A couple things are bothering me this morning:
1. I’ve had it with cowardly Democrats that have earned that title. Most of our Democratic Leadership, including those running for President, know damn well that 50 years ago the Democrats motto was “The national government has a central and positive role to play in bettering the lives of all Americans”, yet act today as if a suitable Democratic motto is, “We’re gonna pretend we’re moderates until we remember who we are”.
When you visit the Democratic Policy Committee’s Website there is a watered-down version about maintaining a “balance between too much government” and “too little government”, as if immediately conceding that they are prone building government as much as the Republicans were prone (past tense) to stripping government past reasonable functionality. By declaring themselves moderates from the outset, they have no where to bargain to. Instead, any points that they argue will fall between their moderate stances and where the Republicans are located on the right. This is not a recipe for success or balance.
2. What the hell is wrong with the Conservatives in this country? I am referring to just about every poll that I’ve read lately that places economic concerns down on the list of priorities below abortion, gay marriage, and immigration. Where the Democrats have given up and become middling, the Republicans have become a special interest completely at odds with their former selves. Government control over other peoples bodies and actions? Believing that economics isn’t a driving factor in our political, social, and moral environment? WTF?
Add to that the fact that since 1776 the US accumulated a national debt of $9 trillion dollars. Over half of it as incurred when a Bush was president. If you include the Regan presidency, 70% of the national debt ($6.3 trillion dollars) was created by three Republican Presidents. Of the 19 submitted budgets, only two were balanced.
Maybe the loss of the Republican goals of fiscal responsibility and individual rights with little government intervention has confused the Democrats to a point where they no longer no where to stand. Maybe the Democrats didn’t understand the economic boom of the 90’s that gave way to a majority feeling of financial comfort that elected the then Republican majority. And maybe the Democrats forgot all of those who died before them in the name of equal rights, balance of power, and freedom for all as the horror that was 9-11 descended upon the country. But none of these is forgivable if they do not find their way soon. I can only hope that they do so before the Republicans realize that they are no longer conservatives and move to eliminate the wavering Democrats for being almost useless.
Friday, October 05, 2007
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
All Id
I've been doing a lot of research lately and feel the need to use Freud, which is rarely my first choice, to compare some of the current societal directions in the hope that I can explain some of our countries current trends. First some basic Freudian background:
The Id is an undifferentiated pool of energy directed at one of a number of gratifications and is driven by the pleasure principle. From the Id the Ego grows and it is the Egos job to direct the Id to situations where the Id will get gratification. To achieve its goal, the Ego must be the part of the psyche that understands basic reality. The next level to the mind is the Super Ego and it understands societal constraints as it is the final part and has become internalized in the inner mind. It is the reason that we behave in a moral fashion. And it is the different balances of these three parts of mind that are the reasons for all of the varying types of people, according to Freud.
You can see examples of people with more Ego than Super Ego because they are the ones that believe that they are justified in their actions because it gives them the gratification that they desire. Those with a ruling Super Ego will generally seek civility at their own discomfort. This leaves those with a majority Id as the few lone individuals whose actions are solely dominated by their desire for personal gratification.
What I see as a current trend in our society is the movement from a dominate Super Ego to a majority Ego, Id combination. We are increasingly confrontational, frustrated, and ego-centric. Empathy has taken a backseat to personal desire.
Now I know that it is always the case for people to view their own moment in time through either rose colored glasses or abject pessimism, but I believe that current trends do show an unconventional rise in the overall population of people seeking nothing more than instant personal gratification.
The process, as I see it working with Freud's theory, shows that there is always an initial desire for security to seek that gratification. When and if that need for security does abate, it leaves comfort in its wake when a natural convenience to that gratification is found. This newly obtained convenience, if left sustained for long enough, gives way to complacency and comes with a yearning to feel above the others who have obtained that same level of convenient gratification. When this cycle is left alone for long enough, the comfort level manifest itself into exaggerated trends and audacious personal amplification. This is when the combination of the Ego and the Id overpower the Super Ego and where I believe that we are now.
History teaches us that there are only a handful of recorded times in which life was easy and comfortable for a great percentage of the society. In each of these times the end of the trend has come from either an implosion under the weight of the attempt to sustain easy and readily available gratification, circumstances in which that culture was not able to adapt, or a combination of the two. And it is in this vein that I see the recurring rise of our ruling Super Ego. So if anyone needs me, my Super Ego has demanded that I help to speed up the process bringing us back to civility. To do this it has recommended to my psyche that I skipping all of the other parts and just go all Id.
The Id is an undifferentiated pool of energy directed at one of a number of gratifications and is driven by the pleasure principle. From the Id the Ego grows and it is the Egos job to direct the Id to situations where the Id will get gratification. To achieve its goal, the Ego must be the part of the psyche that understands basic reality. The next level to the mind is the Super Ego and it understands societal constraints as it is the final part and has become internalized in the inner mind. It is the reason that we behave in a moral fashion. And it is the different balances of these three parts of mind that are the reasons for all of the varying types of people, according to Freud.
You can see examples of people with more Ego than Super Ego because they are the ones that believe that they are justified in their actions because it gives them the gratification that they desire. Those with a ruling Super Ego will generally seek civility at their own discomfort. This leaves those with a majority Id as the few lone individuals whose actions are solely dominated by their desire for personal gratification.
What I see as a current trend in our society is the movement from a dominate Super Ego to a majority Ego, Id combination. We are increasingly confrontational, frustrated, and ego-centric. Empathy has taken a backseat to personal desire.
Now I know that it is always the case for people to view their own moment in time through either rose colored glasses or abject pessimism, but I believe that current trends do show an unconventional rise in the overall population of people seeking nothing more than instant personal gratification.
The process, as I see it working with Freud's theory, shows that there is always an initial desire for security to seek that gratification. When and if that need for security does abate, it leaves comfort in its wake when a natural convenience to that gratification is found. This newly obtained convenience, if left sustained for long enough, gives way to complacency and comes with a yearning to feel above the others who have obtained that same level of convenient gratification. When this cycle is left alone for long enough, the comfort level manifest itself into exaggerated trends and audacious personal amplification. This is when the combination of the Ego and the Id overpower the Super Ego and where I believe that we are now.
History teaches us that there are only a handful of recorded times in which life was easy and comfortable for a great percentage of the society. In each of these times the end of the trend has come from either an implosion under the weight of the attempt to sustain easy and readily available gratification, circumstances in which that culture was not able to adapt, or a combination of the two. And it is in this vein that I see the recurring rise of our ruling Super Ego. So if anyone needs me, my Super Ego has demanded that I help to speed up the process bringing us back to civility. To do this it has recommended to my psyche that I skipping all of the other parts and just go all Id.
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Mars is Coming!!!
This is by Joe Rao of Space.com:
You've probably heard that line before – no doubt fairly recently, thanks to a bogus e-mail that unfortunately received wide circulation on the Internet this summer with promises of Mars being as big as the full moon.
But this fact is absolutely true: Mars, the only planet whose surface we can see in any detail from the Earth, is now moving toward the best viewing position it will provide to us until the year 2014. Planet watchers have already begun readying their telescopes.
If you haven't seen it, it will be well worth looking for the red planet next week, even though you'll have to wait until after midnight to see it well.
Mars is currently midway between the zodiacal constellations of Taurus, the Bull and Gemini, the Twins and during this week it will rise shortly before 11 p.m. local daylight time. There is certainly no mistaking it once it comes up over the east-northeast horizon. Presently shining like a pumpkin-hued, zero magnitude star, Mars is currently tied for fifth place (with Vega) among the 21 brightest stars.
But as it continues to approach our Earth in the coming weeks and months, Mars will only be getting brighter: it will surpass Sirius, the brightest star in the sky by Dec. 9 and during the latter half of December it will even almost match Jupiter in brilliance.
Late next Wednesday night (or more precisely, early on Thursday morning), Mars will hover about 7-degrees above and to the right of the last quarter moon as they rise above the east-northeast horizon (your clenched fist held at arm's length is roughly 10-degrees in width). As you will see for yourself, the so-called "Red Planet" actually will appear closer to a yellow-orange tint – the same color of a dry desert under a high sun.
How close?
Every 26 months, or so, Earth makes a close approach to Mars, as our smaller, swifter orbit "overtakes" Mars around the sun. Because both the orbits of Mars and Earth are mildly elliptical, some close approaches between the two planets are closer than others.
This current apparition of Mars will be nowhere near as spectacular as the oft-referred approach of August 2003 when the planet came closer to Earth than it had in nearly 60,000-years.
Rather, on this upcoming occasion, Mars will come closest to Earth on the evening of December 18th (at around 6:46 p.m. Eastern Standard Time).
The planet will then lie 54.8 million miles (88.2 million kilometers) from Earth as measured from center to center. Mars will arrive at opposition to the sun (rising at sunset, setting at sunrise) six days later on Christmas Eve, December 24th.
How big?
That recent Martian e-mail message – a hyperbole which was widely circulated for a fourth consecutive year – lead people to believe, with liberal use of exclamation marks, that on Aug. 27, Mars would appear as bright as (or as large as) that night's full moon in the night sky. The subject header urged viewers to prepare to view "Two Full Moons."
It was amazing (and a little disturbing) to see just how many people actually believed that Mars could loom so large in our sky. But the truth is that even when at its absolute closest possible approach to Earth, Mars can appear no larger than 1/72 as big as the moon; to the unaided eye it would appear as nothing more than an extremely bright, non-twinkling star.
When it comes closest to Earth on December 18th of this year, Mars' apparent disk diameter will be equal to 15.9 arc seconds. To get an idea of just how large this is, wait until darkness falls this week and if you have a telescope, check out Jupiter, gleaming in the southwestern sky; it'll appear about 35 arc seconds across.
In contrast, Mars' disk will appear less than half as big as Jupiter's when the Red Planet comes closest to Earth later this year. While this may sound small, keep in mind that this is still atypically large for Mars. In fact, from November 30th through Jan. 5, 2008, Mars' apparent size will be larger than at any time until April 2014. Around the time that Mars is closest, amateurs with telescopes as small as 4-inches and magnifying above 120-power should be able to make out some dusky markings on the small yellow-orange disk, and perhaps the bright white polar cap.
Size isn't everything
From Dec. 15 through Dec. 29, Mars will blaze at magnitude -1.6, a bit brighter than Sirius, but just slightly inferior to Jupiter. Mars will still be positioned between Taurus and Gemini, at a rather high declination of about +27-degrees.
So almost as if to compensate for its relatively small apparent size, Mars will literally soar in the night sky of late-December.
When it reaches its highest point in the sky at around midnight local time, its altitude will be 70-degrees at Seattle, 76-degrees for New York, and an exceptional 83-degrees at Los Angeles. Meanwhile, amateur and professional astronomers stationed in southern Texas and central Florida will see Mars pass directly, or very nearly overhead!
You've probably heard that line before – no doubt fairly recently, thanks to a bogus e-mail that unfortunately received wide circulation on the Internet this summer with promises of Mars being as big as the full moon.
But this fact is absolutely true: Mars, the only planet whose surface we can see in any detail from the Earth, is now moving toward the best viewing position it will provide to us until the year 2014. Planet watchers have already begun readying their telescopes.
If you haven't seen it, it will be well worth looking for the red planet next week, even though you'll have to wait until after midnight to see it well.
Mars is currently midway between the zodiacal constellations of Taurus, the Bull and Gemini, the Twins and during this week it will rise shortly before 11 p.m. local daylight time. There is certainly no mistaking it once it comes up over the east-northeast horizon. Presently shining like a pumpkin-hued, zero magnitude star, Mars is currently tied for fifth place (with Vega) among the 21 brightest stars.
But as it continues to approach our Earth in the coming weeks and months, Mars will only be getting brighter: it will surpass Sirius, the brightest star in the sky by Dec. 9 and during the latter half of December it will even almost match Jupiter in brilliance.
Late next Wednesday night (or more precisely, early on Thursday morning), Mars will hover about 7-degrees above and to the right of the last quarter moon as they rise above the east-northeast horizon (your clenched fist held at arm's length is roughly 10-degrees in width). As you will see for yourself, the so-called "Red Planet" actually will appear closer to a yellow-orange tint – the same color of a dry desert under a high sun.
How close?
Every 26 months, or so, Earth makes a close approach to Mars, as our smaller, swifter orbit "overtakes" Mars around the sun. Because both the orbits of Mars and Earth are mildly elliptical, some close approaches between the two planets are closer than others.
This current apparition of Mars will be nowhere near as spectacular as the oft-referred approach of August 2003 when the planet came closer to Earth than it had in nearly 60,000-years.
Rather, on this upcoming occasion, Mars will come closest to Earth on the evening of December 18th (at around 6:46 p.m. Eastern Standard Time).
The planet will then lie 54.8 million miles (88.2 million kilometers) from Earth as measured from center to center. Mars will arrive at opposition to the sun (rising at sunset, setting at sunrise) six days later on Christmas Eve, December 24th.
How big?
That recent Martian e-mail message – a hyperbole which was widely circulated for a fourth consecutive year – lead people to believe, with liberal use of exclamation marks, that on Aug. 27, Mars would appear as bright as (or as large as) that night's full moon in the night sky. The subject header urged viewers to prepare to view "Two Full Moons."
It was amazing (and a little disturbing) to see just how many people actually believed that Mars could loom so large in our sky. But the truth is that even when at its absolute closest possible approach to Earth, Mars can appear no larger than 1/72 as big as the moon; to the unaided eye it would appear as nothing more than an extremely bright, non-twinkling star.
When it comes closest to Earth on December 18th of this year, Mars' apparent disk diameter will be equal to 15.9 arc seconds. To get an idea of just how large this is, wait until darkness falls this week and if you have a telescope, check out Jupiter, gleaming in the southwestern sky; it'll appear about 35 arc seconds across.
In contrast, Mars' disk will appear less than half as big as Jupiter's when the Red Planet comes closest to Earth later this year. While this may sound small, keep in mind that this is still atypically large for Mars. In fact, from November 30th through Jan. 5, 2008, Mars' apparent size will be larger than at any time until April 2014. Around the time that Mars is closest, amateurs with telescopes as small as 4-inches and magnifying above 120-power should be able to make out some dusky markings on the small yellow-orange disk, and perhaps the bright white polar cap.
Size isn't everything
From Dec. 15 through Dec. 29, Mars will blaze at magnitude -1.6, a bit brighter than Sirius, but just slightly inferior to Jupiter. Mars will still be positioned between Taurus and Gemini, at a rather high declination of about +27-degrees.
So almost as if to compensate for its relatively small apparent size, Mars will literally soar in the night sky of late-December.
When it reaches its highest point in the sky at around midnight local time, its altitude will be 70-degrees at Seattle, 76-degrees for New York, and an exceptional 83-degrees at Los Angeles. Meanwhile, amateur and professional astronomers stationed in southern Texas and central Florida will see Mars pass directly, or very nearly overhead!
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Military Creditability For Sale
Something happened this last week that was both sad and unfortunate. David Petraeus, the four star general and commander of the War in Iraq, testified before the Senate in the hope that he could persuade the public at large that the latest war strategies would soon yield acceptable results. Now the unfortunate part of this event is not that the that current plan still incorrectly assumes that the Iraqi people want the Democracy and will put apart their divide to allow it to flourish, it’s that when the plan ultimately fails the military will take yet another blow to its creditability.
Remember back to April of 2002, when then Secretary of State Colin Powell addressed the UN Security Council about the specific locations and quantities of the Weapons of Mass Destruction? The vast majority of his creditability came not from his position, but from the fact that he was a solider. Though we did not know the specifics of his 30 year military career that spanned from a Second Lieutenant all the way to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, we knew that it was heroic, noble, and done at great personal sacrifice for the country. In time we learned that the things that he were not true. Our belief in him, and in creditability of the military, slipped.
Fast forward to the present, as we are still digesting General Petraeus’ testimony and we see that General was put in the same fateful position as the previous Secretary of State: trade himself for the mission. Once a solider always a solider. And just as a solider will throw himself on a grenade to save his unit, the officer will throw himself on a report to save his superiors. This belief in always giving yourself to the call of your country should never be abused by anyone in a higher position. Our soldiers, whether it is a grunt in the field or a four star general, deserve to be treated with the honor and dignity that they deserve.
The United States turns a sad page in our history the day that we cannot look to our enlisted men and women and immediately see them with the assumed creditability that they deserve to have. So in time, when the Iraq War has finally ended and we have a chance to look back on those soldiers who represented the military to the public, we will mourn their loss of their creditability, trust, and honor.
Remember back to April of 2002, when then Secretary of State Colin Powell addressed the UN Security Council about the specific locations and quantities of the Weapons of Mass Destruction? The vast majority of his creditability came not from his position, but from the fact that he was a solider. Though we did not know the specifics of his 30 year military career that spanned from a Second Lieutenant all the way to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, we knew that it was heroic, noble, and done at great personal sacrifice for the country. In time we learned that the things that he were not true. Our belief in him, and in creditability of the military, slipped.
Fast forward to the present, as we are still digesting General Petraeus’ testimony and we see that General was put in the same fateful position as the previous Secretary of State: trade himself for the mission. Once a solider always a solider. And just as a solider will throw himself on a grenade to save his unit, the officer will throw himself on a report to save his superiors. This belief in always giving yourself to the call of your country should never be abused by anyone in a higher position. Our soldiers, whether it is a grunt in the field or a four star general, deserve to be treated with the honor and dignity that they deserve.
The United States turns a sad page in our history the day that we cannot look to our enlisted men and women and immediately see them with the assumed creditability that they deserve to have. So in time, when the Iraq War has finally ended and we have a chance to look back on those soldiers who represented the military to the public, we will mourn their loss of their creditability, trust, and honor.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Ahoy You Rumsoaked Scallywags
It be the 19th of September, National Talk Like a Pirate Day, and I’m here to tell the lot of you that you be keelhauled for mutiny if you don’t participate in this here holiday. Where else are you going to get the change to let your inhibitions take over that crusty exterior you’ve put up against the world? So let your true rebellious self shine through and make civility and proper English walk the plank.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Decide My Fate
As someone who teaches for a living at a couple different universities, I have a certain amount of flexibility when it comes to social norms. I am almost expected to be slightly eclectic and/or eccentric. Unfortunately, I'm about as jeans and t-shirt as you can be. So that is why I have decided to let you nice people out there in internetland vote on something simple and easy.
I am at the point where I need a haircut and would like a yes or no vote as to whether or not I should just let it grow long. So what do you think? I will go with whichever side has the most votes. Please respond to this blog to cast your vote.
I am at the point where I need a haircut and would like a yes or no vote as to whether or not I should just let it grow long. So what do you think? I will go with whichever side has the most votes. Please respond to this blog to cast your vote.
Monday, September 17, 2007
Happy Constitution Day - Whatever that means...
I love my country just as much as any person and consider myself a true scholar in American history (not to mention that I am working on a PhD in US Public Policy), but forced patriotism has always seemed very undemocratic to me. So I was not surprised to read the following in today’s paper:
The new holiday, enacted in 2004, seems to completely miss the point of the Constitution. Simply celebrating the document does absolutely nothing to further the understanding of it. And if anything, it discourages conversation and research into it because students believe that they are getting enough of it by celebrating and discussing it for one day. It’s a single day where the lesson plan changes, some interesting facts are trotted out, and we all give thanks for our Fore Fathers. Blah. Just one more thing the students can ignore now and while later claiming that they were schooled in it.
Just compare Constitution Day with Easter. I bet you that just about anyone can give you a decent one sentence description of either, but can they actually give you any details about the holiday? I would hazard to guess that if you quizzed them they would have more questions then answers. I can almost see it now: Where did the “Easter Bunny” come from? What rights does the First Amendment really give us? Ahhhhhh?
Why doesn’t celebrating these holidays inspire us to ask more questions? It’s because we’re too busy celebrating the holiday through their commercialism and associated marketing. Nothing cheapens the memory of something quite like an inspired marketing department.
If you feel you must, go ahead and celebrate your Constitution Day as your school, civic group, or local representatives say that you should. But know this, every time that you tune in to see how wonderful our country is I’ll be sitting here rolling my eyes because I know that it is one less person who will ever understand what it truly means. Don’t believe me, quick tell me what the 9th amendment is and why it is important… .now tell me why the Easter bunny gives out chocolate.
A study being released Monday (9/11/07) by a foundation that focuses on journalism and the First Amendment found that 51 percent of high school students questioned had not heard of the day when they are required by law to learn about the Constitution. The occasion is usually observed on or around Sept. 17, the day the document was adopted in 1787.
The new holiday, enacted in 2004, seems to completely miss the point of the Constitution. Simply celebrating the document does absolutely nothing to further the understanding of it. And if anything, it discourages conversation and research into it because students believe that they are getting enough of it by celebrating and discussing it for one day. It’s a single day where the lesson plan changes, some interesting facts are trotted out, and we all give thanks for our Fore Fathers. Blah. Just one more thing the students can ignore now and while later claiming that they were schooled in it.
Just compare Constitution Day with Easter. I bet you that just about anyone can give you a decent one sentence description of either, but can they actually give you any details about the holiday? I would hazard to guess that if you quizzed them they would have more questions then answers. I can almost see it now: Where did the “Easter Bunny” come from? What rights does the First Amendment really give us? Ahhhhhh?
Why doesn’t celebrating these holidays inspire us to ask more questions? It’s because we’re too busy celebrating the holiday through their commercialism and associated marketing. Nothing cheapens the memory of something quite like an inspired marketing department.
If you feel you must, go ahead and celebrate your Constitution Day as your school, civic group, or local representatives say that you should. But know this, every time that you tune in to see how wonderful our country is I’ll be sitting here rolling my eyes because I know that it is one less person who will ever understand what it truly means. Don’t believe me, quick tell me what the 9th amendment is and why it is important… .now tell me why the Easter bunny gives out chocolate.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Reality is Frequently Inaccurate
I am by no means an expert at transcendentalism, existentialism, logical positivism, rationalism, or most any other philosophical ism -- although I do have a bit of experience in hedonism.
That being said, a little background may be in order. The conscious experiences that you have are known as a phenomenological reality. And those of you who have studied your Descartes know that you exist because you know you exist. So the question now, as it has always been, is whether or not you can trust your phenomenological reality as the truth or is your belief in your that reality simply makes it true to you.
It is said that reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. It is that persistent illusion perpetrated by your mind to get you through the day.
We all need to believe a basic core set of ideas in order to live: Gravity works, bacon is delicious, and if you wander out into a busy intersection at rush hour you will be hit by a bus. The big ones are easy to understand. They are basic and the need to believe them is primitive and simple. You follow them to survive. Where my questioning of reality comes in is in the small things -- mostly because they are easier to argue with at this point.
Which leads me to my want of a special day of discovery. I have been wondering if it was possible to set my mind aside for a day and convince myself that after the scope of basic phenomenological reality I could turn off that programming and see the world differently. Seeing things anew is the hallmark of creativeness, ingenuity, and imagination. So we must all be able to do this at some level. If I could just find a way to reroute for awhile (yes, without drugs), I should be able to understand things differently.
The problem is, I have no idea where to start….
That being said, a little background may be in order. The conscious experiences that you have are known as a phenomenological reality. And those of you who have studied your Descartes know that you exist because you know you exist. So the question now, as it has always been, is whether or not you can trust your phenomenological reality as the truth or is your belief in your that reality simply makes it true to you.
It is said that reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. It is that persistent illusion perpetrated by your mind to get you through the day.
We all need to believe a basic core set of ideas in order to live: Gravity works, bacon is delicious, and if you wander out into a busy intersection at rush hour you will be hit by a bus. The big ones are easy to understand. They are basic and the need to believe them is primitive and simple. You follow them to survive. Where my questioning of reality comes in is in the small things -- mostly because they are easier to argue with at this point.
Which leads me to my want of a special day of discovery. I have been wondering if it was possible to set my mind aside for a day and convince myself that after the scope of basic phenomenological reality I could turn off that programming and see the world differently. Seeing things anew is the hallmark of creativeness, ingenuity, and imagination. So we must all be able to do this at some level. If I could just find a way to reroute for awhile (yes, without drugs), I should be able to understand things differently.
The problem is, I have no idea where to start….
Friday, September 14, 2007
Toga, Toga, Toga!
The Greeks and the Romans ruled the Western part of the Earth for over 5,000 years and knew a great deal about how to run a country efficiently with ever increasing technology and constants advancements. They went through a similar period of time where they too became economically comfortable and that translated into every aspect of life. Luxuries were on the rise in the middle class, with each generation rising to become comparatively better than the last. Eventually, they all ended up in reasonable comfort wearing togas and sandals.
This, I predict, is where we are headed. Just in my short lifetime I have seen the average person become increasing comfortable with the world around them. Everything has become more efficient, more potent, and works to aid us in our contentment. To mirror this change it is now fashionable for world leaders to wear suits without ties, offices have gone to “business casual”, and it is socially acceptable to wear flip-flops to just about anywhere.
To continue this path into the future, we can predict societies that will follow this trend towards comfort and ease of clothing. Eventually proper work attire for our world leaders will become jeans and a t-shirt, sweat-suits will be acceptable to wear a wedding, and the rest of us will probably just wander about our daily lives in pajamas. The next step to this devolution of clothing is to realize what the Greeks and Romans new long along -- togas and sandals are all you need. Yes, it will become acceptable for the most powerful and respected people in the world to show themselves in public wearing nothing but a sheet and two pieces of plastic strapped to their feet.
I for one will be pleased when this happens. Too long have I worried about trying to match my shoes with my pants and trying to pick out what ties go with what suit jacket. Instead, I will look forward to just choosing a clean toga and whatever sandals I trip over on the way to the bathroom. And in order to encourage this advancement in comfort over civil decency, I hope to inspire each of you to follow my lead, buck the curve, and go strait to the inevitable by wearing nothing but togas and sandals from here on out. Thank you.
This, I predict, is where we are headed. Just in my short lifetime I have seen the average person become increasing comfortable with the world around them. Everything has become more efficient, more potent, and works to aid us in our contentment. To mirror this change it is now fashionable for world leaders to wear suits without ties, offices have gone to “business casual”, and it is socially acceptable to wear flip-flops to just about anywhere.
To continue this path into the future, we can predict societies that will follow this trend towards comfort and ease of clothing. Eventually proper work attire for our world leaders will become jeans and a t-shirt, sweat-suits will be acceptable to wear a wedding, and the rest of us will probably just wander about our daily lives in pajamas. The next step to this devolution of clothing is to realize what the Greeks and Romans new long along -- togas and sandals are all you need. Yes, it will become acceptable for the most powerful and respected people in the world to show themselves in public wearing nothing but a sheet and two pieces of plastic strapped to their feet.
I for one will be pleased when this happens. Too long have I worried about trying to match my shoes with my pants and trying to pick out what ties go with what suit jacket. Instead, I will look forward to just choosing a clean toga and whatever sandals I trip over on the way to the bathroom. And in order to encourage this advancement in comfort over civil decency, I hope to inspire each of you to follow my lead, buck the curve, and go strait to the inevitable by wearing nothing but togas and sandals from here on out. Thank you.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Entry for September 11, 2007
I think that we all love the individuals in the military. The sheer courage to prove that you will die in the name of our country is the highest level of patriotism and citizenry imaginable. That is why it pisses me off so much when our leaders make choices that obviously are not worth the weight of those lives. Sacrifice should come equally from the Citizenry and the State.
This is anger is compounded when our elected representatives refuse to admit their mistakes and adapt their policies. George Washington is by far the most experienced at learning from his mistakes as he lost almost every battle he was ever in, floundered in his personal life, and killed thousands in vain attempts at the impossible. This was a man who failed and always picked himself back up, learned what he could, and tried to move forward in a different way. That process is why he was ultimately successful and our most beloved president.
Now to wish that our current President George would be like our first President George would be fruitless. Instead, what I would like is a way to help our current president see that the direction in which he is heading is not one that will lead towards success at a cost that the American people are willing to spend. We will not win the war in Iraq, it was not worth the lives spent, it is not redemption for past atrocities as we know it is not in any way connected with its original intention, and it has become yet another situation in which our leadership has failed to learn from past mistakes.
I spent this 9-11 doing the little part that I could to understand who we are and how we fit into the world. I started my day by grading end of semester papers and this evening I reread several of my favorite history books. What I refused to do was tune into the nonstop TV coverage of that horrible day's events because I know that my current mourning comes not for the lives lost, but for the lives we still have yet to loose before a more responsible leadership steps forward to reclaim our country in the name of those who still offer to lay down their lives for the sake of ours. Honor isn't about making the right choices; it's about dealing with the consequences of the bad ones.
This is anger is compounded when our elected representatives refuse to admit their mistakes and adapt their policies. George Washington is by far the most experienced at learning from his mistakes as he lost almost every battle he was ever in, floundered in his personal life, and killed thousands in vain attempts at the impossible. This was a man who failed and always picked himself back up, learned what he could, and tried to move forward in a different way. That process is why he was ultimately successful and our most beloved president.
Now to wish that our current President George would be like our first President George would be fruitless. Instead, what I would like is a way to help our current president see that the direction in which he is heading is not one that will lead towards success at a cost that the American people are willing to spend. We will not win the war in Iraq, it was not worth the lives spent, it is not redemption for past atrocities as we know it is not in any way connected with its original intention, and it has become yet another situation in which our leadership has failed to learn from past mistakes.
I spent this 9-11 doing the little part that I could to understand who we are and how we fit into the world. I started my day by grading end of semester papers and this evening I reread several of my favorite history books. What I refused to do was tune into the nonstop TV coverage of that horrible day's events because I know that my current mourning comes not for the lives lost, but for the lives we still have yet to loose before a more responsible leadership steps forward to reclaim our country in the name of those who still offer to lay down their lives for the sake of ours. Honor isn't about making the right choices; it's about dealing with the consequences of the bad ones.
Tuesday, September 04, 2007
Sunday, September 02, 2007
Bill O’Reilly is Not Hitler
Lately I’ve been hearing more and more individuals drawing parallels from Bill O’Reilly to Hitler or the Nazi Party. This is both untrue and unfair. Hitler’s party killed 5 million Jews, caused one of the largest wars this world has ever seen, and left a scar on several generations. O’Reilly hosts a TV show where he voices his opinion about current news events. To think that someone who is on TV and speaks his mind is in any way equal to the level of Hitler is pure bullshit.
So why do people claim that O'Reilly is that bad? Basically it comes down to the fact that they don’t like what he is saying, but don’t have enough of an argument or intellect to convince anyone else that he is actually that bad. It is their way of telling the world that they just aren’t smart enough smart enough to make O’Reilly’s comments as evil as they seem them. So anytime you head anyone claiming that someone is “like Hitler”, “like the Nazi Party”, or even “like the Ku Klux Klan”, just know that they are a dimwitted person desperately trying to make you believe something that is not true. People who compare anyone to Hitler are so filled with hate that they want to destroy our very constitution so that they could ban free speech that they do not agree with. These are the true people who hate our country and our way of life.
So why do people claim that O'Reilly is that bad? Basically it comes down to the fact that they don’t like what he is saying, but don’t have enough of an argument or intellect to convince anyone else that he is actually that bad. It is their way of telling the world that they just aren’t smart enough smart enough to make O’Reilly’s comments as evil as they seem them. So anytime you head anyone claiming that someone is “like Hitler”, “like the Nazi Party”, or even “like the Ku Klux Klan”, just know that they are a dimwitted person desperately trying to make you believe something that is not true. People who compare anyone to Hitler are so filled with hate that they want to destroy our very constitution so that they could ban free speech that they do not agree with. These are the true people who hate our country and our way of life.
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Entry for August 30, 2007
Celebrity, political, sport scandals seem to be all of the headlines lately and I feel the need to explain a few things to all of you out there who don’t understand how these things can happen to these people. Now I know, if anyone should know should know how far they can fall you would think it would be people in high places; yet time and again they plummet. Whether it’s Michael Vick, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Swaggart, or the recent hilarity of the soon to be ex-Senator Daniel Craig, they all seem to not know any better.
So lets back up a bit and ask ourselves what leads a person under intense public scrutiny to imagine that they can get away with unacceptable behavior?
This is actually quite easy. As public figures rise in power, influence, and fame people who want to share in that spotlight may help them around the rules that govern all of our daily lives. Or to put it simply, these people who surround the rich, powerful, and famous tell them that they are special. They give them everything, whenever they ask for it. So eventually they break the rules because the rules just aren’t there for them anymore. Psychiatrists call the process leading up to this belief “acquired narcissism”.
It happens when someone gradually starts believing that they are not like everyone else. This can be more pronounced in politicians because they believe that since they serve the public, have given countless time, hours, years of their lives, they now deserve a break when it comes to their comfort and desires.
To make matters worse, our whole society reinforces this. We learn not to challenge our bosses, even when we think that they are doing something wrong because we fear being punished or cut out of the rewards. We are all guilty of reinforcing bad behavior, which, when compounded on the same person over time, will almost always lead to them believing that they are special. From children to the President, everyone can be convinced by the people around them that the rules don’t apply to them. And as long as those people around them keep their actions quiet, they are right.
So special people do play by special rules and don’t expect to be caught, until they actually are. At which time they find out that no one is that special and that we all must live in the same world and play by the same rules. Moral of the story: always consider yourself special enough to think that you are one in a million, because with 6.75 Trillion people on Earth it means there are almost 7,000 other people just as special as you. That’s just special enough to feel good about yourself, but not arrogant enough to believe your own hype.
So lets back up a bit and ask ourselves what leads a person under intense public scrutiny to imagine that they can get away with unacceptable behavior?
This is actually quite easy. As public figures rise in power, influence, and fame people who want to share in that spotlight may help them around the rules that govern all of our daily lives. Or to put it simply, these people who surround the rich, powerful, and famous tell them that they are special. They give them everything, whenever they ask for it. So eventually they break the rules because the rules just aren’t there for them anymore. Psychiatrists call the process leading up to this belief “acquired narcissism”.
It happens when someone gradually starts believing that they are not like everyone else. This can be more pronounced in politicians because they believe that since they serve the public, have given countless time, hours, years of their lives, they now deserve a break when it comes to their comfort and desires.
To make matters worse, our whole society reinforces this. We learn not to challenge our bosses, even when we think that they are doing something wrong because we fear being punished or cut out of the rewards. We are all guilty of reinforcing bad behavior, which, when compounded on the same person over time, will almost always lead to them believing that they are special. From children to the President, everyone can be convinced by the people around them that the rules don’t apply to them. And as long as those people around them keep their actions quiet, they are right.
So special people do play by special rules and don’t expect to be caught, until they actually are. At which time they find out that no one is that special and that we all must live in the same world and play by the same rules. Moral of the story: always consider yourself special enough to think that you are one in a million, because with 6.75 Trillion people on Earth it means there are almost 7,000 other people just as special as you. That’s just special enough to feel good about yourself, but not arrogant enough to believe your own hype.
Monday, August 27, 2007
Are Most Antigay Republicans Gay?
Republican Idaho Senator Larry Craig, who flamboyantly endorsed Idaho's successful anti-gay constitutional amendment which banned gay marriage, civil unions and domestic partnerships in his state, was recently arrested and pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct after he tries to solicit sex in a men’s bathroom at a Minnesota airport. Now humorous as this is, these stories are way too common. Whether it is evangelical preacher Ted Haggard’s militant stance on homosexuality before being found having had homosexual sex while using crystal meth with a male prostitute or Glenn Murphy Jr., who was the president of the Young Republican National Federation until it was found out that he lowered the pants of a young employee while he was sleeping and tried to give him oral sex, really begs the question, “Are most antigay Republicans gay?”.
It seems that every time one of these guys comes out with an antigay agenda, they’re eventually found out to be gay. Now I would like to point out that many politicians have succumbed to irony’s cruel humor. The best example I can think of is Strom Thurmond, who ran on a segregationist platform for president while fathering a child with a black woman. You would think that before anyone could get elected in this country they would have to pass through a Senatorial Irony Committee to check for obvious future hilarity. Anyone with an extreme stance on anything would be forced to submit to several tests to find out if they were involved or may soon become involved in the very thing that they propose to hate. Unfortunately, no such thing exists. Maybe if one did we would find out which activist antigay Republican was going to be found out next. Personally, my bet is on Senator, and 2008 presidential candidate, Sam Brownback. He has always run on a high-profile platform against gay marriage, porn and abortion -- which according to the custom of the current batch of Republicans, means that he is most likely gay, addicted to porn, and has had a couple past relationships that he would like to forget. Am I wrong? Maybe, but I have a feeling that you wouldn’t take me up on that bet.
It seems that every time one of these guys comes out with an antigay agenda, they’re eventually found out to be gay. Now I would like to point out that many politicians have succumbed to irony’s cruel humor. The best example I can think of is Strom Thurmond, who ran on a segregationist platform for president while fathering a child with a black woman. You would think that before anyone could get elected in this country they would have to pass through a Senatorial Irony Committee to check for obvious future hilarity. Anyone with an extreme stance on anything would be forced to submit to several tests to find out if they were involved or may soon become involved in the very thing that they propose to hate. Unfortunately, no such thing exists. Maybe if one did we would find out which activist antigay Republican was going to be found out next. Personally, my bet is on Senator, and 2008 presidential candidate, Sam Brownback. He has always run on a high-profile platform against gay marriage, porn and abortion -- which according to the custom of the current batch of Republicans, means that he is most likely gay, addicted to porn, and has had a couple past relationships that he would like to forget. Am I wrong? Maybe, but I have a feeling that you wouldn’t take me up on that bet.
Saturday, August 25, 2007
There is no War on Terror
First of all let me say that you cannot win a war unless it is against a proper noun. Terrorism, poverty, drugs are just regular nouns and are too ill-defined and unorganized to fight with. You can, of course, announce that you are going to fight against anything, but unless you have a concrete enemy (such as German in the early 1940s) you cannot win.
So that begs the question, why is our president constantly touting this War on Terror as a real war? To being with we must realize that any time that the country is at war, the President and Executive Branch as tremendous powers. So when we are in a state of constant war, the powers of the Executive Branch and its President will slowly and naturally expand to allow for more and more powers so that the President has more and more weapons at his disposal to win the war. Stay at war long enough and the Executive Branch will have amassed enough power control the other branches of government unchecked.
Or to quote from Orwell’s 1984 - "The very word 'war', therefore, has become misleading. It would probably be accurate to say that by becoming continuous, war has ceased to exist. ... therefore War is Peace."
This comes in contrast to how it is being sold in reference to 9-11. What the Executive Branch has done is attempt to draw a line from 9-11 to all terror, as if all terror is connected with 9-11. Unfortunately, the world is not that simple. One small group of radical Islamic extremists named al-Qaeda, and headed by Osama bin Laden, attacked us. We retaliated by invading Afghanistan because that is where they were hiding and the government in control of that country was not able to give them to us. Failing to capture bin Laden, and failing to really damage the internal structure or power of al-Qaeda, and with other factors best known only to the Executive Branch, we then invaded Iraq under bad pretenses and extremely faulty intelligence.
In order to invaded Iraq, the pretense that Iraq held weapons of mass destruction was used and Congress declared an Authorized Use of Force against Iraq. This Authorized Use of Force is the same declaration that we used in both the Korean War and the Vietnam War, yet the Administration of the Executive is working very hard to not to call this current conflict the Iraq War -- even though all previous conflicts declared under the Authorized Use of Force were called a War with the country that it was declared upon.
What will history call this War? More than likely, we will all one day call it the Iraq War and not the War on Terror. So I encourage all of you to step ahead of the curve and refer to this war in its future tense. Maybe once we admit that we are at war with a particular country, we can work towards an actual concrete goal in Iraq and bring our troops home. I think that all of us prefer solid objectives based in reality to the current indefinite goal of just continuous war against an enemy that cannot be beat.
So that begs the question, why is our president constantly touting this War on Terror as a real war? To being with we must realize that any time that the country is at war, the President and Executive Branch as tremendous powers. So when we are in a state of constant war, the powers of the Executive Branch and its President will slowly and naturally expand to allow for more and more powers so that the President has more and more weapons at his disposal to win the war. Stay at war long enough and the Executive Branch will have amassed enough power control the other branches of government unchecked.
Or to quote from Orwell’s 1984 - "The very word 'war', therefore, has become misleading. It would probably be accurate to say that by becoming continuous, war has ceased to exist. ... therefore War is Peace."
This comes in contrast to how it is being sold in reference to 9-11. What the Executive Branch has done is attempt to draw a line from 9-11 to all terror, as if all terror is connected with 9-11. Unfortunately, the world is not that simple. One small group of radical Islamic extremists named al-Qaeda, and headed by Osama bin Laden, attacked us. We retaliated by invading Afghanistan because that is where they were hiding and the government in control of that country was not able to give them to us. Failing to capture bin Laden, and failing to really damage the internal structure or power of al-Qaeda, and with other factors best known only to the Executive Branch, we then invaded Iraq under bad pretenses and extremely faulty intelligence.
In order to invaded Iraq, the pretense that Iraq held weapons of mass destruction was used and Congress declared an Authorized Use of Force against Iraq. This Authorized Use of Force is the same declaration that we used in both the Korean War and the Vietnam War, yet the Administration of the Executive is working very hard to not to call this current conflict the Iraq War -- even though all previous conflicts declared under the Authorized Use of Force were called a War with the country that it was declared upon.
What will history call this War? More than likely, we will all one day call it the Iraq War and not the War on Terror. So I encourage all of you to step ahead of the curve and refer to this war in its future tense. Maybe once we admit that we are at war with a particular country, we can work towards an actual concrete goal in Iraq and bring our troops home. I think that all of us prefer solid objectives based in reality to the current indefinite goal of just continuous war against an enemy that cannot be beat.
Friday, August 17, 2007
Who wants a snack?
I have a friend who is trying to lose weight for a quickly approaching wedding. She is the maid of honor and will be seeing people she has not seen since graduating college almost a decade ago. To do this she has cut down on the size of her meals, started exercising, and is now eating better. This is why when I saw her today staring woefully into her Cinnamon Dolce Frappuccino I asked her how her diet was going. Without looking up I heard a weak, “I don’t understand. I’ve done everything and I haven’t lost a pound”.
With this I said, “Well, you’re having a dessert as a snack”.
She looked up, smiled, and said, “No Brian, this is just a coffee”.
So I turned, walked slowly over to the café and returned with one of the Starbucks nutritional guides. Her Cinnamon Dolce Frappuccino was 490 calories, 50 less than a Big Mac. To which I again replied, “You are having a dessert as a snack”.
Again she looked down woefully into her Cinnamon Dolce Frappuccino, but this time I think that she understood.
Now I am the last person to ever give health advice. I eat copious quantities of most everything -- its part of my whole philosophy to devour life. So I have a few extra pounds, but I’m comfortable with who I am.
That being said, you people out there need to be honest with that you eat. My wife, Kela, loves these cheap granola bars that we buy at a local grocery store. These seemly healthy snacks have over 120 calories, or about the same as three strips of bacon. A 22oz coke, a favorite snack of most people, comes in with almost 300 calories -- the same as four macadamia nut cookies from Subway.
So listen people, if you want a snack, have an apple. If you want dessert, eat a dessert. But don’t try to fool yourself into thinking your dessert snack is at all healthy.
With this I said, “Well, you’re having a dessert as a snack”.
She looked up, smiled, and said, “No Brian, this is just a coffee”.
So I turned, walked slowly over to the café and returned with one of the Starbucks nutritional guides. Her Cinnamon Dolce Frappuccino was 490 calories, 50 less than a Big Mac. To which I again replied, “You are having a dessert as a snack”.
Again she looked down woefully into her Cinnamon Dolce Frappuccino, but this time I think that she understood.
Now I am the last person to ever give health advice. I eat copious quantities of most everything -- its part of my whole philosophy to devour life. So I have a few extra pounds, but I’m comfortable with who I am.
That being said, you people out there need to be honest with that you eat. My wife, Kela, loves these cheap granola bars that we buy at a local grocery store. These seemly healthy snacks have over 120 calories, or about the same as three strips of bacon. A 22oz coke, a favorite snack of most people, comes in with almost 300 calories -- the same as four macadamia nut cookies from Subway.
So listen people, if you want a snack, have an apple. If you want dessert, eat a dessert. But don’t try to fool yourself into thinking your dessert snack is at all healthy.
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
The Environment is Cool!!!
While watching one of the infotainment channels today I caught a story about how a designer, named Anya Hindmarch, has designed a canvas bag that reads: “I’m not a plastic bag”. Needless to say, this brilliant bag is being snapped up by all of the ecofriendly people out there in consumer world. All of the important activists are supporting this bag and it is currently selling on eBay for upwards of $50. Never have I seen a bag so incredible in all of my life.
Well that is, except for the ones that my wife and I have been using for our groceries for the last several years. But in all fairness, most of them don’t have such an important message on them. Come to think if it most of them don’t have anything written on them at all. Up until now we had no idea that in order to be ecoconscious we had to advertise it in a language so simple that it could be understood by a mentally handicapped Australian wombat. Frankly, I don’t know how we missed it. How could we have been so selfish to quietly do our part without telling the world how ecocool we were?
That is why I, Brian Hamilton, have decided to tell the world that I too am ecofriendly. To do so I plan on purchasing the largest vehicle on the market to pull as 20 foot advertising sign trailer that reads “I Love the Environment”. I will then drive this vehicle in heavy traffic for long hours during the hottest parts of the day for maximum exposure. Only then will people understand how passionate I am about saving the environment.
Am I upset that others might try to use my environmental love to market a product to people who are just trying to look trendy and will discard it the second something else shiny is worn by a celebrity? No, because I know that ecopeople are here to stay -- that is, as long as we can each get one of those bags.
Sunday, August 12, 2007
A Few Words about the Impending Impeachment Proceedings
Our Constitution does two very powerful things; it both lays down the fundamental laws of the country and establishes the three branches of government. The Legislative branch makes the law, the Executive branch executes the law, and the Judicial branch interprets the law. This natural balance created a check to each branch that was to keep any one branch from becoming too powerful. The most important thing that we as a country can do is to make sure that this system remains in check. Almost every single one of our laws, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, right to bear arms… were designed with the intent of empowering the people with the ability to keep the branches of power fairly equal with one another.
That is why the upcoming impeachment is so important. The reach of the Executive branch has never been more powerful, and it did not get that way by following the rules of the Constitution. To use a metaphor: When George Washington cut down the cherry tree he used the wood to make a small box and in that box the president puts his powers. Over the years we’ve taken things out and put things in, but on January 20, 2009 if George Bush and Dick Cheney are not appropriately held to account for what they’ve added to the box, this administration will hand over a box with more powers then any president has ever had -- more powers then the Founders could have imagined. That box may be handed to Hillary Clinton, Rudy Giuliani, Barack Obama, or any number of other potential presidents and whoever gets it is not going to give away the power that they’ve inherited. The only way that we take power out of that box is to punish George Bush and Dick Cheney now so that the next president cannot govern as they have.
The Founders of our country made six separate references to impeachment in the Constitution. They wanted us to know the power of impeachment, use the power of impeachment, and planned for impeachment to keep us strong. It is time to start impeachment hearings and regain the balance that once made our country strong.
That is why the upcoming impeachment is so important. The reach of the Executive branch has never been more powerful, and it did not get that way by following the rules of the Constitution. To use a metaphor: When George Washington cut down the cherry tree he used the wood to make a small box and in that box the president puts his powers. Over the years we’ve taken things out and put things in, but on January 20, 2009 if George Bush and Dick Cheney are not appropriately held to account for what they’ve added to the box, this administration will hand over a box with more powers then any president has ever had -- more powers then the Founders could have imagined. That box may be handed to Hillary Clinton, Rudy Giuliani, Barack Obama, or any number of other potential presidents and whoever gets it is not going to give away the power that they’ve inherited. The only way that we take power out of that box is to punish George Bush and Dick Cheney now so that the next president cannot govern as they have.
The Founders of our country made six separate references to impeachment in the Constitution. They wanted us to know the power of impeachment, use the power of impeachment, and planned for impeachment to keep us strong. It is time to start impeachment hearings and regain the balance that once made our country strong.
Saturday, August 11, 2007
Modern Female Empowerment is Bullshit
Standing in a bookstore I overhear two well dressed, mid-thirties, successful looking, short haired, long-skirt laden ladies standing in the fitness isle perusing a book called The Art of Pole Dancing: A Spin-by-Spin Guide and heard the following conversation (we’ll call one of them Tiffany and the Christi):
Christi: Yeah, so I’ve been doing it for Jeff for a couple of weeks now.
Tiffany: Oh my God, REALLY?
Christi: Absolutely, its sooooo empowering. I’ve never felt more in control of our relationship. It’s like, when I start dancing, I’m the one who is the boss and he has to sit there and pay full attention.
Tiffany Wow, so if I pole dance for Steve you think that I could take control of him? Do you think it would empower me too?
Christi: Oh yeah, I was watching TV, I think it was on Oprah or something, and they were talking about how we need to empower ourselves more in life. And I think that my dancing empowers me because I feel beautiful and strong when I do it and because Jeff does whatever I say!
Tiffany: I never really know what people mean when talk about empowerment.
Christi: I think it means when a women feels powerful and can do whatever she wants.
Tiffany: Thank God for women’s lib, my mother and grandmother were awesome. Ok, I’m buying the book. Mom, here comes Tiffany's empowerment!
That is when I realized that the feminism of the 60’s and 70’s has been co-opted by the newly redefined female empowerment of today. Empowerment is now being marketed as anything that makes a woman feel good or gets her noticed by others. New shampoos brag about how strong and shiny they make your hair, good makeup gives you confidence, and the vehicle that you drive gives you recognition as an important person with money. All of this pseudo-empowerment is done while constantly bombarding women with juxtaposing and equally persuasive advertisements about body image to reinforce the notion that the females primary role is as a passive sex object to be gazed upon by whoever chooses. Not only did the two women I overheard in the bookstore actually believe that empowerment means getting control over whoever you want by making yourself a pretty piece of meat, but they also thought that it was what their foremothers had intended when they fought for equality.
So please humor me for a minute and let me explain something to all of the women out there who are not still shaking your head in abject disbelief over those two individual’s comments:
True feminism is about absolute equality between the sexes. Empowerment is that ability to act upon that equality. Yes, that means that you can dance around a poll if you so choose, but it also means that you knowingly are taking a subservient position to please someone else at your own expense. You are nothing more then an amusement for someone else. Your power exists only because they give it you. If you forget that part, or choose to ignore it, you will no longer have the power to choose whether or not you want to be submissive because it will be automatically assigned to you.
So please, for the love of my mother’s and her mother’s generation, do not throw out everything they worked so hard for because your man shuts up for a moment and makes you feel pretty.
Christi: Yeah, so I’ve been doing it for Jeff for a couple of weeks now.
Tiffany: Oh my God, REALLY?
Christi: Absolutely, its sooooo empowering. I’ve never felt more in control of our relationship. It’s like, when I start dancing, I’m the one who is the boss and he has to sit there and pay full attention.
Tiffany Wow, so if I pole dance for Steve you think that I could take control of him? Do you think it would empower me too?
Christi: Oh yeah, I was watching TV, I think it was on Oprah or something, and they were talking about how we need to empower ourselves more in life. And I think that my dancing empowers me because I feel beautiful and strong when I do it and because Jeff does whatever I say!
Tiffany: I never really know what people mean when talk about empowerment.
Christi: I think it means when a women feels powerful and can do whatever she wants.
Tiffany: Thank God for women’s lib, my mother and grandmother were awesome. Ok, I’m buying the book. Mom, here comes Tiffany's empowerment!
That is when I realized that the feminism of the 60’s and 70’s has been co-opted by the newly redefined female empowerment of today. Empowerment is now being marketed as anything that makes a woman feel good or gets her noticed by others. New shampoos brag about how strong and shiny they make your hair, good makeup gives you confidence, and the vehicle that you drive gives you recognition as an important person with money. All of this pseudo-empowerment is done while constantly bombarding women with juxtaposing and equally persuasive advertisements about body image to reinforce the notion that the females primary role is as a passive sex object to be gazed upon by whoever chooses. Not only did the two women I overheard in the bookstore actually believe that empowerment means getting control over whoever you want by making yourself a pretty piece of meat, but they also thought that it was what their foremothers had intended when they fought for equality.
So please humor me for a minute and let me explain something to all of the women out there who are not still shaking your head in abject disbelief over those two individual’s comments:
True feminism is about absolute equality between the sexes. Empowerment is that ability to act upon that equality. Yes, that means that you can dance around a poll if you so choose, but it also means that you knowingly are taking a subservient position to please someone else at your own expense. You are nothing more then an amusement for someone else. Your power exists only because they give it you. If you forget that part, or choose to ignore it, you will no longer have the power to choose whether or not you want to be submissive because it will be automatically assigned to you.
So please, for the love of my mother’s and her mother’s generation, do not throw out everything they worked so hard for because your man shuts up for a moment and makes you feel pretty.
Sunday, August 05, 2007
Entry for August 05, 2007
I had a conversation this weekend with a female friend that really surprised me. We were talking body types and she was dumping on herself for the same reason that all women dump on themselves, because they don’t weigh 90lbs. Now I will never understand why women can’t see this, but no straight man wants a woman built like that. Fashion magazines, supermodels, and clothes designers are generally either gay men or unhappy women. So why on earth would any straight woman believe that that goal of 90lbs is what straight men want? Furthermore, if you think that you need to be 90lbs to feel good about yourself, who the hell are you really trying to please and why?
So here, for all of the women, let me explain what I, a straight male, look for when judging a woman on just physical beauty: Smile, healthy physique, face, and above all else, curves. I want to know you are a woman. A 90 pound rail thin girl looks like a 14 year old boy to me and is, thus, not attractive. So you have a couple of extra pounds? Good, the last thing that any man wants is someone perfect. Perfect people must beget other perfect people. And frankly, I don’t have time, energy, or drive to keep up with that.
So here, for all of the women, let me explain what I, a straight male, look for when judging a woman on just physical beauty: Smile, healthy physique, face, and above all else, curves. I want to know you are a woman. A 90 pound rail thin girl looks like a 14 year old boy to me and is, thus, not attractive. So you have a couple of extra pounds? Good, the last thing that any man wants is someone perfect. Perfect people must beget other perfect people. And frankly, I don’t have time, energy, or drive to keep up with that.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Well, it's ugly
Attached is the ultrasound from tonight. It is due February 8th, 2008 and is currently 8cm, upside-down, and already does not want to cooperate. Also, a certain family member asked me to add the button at the bottom and I had no choice but to comply.
Monday, July 23, 2007
The defining silence of people not watching
Winston Churchill once said that there is no finer investment for any community than putting milk into babies; I believe that this is also true with getting books into the hands of children.
So this last week brought upon a mass migration of people of all ages heading to their local bookstore to get their copy of the last installment of Harry Potter. This, I believe, is a good thing. Any time people turn off the TV, shut down their computers, and pick up a book, they are bound to get smarter -- even if that book is technically a children’s book.
Being that I’m a quick reader, I had it finished early and actually flipped on the TV (very rare for me) to see if I could catch the weather. And there on the nightly news, was a playful exchange of news people talking about how they couldn’t wait to get home and dive into reading. Yep, the people who make their living trying to get us to keep watching TV were telling us that they couldn’t wait to turn off that TV and read a book. It was wonderful and so subtle that I don’t think that anyone else really caught it. Intrigued, I flipped over to one of the 24 hour news channels and there they were showing video of children reading with a scrolling message along the bottom with the projected sales of the book, how long the book is, and some general information about the author and thought to myself: in culture of immediacy and technology, a good book still trumps all.
So this last week brought upon a mass migration of people of all ages heading to their local bookstore to get their copy of the last installment of Harry Potter. This, I believe, is a good thing. Any time people turn off the TV, shut down their computers, and pick up a book, they are bound to get smarter -- even if that book is technically a children’s book.
Being that I’m a quick reader, I had it finished early and actually flipped on the TV (very rare for me) to see if I could catch the weather. And there on the nightly news, was a playful exchange of news people talking about how they couldn’t wait to get home and dive into reading. Yep, the people who make their living trying to get us to keep watching TV were telling us that they couldn’t wait to turn off that TV and read a book. It was wonderful and so subtle that I don’t think that anyone else really caught it. Intrigued, I flipped over to one of the 24 hour news channels and there they were showing video of children reading with a scrolling message along the bottom with the projected sales of the book, how long the book is, and some general information about the author and thought to myself: in culture of immediacy and technology, a good book still trumps all.
Saturday, July 21, 2007
The Shitters
Do you know anyone who is never completely happy with anything? Now I’m not talking about scoring something an 8 out of 10 rating on something or a “Hey that was pretty good”, but people who immediately after finishing something they feel compelled to start degrading whatever it is that they just experienced. You could have just walked from having the best steak dinner, with a perfectly matched wine, excellent ambiance, and they would have to find something to immediately shit on. And I know that we can all slip into this occasionally, but some people just live in this world of constant complaining. I don’t know whether it is some sort of subconscious self-actualizing situation where they feel it necessary to insult everything that might make them feel better then they believe that they should feel. Maybe it’s some sort of holdover Puritan thing about feeling good about yourself or maybe it’s just because they are a miserable people who want to make everyone else as miserable as they are. Either way, these people piss me off and I do not know why I allow them around me - yet, I do.
Friday, July 20, 2007
So, we're gonna have a baby...
I was against it at first, but it sometimes just happens, even in the best of families. This is not necessarily cause for alarm. We think that the important thing is to keep our wits about us and to immediately borrow some money. If that doesn't work, I plan on threatening to give the child to relatives, which should loosen their purses. Baring a failure in that tactic, I will raise the child as I would raise any other living thing, I will leave it alone in the woods and hope for the best. If it finds its way back, I will try to nurture it, teach it, and love it. And if that too does not work out, I hereby leave my future child in your hands, with all perpetuity and legally binding clauses, the reader of this.
Thank you and good luck.
Thank you and good luck.
Monday, July 16, 2007
New Website!!!
Hello All,
Well I did it, the new brianhamilton.com website is up and running. Only one of the six picture pages is currently up, but I am uploading pictures as I write this. In the upcoming weeks an interactive family tree should also appear. Anyway, please give me some feedback and tell me what you think.
Brian
Well I did it, the new brianhamilton.com website is up and running. Only one of the six picture pages is currently up, but I am uploading pictures as I write this. In the upcoming weeks an interactive family tree should also appear. Anyway, please give me some feedback and tell me what you think.
Brian
Sunday, July 15, 2007
If you can find money to kill people, you can find money to help people.
We are currently approaching ½ trillion dollars in direct costs of the Iraq war. The pentagon current estimates are that by the time that we leave Iraq, we will have spent 2 trillion dollars. With that money we could have bought each of the 300 million people living in the US:
Three 60” HTDV’s, or
New Harley Sportser, or
One semester at Harvard, or
High speed internet for 100 years, or
We could have paid for every single US citizen’s health care for 10 years.
So if we can find the money to kill people, why can’t we find the money to help them?
Are we just too tired and beat-down to do anything about it?
It's your money, how do you want it spent?
Whatcha gonna do about it?
Anything?
Wimp
Three 60” HTDV’s, or
New Harley Sportser, or
One semester at Harvard, or
High speed internet for 100 years, or
We could have paid for every single US citizen’s health care for 10 years.
So if we can find the money to kill people, why can’t we find the money to help them?
Are we just too tired and beat-down to do anything about it?
It's your money, how do you want it spent?
Whatcha gonna do about it?
Anything?
Wimp
Friday, July 13, 2007
Diversity
As I watched Bill Moyers interview Anglican Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori a couple of days ago, I was amazed at the tremendous pressure put on that one woman over how her entire sect of religion is controlled, directed, and labeled. Since becoming the first female Anglican Bishop, she has had to contend with several in her domination refusing to take communion with her and threatening to brake away from the domination altogether. So when asked about religions exclusiveness, she responded, “desire to control, I think, is one of the basic human failings, if we can control access to the sacred, or control how the larger world understands those we like or do not like, [then] we have the ability to change things in creative or destructive directions.” What further intrigued me is that this was a person fighting just to be included in something the she was simultaneously attempting to promote.
This got me thinking about my history. Think back through history to those who have chosen to exclude others, what happened to them? Were they stronger because they kept the same beliefs, with the same people, for a long period of time? Or were they eventually undone by a collective group of people, pooling their assorted efforts, for a common cause against the exclusivity? I believe that in almost every case that I can think of, equality eventually won.
Exclusion, no matter how small, weakens your cause. That is the reason that our Statue of Liberty says:
Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!
Lady Liberty (or at least the female poet Emma Lazarus who wrote the lines) knew that it the true strength of any Republic rests on the backs of different people, from diverse backgrounds and cultures, who want nothing more than to help your cause. Moreover, it all comes down to simple math. Suppose you had to come up with the best soup ever made, would you select two of your close friends and attempt to make as many recipes as you could? Or would you reach out to the world at large and ask as many people as you could? What if you knew that there were other competing teams trying to come up with the same thing? Now imagine that this is your favorite sports team, your religion, or your government -- wouldn’t you want the best and brightest, no matter what?
So whenever you hear of a group, club, or organization, excluding anyone based color, race, religion, or sex, you should immediately see it for what it is: Either a group about to accept a new member, or one that is about to go extinct.
This got me thinking about my history. Think back through history to those who have chosen to exclude others, what happened to them? Were they stronger because they kept the same beliefs, with the same people, for a long period of time? Or were they eventually undone by a collective group of people, pooling their assorted efforts, for a common cause against the exclusivity? I believe that in almost every case that I can think of, equality eventually won.
Exclusion, no matter how small, weakens your cause. That is the reason that our Statue of Liberty says:
Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!
Lady Liberty (or at least the female poet Emma Lazarus who wrote the lines) knew that it the true strength of any Republic rests on the backs of different people, from diverse backgrounds and cultures, who want nothing more than to help your cause. Moreover, it all comes down to simple math. Suppose you had to come up with the best soup ever made, would you select two of your close friends and attempt to make as many recipes as you could? Or would you reach out to the world at large and ask as many people as you could? What if you knew that there were other competing teams trying to come up with the same thing? Now imagine that this is your favorite sports team, your religion, or your government -- wouldn’t you want the best and brightest, no matter what?
So whenever you hear of a group, club, or organization, excluding anyone based color, race, religion, or sex, you should immediately see it for what it is: Either a group about to accept a new member, or one that is about to go extinct.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Variety is the spice of life
Yesterday I was on the hunt for a spice named Adobo and had mild realizations that, even through the stores are getting larger, the selection is becoming smaller. But maybe a further explanation is in order:
Adobo is an extremely popular spice in the Latin American world for meats. It is very common in every grocery store near even the smallest Latin population. That being said, I live in Michigan, so I expected some problems. Meijers is a huge Super Wal-Mart-like store here in Michigan, so they were my first choice. Strike One. Next up was the Kroger, which is smaller, but located near a small and recently imported Mexican enclave. Strike two. So, with much regret, off to Wal-Mart I went. Surely Wal-Mart, with its selection of billions of items, acres of shopping, and constant market research would have a 2oz bottle of spice. But alas, I struck out.
What happened next surprised me. As I walked back through the spice and condiment isle I realized that I was low on ketchup. Stopping about 10 feet from where the spices ended, I was in immediately dumbfounded of the selection of ketchups available. There were, and this is not an exaggeration, 19 different types of ketchups. Upon choosing one I realized that since I had one item, I might as well pick up a couple of other things that I needed.
It was while picking up these couple other items that I slowly started realizing what was happening. Isle after isle, shelf after shelf, was a cornucopia of remarkably similar items, almost identical in price, size, and type, all next to each other on the shelf. There were over 40 different waters, hundreds of breads, and a selection of cereals that was spread over two 100 foot isles. Yet, everything seemed the same. The cereals were all made by a couple of large companies, the bread was all about the same, with the general variations on white vs. wheat, and the water was, well, water. Nothing that I found in this store had any real variety.
What I did find was massive quantities of similar items with different packing. Everything was a fake choice. It was the equivalent of going to a car lot that spanned acres and acres, to only find Hyundais. Sure, the Hyundai may be economical and cheap, but is it what you always want? Is only having the option of the same bland option an option at all? If your choice comes down to the blue one with the better radio or the red one with nicer wheels, how do you know that you wouldn’t have been happier with a Toyota, Ford, or a used Jaguar from the 80s? And what about motorcycles? Bikes? Electric cars? A scooter? Who knows? Not us, because all we have to see is the same thing in different packaging.
So now I sit lamenting at my computer, Adoboless, and all because I just wanted to add a little spice to my life.
Adobo is an extremely popular spice in the Latin American world for meats. It is very common in every grocery store near even the smallest Latin population. That being said, I live in Michigan, so I expected some problems. Meijers is a huge Super Wal-Mart-like store here in Michigan, so they were my first choice. Strike One. Next up was the Kroger, which is smaller, but located near a small and recently imported Mexican enclave. Strike two. So, with much regret, off to Wal-Mart I went. Surely Wal-Mart, with its selection of billions of items, acres of shopping, and constant market research would have a 2oz bottle of spice. But alas, I struck out.
What happened next surprised me. As I walked back through the spice and condiment isle I realized that I was low on ketchup. Stopping about 10 feet from where the spices ended, I was in immediately dumbfounded of the selection of ketchups available. There were, and this is not an exaggeration, 19 different types of ketchups. Upon choosing one I realized that since I had one item, I might as well pick up a couple of other things that I needed.
It was while picking up these couple other items that I slowly started realizing what was happening. Isle after isle, shelf after shelf, was a cornucopia of remarkably similar items, almost identical in price, size, and type, all next to each other on the shelf. There were over 40 different waters, hundreds of breads, and a selection of cereals that was spread over two 100 foot isles. Yet, everything seemed the same. The cereals were all made by a couple of large companies, the bread was all about the same, with the general variations on white vs. wheat, and the water was, well, water. Nothing that I found in this store had any real variety.
What I did find was massive quantities of similar items with different packing. Everything was a fake choice. It was the equivalent of going to a car lot that spanned acres and acres, to only find Hyundais. Sure, the Hyundai may be economical and cheap, but is it what you always want? Is only having the option of the same bland option an option at all? If your choice comes down to the blue one with the better radio or the red one with nicer wheels, how do you know that you wouldn’t have been happier with a Toyota, Ford, or a used Jaguar from the 80s? And what about motorcycles? Bikes? Electric cars? A scooter? Who knows? Not us, because all we have to see is the same thing in different packaging.
So now I sit lamenting at my computer, Adoboless, and all because I just wanted to add a little spice to my life.
Entry for July 10, 2007
The vast majority of scientists, and the majority of religious people, see little potential for pleasure or progress in the conflicts between religion and science that are regularly fanned into flame by a relatively small number on both sides of the debate. Many scientists are religious, and perceive no conflict between the values of their science -- values that insist on disinterested, objective inquiry into the nature of the Universe -- and those of their faith.
But there are lines that should not be crossed, and in a recent defense of his beliefs and disbeliefs in the matter of evolution, US Senator Sam Brownback (Republican, Kansas) crosses at least one. Senator Brownback was one of three Republican presidential candidates who, in a recent debate, described himself as not believing in evolution. He sought to explain his position with great nuance in a May, 31st article in The New York Times, in which he wrote: “Man was not an accident and reflects an image and likeness unique in the creation order. Those aspects of evolutionary theory compatible with this truth are a welcome addition to human knowledge. Aspects of these theories that undermine this truth, however, should be firmly rejected as atheistic theology posing as science.”
Humans, evolved, body and mind, from earlier primates. The ways in which humans think reflect this heritage as surely as the ways in which their limbs are articulated, their immune systems attack viruses and the cones in their eyes process colored light. This applies not just to the way in which our neurons fire, but also to various aspects of our moral thought. The way that disgust functions in our lives and shapes our moral decisions reflects not just cultural training, but also biological evolution. Current theorizing on this topic, although fascinating, may be wide of the mark. But its basis in the idea that human minds are the product of evolution is not atheistic theology. It is unassailable fact.
This does not utterly invalidate the idea that the human mind is, as Senator Brownback would have it, a reflection of the mind of God. But the suggestion that any entity capable of creating the Universe has a mind encumbered with the same emotional structures and perceptual framework as that of an upright ape adapted to living in small, intensely social peer-groups on the African savanna seems a priori unlikely.
In Brownback’s defense, it should be acknowledged that these are deep waters. It is fairly easy to accept the truth of evolution when it applies to the external world -- the adaptation of the orchid to wasps, for example, or the speed of the cheetah. It is much harder to accept it internally -- to accept that our feelings, intuitions, the ways in which we love and loathe, are the product of experience, evolution and culture alone. And such acceptance has challenges for the unbeliever, too. Moral philosophers often put great store by their rejection of the ‘naturalistic fallacy’, the belief that because something is a particular way, it ought to be that way. Now we learn that untutored beliefs about ‘what ought to be’ do, in fact, reflect an ‘is’: the state of human mind as an evolved entity. Accepting this represents a challenge that few as yet have really grappled with.
It remains uncertain how the new sciences of human behavior emerging at the intersections of anthropology, evolutionary biology and neuropsychology can be best navigated. But that does not justify their denunciation on the basis of religious faith alone. Scientific theories of human nature may be discomforting or unsatisfying, but they are not illegitimate. And serious attempts to frame them will reflect the origins of the human mind in biological and cultural evolution, without reference to a divine creation.
But there are lines that should not be crossed, and in a recent defense of his beliefs and disbeliefs in the matter of evolution, US Senator Sam Brownback (Republican, Kansas) crosses at least one. Senator Brownback was one of three Republican presidential candidates who, in a recent debate, described himself as not believing in evolution. He sought to explain his position with great nuance in a May, 31st article in The New York Times, in which he wrote: “Man was not an accident and reflects an image and likeness unique in the creation order. Those aspects of evolutionary theory compatible with this truth are a welcome addition to human knowledge. Aspects of these theories that undermine this truth, however, should be firmly rejected as atheistic theology posing as science.”
Humans, evolved, body and mind, from earlier primates. The ways in which humans think reflect this heritage as surely as the ways in which their limbs are articulated, their immune systems attack viruses and the cones in their eyes process colored light. This applies not just to the way in which our neurons fire, but also to various aspects of our moral thought. The way that disgust functions in our lives and shapes our moral decisions reflects not just cultural training, but also biological evolution. Current theorizing on this topic, although fascinating, may be wide of the mark. But its basis in the idea that human minds are the product of evolution is not atheistic theology. It is unassailable fact.
This does not utterly invalidate the idea that the human mind is, as Senator Brownback would have it, a reflection of the mind of God. But the suggestion that any entity capable of creating the Universe has a mind encumbered with the same emotional structures and perceptual framework as that of an upright ape adapted to living in small, intensely social peer-groups on the African savanna seems a priori unlikely.
In Brownback’s defense, it should be acknowledged that these are deep waters. It is fairly easy to accept the truth of evolution when it applies to the external world -- the adaptation of the orchid to wasps, for example, or the speed of the cheetah. It is much harder to accept it internally -- to accept that our feelings, intuitions, the ways in which we love and loathe, are the product of experience, evolution and culture alone. And such acceptance has challenges for the unbeliever, too. Moral philosophers often put great store by their rejection of the ‘naturalistic fallacy’, the belief that because something is a particular way, it ought to be that way. Now we learn that untutored beliefs about ‘what ought to be’ do, in fact, reflect an ‘is’: the state of human mind as an evolved entity. Accepting this represents a challenge that few as yet have really grappled with.
It remains uncertain how the new sciences of human behavior emerging at the intersections of anthropology, evolutionary biology and neuropsychology can be best navigated. But that does not justify their denunciation on the basis of religious faith alone. Scientific theories of human nature may be discomforting or unsatisfying, but they are not illegitimate. And serious attempts to frame them will reflect the origins of the human mind in biological and cultural evolution, without reference to a divine creation.
Thursday, July 05, 2007
Lewis 'Scooter' Libby's Pardon
I find it strange that the people defending this action are pointing a finger at the Clinton pardons as a justification for Bush’s action. The reason I find it odd is that it is the same people who would rank Clinton at the bottom of presidents throughout our history. So essentially, they are arguing that Bush isn’t the worst president ever. That is how bad it has gotten; the only argument that the supporters of Bush are now using is that he isn’t the worst president ever.
If you haven’t seen it, watch the Olbermann video below. It’s his July 4th commentary and it is good.
If you haven’t seen it, watch the Olbermann video below. It’s his July 4th commentary and it is good.
Sunday, July 01, 2007
The 4th of July
In our natural culture of hero worship we tend to either look to our leaders as though, by mere election, they’ve been elevated to the level of heroes strong enough to overcome any odds, or as if their cult of personality will doom us all. It is during times of great trails when our country evenly splits that we must look to our past for guidance. Not because the leaders we have today are lacking or superior in any way, but because leaders of the past give us perspective on the direction we are headed today. It is in your interpretation and understanding of that history that allows you to see the present and near future. Always remember who you are, where you came from, and what is really worth fighting for. And above all else, forever support a country that allows you do to so.
Happy Independence Day
Happy Independence Day
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Gay Marriage
I have a couple friends who are gay and it has always seemed odd to me that they are… …well… …normal. Yep, they are just people who happen to have a different sexual preference then me. And after a while, it really doesn’t seem any weirder then having a different taste in ice cream or liking cats over dogs. It’s just a variable that doesn’t seem to positively or negatively impact my life in any way.
So when someone seems overly upset about “the gays” I’m always a bit confused. Do they:
A) Think that gay people are personally out to destroy their individual marriages?
B) Just grossed out about thinking of two guys having sex (Few people seem to disapprove of two women together, as long as their hot)?
C) Actually angry about something bigger that I just wasn’t grasping?
I had originally added a D) They do not know any gay people. But then I realized that everyone knows someone who is gay.
With some research and thinking, I came up with the following:
Since our inception as a country we have been in a constant state of flux between what we now refer to as conservative and liberal directions. Both the conservative and liberal paths come from the differences in moral development and experiences that individuals travel through in their life. Cultural policy changes are generally based on shifting morals.
Jean Piaget (2006) tells us that “all morality consists in a system of rules, and the essence of all morality is to be sought for in the respect which the individual acquires for those rules”. On an individual level, rule acquiring starts a young age and develops from the parenting model out. There are two distinct parental models that most children are raised with that help them develop how they see the world and work in conjunction with any life experiences that they are exposed to. These two parental models are universal in their usage and produce individuals who, even though they can be culturally and geographically different, are split into two distinct groups that share the same basic beliefs to how the world moralistically operates.
The first of these two groups is the strict father model, wherein there is a set of assumptions that believe that the “world is a dangerous place, and always will be, because there is evil out there in the world. The world is also difficult because it is competitive. There will always be winners and losers. There is an absolute right and an absolute wrong. Children are born bad, in the sense that they just want to do what feels good, not what is right. Therefore, they have to be made good” (Lakoff 2004).
The model goes on to describe how a strong and strict father is needed as a guide to “protect the family in the dangerous world, support the family in the difficult world, and teach the children right from wrong”. This strict and physical discipline teaches the individual how to behave if they do not want to be punished by the world. It also teaches an Adam Smith Invisible Hand of morality, wherein, everyone will pursue their own self-interest to an end equally beneficial to all who are have the personal responsibility and follow that same self-interest. This model leads to the underlying belief that those who are good moral people are disciplined and self-reliant. Bad people are those who are immoral because they are dependent on others.
This strict father model of raising children leads to adults who believe it is immoral to give to those who have not helped themselves. They also believe that it is the right thing to do when the government rewards those who have pursued their own self-interest and punish those who have not. The political result of this is a conservative base that sees very little positive in almost all social programs and believes that they are the moral authority. This leads towards national and international policy based on the same strict father model and policy that sees it moral to punish and reward based on an individuals ability to remain self-reliant and disciplined enough to be successful on their own. It also has the tendency to see the world in that original “good” and “bad” mentality and treat all who are not the moral authorities as their children in need of guidance.
The antithesis to the strict father model is the nurturing model of parenting. This gender neutral model assumed that “both parents are equally responsible for raising the children. The assumption is that children are born good and can be made better. The world can be made a better place, and our job is to work on that. The parents’ job is to nurture their children and to raise their children to be nurturing of others” (Lakoff 2003). This parenting model relies on empathy and responsibility. It is the parents’ responsibility to be morally responsibly, protect, and provide nurturing values (freedom, opportunity, fairness, communication, and honesty) all while remaining strong so that they continue to be productive in their society. This nurturing parent model leads to different distinct variations of personal responsibility, but all have a supporting role in the wellbeing of all. Social program, international aid, and safety nets are the policy themes of this model. Both models have a fair share of individuals who, for different reasons, will eventually gravitate towards the other side.
So the historically conservative issue with gay marriage arises because of the simple fact that same sex-marriages go in the opposite direction as the strict father model of the family. A marriage between two lesbians does not have a father, and a marriage between two men consists of a partnership of men who are deemed feminine and less man-like. Since defending and expanding the strict father model is the absolute highest moral value for conservatives, same-sex marriage constitutes an attack on the conservative value system as a whole, and on those whose very identity depends on their having strict father values.
They are not fighting to keep gays from marrying because they think the individuals are personally attacking their marriage; they are fighting because it undercuts everything that they believe by showing them that other ways work just as well as their own. And that is more dangerous to them then anything else.
Lakoff, G. (2003). Don’t Think of an Elephant. White River Jct., VT: Chelesa Green Publishing.
Piaget, J. (2006). The Moral Judgment of the Child. NYL: Free Press.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Spirituality
What do you think of when someone tells you that they are “spiritual”? Do you think that they are Christian? Do you then see them as Earthy, Hippy, New Agey? Do you assume that they’ve spent long stretches of time trying to figure out who they are in relation to the universe around them?
So what is Spirituality? Is it different to everyone? Is it a term that has been stretched so thin that no one can really define it? Would you say that you are Spiritual? Why? Why not?
So what is Spirituality? Is it different to everyone? Is it a term that has been stretched so thin that no one can really define it? Would you say that you are Spiritual? Why? Why not?
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Entry for June 20, 2007
I am a non-believer in religion. I do not believe in a God, or Gods, and no words will ever change that. I do not believe that I am an Atheist because an Atheist’s belief seems to be absolute and I know that I am wrong too often to pretend I can be absolutely right on anything. Also, I have a problem with the term “Atheist” because it is defined as “someone who denies the existence of God” and that, to me, seems odd because there are no other words in the English language to describe someone who does not believe in something else. There is no word to describe those who do not believe in fairies or dragons, there is no term for those people who question the existence of Bigfoot, and no one has ever coined a saying for individuals who know that Santa isn’t real. So the only reason for a term to describe someone who does not believe in a God or Gods is so that some people can identify, or be identified, as those who don’t believe as certain others do. Atheism is an argument waiting to happen, it is a disagreement that wishes to be fought over, and it is a fight that will never have a clear winner. So I choose to be a non-believer, someone with strong convictions about my great doubts, that will probably never be overcome, and an individual who will not believe in absolutes.
Friday, June 15, 2007
Attention All Women
It has come to my attention that a high percentage of women under the age of 40 have been seriously misled as to what is “hot”. So here and now, I would like to let all women know that no strait male over the age of 14 finds Paris Hilton attractive. Please, stop wearing those ridiculously enormous sunglasses, knock it off with the ever-changing, bad, blonde hairstyle structures, and please leave vacant and vapid expressions to individuals in a coma. It is not hot, is not attractive to men, and makes us want to run away from you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Confused
The news just reported that Ruth Graham, who is 87 and the wife of well-known Evangelist Billy Graham, who is 88 and blessed with fluid on the brain, prostate cancer, Parkinson's disease and age-related macular degeneration, fell into a coma Wednesday morning and appears to be close to death. The family is readying the task of burial and dealing with the inevitable fallout from the loss of a member of the family. In the interim, they are praying for her recovery and encouraging others to keep her health in their prayers.
This I find absolutely confusing.
If they truly believed that they were all going to a special place to live out eternity in absolute bliss, wouldn’t they be happy about it? Is it not incredibly greedy on their behalf to want her to live in a state like that knowing that she’s on her way to the best place that they can image? It’s like they are all standing outside the gates of Disneyworld yelling at her to come back as she goes through the turnstile. Sure it’s natural to want our loved ones to stay here with us, but if you honestly believed in an afterlife like the Christian heaven, wouldn’t you want yourself and everyone you love to get there as quickly as possible?
This I find absolutely confusing.
If they truly believed that they were all going to a special place to live out eternity in absolute bliss, wouldn’t they be happy about it? Is it not incredibly greedy on their behalf to want her to live in a state like that knowing that she’s on her way to the best place that they can image? It’s like they are all standing outside the gates of Disneyworld yelling at her to come back as she goes through the turnstile. Sure it’s natural to want our loved ones to stay here with us, but if you honestly believed in an afterlife like the Christian heaven, wouldn’t you want yourself and everyone you love to get there as quickly as possible?
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
Reality Check
Reality Check
Between the new PhD in Public Policy and Administration and the current political climate, I’ve been a bit centered on our country, present day occurrences, daily bickerings and how they all relate to our own history. When I get mired in frustration or ecstatic in hope I ground myself by trying to remember just how small and inconsequential all of this really is. This is how I do it:
The above picture was taken by Voyager 1, while 4 billion miles away, of Earth. Along with this picture, I read the following by Carl Sagan from Pale Blue Dot:
"The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors, so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of this pixel on the scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner, how frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds. Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light."
Next time that you think that the universe is out to get you or that you are righteously special, look at the above picture, read the quote from Dr. Sagan, and think to yourself, “Am I really that important?” and I promise that you’ll feel a bit more… ..grounded.
Between the new PhD in Public Policy and Administration and the current political climate, I’ve been a bit centered on our country, present day occurrences, daily bickerings and how they all relate to our own history. When I get mired in frustration or ecstatic in hope I ground myself by trying to remember just how small and inconsequential all of this really is. This is how I do it:
The above picture was taken by Voyager 1, while 4 billion miles away, of Earth. Along with this picture, I read the following by Carl Sagan from Pale Blue Dot:
"The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors, so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of this pixel on the scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner, how frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds. Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light."
Next time that you think that the universe is out to get you or that you are righteously special, look at the above picture, read the quote from Dr. Sagan, and think to yourself, “Am I really that important?” and I promise that you’ll feel a bit more… ..grounded.
Sunday, May 27, 2007
Motorcycles are no longer cool
For Memorial Day Kela and I are traveling through a couple different places in the South, seeing some friends and family, and trying to relax in the warm and welcoming comfort of Southern hospitality. Our first sojourn along the way, Anderson, SC, was a stop to a motorcycle club on their way to somewhere else. My immediate impression of motorcycles is a flashback to 1969 with Peter Fonda and Dennis Hopper riding across the country on a self-realization trip. Or a band of 60’s Harleys rolling down the road, unencumbered with the trivialities of “normal” life.
Now my mother was at Atlamont when the Hells Angels took over the Stones Concert and killed one member of the audience and remembers it with distant horror. The Hells Angles were the quintessential motorcycle gang in our history. Vicious, merciless, and badass, they were cool in an awful way. Their motorcycles were the identifying marker of who and what they were.
Fast forward almost four decades and now Steven, an orthodontist who drives a Volvo 960 during the week, and Colin, a retired CPA with a wife actually named Muffin, ride down Main Street on their monthly trip to the Sam’s Club four towns over and back. Motorcycles use to be the pinnacle of coolness, up there with leather jackets, drugs, and anonymous sex. Now they are mostly for retired, balding guys who are trying to recapture an age which they missed because they were trying to pay off a house and put kids through school.
So it is bad that motorcycles are no longer the symbol of free expression and personal autonomy? Maybe. Is it a good thing that anyone can escape into a world where all rules are self-made and followed only on choice? Perhaps. Is it safe to assume that people are just experiencing a Disneyfied motorcycle fantasy with delusions of coolness? Yes. Do I want one? Possibly.
Now my mother was at Atlamont when the Hells Angels took over the Stones Concert and killed one member of the audience and remembers it with distant horror. The Hells Angles were the quintessential motorcycle gang in our history. Vicious, merciless, and badass, they were cool in an awful way. Their motorcycles were the identifying marker of who and what they were.
Fast forward almost four decades and now Steven, an orthodontist who drives a Volvo 960 during the week, and Colin, a retired CPA with a wife actually named Muffin, ride down Main Street on their monthly trip to the Sam’s Club four towns over and back. Motorcycles use to be the pinnacle of coolness, up there with leather jackets, drugs, and anonymous sex. Now they are mostly for retired, balding guys who are trying to recapture an age which they missed because they were trying to pay off a house and put kids through school.
So it is bad that motorcycles are no longer the symbol of free expression and personal autonomy? Maybe. Is it a good thing that anyone can escape into a world where all rules are self-made and followed only on choice? Perhaps. Is it safe to assume that people are just experiencing a Disneyfied motorcycle fantasy with delusions of coolness? Yes. Do I want one? Possibly.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Net taxes could arrive by this fall
The following story is from News.com (http://news.com.com/2100-1028_3-6186193.html)
The era of tax-free e-mail, Internet shopping and broadband connections could end this fall, if recent proposals in the U.S. Congress prove successful.
State and local governments this week resumed a push to lobby Congress for far-reaching changes on two different fronts: gaining the ability to impose sales taxes on Net shopping, and being able to levy new monthly taxes on DSL and other connections. One senator is even predicting taxes on e-mail.
At the moment, states and municipalities are frequently barred by federal law from collecting both access and sales taxes. But they're hoping that their new lobbying effort, coordinated by groups including the National Governors Association, will pay off by permitting them to collect billions of dollars in new revenue by next year.
If that doesn't happen, other taxes may zoom upward instead, warned Sen. Michael Enzi, a Wyoming Republican, at a Senate hearing on Wednesday. "Are we implicitly blessing a situation where states are forced to raise other taxes, such as income or property taxes, to offset the growing loss of sales tax revenue?" Enzi said. "I want to avoid that."
A flurry of proposals that pro-tax advocates advanced this week push in that direction. On Tuesday, Enzi introduced a bill that would usher in mandatory sales tax collection for Internet purchases. Second, during a House of Representatives hearing the same day, politicians weighed whether to let a temporary ban on Net access taxes lapse when it expires on November 1. A House backer of another pro-sales tax bill said this week to expect a final version by July.
"The independent and sovereign authority of states to develop their own revenue systems is a basic tenet of self government and our federal system," said David Quam, director of federal relations at the National Governors Association, during a Senate Commerce committee hearing on Wednesday.
Internet sales taxes
At the moment, for instance, Seattle-based Amazon.com is not required to collect sales taxes on shipments to millions of its customers in states like California, where Amazon has no offices. (Californians are supposed to voluntarily pay the tax owed when filing annual state tax returns, but few do.)
Ideas to alter this situation hardly represent a new debate: officials from the governors' association have been pressing Congress to enact such a law for at least six years. They invoke arguments--unsuccessful so far--like saying that reduced sales tax revenue threatens budgets for schools and police.
But with Democrats now in control of both chambers of Congress, the political dynamic appears to have shifted in favor of the pro-tax advocates and their allies on Capitol Hill. The NetChoice coalition, which counts as members eBay, Yahoo and the Electronic Retailing Association and opposes the sales tax plan, fears that the partisan shift will spell trouble.
One long-standing objection to mandatory sales tax collection, which the Supreme Court in a 1992 case left up to Congress to decide, is the complexity of more than 7,500 different tax agencies that each have their own (and frequently bizarre) rules. Some legal definitions (PDF) tax Milky Way Midnight candy bars as candy and treat the original Milky Way bar as food. Peanut butter Girl Scout cookies are candy, but Thin Mints or Caramel deLites are classified as food.
The pro-tax forces say that a concept called the Streamlined Sales Tax Agreement will straighten out some of the notorious convolutions of state tax laws. Enzi's bill, introduced this week, relies on the agreement when providing "federal authorization" to require out-of-state retailers "to collect and remit the sales and use taxes" due on the purchase. (Small businesses with less than $5 million in out-of-state sales are exempted.)
It's "important to level the playing field for all retailers," Enzi said during Wednesday's hearing.
While it's too early to know how much support Enzi's bill will receive, foes of higher taxation are marshaling their allies. Sen. Ted Stevens, an Alaska Republican, said Wednesday that he'd like "to see an impregnable ban on taxes on the Internet."
Jeff Dircksen, the director of congressional analysis at the National Taxpayers Union in Alexandria, Va., said in written testimony prepared for the hearing: "If such a system of extraterritorial collection is allowed, Congress will have opened the door to any number of potential tax cartels that will eventually harm rather than help taxpayers."
Internet access taxes
A second category of higher Net taxes is technically unrelated, but is increasingly likely to be linked when legislation is debated in Congress later this year. That category involves access taxes, meaning taxes that local and state governments levy to single out broadband or dial-up connections. (See CNET News.com's Tech Politics podcast this week with former House Majority Leader Dick Armey on this point.)
If the temporary federal moratorium is allowed to expire in November, states and municipalities will be allowed to levy a dizzying array of Net access taxes--meaning a monthly Internet connection bill could begin to resemble a telephone bill or airline ticket with innumerable and confusing fees tacked on at the end. In some states, telephone fees, taxes and surcharges run as high as 20 percent of the bill.
These fees that states levy on mobile phones, cable TV and landlines run far higher than state sales taxes at an average of 13.3 percent, cost the average household $264 a year, and total $41 billion annually, according to a report published by the Chicago-based Heartland Institute this month. Landlines are taxed at the highest rate, 17.23 percent, with Internet access being virtually tax free, with the exception of a few states that were grandfathered in a decade ago.
Dircksen, from the National Taxpayers Union, urged the Senate on Wednesday to "encourage economic growth and innovation in the telecommunications sector--in contrast to higher taxes, fees and additional regulation" by at least renewing the expiring moratorium, and preferably making it permanent. Broadband providers like Verizon Communications also want to make the ban permanent.
But state tax collectors are steadfastly opposed to any effort to renew the ban, let alone impose a permanent extension. Harley Duncan, the executive director of the Federation of Tax Administrators, said Wednesday that higher taxes will not discourage broadband adoption and his group "urges Congress not to extend the Act because it is disruptive of and poses long-term dangers for state and local fiscal systems."
Sen. Daniel Inouye, the influential Democratic chairman of the Senate Commerce committee, said: "Listening to the testimony, I would opt for a temporary extension, if at all."
If the moratorium expires, one ardent tax foe is predicting taxes on e-mail. A United Nations agency proposed in 1999 the idea of a 1-cent-per-100-message tax, but retreated after criticism. (A similar proposal, called bill "602P," is, however, actually an urban legend.)
"They might say, 'We have no interest in having taxes on e-mail,' but if we allow the prohibition on Internet taxes to expire, then you open the door on cities and towns and states to tax e-mail or other aspects of Internet access," said Sen. John Sununu, a New Hampshire Republican. "We need to be honest about what we're endorsing and what we're opposing."
The era of tax-free e-mail, Internet shopping and broadband connections could end this fall, if recent proposals in the U.S. Congress prove successful.
State and local governments this week resumed a push to lobby Congress for far-reaching changes on two different fronts: gaining the ability to impose sales taxes on Net shopping, and being able to levy new monthly taxes on DSL and other connections. One senator is even predicting taxes on e-mail.
At the moment, states and municipalities are frequently barred by federal law from collecting both access and sales taxes. But they're hoping that their new lobbying effort, coordinated by groups including the National Governors Association, will pay off by permitting them to collect billions of dollars in new revenue by next year.
If that doesn't happen, other taxes may zoom upward instead, warned Sen. Michael Enzi, a Wyoming Republican, at a Senate hearing on Wednesday. "Are we implicitly blessing a situation where states are forced to raise other taxes, such as income or property taxes, to offset the growing loss of sales tax revenue?" Enzi said. "I want to avoid that."
A flurry of proposals that pro-tax advocates advanced this week push in that direction. On Tuesday, Enzi introduced a bill that would usher in mandatory sales tax collection for Internet purchases. Second, during a House of Representatives hearing the same day, politicians weighed whether to let a temporary ban on Net access taxes lapse when it expires on November 1. A House backer of another pro-sales tax bill said this week to expect a final version by July.
"The independent and sovereign authority of states to develop their own revenue systems is a basic tenet of self government and our federal system," said David Quam, director of federal relations at the National Governors Association, during a Senate Commerce committee hearing on Wednesday.
Internet sales taxes
At the moment, for instance, Seattle-based Amazon.com is not required to collect sales taxes on shipments to millions of its customers in states like California, where Amazon has no offices. (Californians are supposed to voluntarily pay the tax owed when filing annual state tax returns, but few do.)
Ideas to alter this situation hardly represent a new debate: officials from the governors' association have been pressing Congress to enact such a law for at least six years. They invoke arguments--unsuccessful so far--like saying that reduced sales tax revenue threatens budgets for schools and police.
But with Democrats now in control of both chambers of Congress, the political dynamic appears to have shifted in favor of the pro-tax advocates and their allies on Capitol Hill. The NetChoice coalition, which counts as members eBay, Yahoo and the Electronic Retailing Association and opposes the sales tax plan, fears that the partisan shift will spell trouble.
One long-standing objection to mandatory sales tax collection, which the Supreme Court in a 1992 case left up to Congress to decide, is the complexity of more than 7,500 different tax agencies that each have their own (and frequently bizarre) rules. Some legal definitions (PDF) tax Milky Way Midnight candy bars as candy and treat the original Milky Way bar as food. Peanut butter Girl Scout cookies are candy, but Thin Mints or Caramel deLites are classified as food.
The pro-tax forces say that a concept called the Streamlined Sales Tax Agreement will straighten out some of the notorious convolutions of state tax laws. Enzi's bill, introduced this week, relies on the agreement when providing "federal authorization" to require out-of-state retailers "to collect and remit the sales and use taxes" due on the purchase. (Small businesses with less than $5 million in out-of-state sales are exempted.)
It's "important to level the playing field for all retailers," Enzi said during Wednesday's hearing.
While it's too early to know how much support Enzi's bill will receive, foes of higher taxation are marshaling their allies. Sen. Ted Stevens, an Alaska Republican, said Wednesday that he'd like "to see an impregnable ban on taxes on the Internet."
Jeff Dircksen, the director of congressional analysis at the National Taxpayers Union in Alexandria, Va., said in written testimony prepared for the hearing: "If such a system of extraterritorial collection is allowed, Congress will have opened the door to any number of potential tax cartels that will eventually harm rather than help taxpayers."
Internet access taxes
A second category of higher Net taxes is technically unrelated, but is increasingly likely to be linked when legislation is debated in Congress later this year. That category involves access taxes, meaning taxes that local and state governments levy to single out broadband or dial-up connections. (See CNET News.com's Tech Politics podcast this week with former House Majority Leader Dick Armey on this point.)
If the temporary federal moratorium is allowed to expire in November, states and municipalities will be allowed to levy a dizzying array of Net access taxes--meaning a monthly Internet connection bill could begin to resemble a telephone bill or airline ticket with innumerable and confusing fees tacked on at the end. In some states, telephone fees, taxes and surcharges run as high as 20 percent of the bill.
These fees that states levy on mobile phones, cable TV and landlines run far higher than state sales taxes at an average of 13.3 percent, cost the average household $264 a year, and total $41 billion annually, according to a report published by the Chicago-based Heartland Institute this month. Landlines are taxed at the highest rate, 17.23 percent, with Internet access being virtually tax free, with the exception of a few states that were grandfathered in a decade ago.
Dircksen, from the National Taxpayers Union, urged the Senate on Wednesday to "encourage economic growth and innovation in the telecommunications sector--in contrast to higher taxes, fees and additional regulation" by at least renewing the expiring moratorium, and preferably making it permanent. Broadband providers like Verizon Communications also want to make the ban permanent.
But state tax collectors are steadfastly opposed to any effort to renew the ban, let alone impose a permanent extension. Harley Duncan, the executive director of the Federation of Tax Administrators, said Wednesday that higher taxes will not discourage broadband adoption and his group "urges Congress not to extend the Act because it is disruptive of and poses long-term dangers for state and local fiscal systems."
Sen. Daniel Inouye, the influential Democratic chairman of the Senate Commerce committee, said: "Listening to the testimony, I would opt for a temporary extension, if at all."
If the moratorium expires, one ardent tax foe is predicting taxes on e-mail. A United Nations agency proposed in 1999 the idea of a 1-cent-per-100-message tax, but retreated after criticism. (A similar proposal, called bill "602P," is, however, actually an urban legend.)
"They might say, 'We have no interest in having taxes on e-mail,' but if we allow the prohibition on Internet taxes to expire, then you open the door on cities and towns and states to tax e-mail or other aspects of Internet access," said Sen. John Sununu, a New Hampshire Republican. "We need to be honest about what we're endorsing and what we're opposing."
Saturday, May 19, 2007
Entry for May 19, 2007
Have you ever been somewhere, listening in on a conversation (or possibly trapped where you are forced to listen) and wish you could jump in regardless of the consequences? Well, this happened to me this morning. And not being able to respond at that time, I now present just my side of the conversation with the adult voice from the Peanuts filling in the other side:
So you honestly think that a being capable of creating space, time, and matter, 125 billion galaxies, of which there are 400 billion stars and 4 trillion planets in our galaxy alone, with 1.8 million known living plant and animal species on this planet (several billion if you count the extinct ones), and you think that this being thinks YOU are important? Oh please, get over yourself. You aren’t cosmic shit. You are not special by any stretch of the imagination. And if there is a divine being, it would have the power to create something infinitely more interesting than you.
Whaa-whaa-whaa?
Died for your original sin?!?! What sins does a baby have? What kind of horrible being do you think would create a life already convicted of the worst crimes that can be imagined? How horribly cruel is that being that you’re calling a God?!??
Whaa-whaa-WHAA.
Look, I understand that you think that there is a super-cool guy out there in the sky who controls everything, but there is an old argument by some dead dude that goes something like this: If your God wants to stop evil, but can’t, then he is not all powerful. If he can prevent evil, but is not willing, then he is cruel. If he is able and willing, then evil wouldn’t exist. If he is not able or willing, then he isn’t actually a God. See how easy that was? No God, you’re on your own. Sorry.
Whaa-whaa-whaa!!!
Fine, fine, whatever, I look at it this way: The same freewill that allows you to believe in a supernatural being is the same freewill that allows me to behave myself. You choose to believe in a fantasy world because you think that its rules are sacred. I use my freewill to believe in rules for the sake of humanity and to keep myself safe. Either way, we are basically supporting the same rules. Except with my way, I can change my rules as science, morals, and technology evolves. You are now stuck because you’ve chose to submit your freewill to something that is uncompromising and your freewill no longer exists while it is in sublimation to that divine law. Therefore, I can choose to be a better person then you because I can take in more factors and current judgments about present day situations.
Whaa
Same to you.
There, I feel much better now. Thank you.
So you honestly think that a being capable of creating space, time, and matter, 125 billion galaxies, of which there are 400 billion stars and 4 trillion planets in our galaxy alone, with 1.8 million known living plant and animal species on this planet (several billion if you count the extinct ones), and you think that this being thinks YOU are important? Oh please, get over yourself. You aren’t cosmic shit. You are not special by any stretch of the imagination. And if there is a divine being, it would have the power to create something infinitely more interesting than you.
Whaa-whaa-whaa?
Died for your original sin?!?! What sins does a baby have? What kind of horrible being do you think would create a life already convicted of the worst crimes that can be imagined? How horribly cruel is that being that you’re calling a God?!??
Whaa-whaa-WHAA.
Look, I understand that you think that there is a super-cool guy out there in the sky who controls everything, but there is an old argument by some dead dude that goes something like this: If your God wants to stop evil, but can’t, then he is not all powerful. If he can prevent evil, but is not willing, then he is cruel. If he is able and willing, then evil wouldn’t exist. If he is not able or willing, then he isn’t actually a God. See how easy that was? No God, you’re on your own. Sorry.
Whaa-whaa-whaa!!!
Fine, fine, whatever, I look at it this way: The same freewill that allows you to believe in a supernatural being is the same freewill that allows me to behave myself. You choose to believe in a fantasy world because you think that its rules are sacred. I use my freewill to believe in rules for the sake of humanity and to keep myself safe. Either way, we are basically supporting the same rules. Except with my way, I can change my rules as science, morals, and technology evolves. You are now stuck because you’ve chose to submit your freewill to something that is uncompromising and your freewill no longer exists while it is in sublimation to that divine law. Therefore, I can choose to be a better person then you because I can take in more factors and current judgments about present day situations.
Whaa
Same to you.
There, I feel much better now. Thank you.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Open Question for Everyone
Is it safe to assume that with the ever increasing connectivity of information leading to a technological Lamarckian view of knowledge, or, where new generations of humans inherit the acquired discoveries of past generations (allowing for cosmic insight to accumulate without limit), that this process would channel towards an overall collectivist mindset in those knowledge’s benefactors?
If they answer is yes, will this collective attitude manifest itself into global Socialist governance and has it already started in countries where information is shared equally and with efficient fluidity?
If not, will the ease of access to any information create a subset of individuals whom choose to absorb said information and an equal subset who do not? Would this split not eventually lead towards speciation?
Caveat: I am making the assumption that those who take full advantage of the technological Lamarckian view of knowledge raise a higher percentage of children who will do the same and eventually mate in-kind.
Thoughts? Insults? Ideas?
If they answer is yes, will this collective attitude manifest itself into global Socialist governance and has it already started in countries where information is shared equally and with efficient fluidity?
If not, will the ease of access to any information create a subset of individuals whom choose to absorb said information and an equal subset who do not? Would this split not eventually lead towards speciation?
Caveat: I am making the assumption that those who take full advantage of the technological Lamarckian view of knowledge raise a higher percentage of children who will do the same and eventually mate in-kind.
Thoughts? Insults? Ideas?
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
On Disney and Southern Baptists
On June 18, 1997 the Southern Baptists approved, by an overwhelming majority of delegates, a boycott the Disney Company and its subsidiaries. At the time they claimed it was for the "anti-Christian and anti-family direction" that they believed that the saw in Disney (cnn.com). It citied Disney’s tolerance of homosexuals and subsidiaries production of controversial books and films like "Pulp Fiction". Of course, all of this hit Disney’s bottom line in ways immeasurable, mainly because it had no measurable impact whatsoever.
It wasn’t until this last week, upon seeing a couple of the Disney movies (Beauty and the Beast, Jungle Book, and Little Mermaid) when I finally figured out the real reason for the Southern Baptists frustration. What I realized was that it had nothing to do with the Disney Theme Park’s “Gay Days”, or anything to do with films like Pulp Fiction. Instead, it was because Disney is the standard for children’s entertainment and that that product is almost entirely secular. Essentially, the Baptists were pissed because Disney wouldn’t help them to sell their religion. The Southern Baptists decided to boycott Disney to force them into providing some Christian products to legitimize their beliefs in the eyes of their most impressionable of their congregation.
I don’t know why it took me so long to figure that out, and I’m almost ashamed to admit it here, but I figured that if I didn’t come clean on my own shortcomings, I would be no better then those Southern Baptists.
http://www.cnn.com/US/9706/18/baptists.disney/
It wasn’t until this last week, upon seeing a couple of the Disney movies (Beauty and the Beast, Jungle Book, and Little Mermaid) when I finally figured out the real reason for the Southern Baptists frustration. What I realized was that it had nothing to do with the Disney Theme Park’s “Gay Days”, or anything to do with films like Pulp Fiction. Instead, it was because Disney is the standard for children’s entertainment and that that product is almost entirely secular. Essentially, the Baptists were pissed because Disney wouldn’t help them to sell their religion. The Southern Baptists decided to boycott Disney to force them into providing some Christian products to legitimize their beliefs in the eyes of their most impressionable of their congregation.
I don’t know why it took me so long to figure that out, and I’m almost ashamed to admit it here, but I figured that if I didn’t come clean on my own shortcomings, I would be no better then those Southern Baptists.
http://www.cnn.com/US/9706/18/baptists.disney/
Monday, May 14, 2007
Entry for May 14, 2007
Have you ever reread a book and found something new? Some undiscovered line or thought that you’ve somehow missed in subsequent readings? This weekend it happened to me and I’m better for it.
When our friends Tom and Kate invited us to go camping this last weekend, and being the nerd that I am, I decided to raid my bookshelf for something appropriate to read in the woods. This led me to rereading Thoreau’s Walden, after a morning sunrise over the lake, and for the first time in years.
Buried in the book by a fire I found the line, “I believe that men are generally still a little afraid of the dark, though the witches are all hung, and Christianity and candles have all been introduced” and sat thinking as the embers seemed to crack and hiss their approval of my fresh discovery.
As much as I would like to argue the belief, I think that we need fear to feel alive; it is the curse of being mortal. So many things we have done are aimed at controlling the fear of death, but nothing every really seeks the root. It is the one disease that we will all get, suffer with, and eventually die from. Moreover, no one has, or will, ever come back to tell tales of eternal light. So we sit in the dark, warmed by the glow of our little advancements, safe in the knowledge that evildoers are being hunted, encouraged by passing tales of myth and guesses, all the while knowing we will someday find the darkness, and are complete.
Happiness comes in all forms, most of which are denials. So it is reassuring to see mortality for what it is, because that is the only true way in which to learn to enjoy the sun as it warms us for one more day.
When our friends Tom and Kate invited us to go camping this last weekend, and being the nerd that I am, I decided to raid my bookshelf for something appropriate to read in the woods. This led me to rereading Thoreau’s Walden, after a morning sunrise over the lake, and for the first time in years.
Buried in the book by a fire I found the line, “I believe that men are generally still a little afraid of the dark, though the witches are all hung, and Christianity and candles have all been introduced” and sat thinking as the embers seemed to crack and hiss their approval of my fresh discovery.
As much as I would like to argue the belief, I think that we need fear to feel alive; it is the curse of being mortal. So many things we have done are aimed at controlling the fear of death, but nothing every really seeks the root. It is the one disease that we will all get, suffer with, and eventually die from. Moreover, no one has, or will, ever come back to tell tales of eternal light. So we sit in the dark, warmed by the glow of our little advancements, safe in the knowledge that evildoers are being hunted, encouraged by passing tales of myth and guesses, all the while knowing we will someday find the darkness, and are complete.
Happiness comes in all forms, most of which are denials. So it is reassuring to see mortality for what it is, because that is the only true way in which to learn to enjoy the sun as it warms us for one more day.
Sunday, May 13, 2007
Science is Cool
From apples to zebras, all 1.8 million known plant and animal species will be listed in an Internet-based "Encyclopedia of Life" under a $100 million project, scientists said on Tuesday.
The 10-year scheme, launched with initial grants of $12.5 million from two U.S.-based foundations, could aid everyone from children with biology homework to governments planning how to protect endangered species.
"The Encyclopedia of Life plans to create an entry for every named species," James Edwards, executive director of the project which is backed by many leading research institutions, told Reuters. "At the moment that's 1.8 million."
The free Encyclopedia would focus mainly on animals, plants and fungi with microbes to follow, blending text, photographs, maps and videos in a common format for each. Expansion of the Internet in recent years made the multi-media project possible.
Demonstration pages at http://www.eol.org include entries about polar bears, rice, death cap mushrooms and a "yeti crab" with hairy claws recently found in the South Pacific.
"This is about giving access to information to everyone," Jesse Ausubel, chairman of the project who works at the Rockefeller University in New York City, told Reuters.
The Encyclopedia would draw on existing databases such as for mammals, fishes, birds, amphibians and plants. English would be used at the start with translations to other languages.
Edwards said the project would give an overview of life on earth via what he termed a "macroscope" -- the opposite of a microscope through which scientists usually peer.
Species would be added as they were identified. Edwards said there might be 8-10 million on earth, adding that estimates ranged from 5-100 million. Fossil species may also be added.
The encyclopedia, to be run by a team of about 25-35 people, could help chart threats to species from pollution, habitat destruction and global warming.
The project would be led by the U.S. Field Museum, Harvard University, Marine Biological Laboratory, Missouri Botanical Garden,
Smithsonian Institution, and Biodiversity Heritage Library -- a group that includes London's Natural History Museum, the New York Botanical Garden, and the Royal Botanic Garden in Kew, England.
Initial funding comes from a $10 million grant from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation and $2.5 million from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation.
Extra funds would be raised in coming years.
Ausubel noted that 2007 was the 300th anniversary of the birth of Sweden's Carl Linnaeus, influential in working out ways to classify species. "If he were alive today we think he'd be jumping up and down celebrating," he said.
The 10-year scheme, launched with initial grants of $12.5 million from two U.S.-based foundations, could aid everyone from children with biology homework to governments planning how to protect endangered species.
"The Encyclopedia of Life plans to create an entry for every named species," James Edwards, executive director of the project which is backed by many leading research institutions, told Reuters. "At the moment that's 1.8 million."
The free Encyclopedia would focus mainly on animals, plants and fungi with microbes to follow, blending text, photographs, maps and videos in a common format for each. Expansion of the Internet in recent years made the multi-media project possible.
Demonstration pages at http://www.eol.org include entries about polar bears, rice, death cap mushrooms and a "yeti crab" with hairy claws recently found in the South Pacific.
"This is about giving access to information to everyone," Jesse Ausubel, chairman of the project who works at the Rockefeller University in New York City, told Reuters.
The Encyclopedia would draw on existing databases such as for mammals, fishes, birds, amphibians and plants. English would be used at the start with translations to other languages.
Edwards said the project would give an overview of life on earth via what he termed a "macroscope" -- the opposite of a microscope through which scientists usually peer.
Species would be added as they were identified. Edwards said there might be 8-10 million on earth, adding that estimates ranged from 5-100 million. Fossil species may also be added.
The encyclopedia, to be run by a team of about 25-35 people, could help chart threats to species from pollution, habitat destruction and global warming.
The project would be led by the U.S. Field Museum, Harvard University, Marine Biological Laboratory, Missouri Botanical Garden,
Smithsonian Institution, and Biodiversity Heritage Library -- a group that includes London's Natural History Museum, the New York Botanical Garden, and the Royal Botanic Garden in Kew, England.
Initial funding comes from a $10 million grant from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation and $2.5 million from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation.
Extra funds would be raised in coming years.
Ausubel noted that 2007 was the 300th anniversary of the birth of Sweden's Carl Linnaeus, influential in working out ways to classify species. "If he were alive today we think he'd be jumping up and down celebrating," he said.
Friday, May 11, 2007
Entry for May 11, 2007
I’ve heard quite a few people say the line “I don’t worry about the government monitoring me because I have nothing to hide”. To them, I offer this video. Enjoy.
Thursday, May 03, 2007
On this National Day of Reason
On this National Day of Reason I offer forth the story of Mosey the Pirate form The Gospel according to the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
While brooding atop Mount Salsa having lost his pirate ship, Captain Mosey received advice from the Flying Spaghetti Monster in the form of ten stone tablets. The Flying Spaghetti Monster proclaimed these were to be forever called the "I'd Really Rather You Didn'ts", or the "Commandments" by Mosey, with his pirate gang referring to them as "Condiments". Why transporting the new sacred tablet back down the mountain, Mosey dropped two. This accident "partly accounts for Pastafarians' flimsy moral standards". The FSM's commandments address the treatment of people of other faiths, worship of the FSM, sexual conduct, and nutrition. They are as follows:
The Eight "I'd Really Rather You Didn'ts"
1. I'd really rather you didn't act like a sanctimonious holier-than-thou ass when describing my noodly goodness. If some people don't believe in me, that's okay. Really, I'm not that vain. Besides, this isn't about them so don't change the subject.
2. I'd really rather you didn't use my existence as a means to oppress, subjugate, punish, eviscerate, and/or, you know, be mean to others. I don't require sacrifices, and purity is for drinking water, not people.
3. I'd really rather you didn't judge people for the way they look, or how they dress, or the way they talk, or, well, just play nice, Okay? Oh, and get this in your thick heads: woman = person. man = person. Samey = Samey. One is not better than the other, unless we're talking about fashion and I'm sorry, but I gave that to women and some guys who know the difference between teal and fuchsia.
4. I'd really rather you didn't indulge in conduct that offends yourself, or your willing, consenting partner of legal age AND mental maturity. As for anyone who might object, I think the expression is go fuck yourself, unless they find that offensive in which case they can turn off the TV for once and go for a walk for a change.
5. I'd really rather you didn't challenge the bigoted, misogynistic, hateful ideas of others on an empty stomach. Eat, then go after the bitch.
6. I'd really rather you didn't build multi million-dollar churches/temples/mosques/shrines to my noodly goodness when the money could be better spent (take your pick):
A. Ending poverty
B. Curing diseases
C. Living in peace, loving with passion, and lowering the cost of cable
I might be a complex-carbohydrate omniscient being, but I enjoy the simple things in life. I ought to know. I AM the creator.
7. I'd really rather you didn't go around telling people I talk to you. You're not that interesting. Get over yourself. And I told you to love your fellow man, can't you take a hint?
8. I'd really rather you didn't do unto others as you would have them do unto you if you are into, um, stuff that uses a lot of leather/lubricant/Las Vegas. If the other person is into it, however (pursuant to #4), then have at it, take pictures, and for the love of Mike, wear a CONDOM! honestly, it's a piece of rubber. If I didn't want it to feel good when you did it I would have added spikes, or something.
So let us all now bask in His noodly goodness and spend this National Day of Reason contemplating those less fortunate than us, how we may help them, and what we can do to improve ourselves. Because lets face it, we all need some work.
Now if you'll join me (no need to stand, we're not that formal) in the The Flying Spaghetti Monster Prayer:
Our saucer, which art in a colander,
Draining be Your noodles.
Thy noodle come,
Thy meatballness be done on earth,
As it is meaty in heaven.
Give us this day our daily sauce,
And forgive us our lack of piracy,
As we pirate and smuggle against those who lack piracy with us.
And lead us not into vegetarianism,
But deliver us from non-red meat sauce.
For thine is the colander, the noodle, and the sauce,
Forever and ever.
Ramen
Go in Reason and Thought
While brooding atop Mount Salsa having lost his pirate ship, Captain Mosey received advice from the Flying Spaghetti Monster in the form of ten stone tablets. The Flying Spaghetti Monster proclaimed these were to be forever called the "I'd Really Rather You Didn'ts", or the "Commandments" by Mosey, with his pirate gang referring to them as "Condiments". Why transporting the new sacred tablet back down the mountain, Mosey dropped two. This accident "partly accounts for Pastafarians' flimsy moral standards". The FSM's commandments address the treatment of people of other faiths, worship of the FSM, sexual conduct, and nutrition. They are as follows:
The Eight "I'd Really Rather You Didn'ts"
1. I'd really rather you didn't act like a sanctimonious holier-than-thou ass when describing my noodly goodness. If some people don't believe in me, that's okay. Really, I'm not that vain. Besides, this isn't about them so don't change the subject.
2. I'd really rather you didn't use my existence as a means to oppress, subjugate, punish, eviscerate, and/or, you know, be mean to others. I don't require sacrifices, and purity is for drinking water, not people.
3. I'd really rather you didn't judge people for the way they look, or how they dress, or the way they talk, or, well, just play nice, Okay? Oh, and get this in your thick heads: woman = person. man = person. Samey = Samey. One is not better than the other, unless we're talking about fashion and I'm sorry, but I gave that to women and some guys who know the difference between teal and fuchsia.
4. I'd really rather you didn't indulge in conduct that offends yourself, or your willing, consenting partner of legal age AND mental maturity. As for anyone who might object, I think the expression is go fuck yourself, unless they find that offensive in which case they can turn off the TV for once and go for a walk for a change.
5. I'd really rather you didn't challenge the bigoted, misogynistic, hateful ideas of others on an empty stomach. Eat, then go after the bitch.
6. I'd really rather you didn't build multi million-dollar churches/temples/mosques/shrines to my noodly goodness when the money could be better spent (take your pick):
A. Ending poverty
B. Curing diseases
C. Living in peace, loving with passion, and lowering the cost of cable
I might be a complex-carbohydrate omniscient being, but I enjoy the simple things in life. I ought to know. I AM the creator.
7. I'd really rather you didn't go around telling people I talk to you. You're not that interesting. Get over yourself. And I told you to love your fellow man, can't you take a hint?
8. I'd really rather you didn't do unto others as you would have them do unto you if you are into, um, stuff that uses a lot of leather/lubricant/Las Vegas. If the other person is into it, however (pursuant to #4), then have at it, take pictures, and for the love of Mike, wear a CONDOM! honestly, it's a piece of rubber. If I didn't want it to feel good when you did it I would have added spikes, or something.
So let us all now bask in His noodly goodness and spend this National Day of Reason contemplating those less fortunate than us, how we may help them, and what we can do to improve ourselves. Because lets face it, we all need some work.
Now if you'll join me (no need to stand, we're not that formal) in the The Flying Spaghetti Monster Prayer:
Our saucer, which art in a colander,
Draining be Your noodles.
Thy noodle come,
Thy meatballness be done on earth,
As it is meaty in heaven.
Give us this day our daily sauce,
And forgive us our lack of piracy,
As we pirate and smuggle against those who lack piracy with us.
And lead us not into vegetarianism,
But deliver us from non-red meat sauce.
For thine is the colander, the noodle, and the sauce,
Forever and ever.
Ramen
Go in Reason and Thought
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
Entry for May 01, 2007
Is it just me, or is Christopher Hitchens is trying to become Oolon Colluphid?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
