fields, and then eat it.
"We have to do this rather than saying that biodiversity is what is on the edge of the field or just outside my garden."
Michelin-starred chef and long-time food campaigner Raymond Blanc agrees with Professor Lang, adding that there is a need for people, especially in the UK, to reconnect with their food.
He is heading a campaign called Dig for Your Dinner, which he hopes will help people reconnect with their food and how, where and when it is grown.
"Food culture is a whole series of steps," he told BBC News.
"Whatever amount of space you have in your backyard, it is possible to create a fantastic little garden that will allow you to reconnect with the real value of gardening, which is knowing how to grow food.
"And once you know how to grow food, it would be very nice to be able to cook it. If you are growing food, then it only makes sense that you know how to cook it as well.
"And cooking food will introduce you to the basic knowledge of nutrition. So you can see how this can slowly reintroduce food back into our culture."
Waste not...
Mr Blanc warned that food prices were likely to continue to rise in the future, which was likely to prompt more people to start growing their own food.
He was also hopeful that the food sector would become less wasteful.
"We all know that waste is everywhere; it is immoral what is happening in the world of food.
"In Europe, 30% of the food grown did not appear on the shelves of the retailers because it was a funny shape or odd colour.
"At least the amendment to European rules means that we can now have some odd-shaped carrots on our shelves. This is fantastic news, but why was it not done before?"
He suggested that the problem was down to people choosing food based on sight alone, not smell and touch.
"The way that seeds are selected is about immunity to any known disease; they have also got to grow big and fast, and have a fantastic shelf life.
"Never mind taste, texture or nutrition, it is all about how it looks.
"The British consumer today has got to understand that when they make a choice, let's say an apple - either Chinese, French or English one - they are making a political choice, a socio-economic choice, as well as an environmental one.
"They are making a statement about what sort of society and farming they are supporting."
Growing appetite
The latest estimates from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) show that another 40 million people have been pushed into hunger in 2008 as a result of higher food prices.
This brings the overall number of undernourished people in the world to 963 million, compared to 923 million in 2007.
The FAO warned that the ongoing financial and economic crisis could tip even more people into hunger and poverty.
"World food prices have dropped since early 2008, but lower prices have not ended the food crisis in many poor countries," said FAO assistant director-general Hafez Ghanem at the launch of the agency's State of Food Insecurity in the World 2008 report.
"The structural problems of hunger, like the lack of access to land, credit and employment, combined with high food prices remain a dire reality," he added.
Professor Lang outlined the challenges facing the global food supply system: "The 21st Century is going to have to produce a new diet for people, more sustainably, and in a way that feeds more people more equitably using less land."
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/7795652.stm
Food needs 'fundamental rethink'
A sustainable global food system in the 21st Century needs to be built on a series of "new fundamentals", according to a leading food expert.
Tim Lang warned that the current system, designed in the 1940s, was showing "structural failures", such as "astronomic" environmental costs.
The new approach needed to address key fundamentals like biodiversity, energy, water and urbanisation, he added.
Professor Lang is a member of the UK government's newly formed Food Council.
"Essentially, what we are dealing with at the moment is a food system that was laid down in the 1940s," he told BBC News.
"It followed on from the dust bowl in the US, the collapse of food production in Europe and starvation in Asia.
"At the time, there was clear evidence showing that there was a mismatch between producers and the need of consumers."
Professor Lang, from City University, London, added that during the post-war period, food scientists and policymakers also thought increasing production would reduce the cost of food, while improving people's diets and public health.
"But by the 1970s, evidence was beginning to emerge that the public health outcomes were not quite as expected," he explained.
"Secondly, there were a whole new set of problems associated with the environment."
Thirty years on and the world was now facing an even more complex situation, he added.
"The level of growth in food production per capita is dropping off, even dropping, and we have got huge problems ahead with an explosion in human population."
Fussy eaters
Professor Lang lists a series of "new fundamentals", which he outlined during a speech he made as the president-elect of charity Garden Organic, which will shape future food production, including:
* Oil and energy: "We have an entirely oil-based food economy, and yet oil is running out. The impact of that on agriculture is one of the drivers of the volatility in the world food commodity markets."
* Water scarcity: "One of the key things that I have been pushing is to get the UK government to start auditing food by water," Professor Lang said, adding that 50% of the UK's vegetables are imported, many from water-stressed nations.
* Biodiversity: "Biodiversity must not just be protected, it must be replaced and enhanced; but that is going to require a very different way growing food and using the land."
* Urbanisation: "Probably the most important thing within the social sphere. More people now live in towns than in the countryside. In which case, where do they get their food?"
Professor Lang said that in order to feed a projected nine billion people by 2050, policymakers and scientists face a fundamental challenge: how can food systems work with the planet and biodiversity, rather than raiding and pillaging it?
The UK's Environment Secretary, Hilary Benn, recently set up a Council of Food Policy Advisers in order to address the growing concern of food security and rising prices.
Mr Benn, speaking at the council's launch, warned: "Global food production will need to double just to meet demand.
"We have the knowledge and the technology to do this, as things stand, but the perfect storm of climate change, environmental degradation and water and oil scarcity, threatens our ability to succeed."
Professor Lang, who is a member of the council, offered a suggestion: "We are going to have to get biodiversity into gardens and fields, and then eat it.
"We have to do this rather than saying that biodiversity is what is on the edge of the field or just outside my garden."
Michelin-starred chef and long-time food campaigner Raymond Blanc agrees with Professor Lang, adding that there is a need for people, especially in the UK, to reconnect with their food.
He is heading a campaign called Dig for Your Dinner, which he hopes will help people reconnect with their food and how, where and when it is grown.
"Food culture is a whole series of steps," he told BBC News.
"Whatever amount of space you have in your backyard, it is possible to create a fantastic little garden that will allow you to reconnect with the real value of gardening, which is knowing how to grow food.
"And once you know how to grow food, it would be very nice to be able to cook it. If you are growing food, then it only makes sense that you know how to cook it as well.
"And cooking food will introduce you to the basic knowledge of nutrition. So you can see how this can slowly reintroduce food back into our culture."
Waste not...
Mr Blanc warned that food prices were likely to continue to rise in the future, which was likely to prompt more people to start growing their own food.
He was also hopeful that the food sector would become less wasteful.
"We all know that waste is everywhere; it is immoral what is happening in the world of food.
"In Europe, 30% of the food grown did not appear on the shelves of the retailers because it was a funny shape or odd colour.
"At least the amendment to European rules means that we can now have some odd-shaped carrots on our shelves. This is fantastic news, but why was it not done before?"
He suggested that the problem was down to people choosing food based on sight alone, not smell and touch.
"The way that seeds are selected is about immunity to any known disease; they have also got to grow big and fast, and have a fantastic shelf life.
"Never mind taste, texture or nutrition, it is all about how it looks.
"The British consumer today has got to understand that when they make a choice, let's say an apple - either Chinese, French or English one - they are making a political choice, a socio-economic choice, as well as an environmental one.
"They are making a statement about what sort of society and farming they are supporting."
Growing appetite
The latest estimates from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) show that another 40 million people have been pushed into hunger in 2008 as a result of higher food prices.
This brings the overall number of undernourished people in the world to 963 million, compared to 923 million in 2007.
The FAO warned that the ongoing financial and economic crisis could tip even more people into hunger and poverty.
"World food prices have dropped since early 2008, but lower prices have not ended the food crisis in many poor countries," said FAO assistant director-general Hafez Ghanem at the launch of the agency's State of Food Insecurity in the World 2008 report.
"The structural problems of hunger, like the lack of access to land, credit and employment, combined with high food prices remain a dire reality," he added.
Professor Lang outlined the challenges facing the global food supply system: "The 21st Century is going to have to produce a new diet for people, more sustainably, and in a way that feeds more people more equitably using less land."
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/7795652.stm
Friday, December 19, 2008
Jesus Claus
Both come from a mystical land that many talk about, but no one has ever seen.
Both promise gifts and treasure for good behavior.
Both keep a record of your lifetime of conduct.
Both can always see what you are doing, at any time, anywhere.
Both magically ascend into the sky when the job is done.
What is amazing is that every single child in the world is naturally compelled to ask enough provoking question to dispel the Santa myth before even reaching intellectual maturity. Whereas most adults refuse to ask any questions that undermine their belief in whether or not Jesus is real. For a long time I thought that children were just naturally smarter to ask for their gifts upfront, but in time I’ve realized that children inherently know that not receiving gifts from an imaginary person is not a fair trade for the truth.
It is with that in mind that my wife and I decided, post-theological as we are, to celebrate the myth of Santa with our son Sebastian. We see it as a trial run, practice, for the gauntlet of mythical propaganda to follow. If he can let go of a jolly man giving out candy and toys, then seeing through a world filled with talking snakes, the dead rising like zombies, and the beliefs that the creator of the universe has nothing better to do then worry whether or not people like him, then he should be able easily dispensed with that as fiction too.
In time we hope that our son realizes that the true meaning of this season predates religion, civilization, and humanity itself. It is a celebration of the dark, cold, and slumbering. It is the understanding that everything needs rest, the world will renew, and that life will continue. And in some small part, if we support each other with cooperation and love when times are dark, we will be stronger when the light comes. So maybe, just maybe, if we are good, will get to see our gift in the smile of every independent thinker who has just figured out that Santa Claus is just Jesus for adults.
Both promise gifts and treasure for good behavior.
Both keep a record of your lifetime of conduct.
Both can always see what you are doing, at any time, anywhere.
Both magically ascend into the sky when the job is done.
What is amazing is that every single child in the world is naturally compelled to ask enough provoking question to dispel the Santa myth before even reaching intellectual maturity. Whereas most adults refuse to ask any questions that undermine their belief in whether or not Jesus is real. For a long time I thought that children were just naturally smarter to ask for their gifts upfront, but in time I’ve realized that children inherently know that not receiving gifts from an imaginary person is not a fair trade for the truth.
It is with that in mind that my wife and I decided, post-theological as we are, to celebrate the myth of Santa with our son Sebastian. We see it as a trial run, practice, for the gauntlet of mythical propaganda to follow. If he can let go of a jolly man giving out candy and toys, then seeing through a world filled with talking snakes, the dead rising like zombies, and the beliefs that the creator of the universe has nothing better to do then worry whether or not people like him, then he should be able easily dispensed with that as fiction too.
In time we hope that our son realizes that the true meaning of this season predates religion, civilization, and humanity itself. It is a celebration of the dark, cold, and slumbering. It is the understanding that everything needs rest, the world will renew, and that life will continue. And in some small part, if we support each other with cooperation and love when times are dark, we will be stronger when the light comes. So maybe, just maybe, if we are good, will get to see our gift in the smile of every independent thinker who has just figured out that Santa Claus is just Jesus for adults.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
So Throw Him in Jail Already
So I’ve been taking a break from political writing since the election, but can’t stand by and not say something about this. In an interview with ABC News on Monday, Dick Cheney admitted to war crimes. Not in a roundabout way, not trying to sugarcoat it, and not in a way that is disputable. It was a matter of fact, simple admission that waterboarding happened and that he approved of it.
So what’s the big deal? Let me digress for a minute to bring up a bit of history. I’m going to quote the recent Republican nomination from president, a POW himself, John McCain (Thursday, November 29th, 2007 in a campaign event in St. Petersburg): “… following World War II war crime trials were convened. The Japanese were tried and convicted and hung for war crimes committed against American POWs. Among those charges for which they were convicted was waterboarding.” That’s right, we’ve actually hung people - within Dick Cheney’s lifetime - for waterboarding. And he just admitted to it. Let me say that again. A sitting Vice President just went on national TV and admitted to a crime that we as a country have killed people for committing.
So where is the outrage? Sure they’re gone in a couple of weeks, but if this remains unpunished it sets a precedent that any crime committed by a president or vice president is legal as long as they say it is. To quote another politician, “Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal”. Those famous words by Dick Nixon, about his now almost adorable break-in to a Democratic Headquarters in Washington, DC, are currently being used by one of our leaders in favor of illegally torturing someone in the same manner as was used in the Spanish Inquisition.
So what can we do? Well, just because he is leaving office does not mean that he is no longer accountable for his crimes. He is still prosecutable for his actions and needs to be made an example of. We are a country of laws and everyone must obey them. If we are to believe that no one is above the law, our laws must be applicable from the top down. Please take a minute and write your representative. Let them know that you’re outraged. Tell them that you want Dick Cheney held accountable. Tell them that if they really want to show that they stand for change, this would be an excellent place to start.
Write your representative from the Senate
Write your representative from the House
So what’s the big deal? Let me digress for a minute to bring up a bit of history. I’m going to quote the recent Republican nomination from president, a POW himself, John McCain (Thursday, November 29th, 2007 in a campaign event in St. Petersburg): “… following World War II war crime trials were convened. The Japanese were tried and convicted and hung for war crimes committed against American POWs. Among those charges for which they were convicted was waterboarding.” That’s right, we’ve actually hung people - within Dick Cheney’s lifetime - for waterboarding. And he just admitted to it. Let me say that again. A sitting Vice President just went on national TV and admitted to a crime that we as a country have killed people for committing.
So where is the outrage? Sure they’re gone in a couple of weeks, but if this remains unpunished it sets a precedent that any crime committed by a president or vice president is legal as long as they say it is. To quote another politician, “Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal”. Those famous words by Dick Nixon, about his now almost adorable break-in to a Democratic Headquarters in Washington, DC, are currently being used by one of our leaders in favor of illegally torturing someone in the same manner as was used in the Spanish Inquisition.
So what can we do? Well, just because he is leaving office does not mean that he is no longer accountable for his crimes. He is still prosecutable for his actions and needs to be made an example of. We are a country of laws and everyone must obey them. If we are to believe that no one is above the law, our laws must be applicable from the top down. Please take a minute and write your representative. Let them know that you’re outraged. Tell them that you want Dick Cheney held accountable. Tell them that if they really want to show that they stand for change, this would be an excellent place to start.
Write your representative from the Senate
Write your representative from the House
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
