Vaccinating Sebastian

My wife and I are at am impasse on something to do with our child Sebastian. I’m sure that it is not our last disagreement, but it’s the first big one. She does not want him vaccinated against anything and I would like him to get some vaccinations. I’ve conceded that there are some vaccines that are completely ridiculous. For instance, the chicken pox vaccine prevents children from getting the disease while they are young, but can come with a heavy consequence later in life. Adult chicken pox is called shingles and is extremely painful, whereas chicken pox in children is almost always treated with a couple days at home watching TV and eating soup. To me, this trade-off of a minor inconvenience for something worse at a later date speaks volumes of our culture, but that is another rant.

By training, I am a researcher. Too many years of school attendance in front and behind the podium will do that to you. I can spot sham research from a mile away and can become incredibly knowledgeable about minutia within several hours given the right access. So I decided to dive into this issue full-on to see if her argument for no vaccinations held up to scientific scrutiny. Afterwards, I talked with her briefly about her decision and reasoning. In the end I came to an understanding that her issue is one of faith in her gut.

Unfortunately, this puts her on the side with the hordes of mostly uneducated people who think that vaccines are controversial. Just by doing a couple of Google searches I’ve come to realize that that army of pseudoscience-believing anti-vaccine people immediately attacks anyone who points out the obvious holes in their unfounded ideas. To me, they appear to be the same type of individuals who are still arguing that the earth is 6,000 years old, Bush had a hand in 9-11, or that global warming doesn't exist.

You can always spot these people by their constant desire to fill gaps. If there is science out there that they don’t fully understand, threatens their current belief system, or just sounds bad to their limited knowledge, they work to find holes and point to those holes as proof that the lack of evidence that exists in these holes means that something bad must inhabit them. These people allow themselves to overlook the fact that a lack of evidence of something does not prove anything else.

So they look for holes, point to these unknowns as definite proof of something evil, and try to convince others of those evils. The anti-vaccine movement is much larger, and started earlier, in Europe. The fallout is already evident. Last year, the number of measles cases in England and Wales jumped more than 30%. This was the highest level since record keeping began in 1995 (BBC 2008). The Measles, Mumps, Rubella (MMR) immunization rates drastically dropped after a now defunct paper was release that questioned whether or not the vaccine was linked to an increased risk of autism. The research was done by a man who was trying to sell an alternative to thimerosal (an ingredient in the vaccine) and every single person who was on the research team has since denounced the theory. This is the type of cold hard fact that some people choose to overlook in favor of wild guesses and unsubstantiated rumors.

What surprises me more is that despite a long history of being both successful and safe, vaccines still have very open and angry critics. There are a small cluster of parents and an even smaller faction of doctors that still question whether vaccinating children is worth what they perceive as risks. This anti-vaccine movement seems to be completely based on bad science and blatant fear-mongering of the unknown. Recently, it has even become openly vocal and very hostile.

Their original argument stemmed from the fact that mercury, which is a major component in thimerosal, is a poison to the brain due because it is a known neurotoxin. Every single argument that follows is an offshoot of this original argument linking thimerosal to autism. Almost everything is toxic in high enough doses. As many people have pointed out, too much vitamin C or even water can kill you. So the argument then comes down to dosage. Is the amount of mercury in thimerosal high enough to cause neurological damage?

The anti-vaccine side argues that the ethylmercury found in thimerosal exceeds the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) daily limit. But if actually do the math on the EPA’s website (EPA 2007) you quickly find out that there is an extraordinarily low amount in common vaccines and shots. For instance, there is 25 micrograms of ethylmercury in a flu shot, which, by those same FDA guidelines, would be safe to give to an individual every week for their entire life. By the more stringent EPA guidelines and using the same mathematic equation, it would be acceptable to give a toddler a vaccine using that same amount of ethylmercury every month.

To back up the claim that thimerosal does not cause autism, there have been a plethora of both epidemiological and ecological studies. Every single one of these peer reviewed studies showed that there was no correlation between thimerosal and autism (Parker 2004 and Doja 2006). The Institute of Medicine, one part of the United States National Academies, a not-for-profit, non-governmental American organization and part of the National Academy of Sciences, found in a review of all the available evidence of both the epidemiological and toxicological studies, that the evidence was conclusive and found no link whatsoever between thimerosal and autism (IOM 2004). And to drive the nail into the coffin of this argument further, Mitchell (2006) found that careful observations indicate that signs of autism are present much earlier, even before twelve months of age, before exposure to thimerosal.

This leaves those mercury alarmists facing an overwhelming amount of negative evidence and searching for some sort of rationalizations to keep their argument alive. What they are faced with is a solid scientific consensus. Multiple independent lines of evidence all pointing in the same direction: vaccines in general, and thimerosal in particular, do not cause autism, which rather likely has its roots in genetics. Furthermore, true autism rates are probably static and not rising.

Even despite the complete lack of evidence for any safety concern, the FDA decided to remove all thimerosal from childhood vaccines, and by 2002 no new childhood vaccines with thimerosal were being sold in the U.S. This was not an admission of prior error, as some mercury proponents claimed; instead, the FDA was playing it safe by minimizing human exposure to mercury wherever possible. The move was also likely calculated to maintain public confidence in vaccines. Since thimerosal has been removed from vaccines, autism diagnosis rates have steadily increased (IDIC 2007).

The only rationalization that the true believing anti-vaccine people had left to put forward was that there was a huge stockpile of thimerosal-laden vaccines—even though a published inspection of 447 pediatric clinics and offices found only 1.9 percent of relevant vaccines still had thimerosal by February 2002, a tiny fraction that was either exchanged, used, or expired soon after (CDCP/ACIP 2002).

With rationalization out the window, remaining stragglers have turned to desperation. A wild claim that the mercury from mortuary cremations had been increasing the environmental mercury toxicity and offsetting the decrease in mercury from thimerosal was purposed. Or that there is even more need for studies because the studies out there were part of a government conspiracy to not have to pay for damages to those who were injured by vaccines. But my favorite is that the drug companies wrote almost all of the scientific studies around the world, with different universities, and with thousands of different scientist, thereby making all of the previous studies fraudulent. Then the people who made this last outlandish claim asked for studies funded by non-scientific organizations run by lawyers who are suing over the fake vaccine controversy.

The anti-vaccines camp’s goal is to undermine public confidence in what is arguably the single most effective public health measure devised by modern science. This decrease in confidence will lead, as it has before, to declining compliance and an increase in infectious disease. The forces of irrationality are on display with this issue. There are conspiracy theorists, well-meaning but misguided citizen groups who are becoming increasingly desperate and hostile, irresponsible journalists, and ethically compromised or incompetent scientists. The science itself is complex, making it difficult for the average person to sift through all the misdirection and misinformation. Standing against all this is simple disrespect for scientific integrity and the dedication to follow the evidence wherever it leads.

Right now the evidence leads to the firm conclusion that vaccines do not cause autism. Yet, if history is any guide, the myth that they do cause autism will likely endure even in the face of increasing contradictory evidence. Some of these anti-vaccine groups have since taken a more general, if not laughably absurd, stance that all vaccines are now evil because of a host of either ill-informed guesses or wild speculation. With their new points of contention coming in the recent formulation of the argument that the diseases vaccinated against aren’t really that bad and/or we already have a natural immunity to some of these diseases due to the fact that our forefathers lives through the eras where those specific diseases were rampant. Both of these arguments can and will easily be dispatched by using the previous research. But none of that matters for the anti-vaccine crowd. They are hell-bent on finding excuses to believe their side, no matter what harm it may cause their children or society.

The end of my research showed overwhelming evidence that, not only are the odds greater that your children could get sick from a disease than from the vaccine meant to prevent it, but the sickness itself would be more severe in those children whose parents decided not to vaccinate them. Those people who do not choose to vaccinate their children will have a much higher rate of harming their child, and all out of blind faith in themselves. What I have realized is that the argument to not vaccinate comes down to fear of the unknown and the hard task of admitting wrongness.

The arguments above have been presented to help anyone trying to figure out if there is any validity to the claims that vaccines are harmful. There is not and I hope that you have seen this. My wife is still steadfast in her belief that vaccines are evil. She will not waver, change her mind, or see the overwhelming scientific research as proof that she is wrong. And in the end, I have had no choice but to yield to her unfounded fear. It is not something that I am living well with. To me, it seems as if she’s found some sort of goofy cult that I can do nothing but mock in the vein hope that she’ll grow out of it. But, being that she is the mother of our child, I have had to yield to her intuition. My last wish for the argument is that our son never encounters any of these diseases, so that he will not blame her for her decision.

References

Brown, M.J., T. Willis, B. Omalu, and R. Leiker. 2006. Deaths resulting from hypocalcemia after administration of edetate disodium: 2003–2005. Pediatrics. 118(2):e534–36.

Centers for Disease Control. 2004. MMWR Weekly, November 12. 53(44):1041–1044. Available at www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5344a4.htm.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Advisory Committee on Immunization. 2002. Practice Records of the meeting held on February 20–21, 2002, Atlanta Marriott North Central Hotel. Available at www.kevinleitch.co.uk/grabit/acip-min-feb.pdf.

Citizen Cain. 2005. Slouching Toward Truth—Autism and Mercury, November 30. Available at http://citizencain.blogspot.com/2005/11/slouching-toward-truth-autism-and_30.html.

Deer, B. 2007. Andrew Wakefield & the MMR scare: part 2. Available at http://briandeer.com/wakefield-deer.htm.

Doja, A., and W. Roberts. 2006. Immunizations and autism: a review of the literature. Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences 33(4):341–46.

Friederichs, V., J.C. Cameron, and C. Robertson. 2006. Impact of adverse publicity on MMR vaccine uptake: a population based analysis of vaccine uptake records for one million children, born 1987–2004. Archives of Diseases of Children 200691(6):465–68. Epub 2006 April 25.

Geier, D.A., and M.R. Geier. 2006. An assessment of downward trends in neurodevelopmental disorders in the United States following removal of thimerosal from childhood vaccines. Medical Science Monitor 12(6):CR231–9. Epub 2006 May 29.

General Medical Council. 2007. July 16. Available at www.gmcpressoffice.org.uk/apps/news/events/index.php?month=7&year=2007&submit=Submit.

Goldacre B. 2007. Opinions from the medical fringe should come with a health warning. The Guardian, Saturday, February 24. Available at www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/feb/24/badscience.uknews.

Gorski, D. 2007. Andrew Wakefield: The Galileo gambit writ large in The Observer. Respectful Insolence, July 9, 2007. Available at http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/07/andrew_wakefield_the_galileo_gambit_writ.php.

Honda, H., Y. Shimizu, and M. Rutter. 2005. No effect of MMR withdrawal on the incidence of autism: a total population study. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 46(6):572–79.

Hughes, V. 2007. Mercury Rising. Nature Medicine 13(8):896–7. Epub 2007 August 31.

Infectious Diseases and Immunization Committee, Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS). 2007.

Autistic spectrum disorder: No causal relationship with vaccines. Paediatrics & Child Health 12(5): 393–95. Available at www.cps.ca/english/statements/ID/pidnote_jun07.htm.

Institute of Medicine. 2001. Immunization Safety Review: Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccine and Autism. April 23. Available at www.iom.edu/CMS/3793/4705/4715.aspx.

Institute of Medicine. 2004. Immunization Safety Review: Vaccines and Autism. May 17. Available at www.iom.edu/CMS/3793/4705/20155.aspx.

Kennedy, R.F. 2005. Deadly immunity. June 16. Salon.com. Available at http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/06/16/thimerosal/index3.html?pn=1.

Huffington Post. 2007. Attack on mothers. June 19. The Huffington Post. Available at www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr/attack-on-mothers_b_52894.html.

Kirby, David. 2005. Evidence of Harm: Mercury in Vaccines and the Autism Epidemic: A Medical Controversy. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Lancet Editors, 2004. Lancet 363(9411).

Leitch K. 2007. Autism amongst the Amish. Left Brain/Right Brain. 22. Available at www.kevinleitch.co.uk/wp/?p=5353.

Madsen, K.M., A. Hviid, M. Vestergaard, D. Schendel, J. Wohlfahrt, P. Thorsen, J. Olsen, and M. Melbye. 2002. A population-based study of measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination and autism. New England Journal of Medicine 347(19):1477–1482.

Measles Cases Jump to Record High, 2008. Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7259338.stm

Miles, J.H., and T.N. Takahashi. 2007. Lack of association between Rh status, Rh immune globulin in pregnancy and autism. American Journal of Medical Genetics, Part A1. 143(13):1397–407.

Mitchell, S., J. Brian, L. Zwaigenbaum, W. Roberts, P. Szatmari, I. Smith, and S. Bryson. 2006. Early language and communication development of infants later diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics 27(2 Suppl):S69–78.

Parker, S.K., B. Schwartz, J. Todd, and L.K. Pickering. 2004. Thimerosal-containing vaccines and autistic spectrum disorder: a critical review of published original data. Pediatrics 114(3):793–804.

Rutter, M. 2005. Incidence of autism spectrum disorders: changes over time and their meaning. Acta Paediatrica 94(1):2–15.

Szatmari, P., et. al. 2007. Mapping autism risk loci using genetic linkage and chromosomal rearrangements. Nature Genetics 39, 319–28.

Taylor, B. 2006. Vaccines and the changing epidemiology of autism. Child Care, Health, and Development 32(5):511–19.

Taylor, B., E. Miller, C.P. Farrington, M.C. Petropoulos, I. Favot-Mayaud, J. Li, and P.A. Waight. 1999. Autism and measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine: no epidemiological evidence for a causal association. Lancet 12;353(9169):2026–2029.

Taylor, B., E. Miller, R. Lingam, N. Andrews, A. Simmons, and J. Stowe. 2002. Measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination and bowel problems or developmental regression in children with autism: population study. British Medical Journal 16; 324(7334):393–96.

Thimerosal in Vaccines, 2008. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/CBER/vaccine/thimerosal.htm

United States Court of Federal Claims. 2007. Cedillo v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, Transcript of Day 6. June 18, 2007. Available at ftp://autism.uscfc.uscourts.gov/autism/transcripts/day06.pdf.

United States Court of Federal Claims, 2007. Cedillo v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, Transcript of Day 8. June 20, 2007. Available at ftp://autism.uscfc.uscourts.gov/autism/transcripts/day08.pdf.

USDOJ, About the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Available at www.usdoj.gov/civil/torts/const/vicp/about.htm.

Wakefield, A.J., S.H. Murch, A. Anthony, J. Linnell, D.M. Casson, M. Malik, M. Berelowitz, A.P. Dhillon, M.A. Thomson, P. Harvey, A. Valentine, S.E. Davies, and J.A. Walker-Smith. 1998.

Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. Lancet 351(9103):637–41.

Entry for April 14, 2008

"Our frustration is greater when we have much and want more than when we have nothing and want some. We are less dissatisfied when we lack many things than when we seem to lack but one thing." - Eric Hoffer

Entry for April 12, 2008

There is no moral difference between a stealth bomber and a suicide bomber. They both kill innocent people for political reasons.

My Struggle with the Term "Atheist"

An atheist is someone who does not believe in a God or Gods. This suits me just fine, but the connotations that come along with it are those of absolutism. The lack of doubt, the complete ending of questioning, is not something of which I approve. I see the existence of God as being just as probable as the Lock Ness Monster, Angels, or Gnomes. But any time I try to completely rule out the existence of anything supernatural or incredible, I hear the voice of Carl Sagan ringing in my ears. It’s a stalwart “Well, maybe,” meaning, “there is a still a probability, no matter how small.” My belief that nothing is absolute creates the core discomfort that I have with a group that lately appears to be made up of Anti-God Evangelicals.

My struggle complicates even further when I examine the needed solidarity of those who consider themselves “nonreligious,” but not necessarily “Atheist”. Nonbelievers (whatever they call themselves) are more persecuted then Jews, Gays, or any other sect of people. And all other religious people, no matter of what affiliation, label themselves as “religious”. So there is an underlying obligation for those of us with similar beliefs to stick together and label ourselves as “Atheist,” even if we don’t fit all of the necessary criteria.

This desire is driven by the knowledge that most educated people know that your mother’s Sunday potluck at church provides a base of normality and approval for Christian extremists to kill abortions doctors or gays. Keeping the Sabbath holy or kneeling on prayer rugs eventually justifies mortar attacks and century old wars. Individuals, who define themselves as taking the best beliefs from other religions and incorporating those ideas into their own spirituality, add creditability and acceptance to the things done in the original religion’s name. This last group provides a buffer and an even wider foundation for people who would pervert religions with the goal of horrific atrocities. Again, it is the organization and labeling under a banner of religion that creates fanaticism.

Sure, anything can be distorted into raving zealotry. But history has shown us that, in order to gain the support of the people, the will of a God or Gods must be employed. It is the propagation of these organized religions and structured beliefs that allow mass horrors to be fulfilled by a willing people. Without blind faith, and their validation from those who still follow the basic tenants of that faith, there would be “no suicide bombers, no 9/11, no 7/7, no Crusades, no witch-hunts, no Gunpowder Plot, no Indian partition, no Israeli/Palestinian wars, no Serb/Croat/Muslim massacres, no persecution of Jews as Christ-killers’, no Northern Ireland ‘troubles, no ‘honor killings’, no shiny-suited bouffant haired televangelists fleecing gullible people of their money (‘God wants you to give til it hurts’). Imagine no Taliban to blow up ancient statues; no beheadings of blasphemers, no flogging of female for the crime of showing an inch of it” (The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins, 2006).

So there is obviously a clear need for a presence of a united group of people who can point to a large percentage of the world’s problems as being religious in nature. Both here in the US and abroad, religious extremists reek havoc in the name of whatever God in which they are aligned. These are problems that root cause is religion and they have no formal enemy but each other.

Now I know that not all Atheists believe in the absolute non-existence of the supernatural. I’m sure that there are a large percentage of this same group who believe that the term implies ambiguity. But because the definition of an Atheist does not leave any doubt, so we cannot infer that uncertainty does exist. All nonbelievers should see this argument as the same as their old standby of, “a lack of evidence is not evidence of existence.” If the definition does not specifically cast doubt on the existence of a God or Gods, then it is not part of the definition. To pretend otherwise is incorrect. Moreover, spending your time backpedaling from the definition, or trying to redefine it further to suit your own needs, undercuts your primary argument.

So here I stand, feeling uncomfortable that I will never fully conform to the term Atheist when I know that the need for such a group is paramount. I do not know what to call myself, or if I should ever take a label willingly, but I know that this label is the closest thing that I will ever have to a likeminded people.

Laziness is the Mother of Efficiency

I am the type of person who moves quickly and multitasks as he does almost everything. I’m proud of the fact that I can do remedial things quicker each time that I do them. So it thoroughly annoys me when others move slowly doing things that they don’t want to, but have to do. Sure, I understand that there are some things that we all want to take slow, enjoy, and experience the full journey, but for the most part, lots of things in life are just remedial and necessary. Spending any more time on them than is necessary takes away from time that could be spent doing things that are a lot more enjoyable. This leads me to believe that either some people have nothing better to do than bland daily crap, or they are so oblivious to the existence of others they tend to accidentally run them over.

Since moving to an elderly-infested area of the country, my ever-increasing efficiency has only amplified. I believe that this has happened because of the constant reminders of the waste of time that are slow moving individuals. What bothers me more is that we all have the ability to move fast, if we choose to do so. Just like anything else, it is something that you can learn.

I learned how to move quickly while working in restaurants when I was younger. I was a waiter for several years in more places then I care to admit. And what I learned is that you always, always, think ahead. You learn very quickly to look for things that you can do on your way to something else while thinking about what your next task will be once you reach that destination. The goal of this is to create a single movement in all of your action: A never-ending fluidity of efficiency. This multitasking builds a consciousness of your time in relation to the tasks that you need to get done and a complex familiarity with your environment.

Now I know that I’m not he only one who does this. I see people all of the time, mothers of multiple children, people who have worked retail for years, and general busy people who know how to manage their lives, who move in the same way that I do. To me, there is no excuse for these other people to crowd certain stations of necessity (ATMs, checkouts, gas stations, on the road…). The quicker that all of us can get the things done, the quicker we can all settle back into slowly enjoying the things that we really cherish. So if you see me coming your way and I yell "MOVE!", remember that I’m doing it to inspire you to make the most out of your life.

Entry for March 28, 2008

God is Santa Clause for adults. Both live in a mythical place that you only see in movies, grant wishes as long as you’re "good", and constantly watch you to see if you're behaving. The only difference is that children are smart enough to demand real bribes.

Your Faults Are Perfect

I saw an interview with Joel Olsteen a couple weeks ago and have been stuck trying to figure out this guy. He was voted Most Influential Christian in America in 2006 by The Church Report, operates one of those mega-churches, and all without ever really quoting the Bible or any other religious text. His only educational training is a BA in television production. Nevertheless, he sells millions of books to Evangelicals who want to learn how to live a better life and be the best people that they can. Yesterday, sitting in a cramped room listening to people discussing their futures in tentative somber tones, someone decided to interject a positive aphorism. It was ill-timed and came across as overly fake, but we appreciated the attempt to steer the conversation away from the mournful and back towards something positive. It was in this second that I finally understood Joel Olsteen and his ilk.

What he represents is the logical eclecticism of our time, and this type of person has never had an original thought. They piece together time-worn tricks, give them a new paint job, and are in business. And it is a booming business. It’s a grift called Happiness. The world is a big scary place with a history of suffering and fear. Enter Olsteen, who tells them that they have nothing to fear, this life or hereafter, and that God commands them to be happy. Day in, day out, he keeps pushing it: Don’t be afraid, be happy.

He does so under the auspicious of a higher understanding. He tells people that what they want to do is divine because God wants them to be happy. This is absolute nonsense and is the concept of “altruism” at its worst. People do what they want to do, every time. If it pains them to make a choice, if the choice looks like a sacrifice, you can be sure that it is no nobler than the discomfort caused by greediness. It is the necessity of deciding between two things you want when you can’t have both. The ordinary person suffers every time they choose between spending a buck on some gadget they don’t really need or tucking it away for their kids, between getting up to go to work or losing their job. But they always choose what hurts the least or pleasures the most. The scoundrel and the saint make the same choices on a larger scale.

Olsteen tells people to be happy and the best that they can be by dressing it up in basic Biblical language and hoping that his followers assume the rest. Part is sickly sweet, more is nonsense, and some just hateful. It reminds me of how I was taught about Sodom and Gomorra and why Lot was saved from those wicked cites when Yahweh smote them. Peter describes him as a just, Godly, and righteous man, vexed by the filthy conversation of the wicked. Saint Peter must be an authority on virtue, since to him were given the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. But it is hard to see what made Lot such a paragon. He divided a cattle range at his brother’s suggestion. He got captured in battle. He skipped out of town to save his own skin. He fed and sheltered two strangers, but his conduct showed that he knew them to be VIPs - and by my understanding, it would have counted for more if he had thought that they were beggars. Aside from these items and Saint Peter’s character reference there is only one thing in the Bible on which we can judge Lot’s virtue (virtue so great that Heavenly intercession saved his life). The rest is from Genesis 19:8, in case you don’t believe me.

Lot’s neighbors beat on his door and wanted to meet these blokes from out of town. Lot didn’t argue; he offered a deal. He had two daughters, virgins, and told this mob that he would give them these girls and they could use them any way that they liked. He pleaded with them to do any damn thing they pleased - only quit beating on his door. So these men, “old and young”, gang raped his own young, tender, and scared girls. This is why he is considered a righteous man.

Or the story of Elisha (Al-Yasa in Islam). Elisha was so all-fired holy that touching his bones restored a dead man to life. He was a bald-headed, cold coot. One day children made fun of his baldness, so God sent bears to tear forty-two children into bloody bits (Second chapter, Second Kings). The Bible is loaded with this stuff. Crimes that turn your stomach and asserted to be divinely ordered or divinely condoned, along with hard common sense and workable rules for social behavior. I could point out these type of things in a number of other religions, but I’m not going to blanket condemn all religions based on ancient and outdated beliefs. It is conceivable that one of these mythologies is the word of God. The kind of God who rends to bits forty-two children for sassing His priest, but a God nonetheless. My point is that people like Joel Olsteen preach a sweetened and lightened version of scripture. He’s a good Joe who wants people to be happy. Happy on Earth plus eternal bliss in Heaven. He doesn’t expect you to chastise the flesh. Oh no, this is the giant-economy package. If you drink and gamble and dance and wench, come to church and do it under holy auspices. Do it with your conscience free. Have fun at it. Live it up! Get happy! It’s a Better You!

Of course, there is a charge. Olsteen’s God expects to be acknowledged. Anyone stupid enough to refuse to get happy on His terms is a sinner and deserves anything that happens to them. But this rule is common to all gods and their pitchmen. Their snake oil is orthodox in all respects. Now I enjoy a good uplifting lecture as much as the next sucker, I generally despise crowds, and don’t let snobs tell me where to go on Sundays. But that does not mean that I can’t laugh a people trying to reconcile the Old Testament with the New, the Buddhist doctrine with Buddhist apocrypha, or Olsteen’s happy-love message with anything substantial or credible. His ethic is sugar-coated for people who can’t take psychology straight -- he is simply tapping the zeitgeist. The only difference between his message and a large, yellow smiley face is that he has the assumed a pulpit built on an established belief, perverted as it may be.

So I finally understand his appeal. We live in a time where things are plentiful. People want to hear that gluttony is good and that they are right in their actions. They want justification for doing as they damn-well please. Moreover, they want to be patted on the back for being good at being selfish. Olsteen delivers and is reinforced by repetitive rhetoric, oozing with vacant cheerfulness, and telling everyone that they are the best that they can be. Proving that we are all happiest when someone else does us the pleasure of lowing the bar.

My Son's New Website

My son’s website, sebastianhamilton.com, is now up and running. It has a blog, pictures, videos, and general updates as to his wellbeing and growth. As he has spent a lot of time working on it, please check it out.

Being Dad

Everyone dances best with their most comfortable disguise. Our masks exist to define who we are and how we want to be seen. So when I was finally face to face with my new child that I realized that I did not know who I would be to him. Dad, sure, but how do I define that? What of my personality do I promote or suppress to help guide his development? And will I be able to dance with him?

Immediately drumming through my head is the line, “Be who you desire your children to become.” Well, yes. But as with any parent, I want so much more for him. I want to see him succeed in whatever it is that he chooses to do. Not to fill my own lost dreams or hidden ambitions, but because he wants to. Truly wants to. Above all else, I want him to be happy and content. So I need to be able to portray that at a level competent enough to convince him that it is possible. But I do not know how.

He is almost three weeks old and his personality is starting to develop. His cries are becoming distinct and I hear his future voice in his experimental yelps. I know that these times will pass quickly. I’ll see him quickly grow, learn, and develop. I will not be able to keep up. My masks will eventually fail, I will not dance quickly enough, and he will be on his own. Yet I must try.

The inevitability of the situation is that there is only a short window in which I can make an impact on him. Everything else that he takes from me is the memory of who he believed that I was versus how well his grown self is able to see through me. More than anything else, I do not want to fail him. This fear haunts my soul deeper than anything that has ever touched me. It is as if someone has reached inside of me and taken hold of everything that I am and will only release me once my performance has been weighed.

The entire situation makes me wish that I could be a greater man, one up for this challenge, and someone who knows that they could not fail.

Entry for March 03, 2008

Some people make you try to become a better person, while others make you feel as if you are trying too hard.

Bigger, Faster, and More EXTREME!!!

Two things that caught my attention this week mixed in my head and formed some sort of strange clarity. The first was a comment made on 60 Minutes by Danish professor Dr. Christianson on why a recent study has named the Danes the happiest people on earth. When they asked if he could explain the study he sited the fact that Danes have expectations that are pretty modest and followed it up with, “You know, I was thinking about what if [sic] it was the opposite and Demark was number 20 and another country was number 1. I’m pretty sure that Danish Television would say, ‘Well, number 20 is not too bad. You know, it’s still in the top 25!’”

The other thing that caught my eye was Extreme Screamin’ Dill Pickle Pringles. Upon first notice I thought, “Why the hell do I need my potato chips to be ‘extreme’”? That was, until a dad wearing a NASCAR hat and a full orange camouflage getup in a grocery store said to his tracksuit-wearing 12 year old son, “No, get that Extreme one. It has more technology in it”. I recoiled, laughed, and looked around to make sure that someone else had heard it. Alas, it was the grocery store at 2pm on a Tuesday and I was the only one to hear the comment.

Meanwhile, somewhere in the dark recesses of my cortex the two things melded and I was forced to ask myself, “Is this why we are never truly happy?” Do we always need things to be bigger, faster, and (Mike help us) more extreme? If we are always chasing what is better, do we never enjoy what we have? Is there a way to end this vicious cycle?

Hmmm a thought problem, let’s step back and look at the differences. We know the US so let’s look back to the 60 Minutes segment to see if there was any information about the Danes that could point out some difference. A couple minutes later I found the corresponding website to the segment and read that all Danish education, through college, is free. They are paid to stay home and raise their children. They have universal healthcare, subsided childcare, and eldercare. There is next to no poverty class and the wealth is spread throughout the close-knit classes. Plus, they have a standard six weeks of vacation and still maintain a higher productivity level than the US. The drawback? They pay 50% taxes.

If countries were people, most of Europe would be in their middle age or slightly older. Africa, the Middle East, and most of South America would still be in their infant to preteen years. And the United States would be a teenager struggling to figure out who they are. I think that Oscar Wilde said it best when he quipped, “America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between. “

So as we try to find out who we are here in the US, we constantly redefine what it means to be us. We work to make things bigger so they overshadow our personalities, we make things faster to distract ourselves from standing still, and we need things to be in a constant state of more extremeness because it helps us see ourselves as on the cutting edge and constantly new. That way, we will never really need to figure out who we are since the state of change doubles as an identity.

This inability to slow down and define ourselves (other than as ever-changing), has led to a self-centered culture where we will help only when it is either in our best interests or to help publicly define us as compassionate. Sure, there are certain individuals who do not fit this norm, but the vast majority do. We are a society that chases our own individual American Dreams and never an American Dream for all. Here in the US you either sink or swim on your own; and if you don’t like, your family’s financial standing will let you know how far you have to sink.

I guess that as we age as a country, we will learn to look to one another as assets. Maintaining a healthy life, a strong liberty, and an open pursuit of happiness for all individuals may give us all the chance to thrive, but the only way that we will all see that dream come true is if we care and help each other. If only we were old enough to forget that happiness doesn't come as a result of getting something we don't have, but rather of recognizing and appreciating what we do have.


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/12/061222092845.htm

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/14/60minutes/main3833797.shtml

Out Foxed

This week, Fox Broadcasting Company appealed the 1.2 million dollar fine that was imposed on its 169 affiliates by the FCC for violating federal indecency laws. In its order, the FCC said that simply pixilizing female breasts and buttocks during a raunchy bachelor party scene in an April 2003 episode of the defunct reality program "Married to America" did not indemnify broadcasters from commission action.

All of this happened days after Fox and Friends anchor Juliet Huddy asked Colonel David Hunt why coalition forces don't "blow up" Al Jazeera TV for airing what she deemed to be “indecent”.

So there you have it, one part of the company fighting to show and say almost anything on TV while the other has commentators who openly suggest that those who support such uncensored indecency should be bombed.

Fox News, defending the world from the indecency that is Fox Broadcasting. …

http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Feb23/0,4670,FoxTVFinesFCC,00.html

Entry for February 19, 2008

You thought all was quiet in the dead of the night,
But babies don’t wait for the first morning light.
They come when they want, their schedules their own.
And before you know it, you’re taking them home.

Change

The word of the year is shaping up to be “Change." It’s being sold from the lips of politicians, in the latest music, and from the heads of sporting organizations. The reason for this is because America has lost most of our heroes. Where there were once sports giants, we see only drug and cheating scandals, the popular music that is being sold to us is so formulaic and stale that we look to top rated karaoke TV shows for new “artists," and our leading politicians have the respect and approval slightly better than a villain in a Dickens novel. Truth be told, the number of people we can still look up to is few.

Most of this is our own fault. There is nothing that the American public likes more than building people up only to knock them down. Think of a child creating a tower of blocks. He may construct them with absolute care and purpose, but in no time at all he will reemerge as a two foot tall Godzilla in Oshkosh overalls on a self-fulfilling mission for total tower destruction. We as a public are that child with our heroes.

So following our recent failed attempts at nation building and restructuring the world as we see it, we have decided to internalize the problem and create some new American Gods. We can see the beginning of them forming now. And the nominee for the leader of this change seems to be Obama. He is not another legacy, a case of nepotism, or simple repetition. What he represents is a break with what has become our slide towards mediocrity caused by our comfort and want for predictability.

In recent months Obama has shifted away from in-depth policy discussions in the debates to speaking only of Hope and Change through vague, yet extremely uplifting, generalities. His campaign seems to understand that we have become disgusted with wanting something so banal, pandering, and readily identifiable because we can no longer settle for sub-par idols. They know that we need a hero, someone to believe in again, and that above all else our country wants to hear, “And Now for Something Completely Different.” He is fulfilling these needs that by trumpeting change and backing it up with well publicized, yet no longer openly sold, ideas.

America wants a presidential election where the two candidates represent who we were and who we will become. We want a chance to prove that we are not our recent leaders, we are not religious fanatics hell-bent on Authoritarianism, we do not stand for self justified idiocy at home and aboard, and more than anything else, we are not George Bush.

This fall, I will be voting for Barack Obama because he represents the change that I want to see in America.

In Defense of John McCain

We have all heard an election-load of John McCain bashing in the far Right Wing press lately. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, and the lesser infotainers are working feverously to make their listeners believe all sorts of things about McCain. They are going after him like a pack of starving dogs that have spotted fresh meat. Last week Limbaugh went as far as to say that a McCain nomination would "destroy the Republican Party," and that "[he] can see possibly not voting for the Republican nominee".

You have to wonder if these people would have allowed Ronald Reagan to be nominated. After all, in his farewell address in 1989 Reagan talked about free trade and immigration when he said, "I've spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don't know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and heart to get here." Or how about his famous line, “concentrated power has always been the enemy of liberty” in reference to a sustained political majority? Does that sound like someone that Limbaugh, Hannity, or Coulter would have supported for president?

So why are they fighting so hard to keep McCain out? Is it that he is a moderate conservative by today’s standards? Is it because he is willing to step across the isle to make peace to ensure that legislation gets passed? Or is it because they don’t understand that putting the party above the needs of the country is what got them in this mess in the first place? Maybe it is because they are afraid of moderation and fear a country that no longer sees only red and blue.

After seeing the results on Super Tuesday, it is apparent that the public at large is no longer buying the message that these far right wing media personalities are presenting. The voters see McCain for what he is: a stereotypical old-school conservative who prides himself on honesty, being fiscally conservative in most cases, not being beholden to special interests, and with a resume that says, "been there, done that" instead of "found a way out and profited from it”.

The other fallout from Super Tuesday is that it is now apparent that the light on both mainstream Neoconservatives and Authoritarians is fading. Everywhere we look there are signs of desperation. Books such as Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg wildly explain how all liberals are actually Nazis, Ann Coulter threatens to back Hillary Clinton, and the radio is abuzz with angry hosts bashing McCain for having moderate tendencies and occasionally agreeing with (gasp) the other side.

I for one welcome the change in Republican leadership. Too long has the far Right Wing Media held captive the party by making the public believe that the being a Republican means that you do what you are told and that victory must come at the cost of the nation. This week the voters chose McCain as the best chance for restoring both dignity and creditability to the Republican Party, let’s hope that the media catches up soon.

My Editor

One of my best friends has turned into my editor, and this is a good thing. She corrects almost all of my blog posts, essays, publications, and important emails. I really don’t know what I would do without her. It’s strange to have one of your friends in a semi-professional role, but she seems to fit it well.

I will hand her my work and she will do an odd thing. There in front of me, she will transform from a normally effervescent little blonde girl into the Scottish Presbyterian minister, Rev. Maclean, from Norman Maclean classic semi-autobiographical, and world’s best fishing novella, A River Runs Through It. And I will end up standing there staring at me feet and waiting for a curt "good, now make it half as long" or similar criticism of whatever it was that I thought was at least passable.

There are, of course, some drawbacks to having an excellent editor in your professional life. After spending hours working on something that I think is witty or intelligent, she will read through it and, instead of commenting on its absolute brilliance, will say something along the lines of, “you missed one comma and a couple apostrophes”. To which I will glare at her and immediately troll for some sort of compliment. “So, what did you think?”

“It’s good,” she’ll say, “This third sentence doesn’t make any sense. Work on that.” Then I go back and make revisions. Honestly, I’m never sure how anything I write will be received because of her cool and businesslike manner.

She has recently decided to head back to school and pursue an MFA. I anticipate her becoming a world-class fiction writer and can only hope that she charges the same amount to review my work when that happens.

So if you have read any of my work (blogs, essays, newspaper articles, whatever’s…) thank Kate for helping me to make my jejune cerebration coherent. (And for usually stopping me from writing sentences like the previous one).



Disclaimer: This post was in no way edited by Kate. Sorry.

Tour of the Nursery

Check out this tour of our new nursery

Welcome to Michigan, Please Lie to Us

Several weeks ago Mitt Romney won our Republican primary by blatantly misleading the people of Michigan. I can’t see how anyone living within our state borders believed him. It was put best by last weekend’s Wait, Wait... Don’t Tell Me on NPR:

Governor Mitt Romney won Michigan, a state where his father was governor and where he promised the people he'd bring twenty billion dollars in subsidies, that he would bring back all the auto manufacturing jobs lost during the last few decades, and that he would spend his fortune to build a dome over the greater Detroit area so that they could grow palm trees. That's good and it worked but the big question is with three major primaries in three winners who are going to be the nominee. Given that every leading candidate is hated by a larger constituency than the one that supports him, we anticipate a brokered convention this summer with a nomination finally going to a signed eight by ten photo of Ronald Reagan hanging on a coat rack.

During election time people get stupid and believe a) wildly unbelievable crap and b) that the president actually has the power to change most things.

The president is head of only one branch of the government. Sure, the Bush Administration has worked very hard to dissolve the other two branches, but they still exist and will remain. Moderation and balance will always be restored, but that is a different argument. So this leaves the President with the ability to make or stop wars, appoint individuals to political posts, and make appeals directly to the public for either support or condemnation of certain policies. Any serious changes must be approved in the Senate and pass through the Justice system. This check and balance assures, for the most part, that the president does not have nearly enough power to make and serious changes alone.

So during any election you are going to hear a bunch of election promises that are destine to be broken. These broken campaign promises lead to an overall apathy with voters, a stereotype of lying politicians, and, eventually, a lower voter turnout. Election promises in this country have been around since we have had elections and will always continue, but it is the seeing these promises as the BS that they are that quells their tide and ultimately defeats their pushers.

Mitt Romney promised the impossible to Michigan because he was under incredibly strong pressure to win this state. There is no way that the jobs that we have lost are coming back. The new plants have been built elsewhere, new employees have been trained, and profits have increased for the companies. There is no reason why these companies would ever move back. He knows this and we know this. So why, why did he do it?

Was it that our local inhabitants are so desperate to believe that there will be jobs coming back to Michigan that they are willing to set aside reality and believe these empty promises?

Have we lost so much hope in ourselves that fantasy presents itself as a viable alternative?

Or is it that he knew that we would rather be openly lied to then to have to deal with the reality of our current situation?

I am afraid that it is all three. So here, let me welcome all future political candidates to Michigan and remind them to please lie to us, because it’s obviously what we want to hear.

Good Morning

I don’t sleep very much, maybe a couple of hours every night, and any more and I’m exhausted and worthless all day. It’s just the way that I am and I’m comfortable with it. During the time when everyone else sleeps, I usually read or write and that makes me happy. The other morning, while watching the sun rise over a fresh blanket of snow, I realized that most people will never know the quiet of the morning and how it is a constant balance of delicate silence and unlimited potential. It is that time, before the world wakes, that is mine. I covet it and it really is truly precious to me. I wish that I could share with each of you the serenity of the hours you waste asleep, but I’m sure you would all just extol the virtues of a good deep rest. So, for now, I get my time and hope that all of you wake rested and prepared for a new day.

Entry for January 23, 2008

On any given day the news is barely interesting enough to maintain someone’s interest for the shortest period of time. This is because everyday news pales in comparison to the average person’s life, is far less interesting, and rarely pertains directly to them. This leaves those in the news business trying all sorts of things in an attempt to grab the attention of viewers. No where is this more obvious than during an election season. Like eight-year-olds chasing a ball around a soccer field, organization is completely lost and the only objective is to frantically follow wherever the target may bounce.

This format only works to give fodder for the real bread and butter of the cable channel news networks. I will never quite understand the appeal of the talking heads of the infotainment world. It’s the same thing on almost all channels. A loud host talking far more they have coherent thoughts to support all to set up a fight between the in-your-face over 40 neoconservative talk show host yelling, pointing, and claiming that he’s right because everyone else is wrong while the liberal guest or co-host rolls his eyes and counters with some statement about “facts” before trailing off in exasperation once he has gotten in several shots about the conservatives view of reality and/or intelligence.

The conservative is either a pseudo-bad-ass who is against a world that won’t see reality and the liberal is someone who tries to talk over everyone, taking the moral and intellectual highroad, while simultaneously destroying his own argument. The same thing is on every channel, with the political bend coming from who the channel matches against whom and who has control over the mic.

What seems to further baffle me is that not only do these infotainers propagate the conservative and liberal stereotypes, normal people feel the need to carry on in their same vein -- as if they too need be that shallow, desperate, and one-dimensional in order to understand what it is that they are arguing. This may be the free world, but free thinking is usually in short supply.

All of this then roles back into the assault that the daily news does on our senses. The positions are assumed; the vague, leading, or horrible questions lobbed; and the waiting for any blood is sought so hungrily that everyone sits, salivating mouth in hand, waiting to be fed another morsel of mildly interesting that they can describe as the best tasting, most interesting thing that has ever been experienced. I, for one, find all of it unpalatable.

Coffee Shop Inhabitants (add to me)

While sitting at a coffee shop I realized that there are several distinct personalities that tend to frequent this type of establishment. So I started the list below and it has since been added to by people more talented than I am. Please feel free to add to it:

The first and most obvious is the Loud Talker. This male, and it's usually a male, talks to everyone in a voice more properly suited for a canyon echo. All within ear shot cannot only hear the entire conversation that the Loud Talker is conducting, they've created an internal dialog with him over a) how they would respond to the other side of the conversation and b) all of the different ways in which they would like to tell him to shut up.

The next is the Living Room Dweller. Conducting business usually reserved for the privacy of ones own house on a work at home day, this model tends to spread out and claim all areas surrounding him. No topic is off limits, no conversation inappropriate, and no business accessory has been excluded from his table. This model is inclined to take off shoes, hoard all power outlets, and, somehow, make an entire fax machine materialize out of his bag.

There is always the 2+ Gaggle of Gossiping Girls who, no matter of what age will chitter on endlessly about the most inane things possible and increasing decibel and pitch. At some point their conversation we'll degrade into a high-speed squeaking with only an occasional comprehensible word about celebrity, personal hygiene, or shopping.

You can always identify the iPod Human because of the white wires leading from their dramatically places iPod directly to their down turned head. Occasionally this person will fumble with said iPod in a combination gesture to make sure that you see that they do indeed own an iPod and because they cannot find the right song to express the ambiguity of their contentment that they have a soundtrack to life and you must deal directly with people in your non-musical hell.

The Writer is there to be inspired to write. To let the pages flow in a rhythmic procession of nuance and substantiated prose while building to a crescendo of literary gold that can only be fueled on by caffeine and the knowledge that everyone is watching them write. They know that without the external stimulation through everyone's acknowledgment of the fact that they are indeed writing, the writer would be writing for nothing besides themselves.

The Regular is there like clockwork on a specific day at a specific time. He or she knows the name of every one of the proprietor's children, grandchildren, and pets, and will be the first to bring in any newspaper clipping containing mention of any of the above. The Regular's drink is always out on the counter before he or she steps into the establishment and, speaking in tones almost on par with the Loud Talker, ensures that everyone knows that he or she knows the owner and his or her family personally. This makes the Regular a more important customer than anyone else. On the day that the Regular doesn't show at the prescribed time, it is assumed that he or she has gotten into some horribly disfiguring accident and the coffee shop will expressly fold without his or her patronage.

If you are missing any of the current events magazines or newspapers from the rack, they are undoubtedly at the table of the Waspy Couple. This husband and wife, usually middle-aged, is easily spotted at the coffee shop after church on Sundays in their finest. They will calmly discuss the week's news over swapping each section of the paper, and not a visit to the coffee shop goes by without the husband asking the wife, at least once, to remind him to pencil in this or that auction or event into his calendar when he gets home. No topic is off limits or, like the Living-Room Dweller, inappropriately too private. Though they do not expel bank account numbers to the entire shop, they will make sure the whole place knows how much they donated to the trendiest charity last month.

The Student has decided that the school library, a room built with the sole purpose of allowing a student to have the resources, space, and comfort for optimal studying, is just not up to the standard of their educational needs and has sought out a busy coffee shop as a reasonable alternative. Unfortunately, the Student will spend most of their time casting divisive glances and threatening sighs towards everyone else who dares to breathe too loudly in this public place. Not lasting long, the Student will give up and move to a new coffee shop every 30 minutes.

LAN Party Over Here! is almost always present in the form of several younger people, located within feet of each other, typing frantic messages to the person within arms reach. Also easily recognizable because of the occasional outbursts of synchronized laughing and occasionally laptop swapping. Expect this group to consume the largest amount of caffeinated beverages and make the biggest mess. Most coffee shop LAN Party Over Here! groups emanate from being outcast from one, if not all of the group members' parents' homes.

An uplifting member of the coffee shop culture is the Happy to be Breathing. They are overjoyed at everything. If the little old woman asks the little old man if he wants a prune spiced bran muffin, he will excitedly say, "Yes! I'd love a prune spiced bran muffin!" and after consuming said muffin he will wipe the saliva off the corners of his mouth with a hankie and proclaim, in as booming a voice as his shriveling vocal chords can manage, "That was the best prune spiced bran muffin I've ever had!"

Baby Registry & Shower

Several of you have asked about our registry and whether or not there will be a baby shower. We are registered at BabiesRUs and BabyDepot and the shower is on January 27th. Please feel free to contact me if you need more information and I will get you in touch with the official party planner.

Poll: Bullshit Is Most Important Issue For 2008 Voters

Poll: Bullshit Is Most Important Issue For 2008 Voters

Incredible article from the Humanist

The Post-Theological Umbrella
by David Niose
Published in the Humanist, January/February 2008

Surely one of the biggest barriers keeping humanism from being a more prominent force in the United States is its nontheistic character. Two relevant surveys provide compelling proof that Americans just don't feel good about openly rejecting belief in a divinity:

A University of Minnesota survey in 2006 found atheists are the most distrusted and disliked minority group in the country.

An American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) from 2001 indicates that over 13 percent of the population identifies as secular/nonreligious, but only 1 percent identify as atheist, agnostic, or humanist.

The University of Minnesota results no doubt help to explain the results of the ARIS survey. That is, the fact that atheists are so vilified explains why only less than 1 percent of the population will identify as atheist, even though over 13 percent will identify as secular/nonreligious.

For humanist activists trying to advance their worldview in a culture that discourages open nontheism, there have traditionally been two ways of dealing with this issue. Some do so by trying to hide the nontheistic nature of humanism, avoiding discussion of nontheism with the hope that maybe nobody will notice it. This approach rarely works, however, because most discussions of humanism with nonhumanists inevitably result in the question: So are humanists atheists?

Another way to address the issue is to attempt to improve the public's perception of the atheist identity. This is a worthy goal, and surely it should be encouraged. Given time, the image of atheism in America might improve, as people slowly realize that atheists are more likely to be found in research labs than in prisons or drug hideouts. But this approach, even if it works, will take time, and one must consider whether other strategies might be possible.

This question of atheism, and specifically how the public's poor image of atheists makes the advancement of humanism difficult, became a topic of discussion with a friend at a recent conference. Her response pointed to a third way to address the issue: "When people ask me about atheism," she said, "I just tell them I consider myself post-theological."

How brilliant, I thought. Rather than discuss and debate the existence of God, she focuses attention on the concept of theology itself. She dismisses not God, but the entire notion of theology as an area of inquiry that is worthy of consideration. By calling herself post-theological, she isn't making the rejection of God-belief the key ingredient in her identity; she is pointing out that, from a historical perspective, theological inquiry itself is no longer a valid means of finding truth or morality.

In fact, my friend's historical view of theology is accurate. Before humans reached the level of intelligence necessary for theological inquiry, our ancestors were in what might be called the "pre-theological" stage. Like other animals, our distant ancestors lacked the intelligence necessary to achieve theological thought. But at some point in our historical development humans became intelligent enough to ask deep questions about the world, such as: How did we get here? Who made this place? Why does the sun rise, and why does lightning strike? What happens to us when we die? These are big questions that can only be asked by an animal with remarkable intelligence.

Interestingly, though the human animal became smart enough to ask such deep questions, it wasn't smart enough to answer them accurately. And that's where theology came in. Lacking true scientific knowledge to answer these deep questions, humans instead speculated, inventing myths, superstitions, and tribal doctrines to provide answers. In doing so, they left the pre-theological stage and entered the theological stage of their development.

It's noteworthy that humans aren't the first animals to reach the theological stage. Scientists tell us that our older cousins, the Neanderthals, buried their dead and had religious relics that suggest that they also asked deep questions that required theological answers. Hence, we can see that theological speculation is a natural stage in the development of extremely advanced animals.

It's also noteworthy that theology, once invented, had significant survival value as a human institution. That is, the religious rituals and beliefs of a clan or tribe became imbedded in its culture, helping to bind the in-group together and separate it from out-groups that had different beliefs and rituals. And as human organization and civilization changed, becoming more complex, theological concepts have been able to adapt and change as well, always serving numerous social and political purposes. This process continues even today.

From pre-theological to theological, the human species still faces another stage in its development. As it continues to acquire knowledge and understanding of the universe, the human animal finds that it is answering many of the deep questions that were once left to religious speculation--questions of universal origins, natural history, the development of life, and the explanation of natural phenomena. In fact, having filled many of the gaps in knowledge that were once explained by religion, and having confidence that the remaining gaps can be explained without religious superstition as well, some humans now conclude that the entire theological approach no longer has relevance. Such humans are reaching the post-theological stage.

From the standpoint of a humanist activist, it's important to recognize that the post-theological view is one that focuses on the big picture, not the singular issue of the existence or nonexistence of a divinity. In fact, the post-theological view can even acknowledge the psychological inclinations that are common in a still-theological society, where religious belief has traditionally been widespread. Since the vast majority of us grew up in households that were theological, we recognize that the transition from the theological mindset to the post-theological mindset isn't easily made, at a personal level or societal level.

Because of this recognition, and because the post-theological view is not one that must overtly attack the notion of God itself, the umbrella of post-theological identity can be a big one. As the 2001 ARIS survey showed, very few who were raised in our theologically inclined society will openly accept the "atheist" identity, even though over 13 percent will identify as not religious. But it's likely that many who aren't religious would gladly accept the term post-theological as a less threatening alternative.

In fact, one can even have a post-theological outlook while acknowledging a personal psychological tendency to sympathize with theistic notions. So long as one recognizes those notions for what they are--psychological leftovers from the recent past--one can associate with the post-theological movement without a feeling of inconsistency.

Open rejection of a divinity is very difficult for most Americans because "God" has personal characteristics that are often etched deeply into the psyche. To some who were raised in a religious environment, there can be a feeling that the concept of God, and even more specific concepts such as Jesus as the son of God and the Virgin Mary, are an integral part of one's being, making the direct rejection of them possible only for the most disciplined and rational.

But an indirect rejection, via the embrace of the post-theological way of thinking, is less personal and perhaps allows for the psychological wiggle room that many find necessary. If that's difficult to grasp, consider the following alternatives. It's relatively rare that one hears a typical American state: "I'm a lapsed Catholic--I consider myself an atheist" because the label "atheist" is so scorned. But that same person saying: "I'm a lapsed Catholic--I consider myself post-theological" might not be so hard to imagine.

The post-theological identity should be seen as an umbrella term, one that includes not only those who openly identify as atheist, agnostic, and humanist, but also many of those 13 percent, and possibly more, who are simply ambivalent and apathetic about religion. With these natural allies joined under the same umbrella, movement-building can only be made easier.

David Niose, a lawyer in Massachusetts, is a board member and the treasurer of the American Humanist Association and facilitator of Greater Worcester Humanists

Call Waiting

My cell phone is no more.

(In Monty Python/John Cleese voice):

It has ceased to be! It's expired and gone to meet his maker! It’s a stiff! Bereft of life, it rests in peace! If I hadn't put the battery back in it, it would be pushing up the daisies! Its electronic processes are now history! It’s off the twig! It’s kicked the bucket, shuffled off its mortal coil; run down the curtain and joined the bleeding choir invisible!! THIS IS AN EX-CELL PHONE!!

So if you have been waiting for a call from me, or have tried to reach me, I apologize. I know that I am still making up time from being sick, but I know no numbers as it has taken over responsibility for remembering that information.

I should get a new phone here in the next day or two and will immediately call all who have left messages. Until then please feel free to email, but understand that I am at my computer very little this week.

Entry for December 30, 2007

"Home is a name, a word, it is a strong one; stronger than magician ever spoke, or spirit ever answered to, in the strongest conjuration." - Charles Dickens

The thing about traveling is that, when you have finally returned, you are happy to just no longer be somewhere else. And no matter how short the trip may have been, there are always too many people to contact just to tell them that you’ve returned. Strangely, this number is usually higher than the amount of people who you originally told that you were leaving. So if you did not receive a personal message from me upon my arrival back at home this afternoon, I apologize. But frankly, I’m exhausted from my much needed trip away from life and could use some time to recover.

Home, Sick for the Holidays

I am spending this Christmas not feeling well and trying to hide from the world. If Santa is still looking for a last minute Christmas gift, please tell him to send soup.

Trapped Near My Inner Circle of Thought

I arrange all of my thoughts through the Loci method of linking them to memories of physical locations within my mind. Each day I rearrange the events and knowledge that I have gathered to fit within my memory palace. Add to this my never-ending ridiculous quest to manage simultaneous thought processes and you have a mind destine for trouble.

Every once in a while my brain crashes and my mental issues manifest as physical problems. When I was younger this did not happen that often, but now that I am older, rearranging more, and try to remember more intricate and deeper thoughts, it is happening with greater frequency. This causes me to completely withdraw from the world and spend countless hours and days rebuilding my mind.

So here I sit, slowly rebuilding my thoughts and trying to recall personal minutia as if it was I was the only person on earth to be entrusted with the knowledge of EFE, Kant's Theory of Judgment, or countless Shakespearean lines. My brain hurts and so my body hurts. I am tired, sick, and empty. I want to go home to my mind of several weeks ago, but it is gone. I know that in time I will rebuild it better and retain most everything. I also hope that someday I will be able to forego these collapses. Until then I’ll keep up my scorching hot balnea and work to stay focused.

Who Are You?

Hello I am Professor, Consultant, and Occasional Bookstore Employee. Please feel free to call me Brian.

We’ve all been at some event where some random personal will saunter up, start a conversation, and immediately drop the question “So what do you do?”. My guess is that they think that it’s just a harmless question, but it never is. You know that your answer will be openly judged. If you say, “I’m a homemaker” or “I am the CEO of XYZ Company” the person will immediately fit you into their predefined social niches and deem you worthy of certain conversations. I see this more in the US than anywhere else, and no where else is it more obvious than in politics. Below is from the book Dave Barry Hits Below the Beltway and it describes the employment social ladder perfectly:

When I got to Washington I discovered that even among young people, being a good guy was not the key thing: The key thing was your position on the great Washington totem pole of status. Way up at the top of this pole is the president; way down at the bottom, below mildew, is the public. In between is an extremely complex hierarchy of government officials, journalists, lobbyists, lawyers, and other power players, holding thousands of minutely graduated status rankings differentiated by extremely subtle nuances that only Washingtonians are capable of grasping.

For example, Washingtonians know whether a person whose title is "Principal Assistant Deputy Undersecretary" is more or less important than a person whose title is "Associate Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary," or "Principal Deputy to Deputy Assistant Secretary," or "Deputy to the Deputy Secretary," or "Principal Assistant Deputy Undersecretary," or "Chief of Staff to the Assistant Assistant Secretary." (All of these are real federal job titles.)

Everybody in Washington always seems to know exactly how much status everybody else has. I don’t know how they do it. Maybe they all get together in some secret location and sniff one another’s rear ends.

We always seem to judge one another by the way that we earn a paycheck. And we do it in the smallest of ways. Think about how you introduce someone. Doesn’t it usually come out as something like, “This is Jim, and he works in Accounts Receivable at Schwab”? Jim could easily be an accomplished pianist, or the world record holder for dwarf juggling, or the father of sextuplets, but you would still introduce him as the Accounts Receivable Guy.

We even do it to ourselves. We introduce our job almost directly after our name. It’s the equivalent of saying, “Hey, the most important thing to me in life is my job and I would like to be defined by it, Thankyouverymuch.”

Why? Why do we do this?

And what is the alternative?

For a while I thought that there might be other conversational examples in similar countries, but remembering my time traveling and living abroad killed that notion. My Canadian friends and colleagues did the same, with the British either openly introduced themselves and their employment or following the proper British custom of not ever omitting anything personal. That phenomenon is described well In Kate Fox’s book Watching the English. She states that under no account should a British person volunteer their own name or ask a direct question to establish the identity of the person that they are you speaking to. Now I’ve had conversations like these with some British colleagues and it is painful. So this approach is also out do to, what I at least perceive to be, general rudeness. Not telling your life story upon meeting a new person is just fine, but you at least need to give the person enough information about your tastes, likes, and dislikes to kindle a conversation.

Surely most of us just work to live and do not live to work -- so let’s find a way to express that in our own introductions. And his is where I need your help. What is the alternative to announcing, or asking for, someone’s job title shortly after their name? How do you introduce yourself without immediately bringing up what you do to earn money so that you can live the rest of your life? Why do we feel the need to describe who we are by the work that we do?

Peter Jackson to produce The Hobbit

NEW YORK - Peter Jackson and New Line Cinema have reached agreement to make J.R.R. Tolkien's "The Hobbit," a planned prequel to the blockbuster trilogy "The Lord of the Rings."

Jackson, who directed the "Rings" trilogy, will serve as executive producer for "The Hobbit." A director for the prequel films has yet to be named.

Relations between Jackson and New Line had soured after "Rings," despite a collective worldwide box office gross of nearly $3 billion — an enormous success. The two sides nevertheless were able to reconcile, with Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios (MGM) splitting "The Hobbit" 50/50, spokemen for both studios said Tuesday.

"I'm very pleased that we've been able to put our differences behind us, so that we may begin a new chapter with our old friends at New Line," Jackson said in a statement. "We are delighted to continue our journey through Middle Earth."

Two "Hobbit" films are scheduled to be shot simultaneously, similar to how the three "Lord of the Rings" films were made. Production is set to begin in 2009 with a released planned for 2010, with the sequel scheduled for a 2011 release.

New Line Cinema is owned by Time Warner. Sony and Comcast are among the owners of MGM.

Entry for December 16, 2007

I am not a man’s man. I don’t hunt, fish, or watch sports. I will not drink cheap beer, degrade women who can’t verbally fight back, or physically pick on anyone who couldn’t take me in a fight. But there are times when I feel the need to head out into an unforgiving climate to make sure that I am still capable of holding my own. This morning was one of those times.

I woke at about 5am and descended the stairs in a robe to see the back door covered in snow. A mug of tea and some news later the dog trotted down the stairs and up to my desk to tell me that she needed outside. So over to the back door we went. It was there that is where she got her first good glimpse of what she would have to brave in order to pee. I swung the door open and she stood there contemplating whether the punishment for peeing on the rug was worth not having to squat in the half-a-foot of snow. A quick glance back at me told her that it wasn’t and she hopped out the door and then back in as quickly as she could manage.

A couple hours later I was in the truck leading the way to breakfast at Bob Evans (this is the Midwest after all) to see a friend's parents out of town. All through breakfast I worried about their drive back to Ohio from Michigan with today’s weather reporting reading as, “periods of snow and gusty winds. Significant blowing and drifting snow. High 24F. Winds NNW at 25 to 35 mph. 6 to 8 inches of snow expected” ringing in my ears.

As we pulled back up to the house the true severity of the day’s weather hit me as I noticed that our previous footprints to the truck had vanished in the hour that we had been gone. Once out of the truck I stopped and, on the precipice of blowing snow and ice and the welcoming warmth of the house at Christmas, decided that I needed to leash up the dog and take her for a walk.

The snow was deep, especially where the plows and the wind had created waist deep mounds, and the constant blast of air coming from the North was bitter and angry. The dog bounded forward through the front yard with enthusiasm that she had not shown in the early morning hours and I realized that she would be hard to keep up with today. I planned to do the normal two and a half mile lap, trudging through some knee-deep snow and hidden ice patches, with as much grace as possible.

The going was not as bad as I thought and about half way I noticed another soul braving the outdoors. It was an older gentleman attempting to clear his driveway with a snow shovel. He seemed to be losing to the fight to the persistent combination of a snow and wind. I smiled and jogged by with the dog, leaving a trail of gullies where my legs had been. Pausing for a moment to watch us, he smiled and waved and I liked him immediately.

Coming around the last corner I realized that I love days like today. It is an excuse to test yourself against the natural elements. Not armed with some sort of technology, or to prove anything to anyone, just to see if you can do something simple with an obstacle in your path. So as I came back into the house growling and stripping, with the dog shaking show from her hair while attempting to chew out snow from between her feet, I felt good. I may not be a man's man, but there are times that I need to feel that I can rise to a challenge -- whether it is something truly difficult, or something as simple as taking the dog for a walk.

A Call for Global Greed

I guess that it started July 22, 2006. I was gearing up for my 30th birthday a couple days later and I remember reading an article in the news that sparked a thought that just ended this week, almost a year an a half later. All that time ago, NASA revised it’s mission statement from “To understand and protect our home planet; to explore the universe and search for life; to inspire the next generation of explorers as only NASA can” to exclude the line, “To understand and protect our home planet”. At the time I couldn’t quite understand why a group of intelligent, creative adventurers would decide to leave that line out. Did they think that by excluding that line they would no longer be required to help the military with some sort of global defense system? Was some creature on another planet offended by our Earth-centeredness? Did they not think that they could live up to it? Or was it that NASA no longer found our planet that interesting and planned on spending all of their time trying to understand all of the other planets first?

I was vexed, bemused, befuddled, and all of the other words that mean “huh?” Fast forward to this week when the NASA's Themis mission, a quintet of satellites launched this winter, discovered the existence of giant magnetic ropes (a twisted bundle of magnetic fields) that connect the Earth's upper atmosphere directly to the sun and create the, until now mystifying, Northern Lights. Cool yes, but more importantly it is another notch on our understanding of planet Earth.

We do not like to think of the Earth as a living creature because this either brings with it connotations of long-haired people dancing around a fire to the beat of a drum circle or supernatural beliefs in some sort of semi-intelligent creator. But it is. We have evidence of liquid water existing on Earth’s surface for billions of years, despite nuclear physics suggesting that the sun had 30 percent less luminosity when it was young, some five billion years ago. In other words, Earth’s surface, full of life, has managed to cool itself to counter the increased output from the sun, which might have otherwise scorched Earth’s living surface to a crisp. And even though oxygen is an extremely reactive gas -- in liquid form with hydrogen, its controlled reaction fires rocked into space -- it continues to account for approximately one-fifth of Earth’s atmosphere. It has done so for the last 500-million-odd years. According to the standard rules of chemical mixing, this should not happen -- just as, according to mathematical calculations of random particle interactions, a roughly symmetrical being with fingernails and hair such as yourself should not be here.

Religionists would tend to say that your presence is a miracle, testimony to a God. Scientists tend to say that there is nothing miraculous about it; that you are the result of billions of years of natural selection. However, Richard Dawkins has pointed out, there is only one Earth with no evidence, as there is normally in evolution, of a bunch of variants that died out. So initially at least, it is difficult to see where the biosphere’s ability to thermoregulate and maintain its surface chemistry comes from. It has adapted to its heliocentric climate in the same way that you would if you were to move to the top of a mountain or to the desert. Add to that the knowledge that it constantly takes in cosmic particles and debris while excreting other particles, and you have a very convincing argument for a creature that, although does not fit the classical definition of a being, comes very close. It only lacks self-awareness.

This adapting Earth has also shown that it can be negatively affected by the inhabitants on it. Just as your body has populace of billions of microbes, the Earth too has tiny -- relatively speaking -- creatures living on it. Increase either the number of living things on either and the waste and damage that they create ends up negatively affecting the host. We know this and are awed just thinking about our abilities on this planet. It is one of the things that give us courage when leaving it. So why on Earth did NASA, knowing everything that they know, decide to omit, “To understand and protect our home planet”? Why would they eliminate a line exploring the most incredible, diverse, advanced, and truly awesome thing that we know about in our entire cosmos? The answer, I now believe, is that NASA made a mistake in removing the line, but still holds true to their original mission statement. NASA, and we as conscious living creatures, can and will never abandon our love for our home planet. It is precious, beautiful, and we love her. No matter what the marketing department at NASA decides.

Entry for December 12, 2007

This morning I received an email from David Camp, Michigan’s Fourth Congressional District Congressional Representative and thought that I would share it along with my response.

Dear friends,

As we approach the holiday season, I watched (and later read) with great interest former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney’s speech entitled “Faith in America.” In his remarks, the Governor discussed the interaction of religion and government. Below are a few excerpts from his speech and I am interested to know your reaction to them. Please take a moment to send me your thoughts on this important topic. As always, anything you submit to my office will be kept confidential.

I hope you have a safe holiday season and new year with your friends and loved ones.

Sincerely,

DAVE CAMP, U.S. Representative

P.S. I would like the opportunity to respond to any thoughts you send me, so please take a moment to fill out the name and address section at the end.

Excerpts from Governor Mitt Romney’s “Faith in America” Address

“The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square. We are a nation 'Under God' and in God, we do indeed trust.”

Agree
Disagree
No opinion

“We should acknowledge the Creator as did the Founders – in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places.”

Agree
Disagree
No opinion

“…liberty is a gift of God, not an indulgence of government.”

Agree
Disagree
No opinion

“We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion. But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America – the religion of secularism. They are wrong.”

Agree
Disagree
No opinion

If you have additional thoughts on religion and government, please share them here:

Please provide you full name and mailing address so that I may respond to your comments.

My response:

This argument would hold more water if it wasn't always Christians pushing for the state to recognize, and incorporate, religion. Each election season this topic is publicly resurrected to put on a show to convince a religious public that a pseudo-state sanctioned religion is a possibility. Everyone sees through this charade to the core of a mixed church and state, which is why it never comes to fruition. Moreover, candidates use this platform to distract the public from other, more pressing topics that they should be talking about. Personal spiritual beliefs are personal and help to create who we are. We cannot let them dictate our actions or we are allowing our personal spirituality to define our laws. On a small level this would be acceptable, but with a majority organized religion this is not possible. It would only create a church state defined around one specific religion. The public knows this and sees these arguments for what they are: a shallow attempt to persuade a small percentage of the population, who does not understand the reasons for separation of church and state, into voting. Please spend more time on the important issues facing this nation and less on pandering to those who do not understand the basic ideas of Thomas Jefferson.

But hey, I’m curious of all of your responses. What do you think?

Something That You Are Doing Right Now Could Kill You

That’s right, something that is within several feet of you, or that you could have come in contact with, or that you are actually doing right now, or that you will be doing in the next ten minutes, could kill you twice tonight.

Something that you did last time you were at the grocery store could harm your children and make them late for soccer practice.

What you did while at the mall could one day get your house pet run over in traffic.

Remember that credit card that you handed over to that complete stranger? They could have all of your personal information and are planning to live abroad on your credit for the next several years.

You once ate a piece of toast that could have been laces with a newly discovered pathogen named Trytofreakurshitout that could make all of your hair turn green and your body to emit a smell like rotting hamster droppings.

A new harmful ingredient in your children’s toys could make them grow an extra arm directly from their forehead.

Your Mother could have ingested a common vitamin that is now linked to a highly increased sexual libido with random strangers.

New studies have show that reading this blog could some day cause you to get cancer of the nose that could leave you looking like Michael Jackson.

This blog has been sponsored by the National Consortium or Local News Commercials. Tune in tonight at 7 to see how you could die.

The words I hear when life gets to be too much

"So do all who live to see such times, but that is not for them to decide, all we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us."

Then I pick myself up, dust myself off, and do what must be done. I do so because I know that time is the only thing that money cannot buy and I refuse to anything that powerful on fear or unhappiness. Moreover, I believe my goal in life is to always leave things better off than I found them. So tonight I head to bed planning once again to try to make the most out of the time given to me and hoping that when my time is up, my world will be a little better for having had me on it.

Dominance

My mongrel and I went to the dog park today a friend of mine and her two dogs. The younger one is too dumb to be afraid of anything and the older one is afraid of anything living that could be construed as a threat. The older one is a breed that is naturally loud and was adopted after she had time to establish her personality. From what I can gather, she had to be self-reliant in her younger years and still feels the need to display her dominance to compensate for her diminutive stature and lack of physical intimidation. To counteract that her owners usually do a good job of being dominate and around her, especially when in the presence of anything living that could be construed as a threat. This gives the dog a sense that they have the situation under control and that they can assure the dog safety while in their protection.

While at the large and empty Dog Park with my friend, as we were letting the dogs, who had not been to the park or had any meaningful exercise in well over a week, burn off some energy. The dogs were wound tight and upon arrival and immediately took off chasing each other. After a couple of minutes, someone else arrived with another dog that was either also full of energy or was just ill-behaved. Inevitably, my friend’s older dog got into an altercation with that new dog while posturing for dominance. We left a few minutes later and were all in a foul mood as we headed back to our respected homes with the dogs.

In my opinion, this could have been avoided if we had the dominant and submissive roles in the front of our minds. Instead, we were distracted with the extremely cold weather, thoughts of the day, and other general distractions associated with life. None of us did a good job realizing the important interplay of roles that simpler creatures must dance at all times. If we thought more about our own roles in life, where we need/desire/require dominance and submission, we would have been automatically prepared for this type of situation. Maybe our pushing these thoughts out of our mind and conversations is cultural and maybe it is just situational, but they need to reemerge.

This got me to thinking how little we dwell on the dominance and submissive roles that we play in all relationships. The titles of Dominate and Submissive do not need to only refer to horrible atrocities of the past, but need to exist in rational conversation today. In certain subcultures and during a large portion on our history these were roles that we defined and understood both intrinsically and intellectually. All relationships still exist on some form of dominate and submissive exchange. And while most relationships have a tendency to switch the roles depending on the situation, moods, and both momentarily external and internal factors, they are always still in play. Equality between several individuals is never quite identical as someone must always have the final say. Even in a true Democracy someone must create the rules and count the votes.

True equality is that everyone has the same opportunities, not that we all end up equal. What we need to do is accept that the roles are never quite equal, and that that is okay. As long as everyone has freely chosen their position or has the ability to switch when it is needed, then equality can exist in the balance of the positions. It is in the movement of positions that counts the most.

This brings me back to the dog park. Dogs and all simpler creatures do not have the ability to contemplate their positions. They must act or be acted upon. Therefore, it is up to us to always place them within situations where we remove as much of that need as possible. If we maintain a higher awareness of our own dominance and submissive positions, we will then respond automatically when called to act upon them. It is in this conscious understanding of our ability to be either dominate or submissive that we can gain a greater comprehension of who we are as we travel through life.

Your Organized Religion is an Insult to Humanity

A British teacher in Sudan asked one of her 7-year-old students to bring in her teddy bear to teach them about animals. She then asked the students to pick a name for the bear and they voted to name it Muhammad. These last weeks she was arrested and convicted for letting them use the name and will be punished with 40 lashes. On Friday (11/30/07), after a reduction in sentencing to 15 days in jail and deportation, thousands of Sudanese, many armed with clubs and knives, rallied in a central square and demanded her execution.

Now the first response is to call this law and these people primitive, but the problem is much deeper than that. This is not a problem with the current division in Islam or any other religion that has its evangelicals, hard-liners, or extremists. This is a problem with organized religion.

When you create a set of laws and call them infallible, you are doing so under the belief that the people, culture, technology, and science will never change. The commonly held belief is that during the new religions inception is that humanity has reached a final destination or perfection that needs to be maintained. This thought process is usually fostered by a powerful group of people who want to preserve their comfortable control over a population. The development of the new religious laws is usually a regurgitation of previous controls and stories from other popular religions into a new form to suit their needs. If not for that reason, religions are instituted to herald in a new form of government or to change direction in a current one.

The insulting part is not that the masses fall into this trap and can made to believe that silent obedience is the way to some sort of existential fulfillment in an afterlife. No, it’s the sheer nerve of them to put forth the belief that there is an ability to understand the universe. As if simply using our limited minds and current understanding of the complexity of the cosmos is enough to explain everything. So what organized religions are offering is easy answers that are destined to be outdated and laughable before they are instituted. It takes blind faith in these dogmas to overlook the obvious inconsistencies and inaccurateness that they contain.

Spirituality is one thing, and is different for everyone, but to believe in one version of a religion over all others is not only foolish, it’s self-defeating. If you put all of your hope into something that can so easily fail, you will bound to become either blind to reality or disappointed with life.

The alternative? Believe in yourself. The strength you have to follow the dogma of an organized religion is the same strength that you can use to just be a good person. And you know what a good person is because every single religion, community, and historical reference to good acts mirrors each other. Be good, you have that power within yourself. Or to quote Abraham Lincoln, “When I do good, I feel good; when I do bad, I feel bad, and that is my religion.”

Christmas Music

Voltaire said, “Anything too stupid to be said is sung”, and this is doubly so of Christmas music -- it is the equivalent of being bludgeoned to death by a Hallmark card.

Having spent a considerable amount of time over the last couple of weeks submerged in Christmas music, I have come to realize the vast majority of these songs have never been nominated for a Grammy, received any internationally recognized awards for musical excellence, or have been hailed for their musical creativeness for a reason. This is because they are intentionally shallow and musically insulting.

Christmas is the time of year in which we can all be proud to wallow in our own ability to be tacky and gaudy. Everything from homemade scenic sweaters, to borderline obscene Christmas yard decorations, all the way to those CDs of dogs barking Christmas carols is fair game. And not only do we allow such embarrassing frivolity, we see it as a necessary part of the kitsch and as essential as the tree or presents.

Think about it, would it be Christmas if you weren’t bombarded with the same repetitive music about Santa and his reindeer, snow, decorations, good-will, and the several quaint reasons for the mostly Pagan holiday? True, some people (usually the die-hard Christians or desperate infotainers) do try to make the holiday out as holy, but it’s a long shot to rebrand all of those Pagan traditions as Christian. Still, it’s an excuse to be carried away in everything delightfully tacky and excessive because we do so under the banner of “The Season”.

So this year, as we spend time with our families celebrating the tackiness of the season by drowning ourselves in a self-imposed orgy of Christmas crap, try to remember that stupid Christmas song on the radio is not painfully bad, it’s painfully good.

Now if you’ll excuse me, the mall is giving 10% off of everything during the all-drum performance of Jingle Bells.

The Dichotomy of the US

America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between -- Oscar Wilde

We as a nation have always lived with an identity crisis. Now that is not to say that we don't know who we are, but as individuals we are proud of our diversity and that leads to times where as a nation we are extremely polarized.

I offer a simple analogy in the form of two large companies trying to sort out the current range of American thinking: Subway Restaurants and Toyota Motor Corporation American Division.

Subway currently offers an entire Fresh Fit menu with calories listed in full view and healthy alternatives of apples and milk to the normal unhealthy choices. The marketing campaign for this wholesome menu is promoted by a man who lost 245 pounds eating nothing but Subway sandwiches. This is in stark contrast with their other running menu option of a new Subway Feast which promotes a sandwich with 1,400 calories that is "as big as your head".

Toyota is doing about the same thing. Along with announcing a new Prius that will not only offer the best fuel consumption on the market, but will also have an option to allow for a home hook-up for little to no fuel consumption at all, Toyota also has a 7,000 lbs., 12 MPG, Land Cruiser. So why advertising that they are the environmentally green car company, they continue to sell one of the worst environmental cars offered in the American car market.

So why do these two examples, which so openly strive to promote themselves as one thing, also cater so heavily to the antithesis?

I believe that the answer lies not in our current diametrically opposed methods of thought, but in the lack of vocal majority within the center. We have been co-opted into a belief that there are only two sides to every stance, that there are right and wrongs, and that our choices are those of other peoples labels.

These false choices have historically been reduced to rubble by artists, poets, great thinkers, and a populous that believed in education and free thinking. Unfortunately, the outlet for such things now exists in a medium that sells ad time. Every original thought is bought and sold like a commodity, cheapening its originality and lessening its affect on the public. New ideas are either squashed for their lack of marketability or embraced, repackaged, sold, and forgotten.

This process of commoditizing dissension leaves the moderate and undecided without a real voice while we all wonder whether or not we're in the mood to submit to gluttony or give preemptive penance for our wish to submit to our greed.

I Love People at Christmas

Black Friday, or the day after Thanksgiving, may be my favorite day of the year. Hordes of people, all up at an unreasonable hour to stand in lines, be grumpy, only to end up spreading unhappiness to one another over petty fights for cheap Chinese toys and unbelievable consumer deals. They do this to celebrate the birth of some guy who never had a family, had no possessions, and lived most of his life under a self-imposed vow of poverty. The irony is not only palpable, it’s hilarious.

So each Black Friday you will find me camped out watching the masses. If they would let me, I would love to drag one of my recliners into the lobby of a Wal-Mart just for the occasion. Because let’s face it, overweight people running through the aisles and tripping over one other in a department store at 5am to save $20 on something that they really don’t need in the name of love, family, and friendship, just can’t be beat in funny.

Every year this holiday starts earlier and gets crazier and every year I enjoy the show more and more. So please, get out there and shop till you drop. And please, when you collapse on some old woman who was fighting you for the last bag of $1 tube socks, remember that you have fulfilled my Christmas wish to enjoy hilarity of the Christmas Season for all that it is worth.

Live Music

I grew up going to see live shows around Atlanta and Boston. If there was going to be music, any music, I wanted to be part of it. The best of all of these were rocks bands in small venues. There is just something indescribably wonderful about watching a band claim a stage and get bar patrons off their asses. Seeing them earn their sweat while we felt the pulse of the music is one of the closest things to ecstasy imaginable. Tonight reminded me why we all need music in our lives. Music keeps you happy, gets your body back into rhythm, and makes you remember why you live. Music is a higher understanding than all wisdom and philosophy; so make sure that you bathe in music as often as you can and I promise that you live a happier life.

Check out thebananaconvention.com or better yet, see them live. You can thank yourself later.

On Health

I am a realist, I know that I eat too much yummy food and don’t exercise enough, but that is a choice that I have consciously made. What confuses me is the myriad things out there intended to help people lose weight and be healthy. So in order to help out as much as I can, let me explain things in a language that is both simple and easy to understand.

You have evolved over billions of years eating about 80% raw veggies and fruit and 20% meat. To think that your body can cope with eating processed chemicals, mostly meat or all fruits and veggies, heavily altered foods, man-made foods, or things raised using unnatural fertilizers and drugs without side effects is foolish. To put it in simple terms, the more crap that you eat that is not a basic food that your ancestors bodies grew accustom to over thousands of generations, the more health problems you are likely to have.

The same goes for medicine and health care. Your body is an awesome piece of equipment. It is the most advanced machinery that you will ever own. It repairs itself, maintains a balance with its surroundings, and is conscience of itself. When left in an environment in which it has evolved to match, humans do extraordinarily well. Unfortunately, environments change, people build cities, food is harder to produce in larger quantities, and we expose ourselves to things that evolution never had time to sort out. So naturally we are going to get exposed to all sorts of things that our bodies are going to have a hard time handling. The best thing that you can do is to maintain a good natural and physical state so that your billions and billions of years of evolution has the best chance to deal with these new unknown.

All that being said, you need to realize that even though you should try to stay as close to what your body evolved to live with, there are occasionally going to be things with which it will not cope with well. The trick is to understand what is really a threat and what is just marketing.

For instance, your body was not meant to eat Hot Pockets. There are 76 ingredients in a Hot Pocket -- most of which are manmade and unpronounceable. Just because you can eat something and it tastes good, does not mean that it’s food. Antifreeze is sweet and smooth, but it will kill you if you drink it. And a Lean something just means that there are less of the things that we now are bad and more of fillers and chemicals that are further from being classified as food.

Most pharmaceutical drugs are the same. You take them constantly to fix either psychological problems or problems caused by bad health and diet. In other words, they work to counteract the bad parts of your other habits. This is the equivalent of constantly filling up one of you car tires with air when you know that it has a nail in it.

Are you going to occasionally need medical help and eat food that is not what you should be eating? Of course, but you need to realize that it is a conscious choice that you are making and that with each choice it moves you future from your naturally balanced ideal and that will come with side effects.

In short, I offer my easy solution to wellbeing: Eat good food and less of it while exercising more and try to understand who you are through self-reflection and internal understanding. Now I can’t promise anything because life is all about uncertainty and learning, but you can learn to stack the deck in your favor by making conscious choices about who and what you really are.

Definition:Dianous

Dianous is directly translated from Greek as "through thought". It is a deep meditation that is usually aimed at greater self-understanding, but can also mean understanding of external conflict through internal thought.

Entry for November 13, 2007

All the history of human life has been a struggle between wisdom and stupidity -- Philip Pullman

The world is rarely black and white...

Life exists in a series of grays, please adjust your reality accordingly.