Word-gate: the overuse of some terms

I saw this list of "banned words," via Reddit, and thought I could supply a few of the more common ones heard around my place of work. Of course all these words and phrases are IT- and corporate-speak. Use them at your peril, since they are known to suck the soul out of young, honest, hard-working persons. I am already a cube zombie, so there's no hope for my soul.

1. Space. Subject area or topic. "I can speak to the Internet space." The accepted use refers only to capacity of disk drives. Personally, this word drives me crazy.
   
2. Speak to. Talk about. See the above travesty. "Can you speak to the issues we've been having?" I am always tempted to answer: "Only if they can speak back."
3. Manage to. Manage, period. "I am managing to the issues." Huh? I think this is contamination from speaking to things too much.
4. Flush out. It's supposed to mean flesh out, or discover, as in: "We need to flush out the requirements." Then again, maybe they really do mean "flush out." Bird hunters, that's what we are.
5. FTE. Full-Time Equivalent, or "real" employee. I know this really isn't jargon or zombie-speak, but it's amazing how quickly our speech patterns are willing to evolve. Incidentally, we do not speak of contractors as FTEs. An FTE is strictly an on-salary person.
6. Associate. Related to FTE--employee. Actually, I feel this is a much nicer term than FTE, but I've always thought it odd.
7. Matrixed-in. Cross-organizational involvement in a project. Virtually every project is run this way, now. Oh, and nearly every project team is ...
8. Virtual. Not occupying the same general physical space. Most common usage: virtual team. Could be referring to "off-shore" resources, but more likely this refers to project team members located in different physical work locations. My company is large, and we have several offices in different parts of the country. Just like every other big company.
9. Resources. See FTE or associate, above, but this term is inclusive of non-employees. I don't find it particularly objectionable, but it does tend to dehumanize us. Then again, I suppose it's appropriate to refer to contractors as "resources," instead of people. Makes them easier to fire.
   
10. Off-shore. IT workers in India. The latest lame-brained idea by management to save money on IT projects. It may result in the delivery of projects with an acceptable cost, but they always take longer. Maybe they're more predictable, since the virtual team is all somewhere else and doesn't spend all their time in meetings. I don't know, though. I'm always in meetings.

I have a whole host of buzz-phrases related specifically to software development, but I'm not proposing we ban them, necessarily. It's just that by the time management adopts them they will have ceased to have any true meaning. For example: "We're adding three pairs and creating a new line." Sure you are.

Welcome back to the future. I'm proud to be "just a programmer." Don't get me started.

Irrefutable logic?

I caught this article discussing who created God. Interesting. Of the three premises in the article, they address only two:

1. Does the universe have a beginning? (Most agree it does.)
   
2. Denial of cause and effect (Something about quantum mechanics, and about something being created out of nothing.)

The third premise in their proof is not addressed at all. I quote it here: "God, unlike the universe, had no beginning, so doesn't need a cause." (Emphasis theirs.) A few times they use the words "God, by definition ..." as if simply saying something is so, makes it so. Don't we wish!

This is their conclusion:

A last desperate tactic by skeptics to avoid a theistic conclusion is to assert that creation in time is incoherent. Davies correctly points out that since time itself began with the beginning of the universe, it is meaningless to talk about what happened before the universe began. But he claims that causes must precede their effects. So if nothing happened before the universe began, then (according to Davies) it is meaningless to discuss the cause of the universes beginning.

But the philosopher (and New Testament scholar) William Lane Craig, in a useful critique of Davies, pointed out that Davies is deficient in philosophical knowledge. Philosophers have long discussed the notion of simultaneous causation. Immanuel Kant (17241804) gave the example of a weight resting on a cushion simultaneously causing a depression in it. Craig says:

The first moment of time is the moment of God's creative act and of creation's simultaneous coming to be.

Some skeptics claim that all this analysis is tentative, because that is the nature of science. So this cant [sic] be used to prove creation by God. Of course, skeptics can't have it both ways: saying that the Bible is wrong because science has proved it so, but if science appears consistent with the Bible, then well, science is tentative anyway.

Avoid a theistic conclusion? I don't even have to get into the debate. This is a false dichotomy, because there are more than two alternatives, and you only need a theistic conclusion if you accept their third premise, which they totally ignore. Furthermore, this "argument" is nothing but red-herring-style hand-waving, trying to push the point in contention away from evidence of God to evidence of ... something else (something about the problem with "simultaneous creation" or creation out of nothing, or something). The "analysis" they present isn't simply or merely tentative, it's totally beside the point.

The more crucial aspect of their argument is that whole "and here a miracle occurs" thing. For those who already believe God created the universe, this may be easy to accept. For the rest of us, it's a little too great a leap of logic. Or something. I'm not saying the universe didn't have a creator--I really have no idea how it began--I'm just saying, don't define God as not needing a cause (eternal, unbounded, and all that) and then use that unfounded and unproven assertion to "prove" that he/she created the universe. I could just as easily say it was invisible giant turtles, because by definition something has to hold the universe up. I mean, if they don't exist, then how does it keep from falling?

Refute that.

What is a conservative? What is a liberal?

Let's start with an anecdote. I once had a former cube neighbor loudly accuse me of being a "damn liberal," in much the same tones as we often hear from the likes of Limbaugh, Coulter, and others. I almost couldn't believe he was "going there," as they say. The only reply possible, and which I gave him, was that he didn't know anything about me. Which he didn't.

So the other day I read that the voice behind Little Green Footballs is "parting ways with the right." Now I read that Andrew Sullivan is doing something similar. Many others, some of whom Sullivan cites, have done the same.

So, what about me? When asked, I describe my politics as socially liberal, but fiscally conservative. I believe in public education--perhaps the single most important thing we could do with our money--and I believe that being the richest country (well, being in the top ten, or so) automatically makes us capable of providing for the health of our poorest and least capable. These folks are not all old, and we should take care of them simply because we can. I also see the value in some other "social programs" such as food stamps, because not everyone getting food stamps deserves to starve. Some will take advantage of the system, sure, but the good greatly outweighs the bad. So, I guess you could say I'm socially liberal.

But I am not a fan of the kinds of unlimited spending we've been experiencing. I think war and defense spending are outrageously over the top, because we are paying much too much to kill others, when we could/should be paying to help others. Soldiers die and big business gets rich. Meanwhile, over 15% of Americans are out of work. Something's wrong with this picture, here.

I manage my finances with care and restraint. I don't risk what I can't afford to lose. Everyone should, so I guess that makes me a fiscal conservative.

With respect to differences of opinion, I have no problem talking seriously with someone who doesn't agree with me. Let's talk; we can work it out. As long as we both are looking at the same problems realistically and rationally, and both agree that it will take all our combined efforts to fix things, then that's fine. I don't expect to get everything I want; no one else should expect that, either.

My take on today's "conservative right" is that many of them are simply nuts. They don't seem to have a firm grasp on reality, and to me that's just dangerous. Most so-called conservative pundits (like Limbaugh and Coulter) are simply pandering, and that's no better. It may even be worse, since they know the difference.

Follow-on to my post about racism

[T]he problem of race in America has never been solely or predominantly a minority issue. It is first and foremost, as Carter said, a problem of whiteness.

A little while back I posted my opinion of folks who are making very vocal complaints about being labeled racist. Today I come across this article which expands the point even further. It is a bit long but worth reading, especially if you care about eliminating the issue of race as a divisor in our society. The author makes a point I think bears repeating; it's summarized above.

A somewhat longer quote gets to the heart of the matter:

It's a one-sided deal for people of color; as "post-racial" in effect means post-black, post-brown, post-red and post-yellow, while leaving the normative racial framework of whiteness intact. Race is the challenge people of color must confront and, dare I say, "get over."

But a post-racial America does not demand the same of those who identify with, and claim the social construction of, whiteness and perceived privileges and cultural superiority therein.

This is why, it would seem, Obama's body standing behind the American presidential seal has a critical segment of America losing its hold on reality -- a reality, I would argue, few have ever been forced to acknowledge up to this point.

Whether it's the birthers, tea-baggers, deathers, indoctrinators, or "You lie!"-ers, they have neither veiled their racial animus nor cloaked their white nationalism. The prevalence of racist images of Obama brandished by protesters juxtaposed with calls of "taking our country back" are reminiscent of D.W. Griffith's fictional America as depicted in the film Birth of a Nation.

And the pride with which this segment of society has rallied the troops around its shared sense of whiteness reveals that their skin color is the one true object of pledged allegiance and determinant of professed patriotism. [Emphasis mine.]

Those who protest so very strongly that they resent being called racist not only are racist, but have reversed the historical role of an oppressed minority: they have become the oppressed minority of "white supremacy racists" in America. As well they should be.

Enjoy that label while you can, boys. [/sarcasm]

We speak of "playing the race card." Now it's become "playing the racist card." The first step in overcoming a problem is realizing you have one. Some of us are already past that point; some may never get there. But everyone dies, so I see a solution in sight. My family is largely Hispanic--of color--so I'm encouraged that my grandchildren will grow up not thinking they're "white" and that whiteness is somehow the preferred state. I mean really, just how pure are any of us?

I know I'm an "evil librul," but I see great beauty in diversity. There's an exotic newness; a great opportunity to learn and become better informed. But I do see a great division between people. It's between the educated and the critical thinkers, and the un-educated and slavish believers by choice. There is nothing at all noble or right about being ignorant, and certainly nothing to be proud of.

Don't believe everything you're told. Listen. Question everything. Think.

That is all.

Subjectivity (and objectivity) of thought

I came across this short post quoting Owen Flanagan from The Problem of the Soul. He mentions subjectivity of thought in regards to evaluating science against other "forms of discourse":

My view is that if you are going to claim that all forms of discourse are equally subjective, you better have real familiarity with all the forms of discourse you aim to level.

But science really isn't a subjective form of discourse. It's horrendously objective, which seems to be the biggest complaint against it, these days. Or maybe it's because it isn't. Hard to tell. Point is: one cannot have it both ways. If everything is subjective, then everything is equally dismissible out of hand. Opinions, then, would be the only things that matter. But if this is not the case, then anything said to be objective can be scrutinized. Subject to objective measurement and comparison, as it were.

If science is a subjective form of discourse, then disagreement about science and religion (for example) are simply differences of opinion, and we agree to disagree. No problem. But I see developments, particularly here in the US, that seek to bring religion into the classroom and teach it as if it were science. Objectively. Or maybe subjectively. Hard to tell. I'm pretty sure science is not subjective mumbo-jumbo, because it doesn't depend on whether I believe in it, or not. It's going to work (as long as you do it right) every time. (Let me posit that most aspects of religious practice do not "work" so predictably. But perhaps we're just not doing it right.)

Having religious beliefs is fine. They can help make you a better person, but of course religion is not the only path to being good, and it doesn't guarantee you'll actually be better (or even good). If they make you feel better, then they are a "good thing" on that basis. I have no disagreement with that. But religion is not the only way.

Speaking of belief systems, some argue that science is just as much faith and belief as religion. It's not, mostly because of the continual testing and verification. Evolution, for example, doesn't survive because the Darwin Priesthood says it must. It survives and grows because it makes predictions that are relentlessly tested, and the supporting evidence is so wide-spread--from many, many different disciplines--that it becomes virtually impossible to fit in another equally plausible hypothesis (that doesn't include the same features). It's no wonder scientists laugh when creationists try to get their ideas "equal time" in the scientific discourse.

By way of example: I sometimes laugh when I encounter people who don't understand how computers work. Many times they follow "rules" that make no sense, claiming that if they don't do them just so, then the computer won't work. Sometimes there's a grain of truth in what they're saying, but two unrelated things are still unrelated whether we think they are, or not. When I look at the code, I can tell what it does, and I'm certain it's doing only what I observe. It doesn't matter how much you think otherwise, it simply cannot be working for the reasons you think. This is the dichotomy I feel when folks try to take things and ascribe supernatural causes to them. While I may not be a scientist "looking at the code" of biology (for example) there are many who are, and do observe what's happening. If we can explain nature in unequivocal terms (such as the things a computer does) then no amount of imaginary fancy will change a thing. My computer will not suddenly start working if I yell at it. Or pray at it, either. Can you imagine the chaos if praying to the computer actually worked? (I want a $1,000,000 salary. Pay it to me!)

Many people argue that understanding the science behind certain "non-sciency" things sorta ruins them. I understand that falling in love is chemical, but it still feels good at the time. I understand what made the mountains and the weather, but I can still marvel at a magnificent vista. I'm just amazed by it all, no matter what the cause. Knowing why and wanting to know more ruins nothing. If you have to have mysterious supernatural explanations for things in order to feel good, then fine, go have them. Just don't try to tell me that your fantastic imaginings are on par with scientific findings.

Methinks whitey doth protest too much

Remember the other day I commented about racism in the South? I lived in and around Atlanta, and DeKalb County (they pronounce it "deh-CAB"--no "L") is one of the counties that comprise the metro area.

Now we have some white guy saying "I learned about slavery in history" when all he really needed to do was fucking look around. They got monuments to the "noble ideas of the South," most of which included the notion that one man could be owned by another. Let's not forget to mention that the owning men were white, like this particular journalist, and the owned men were Obama's color. Slater also says: "Racism is a very sensitive subject, and I don’t like being associated with it." Huh. Too bad. I say get over it. Rise above it if you can. But if the shoe fits ...

Just don't go on about how offended you are because a notable former president (and other perhaps equally notable personages) thinks you are the racist you are, and isn't afraid to say it. Apparently in this new world it's appropriate to show such utter disrespect to a sitting president. And if you can't somehow keep a civil tongue (yeah, Obama: he's the ultimate uppity n*****) it's not racism--it's ideology?

I said it before: Don't even try to bullshit me. I know the pejorative definition of MARTA (the Metropolitan Atlanta Transit Authority) it's "moving Africans rapidly through Atlanta." If you don't want to be thought a racist, then shut your fucking mouth.

A good time to start would be now.

Commentary on the 20 Worst Dan Brown Sentences

I read this article (it's not long, but if you have a writer's bent, very funny) discussing the stilted prose of World-Famous Best-Selling Auther Dan Brown. And yes, I meant to say "Auther."

I've only struggled through--er, read one Dan Brown novel, Digital Fortress. Whoof. He is certainly a Famous Auther, but boy is he a crappy writer. I'm sure he laughs all the way to the bank, and I still have to tip my hat that someone with such mundane talent has made it to Stardom. But with all that popularity, couldn't he afford to take writing lessons, maybe?

OK, this does sound like sour grapes, but surely he can afford a good editor and/or fact-checker. It couldn't hurt, and it just might help. I'm in the book, BTW.

My biggest problem with Digital Fortress, among many (read the Widipedia article for some errors) was that he didn't apparently know the difference between bits and bytes. Cripes! Even in the late 1990's we had libraries with books on computer technology. My other big issue was with the encryption algorithm he had the bad guys using. Determining the key used for a given cipher text is predicated on knowing the algorithm. Otherwise, you might as well brute-force the cipher text directly without knowing either the algorithm or the key. That's non-trivial to impossible. (Let me give you a random string of bits, and you tell me what I'm saying.) So therefore the algorithm has to be known, and the key (which had to be longer than what could be engraved on someone's ring--about 32 characters, IIRC) would have to be long, strong, and virtually unguessable. That is, the number of crack attempts (via a brute-force method) had to be really large and unattainable. A weak passphrase is nothing but a weak passphrase. A much better take-down of the flawed math and cryptography is posted here. The money quote FTA:

More importantly, it doesn't matter how powerful your computer is, you can't decrypt a message with a key if you don't know the algorithm.

My assessment of Dan Brown is that he's not a terribly talented writer, and not very bright, either. But he's Internationally Known, and we all know you don't have to be good to be Famous. It just helps.

But yeah, this is all sour grapes. I can write like him, I just choose not to.

Right concludes: everyone who doesn't agree with them is a Leftist

I looked at this headline, "Left Concludes: We're All Racists"

It's the lowest common denominator, folks. I am not a "leftist" though I suppose I have liberal views on social issues. I believe in public education and that we really need a better solution for healthcare. I don't think either of those positions makes me a leftist; centrist is fairly accurate, along with about 70% of all Americans.

I believe much of the right wing is racist, particularly the Southerners. I lived in Atlanta 18 years, though I am from (and currently live in) Ohio. Don't even try to bullshit me about racism--that is at the heart of this controversy, so calling it something else is disingenuous.

No one wants to be branded a racist, though we all are. The essential difference is that some of us are actually trying not to act like racists. Personally, I try to look at people as individuals, and see beyond their "labels." Because we all have some label that can be plastered on us to diminish us in others' eyes.

My take on the Amazon Kindle fiasco

There have been several articles on Amazon.com's rather questionable removal of two novels from Kindle distribution: George Orwell's 1984 and Animal Farm. This has been covered by everyone from the New York Times, CNet News, TechDirt, All Things Digital, Ars Technica, and BoingBoing. But my point here is not to cross-reference the news.

One alternative that does strike me as having been feasible, was for Amazon to have paid the licensing fees to the copyright owner (because it's all about money, after all), then sue the errant publisher for breach of contract to recoup some of their costs. But whatever they could have done, they should have left their customers alone. This, it seems, would ultimately have been the least costly solution. And of course I define "cost" as more than the money.

But while we're talking about the Kindle, I noticed a comment on TechDirt that said something to the effect that the Kindle costs more than a netbook and is arguably less flexible. One thing is certain, though, what you do with the Kindle isn't all up to you. Not even a little bit. Amazon has never seemed evil, to me, but they're no different than any other large company: their customers are always the last ones in the food chain to get benefit. Let me suggest they should work on changing that.

This thing is a major public relations nightmare for them, but despite the irony of the pulled title (does the term "Big Brother" mean anything to you?), it won't mean a damn thing in the current "war" over copyright. Some proponents still like to argue that the copyright owner gets to decide all use of a work, and that this was theft, while most of us do think that as consumers of creative works, we still do get to decide how we will use or not use the work.

Everything created today is derivative, based on something done by someone else, also derivative. Where do we draw the line? Who deserves to be paid? How much? For how long? It's all about the money, but the real danger is not in not being paid enough, it's in not being noticed enough.

Interesting rant about Mono

I have just recently made the "jump" to Ubuntu (a Linux distribution for PCs of all sizes). First of all, it's great, and for most users, it does nearly everything you might want. That's right, for all but a few that must use Microsoft applications like Office, or that must use programs like Quicken, it has everything you need to be productive. This is especially true if all you do is surf the web, email, and maybe write a term paper or two. For these it has Firefox, Thunderbird, and Open Office. All three are very good, and I use them all. (And all are included in the Ubuntu distro download.)

Mono is a development framework based on Microsoft .NET, and has sparked a rather rabid religious war on the Linux forums. Everyone has an opinion, it seems, and folks on both sides are calling for the death and expulsion of anyone who disagrees with them. Well, maybe not literal death, but certainly expulsion. Yes, like the war between religion and atheism, Mono advocates are the atheists to the Linux "purists." The spawn of Satan that must be eliminated at all costs.

So, when I read this post discussing why Mono really isn't evil, I thought of religious wars.

My opinion of Mono is that it's arguably based on the standards that Microsoft sought when they published .NET. Steve Ballmer's idiotic comments aside (because he really is a huge, smelly asshole), if MS didn't want Mono around, they could have/should have taken steps to prohibit its development. Such as not having made the .NET CLR architecture a standard. *sigh*

Nothing will get the Linux homos more riled than something with the taint of Microsoft. Not even calling them homos will do that (and I'm smiling when I say that, fellas). Java ain't as great as everyone says it is, and there needs to be an alternative. If Mono provides the ability to develop quality software for distros like Ubuntu, then as a user I'm all for it. Shoot, being technical means I might also do some Linux/KBE development myself. Could be fun.

The final firing of Carrie Prejean

Despite the fact I can't quite pronounce her last name, overall I really don't care what happens to her. But the news is: she's been fired as Miss California. Yeah, poor girl. She was asked a controversial question, and answered it to the best of her abilities. Whatever one thinks of the quality of her "abilities" to answer questions, one comment she's made recently has my attention:

"Three weeks ago I was asked a politically charged question with a hidden personal agenda," Prejean said. "I was given a question asking for my opinion and I stated my personal belief. Immediately after the pageant, judge no. 8 began a cultural firestorm in the media ... he was trying to be self-promoting and hateful.

"On April 19 on that stage, I exercised my freedom of speech," Prejean continued, fighting back tears. "And I was punished for doing so. This should not happen in America."

Was she "punished," or was she taken to task for her beliefs? She spoke them out loud, and so therefore invited criticism, whether she wanted it or not. If I stood up and said vapid blonds from California should be shot at dawn, I would expect to be criticized for that position, because not everyone will accept it. The same goes for those who have an opinion on gay marriage. If you're against it, some will be critical of you. If you're for it, others will criticize you for that opinion. If she can't handle the pressure of defending her views, I would suggest she's not very well prepared to be Miss California, or to spout her fundamentalist views in public, either. Something about heat and kitchens comes to mind.

Poor girl. Punished for her innocent viewpoint? Since she wasn't fired for that, I doubt that's the case. As to whether this should happen in America ... well, there are a lot of things going on in America these days--even in regards to free speech--that have my panties in a bunch. Carrie Prejean needs to get in line.

And the irony that her presence in the pageant wasn't also "self-promoting"? She may have not been acting "hateful" to Perez Hilton, but I know a few gay folks who would ascribe her attitude as hateful to them. My irony meter isn't broken, but it's pegged. (I had an extra-industrial-strength model installed when GWB got elected. Even then he broke it several times. But, that's another story for another time.)

Prejean's mother, Francine, came out in defense of her daughter, telling the blog MomLogic.com that the beauty queen is "being persecuted for speaking her opinion" about gay marriage. Prejean also told Christian radio host Dr. James Dobson that Satan tried to tempt her with a question about gay marriage at the Miss USA pageant.

My only question, re: Satan and his Temptations (a really old pop-music group), is did he succeed? It would seem so, since she's now out and free to go for the really juicy XXX photos. She'll make a frigging fortune.

Fun times.

They say California is the granola state

And this article proves it. Wow. Looking at this article and all the pretty graphs and charts makes me want to:
A) laugh,
B) cry,
C) puke,
D) all of the above.

If you selected D, then you got it right. Of course it's California that's supremely fucked itself. Arnold, can you say
hasta la vista"? You should, and get as far away as you can from this meltdown of nuclear proportions.

The only question at this point is: Why didn't I buy a BMW with my home equity? If we're all going down the tubes, at least I could have driven there in style. What's another zero to a bankruptcy? (Sheesh!)

Hang on folks, this party isn't over yet.

Characteristics of Fascism: How many can you find?

Depressing, isn't it? I look at this list of Fourteen Defining Characteristics of Fascism, and I find far too many quite common in the U.S., today. (I'm not going to point them out--that's an exercise for the reader.) That we are ostensibly the "shining beacon of freedom in the world" either says something very bad about our world, or that we are NOT a shining beacon any longer. For my money, we've just become a place where freedom has gone to die. So, the terrorists HAVE won, I guess.

You know, I'd almost rather have a creationist like Ron Paul--a staunch Libertarian--than a more mainstream conventional politician, like Obama. Of course, I'm not ready to write him off, just yet.

Hulu walking in dodo tracks

*sigh* This reminds me of my experiences when I was trying to use Pandora for my online music listening pleasure. What there was of it, anyway. Seems for their free service there's a limit on how many times you can skip a song. Funny, but after hearing the same song a half-dozen times, I sorta get tired of it and want to listen to something else. But, Pandora's great, omniscient music suppliers don't think I should have the right to limit--especially if I'm getting it free--the content I want to listen to.

Nevermind I was visiting various online music purchase sites to buy the shit they were putting up for me to listen to. No, it doesn't count that I'm actually doing what they want. It's more important to stick their dicks in my music selection. Well, I dropped Pandora instantly. Sorry, I will only play the game the way I want.

I haven't been terribly impressed with Hulu, mainly since they don't keep the content up long enough. If I want to go back and catch something, I cannot depend on finding it there. Besides, I have a 42" HDTV (no, this is not a brag), and I'd much rather watch a TV show on the big screen with surround sound. My PC's sound system might be good, but it ain't that good. So, tell me again why I can't watch what I want, when I want?

It's probably something about diluting the brand. Disney likes to release movies on DVD every ten years or so. Apparently they think their overall revenue will be best if they don't have their entire catalog available, all the time. Gee, I don't know if that's true, or not, but in this age of digital, non-scarce entertainment resources you'd think they would want to compete fulltime against the pirates, instead of never. When you limit access to your content, you don't drive up demand. Demand is what it is, and it's transitory. All you do when you keep your fans from getting to your stuff is drive them to go elsewhere.

Are you listening, Pandora? Are you watching, Hulu? Disney?

Parental prerogative

A woman objects to her adult college student daughter's choice to live in a "gender neutral" dorm room. Actually, she seems to object to Stanford's policies (the college in question) in not keeping her informed of the situation. She claims it's just "transparency," but I disagree. The dispute happened to make it into the National Review, thus "inviting" the whole damn world to weigh in on this disagreement. So I will.

Some of the comments are along the lines of "whomever pays 'the freight' gets to make the rules," and the daughter should respect her mother's wishes. Others suggest the mother should respect her daughter's choices. In fact, the mother has refused to pay the tuition for the spring term in protest of the whole event. So, the girl's parents have exercised their rights. In response, the girl has taken out a loan to cover the lost financial assistance.

I am not a parent, but I've been a son. Still am, I guess, but I was once (or twice) told that if I wanted to live under my parents' roof I had to live by their rules. OK, that sounded reasonable, so I moved out. I don't remember what I was doing (or not doing) that upset them so much, but I'm not sure it matters. I didn't like being given such an ultimatum, so I made a decision. Perhaps that's what they wanted me to do, but I was in college at the time, so it seemed a little unfair to place the additional burden on me. But then, they were the boss, and what the boss says goes.

Valuable lesson, I guess, but I don't think I learned what they wanted me to learn. Of course, I don't know what they wanted me to learn, so ... what it taught me is that everyone tends to act in their own best interests, even when they're telling you they're acting in yours. Only you can say what's good for you, but you will nonetheless experience endless bombardment from others telling you that they know what's best for you. Oh, and this doesn't stop once you're an adult, either. Of course, once you get past a certain age, you can just look at them and blink blankly, then smile and walk away. If you're young, you have to stand there and take it.

The school owes no explanation to the parents. This is true for one very simple reason: the student is an adult. I would agree that the school owes certain "transparency" in the case of a minor student, but once the student is 18 (or 21--whatever) that contract expires. It doesn't matter who is paying for what--the deal is between the provider and the beneficiary. The school, though it receives the funds, is not the direct beneficiary, the student is. Though the school may provide additional assistance when dealing with multiple sources of tuition (such as billing the parents directly, etc.) it owes no special treatment.

So, this issue is purely between the daughter and the parents--or parent, as the case may be. Of course the girl's mother is fully justified in withdrawing her financial support. Can't argue with that. It always was voluntary. You don't owe your children squat. Well, some might argue with that, because as parents you sort of have an obligation to provide for your children. That is, until they become adults and you can terminate the obligation.

So, should the parents' cultural differences be enforced on the child in this manner? They're treating her like a disobedient child. She may be irresponsible and childish (the child), but she is clearly an adult. They should treat her like an adult. So ... I would argue that if there are/were conditions on their periodic gifts of tuition assistance, then those should have been made transparently aware at the time they were initially offered. I don't know that they weren't, so I won't debate this. But like everything, the door of transparency swings both ways. But let's assume it wasn't made clear, because if it had been, the disagreement would have taken on a somewhat different tone. If the daughter broke the contract, then the breaking of the agreement becomes the issue. And it's a legitimate issue, as well.

But, the issue has become that the mother doesn't like the co-ed dorm arrangement, and is expressing her displeasure by withdrawing her support. Her daughter has a different cultural viewpoint. One might say she has a more "modern" perspective. Certainly she feels competent to handle herself in a dorm room where there might be guys. While this wouldn't have happened when I went to school, I don't see a problem. Things have changed.

So, it comes down to the conservative mother's objection to her more liberal daughter's "choice" of lifestyle. Methinks there are myriad ways they don't get along, and this is just the latest manifestation of that dispute. Frankly, I'm surprised the financial arrangement has lasted as long as it has. I mean, surely the girl's mother has known of her daughter's liberal leanings, right? Why choose to enforce them, now? What's the lesson she wants to impart, now, one term away from graduation?

It's an immature hissy fit, plain and simple. She's taking the money away for no other reason than because she can, and completely overlooking the bigger picture. You love someone? Then decide if you're in for the long haul, or not. If not, then the faster you get the hell out, the better. If you're in, then don't put limits on what that love entails. There are legitimate reasons for discontinuing financial support, but an objection to what is a very temporary and not-dangerous situation is not one of them. Of course I may have oversimplified, but that's my opinion.

It's all about control, and the distinctly bad feeling you get once you realize you've lost it. Once again, I'd have to wonder how they got to this point without this having happened. But I do remember I was about 21 or 22 when I "got the message." If this child is the oldest (and I believe she is) then this has been a learning experience for everyone. It's just a shame that the parents weren't able to prove that they were the bigger people by biting back their disappointment and addressing this disagreement in some other, less disruptive manner. That the National Review picked this up--well, this is just fodder for their whole "the liberals are destroying our country" diatribe. It sells magazines, and the "red staters" want to hear about it.

But blame the parents. They are the ones that raised their daughter to be an independent thinker with the ability and the inclination to make her own decisions. If they'd wanted a little conservative automaton, they should have made sure that's what they were teaching her to be. But they wanted their daughter to think for herself. So now, who's to blame when she does?

They should be proud.

Good thing I'm a bit more open-minded

These "words of wisdom" are from Pat Robertson. [VIDEO]

I guess the gauntlet has been tossed down rather unequivocally.

... when people listen to Jenny, children die. It's really that simple.

The title above is a quote from one of my favorite medical blogs, Whitecoat Underground. PalMD is very informative, so give him a look. He also writes for Science-based Medicine, also very good.

Whitecoattales suggests we contact Oprah about her monumentally bad idea of giving Jenny McCarthy a television venue for mindless/braindead rantings. So I put my two cents in. Let her know the mistake she is making.

I've asked this question before: If these anti-vaxxers don't trust medical science and scientists, then in order to be satisfied, whom do they think will do the research to come up with the "safe" vaccines they say they will support? How will they know when these "safe" vaccines are developed? How will they know they work? Where will the money come from to fund this all-important research? (Hey, Jim C.--how about coughing up a few hundred million for this? Sorta put your money where your mouth is, you ignorant fuck.) And lastly, how many children have to suffer in the meantime? She thinks this suffering is the "price we have to pay." Any of you have small children? Do you think this is a reasonable price?

Weigh in!

Pot, meet kettle

Today must be a really good day for ironies. Yes, here's a hedge fund manager complaining that Obama is abusing his power. While he may have a point about only doing his job, this economic climate is not politically the time and place to take a hard line. We're all taking it in the shorts, a little. It's time to bend over, methinks.

It'll only hurt a little. I promise.

Murder "works" too, but we still don't allow it

I'm not surprised to hear supreme wingnut Rush Limbaugh trying to justify the U.S.'s illegal torture of prisoners, by trying to "prove" that it works. That, of course, is completely beside the point. There have to be higher standards than the ones our "enemies" have. Otherwise, we're no different from them, and deserve no better. Maybe that's true, but I'd like to think it isn't. If we're just as evil as those who oppose us, then who's to say who should win?

Of course, if you're not doing anything wrong ...

The wingnuts are upset the government is monitoring them as if they were terrorists. Gosh.

Don't worry, wingnut extremists. If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about. After all, that's what y'all told us when you approved of warrantless wiretapping.

Yeah. Suck it.

It's that day again

I know, I know. I'm no fun.

Today is the day when the signal-to-noise ratio of Teh Internetz radically shifts to "noise." Ah, but it's clever noise masquerading as signal. I want my jokes to be funny, and not some cleverly-disguised form of irony or satire. Those would mean I have to think, and let's face it: Thinkings be hard. Besides, I broke my incredimeter and now everything looks all WTF-y.

*sigh*

As I said: I'm no fun.

Captain Obvious does a study

Here's the newsflash: When confronted with an expert's advice, people don't think for themselves.

Wait a minute! There's absolutely nothing valuable about that conclusion. The study in question suggests that people shouldn't simply follow the advice of 'experts,' but think for themselves. Honestly, I have enough other things to think about--I can't be an expert on everything.

I got into trouble with an atheist blogger because I likened one's 'belief' in the value of expert science (in situations where you are not an expert) to a type of faith. Since I don't know the science, I have to have faith that those who do, really do know what the flop they're talking about. Like the engineering behind that bridge I'm about to cross. I don't know the science that led to the final design, but I really have to trust that the engineer who designed it knew what he was doing. That was his job: to know the science behind the strength of concrete and steel, and how to calculate forces appropriately (I once took mechanics in college, but the TA had such a horrible accent I don't think I learned anything other than 'bim' means 'beam'). My job is to know how to design and build enterprise computer systems. It's non-trivial, though cars don't fall in the river if I'm wrong.

But I digress.

The blogger who argued with me insisted that since she could pursue the science and understand it, she didn't have to take it all on faith. I suppose it was an artifact of her deconversion that caused such an aversion to my use of the 'faith' term, because even though I understand science and the scientific method, I don't understand most of the stuff necessary to actually render a scientifically meaningful decision on anything. Instead, I tell myself the experts know. I choose to believe them. Yes, it's to my peril if they're wrong. But what are my alternatives?

The most interesting part of the blog post I cite is a comment that happens to be a quote from Kant. To paraphrase: Thinking is hard. People would rather not do it, and if they avoid doing it long enough the lose the ability to think, altogether. It's easier to let someone else tell us what to do. YMMV.

That the study discussed financial experts seems almost beside the point. It's not irrelevant, but whenever someone is giving you advice, particularly if the advice 1) sounds too good to be true, 2) portents dire consequences if you fail to act, or 3) doesn't seem to make sense on the surface, run like hell.

Captain Obvious would tell you that everyone is trying to sell you something, so the only questions you have to answer are: who wins, and who loses. And if you're smart, you have to answer those questions.

iTunes: Now with more money-grubbing goodness

Yeah, the news is talking about a planned price increase on iTunes, where some songs will soon cost $1.29, instead of $.99. I don't shop iTunes, so it doesn't directly affect me.

I still haven't figured out why some tracks on Amazon.com's MP3 downloads cost $.89 and some cost $.99. Their cost to distribute is exactly the same. Either you make money at $.89, or you don't. I'm guessing that they do make money. But I over-simplify, because I'm not including the greedy record company's interests in this equation. So, how is it that the record company gets to set prices, anyway?

Sure, there's a price point that maximizes profits, but I really doubt they've found it because of all the wailing and gnashing of teeth going on in the recording industry. They continue to complain that piracy and P2P are destroying their business, but yet whenever they have a chance to legitimately sell something at a price someone is willing to pay (despite being able to obtain the content for free), they insist on punishing their best customers by raising prices.

If it was really true that you could make more money on the popular tracks by raising your prices, then you really should raise your prices. Keep raising them until your sales maximize. Alternatively, if you raise prices and your revenue drops off, let me suggest you might want to lower them. Of course, here we are talking a non-scarce commodity--MP3 digital music. With this, the only reason to ever raise prices is greed. That's it.

I don't know why iTunes (run by Apple, in case you've been living under a rock) is raising prices on some songs, other than both they and the record companies are simply greedy and want to suck as much out of their customers as possible. That's OK, as long as you don't care if I don't play along.

The death of feminism?

Catchy title, but not exactly the point of this story. I've been sorta wondering how the last 30+ years of feminism has been transformed and applied to the girls of today. Badly, it seems. But, here's what I believe:

Feminism at its best offered women - and men for that matter - the idea that anyone should be able to achieve what she wants regardless of gender, and that loving and successful domestic relationships could consist of two equal partners.

But yet girls today, the same ones who think Rhianna got "what she deserved" from Chris Brown (look it up if you care) are only measuring their worth--their value--based on their ability to attract and keep a boy. It's not about being the best YOU can be, it's about being the best as seen by someone else. A stupid boy, or as the case may be, a stupid man.

This is what's wrong with Twilight, incidentally. The girl who is involved with the hot young vampire boy has no real identity outside of how she looks in his eyes. Whatever he wants her to be--she will be. If this is what we're passing off as valid entertainment for teenage girls (and teenage boys, as well) then we need to examine our motives. I almost said "reexamine" but I'm guessing that first inspection never took place.

In my stories, my heroines won't be perfect, but they won't define themselves in terms of others. And my heroes won't expect any heroine worth her salt to willingly subjugate herself just to be more of what he might want. Personally, I'd much rather have a partner who is the biggest person she can be. Challenge me, make me work for it. You see, I want to grow, as well. So I really do say "bring it on." I want your best stuff, because you deserve my best stuff.

Target rich environment

Gosh, where to start? Now we read that some of the people being held at Guantanamo are innocent. I remember ranting about this years ago, during the 2004 2006 election frenzy, when we were subjected to all those "terrorists have no rights" commercials.

Terrorists have no rights? How about innocent civilians? Oh, but I can hear the argument, now. "Wrong place; wrong time. You must be guilty of something." Put that with the old adage, "if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about." You can see how hollow that all sounds. It's been very clear to me for a long time that this problem, among many, is the reason we have so many laws to protect our rights under the law. We're already mired deeply in the morass of abuse of police power. When it's illegal to videotape the police, and when news reporters are no longer hanging around asking questions, who will oversee their actions? It has nothing to do with whether you're innocent, or not, but whether some cop doesn't like you.

It's very sad.

PSA: Financial article from 1999 not-so-strangely prophetic

Back in 1999 Congress passed landmark legislation that paved the way for the financial collapse of today. Back then they lauded this effort as paving the way to the 21st century. Little did they know (but they should have known) that the 21st century they were paving would be one of joblessness, eviction and foreclosure, cities shutting down whole neighborhoods, and fucking Wall Street banksters (portmanteau word from "bankers" and "gangsters," in the Al Capone sense of the word) laughing at us while we drown in insurmountable debt.

Here's the money quote FTA:

''I think we will look back in 10 years' time and say we should not have done this but we did because we forgot the lessons of the past, and that that which is true in the 1930's is true in 2010,'' said Senator Byron L. Dorgan, Democrat of North Dakota. ''I wasn't around during the 1930's or the debate over Glass-Steagall. But I was here in the early 1980's when it was decided to allow the expansion of savings and loans. We have now decided in the name of modernization to forget the lessons of the past, of safety and of soundness.'' [emphasis mine]

Nuff said. Or maybe not.

WotD: PENDEJO

Pronounced pen-day-ho. Apparently when you google it all you get are references to the Daily Show's Dora the Explorer segment. Hang around until almost the end of the video.

I want to clear up the confusion. Pendejo is the Spanish equivalent to calling someone a fuckwad. My spouse's Spanish-English dictionary (dead tree copy, so you know it's authoritative) defines it as "pubic hair," or imbecile, idiot, asshole, etc.

Carry on.

PI answer to stem cell research disagreement

This should take care of the problem. In more ways than one ...

What's the deal with A.I.G.? Well, here it is

From the New York Times Business pages: "Desperately Protecting A.I.G.'s House of Cards." I've read this type of analysis before, and am satisfied this is the case. They took advantage of the lack of regulation and let their greed overcommit financial resources HUGELY. Yeah, CDSs should have been treated just like conventional insurance--requiring capital to be set aside against losses. But no, they sold CDSs (credit default swaps--"insurance" on investments) like drunken sailors. Bad metaphor, I know. They abused A.I.G.'s triple-A rating and sucked it dry.

The US taxpayers are now paying to clean up the mess, and all this while we're going down with the ship. Fun stuff.

"Clapping for Tinkerbell"

Sure. Anything can happen if you believe in it enough, right? Y'all go on clapping.

Dude, it could happen, you don't know.

Update: AKA "The Tinkerbell Effect" (see, I knew it was real!!)

Americans are so pathetic

There has been a "controversy" in the news lately. Facebook, claiming membership of something like 150 million members (a shitload of people), recently posted changes to their terms of service. People didn't like the changes, claiming Facebook was amending their rights (Facebook's rights) to perpetual free license and control of all user content. By all content we mean everything, and by perpetual we mean forever.

Whether that's what the weenies at Facebook intended, or not, that's the gist of what I took away when I read the terms. Frankly, I hadn't read the terms before I joined Facebook, so I was a lazy slug just like everyone else. But it seemed clear to me: Facebook wants the right to do whatever they want with your stuff. Forever. No, I don't know why.

Oddly enough (and I say oddly because, like, who really gives a shit about Facebook's terms?) the changes caused quite a stir in the online community. People were upset because they thought they retained ownership and control of their own content, and that Facebook was just a platform for hosting it. Not too much unlike several other services available on teh Internets.

Very well. Protest their change in terms. But if you don't like the fact Facebook is a money-grubbing corporation with their own interests (that don't take your interests into account) you really have little recourse but to leave Facebook. But, no. Instead I get invitations to join the "100,000,000 Against Facebook Owning Its User's Photos!" group. Ignoring the breathless exclamation point, the fool who started this group doesn't even know the difference between LOSING and LOOSING. It's simply fail all the way.

Americans are so pathetic. They aren't willing to give up anything to support their supposed beliefs. Do you really think if you join this group Facebook is going to listen to you? Get a grip, they're laughing at you! You're like a five-year-old stamping her feet to complain about being sent to her room without dessert. Grow up. If you don't like the new terms of service at Face-fucking-book, then terminate your membership. Go somewhere else. You're not impressing anyone with your silly little protest group. Least of all, not me.

Incidentally, this is why everyone in the world hates Americans. We think we're entitled to everything, but we're not willing to give up anything to get the things we say are important. The only thing Facebook will understand and respect is numbers, and if you don't like Facebook, vote with your feet (or, for the brain-impaired: leave the service) or shut the fuck up and get back in line.

That is all.

I have to say it: Holy Shit

Ahem. Remember when we used to say "a billion here and a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking REAL money"? Flock that. The new cool word starts with a T.

Check out this rather informative Flash animation at the Guardian UK. Dog love him, Obama's $800-some-odd-billion incentive/relief/bailout package won't even cover one day's interest on the real debt.

We're flocked, folks. Buy a big gun, and don't let anyone in your door waving "official" papers. "Possession is nine-tenths" will be the new watch word. Of course, when they shut off the gas and power you'll have to start chopping up the furniture (or the neighbors, or something).

Irony: When your credit card company calls and asks if their interest rate is "competitive enough." Funny, but zero is competitive enough for the moment. (I got one of those temporary introductory rate deals.) Yeah, for the moment. I'll let you know.

Fascinating article on religion and the human brain

I found this article on SuicideGirls.com, a place most would probably not associate with such scholarly things. The article discusses the connection religion has to our more primitive "primal" brains. HOWEVER, before you all go off on me for "being unfair to religion," please go read the article.

I saw the idea of fictive kin being quite apropos to my story. My native people have the notion of having "brothers" and "sisters" who are not blood kin to them. It's their way of establishing extended trust relationships with others--specifically those who are not their true brothers and sisters. I have looked at it from the "since I call you brother you know I would trust you with my life; you can trust me with yours." Explicitly. I may be naive, but it seemed important for them to establish these kinds of strong bonds with others as a means of enhancing everyone's own chances for survival. From the Evolution of Religion article, this idea is borne out in the role that religion (or more accurately, religious organizations) play in our lives, and more to the point: in our psyches.

I'm not commenting on whether religion is valuable or appropriate. Clearly, since so many people believe it to be important, it must provide some kind of benefit. The authors seem to imply that over time we may "grow out of" this attraction to religion, but until our "smart brains" totally win out over our "primal brains" this cannot happen. I'm guessing it will not happen. My only wish is that the message of many religions will be changed to one more rationally based. I suspect my wish is in vain.

Back to the philosophies of my fictional native people: they don't have a "religion," as such. They have an amorphous "mother earth spirit"--essentially a pagan belief in the natural world. Their god (if you could call their earth spirit a god) confers judgment on all creatures, and this belief proscribe them from deciding the fate of anyone. If you murder someone, they would not murder you. To do so would be to judge, and judging is only allowed by their earth spirit. They would exile you from their midst--cut you from the herd, as it were--but only their earth spirit can decide whether you live or die. Or how.

I will have to think about the role religion plays in the forming of fictive kin--communities of support acting like tribes/extended families. Clearly, having more ritualized religious practices for my natives feels better than not having them, but is it really true they would have come to the conclusion that sacrifices are necessary to appease their god? (You might ask how I came to this conclusion, seeing as how it seems unrelated to religious rituals, in general. Keep reading.)

I believe religions are all about control. The rituals of belief only exist to homogenize the adherents. In other words: monkey see; monkey do. In crowds, we feel much better when we're doing what everyone else is doing, regardless of whether we know it's right, or not. I know this reaction to be true. So, this means religious ritual is necessary to make everyone feel better about who they are and where they are. The clergy, therefore, has a very important and exalted position. They get to interpret the gods for the masses, and establish (and lead) the various rituals in supplication to the gods. Our primitive brains know that in order to coerce the gods to act on our behalf, we either need to 1) do something they like, or 2) show how much we are willing to give up for them. Either way, we're extending them a lot of power, and power is cool. We're only doing what we would want our worshipers to do for us. Like I said: power is cool.

All this alludes to the uniquely human ability to "see" the purposes and motivations of others. It's what causes us to assign anthropomorphic qualities to the natural world. Hurricanes probably do not have purpose; by extension, neither does the universe. IMHO, anyway. It's because we assume nature has a reason that we're mystified when we can't fathom it. This hole in our understanding has historically been so huge as to fit the proverbial truck. A gap that large is just begging to be filled, and we do: with religion.

For my natives, the clan leaders would probably seek to tie into the religion, and therefore the second most powerful person in the clan would be the high priest. That I haven't invented the role of high priest seems to be an oversight. I don't want it there. I have the role of "philosopher-historian" which is a surrogate for the priest, but frankly I just didn't want religion to be an important part of the world of my natives. If you have to give them a religion, they would be Taoists. Simplicity. Flow. Patience. I really gave them a rather evolved perspective, but I reasoned it to stem from their long-time relationship to the technological "pale-skins." The native people don't believe the world has a purpose--it just is. They don't have science (and they don't want it), but they know science exists and that it explains many things. It's just that it explains the things they don't care about--that don't matter to them. Whether that's right or wrong, ultimately ... well, that's what the story is about (at least partly).

Unsurprising, but still disappointing

Congratulations President Obama. I voted for you, so I'm glad you're finally in office. Yes, of course I want you to succeed--I want America to succeed--especially since I'm handcuffed to the American Dream. If the economy collapses, I lose my job, can't pay the bills, get thrown out on the street, can't buy gasoline, can't buy food, and have to resort to less polite means to survive (and probably get toasted in the process) ... I will be quite unhappy about the whole thing.

But I came across this statement from Rush Limbaugh. He must be smoking something powerful, because he's completely lost touch with reality. "Liberalism," as he puts it, is no more to blame for our present situation than is "conservatism." The former Republican administration was less conservative than even the most liberal Democratic administration we've ever had. That is, if you count Federal spending. No so-called "liberal" government could get away with spending half a trillion dollars on social programs (particularly money we don't have). Social programs simply can't inspire the kind of fear that motivated and enabled the government to lose its head. Trust me. Limbaugh would lose his lunch if Obama were to ask for $100B in new dollars for education--not that Obama could get that past Congress without a fight. But Limbaugh would be OK with spending the same money to lay Afghanistan to waste. If he's the measure, "conservatism" is simply bat-shit craziness. I'm pretty sure it's not, so therefore he's just bat-shit crazy.

Many of us have had to shut up and put up over the problems of the Bush administration. Perhaps Limbaugh should do the same. But then, he's still entitled to his opinion. And we all know what opinions are ...

Not news: We're gonna need a bigger basket

With apologies to this movie. That is all.

"Teach the Strengths and Weaknesses of Evolution?"

First of all, hat tip to Ed Brayton and his Dispatches from the Culture Wars blog. In reference to the State of Texas school board's position on the theory of evolution:

I have to wonder--is it appropriate to teach the "strengths and weaknesses of evolution" to high school students? Truly? Really? The finer points of the theory of evolution are appropriate for graduate school courses in biology. Can a high school student understand and appreciate where the current theory is, in terms that make sense given their really limited exposure? In a word, no.

So, I'm trying to parse this statement in a way that makes sense. Of course, I know the agenda behind it, and it's really a thinly veiled attempt to insert Christian faith/belief into the science curriculum. A place, I might add, where it firmly must not be. I wouldn't want Islamic faith taught as science, either.

I am a rationalist. My "faith" is not based on superstitions or stories. The theory of evolution has been researched and experimented against by thousands of scientists for more than 100 years. It's not a faith, and it does stand up to rational, scientific scrutiny. The same scrutiny and rigor that, for example, sent us to the moon. A scientist continually tries to prove that they're wrong. The only way to verify some hypothesis is to build experiments that are intended to disprove it. Because only when an hypothesis stands up to repeated, stringent attempts to disprove it, does it become a scientific theory. Theories change as we learn more, but no one would suggest that not knowing everything would, in fact, mean a theory is weak.

We do not know everything; we probably never will. Knowledge isn't a destination; it's a journey. As for how life began, how the universe began, what caused it all ... I don't know the answers, and I'm all right not knowing. If someone wants to believe that a supernatural god did all this (and we call this faith), then that's OK with me. It's just an hypothesis that, unfortunately, hasn't really been tested. We can infer its validity in the face of unknowns, but we have not tested this idea against the physical universe. For all I know it could be true, but my intuition tells me it's not.

There doesn't have to be a reason for all this--everything. That it is, is good enough for me. Because the real question is: what are you going to do with what you have? The meaning of life is to see it perpetuated, and that is all. We have minds that thirst for the answers, so in addition to perpetuating our life in this universe, we also explore the nature of the reality we sense. Perfectly OK. Not a waste of time.

I'd suggest if you've been sitting around waiting for the afterlife that you get up off your ass and get busy. You ain't got eternity to accomplish something. There's no time like now; no one better than you. Or me.

Misconceptions about atheism and the afterlife

"When you die, I mean, there is supposedly a better life, right? Well, if you are an atheist and you don't believe in anything, if you die, what is there to go to? Nothing. You are worm dirt. So for their son to die for nothing, and now he is no more -- that is pretty hard to get your head around that. So I don't know how an atheist thinks. I can only imagine that that would be pretty tough."

Lt. Col. Ralph Kauzlarich made these remarks in reference to the death of Pat Tillman in Afghanistan. Let me address them in the order they occur to me:

• "Die for nothing" - I thought he died to further the causes of freedom and safety for Americans. Not so much for the Afghanis, but ... not for nothing.
• "Now he is no more" - His body and mind are gone to us, but we remember him. I never knew him, but there are many who did. (Let's ask why we remember someone ...)
  
• "Supposedly a better life" - Maybe, but there's no proof of that. It's what we call "faith."
• "Where is there to go?" - What's wrong with nowhere? Why does there have to be a better place? What's wrong with this one? It sucks, maybe, but we're here and we can make it better, can't we?
• "Worm dirt" - Everyone becomes worm dirt, eventually. The body does not continue, no matter how much you believe otherwise.
• "Don't believe in anything" - Patently false. Unless you define "anything" as belief in a god. I don't define it that way. Atheists believe in lots of things, just not the supernatural. Frankly, I don't believe in the supernatural, either.
• "I don't know how an atheist thinks" - Atheists think exactly as you do, except they don't believe in a supernatural god. They have morals, and ethics, and know the difference between right and wrong, just like everyone else. Morals don't come from a god, as far as atheists are concerned. Your mileage may vary. Why an atheist would sacrifice himself (or herself) in war or in any other thing has nothing to do with belief in an afterlife or a god, and everything to do with protecting life. That's purely humanistic, of course, and not an invalid reason for dying. Would you die to protect your child or someone you love? Absolutely.
  

My mother told me she's pretty sure there's no life after death. She thinks she died when she had her heart attack, and said death is just nothingness. Black. Nothing. They revived her, obviously, or I would not have heard what happened.

I can live with that. Heh. Death doesn't scare me any more than knowing that I wouldn't be around anymore to do interesting stuff and be with the people I love. No one wants to die, but does it matter if we live forever? Why should that motivate us more or less than knowing we can accomplish things here? Now. In this life. This life should also be important, but if we expend our energies worrying about the "great beyond," isn't that a little irresponsible? Believe in an afterlife all you want, but don't give this life short shrift.

Live in the now. Do what you can, now, with what you have. If we can do that, the afterlife will take care of itself. At least that's what my god wants.

Hat tip to Ed Brayton.

Laws against sin

I passed by this article on same-sex marriage. In the article they quoted one woman as stating "same sex marriage is a sin."

Here is my question, since the woman was obviously against permitting it. Should our law attempt to legislate morality? Should there be a law against sinful behavior? Specifically, this kind of behavior.

There are laws against committing murder, for example. Few, even the godless, would argue that murder should be permitted. I'd think the answer to this should be obvious: murder affects others in a profound way. It disrupts their lives, etc., and I agree murder shouldn't be permitted. We've had laws banning strong drink, but they were controversial at best. Adultery isn't illegal, and most states with sodomy laws have repealed them mostly because us straight folk wanted to engage in that behavior without fear of being arrested.

I've been trying to go down the list of "sins" in the Ten Commandments, but can't find too many that are against the law. Except murder. And perjury, which I believe is the false witness injunction.

Even if you believe same-sex marriage is a sin, is that reason enough to make it illegal? There are lots of "sins" out there, but our system of laws tends not to recognize them. Reason being, one man's sin is another man's hobby. I'm not saying same-sex marriage is a hobby, and I'll agree some would find it sinful, but is it a good candidate for legislating?

I've already put my two cents in on this subject. My posts said nothing at all about how I feel about the behavior of gays, but just for the record: I say live and let live. To each their own. I play Dungeons and Dragons, too. Some would find that sinful, but thankfully it's still not against the law.

Lastly, I saw this quote: "We've made bad selections as presidents but survived as a nation. But if we move down the path towards the dissolution of marriage we cannot divorce ourselves from the consequences of that." Correct me if I'm wrong, but allowing same-sex couples to marry doesn't dissolve marriage, it extends it. Of course, they aren't saying exactly what the consequences would be, and in what way they would be irrevocable. I suppose that's just as well.

Christian charity refuses gift from gamers

I caught this and thought I should comment. Perhaps I should also mention that it's been noticed by some prominent non-Christian bloggers, too. Seems there is something possibly worse than being an atheist (from a Christian perspective).

The Christian Children's Fund was the late Gary Gygax's favorite charity (he was the father of the RPG), so the folks at GenCon Indianapolis wanted them to be the sponsored charity for a charity auction to be held at the event. Well, the CCF refused, citing the patent evil of Dungeons and Dragons, and gave up over $17,000 that the gamers raised. Fisher House Foundation became the charity, instead.

And we thought all this DnD "Satan worship" crap died off in the 1980's. Seems some folks continue to live in a fantasy world, but this time they aren't gamers. If you've heard of the "no true Scotsman" argument, it would seem to apply. All you Christian gamers are definitely going to hell! Real Christians have said so.

I don't really want to insult anyone who professes to be Christian and games. And of course not all Christians agree on everything. Avoiding the argument of who is right and who is wrong, for a moment, it still does occur to me that within the huge sphere of beliefs we find in this world, the chance that there's one and only one right "way" seems ... rather improbable. My god has a sense of humor, and is tolerant, kind, and runs a level 60 demigod in my fortnightly heroes game. He and Ra get along famously.

Never ceases to amaze me ...

... How people can condone graphic violence but yet find sex unacceptable. And I'm looking at you, Utah!

My argument has always been that our naked bodies and sexual activity are both very natural (as it turns out, sex is even mostly necessary). These things should not be considered shameful or "bad." Sex should be framed as adult activity that requires responsibility, but in that light it's not much different from driving a car. You get to do both at about the same age, too. That's no real coincidence.

Sure, sex can involve seamy things, but mostly these are violence and degradation. Between consenting adults, I can't think of much (outside of violence, etc.) that should bother anyone. But that's me. Sex does not pull us down a hole (heh) to the Dark Side. Trust me. I've been married twice, and I can say with certainty that sex with my wife (both of them, but not at the same time) does no harm to either of us. Frankly, it's quite enjoyable.

So what's the deal? I'd like to hear an argument from someone for why sex should be banned (as in the movie theater example cited here), but violence is OK. Violence is not OK, and we should shun it with all the vim and vigor with which we seem to shun sex. Well, at least some of us shun sex ... (don't look away, Utah, this post's for YOU!)

I'm going to say it, but many will disagree with me. It's all about control. Religion, that is. They talk about not loving violence, abhorring it, detesting it, etc., but that's only violence directed at them. If they can get you to wreak violence on some other group, in their name, well then, that's different. But it's not different.

I can watch violence in popular entertainment almost as well as most people. It's all made up--not real--so altogether it has less impact. But I'm an adult and I know the difference between reality and fantasy, and between right and wrong, as well. Our children don't know these things, though, and they get confused. Arguably, that's a good reason for carefully monitoring the amount of exposure they get to things sexual, as well, but we really don't have an equal standard, here, do we? Well, that's my assertion, anyway.

YMMV.

When you believe, but don't know why you believe

I caught this gem on Ed Brayton's blog, Dispatches from the Culture Wars. It's a clip from Fox News interviewing "Joe the Plumber" about his "statement" that electing Obama would mean the death of Israel.

The man is nothing but a parrot spouting words he doesn't understand. He believes, or so he says, but has no clue at all why he believes.

Here are some logical steps one could take to get from "Obama agreed to meet with our enemies without preconditions" to "Obama will cause the death of Israel." First one must make some assumptions, based on lack of trust (or faith, if you're so inclined) in Obama. We'll say he meets with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and somehow caves in and agrees to something injurious to our interests. Seems unlikely to me, but OK, let's assume Obama is weak and ineffectual (all evidence to the contrary). Now Iran, emboldened by the American President's truckling (look it up) decides to declare open war on Israel. Of course the US, having previously made bad decisions and agreed to something stupid with Iran, decides to abandon many very long-standing agreements and partnerships, and trust, and such that we've had with Israel, now decides to sit idly by while Iran sweeps through the region and obliterates Israel.

Wow. Help me out, here, in understanding just how all these things would come to pass. They must really believe Obama is a secret terrorist traitor, or there's just no way we could get ourselves into this position. Of course, let's not forget the impeachment power (so very much under-utilized these days) of Congress. Would you think they would just stand by and do nothing? Where's the will of the American people? *sigh*

Joe is right about one thing: Everyone needs to go out and do their own research and find their own reasons for voting. And then do it. Vote. But I would suggest he reevaluate his "reasons" and employ just a little bit of critical thinking before he opens his dumbass mouth again. Moron.

And I agree: "Man, it gets frightening sometimes," is spot on. Idiocy, as demonstrated by McCain's poster child is frightening. I'm grateful there is at least one person in this race who is using their brain to do the thinking.

One more discrimination straw man

Yesterday I posted a long article addressing some of the most prominent arguments against same-sex marriage, but left (at least) one out. So, in the interests of completeness, I hereby provide my take on the following:

"Being gay is a choice; we don't have to permit these people to choose"

In some respects I can't believe I didn't think of this when I was running down the list. But let's take a look.

First, I would assert that being gay isn't just something you choose. But that's just my belief, based on my experiences with friends and family members. Yeah, I know gay people. And there are also those who are, at heart, bisexual and capable of having relations with persons of either gender. But for the purposes of this straw man, we assume being gay is choice, and an invalid choice according to some.

I can think of many things that are choices, but it's difficult to fathom a choice that would cause such difficulty, engender such discrimination, and/or isolate and alienate the one making the choice. I may be willing to accept that one's sexual preferences are simple preferences, but how far would you go in order to ensure your choice is realized? Seems to me that if a gay man could simply choose not to be gay, then in public he would do just that. What he does in private is nobody's business. But, he doesn't choose that. In fact about 10% of us don't "choose" that. Gotta be a little more compelling than mere choice, if you ask me.

So, if choice is all there is, then the case for permitting same-sex marriage is weak. A scam, perhaps. Maybe that's what I thought before. I'm not sure; I really hadn't given it that much thought. And that's the basic problem.

Now for the second part of the argument, that of not having to legitimize the choice. Other than the "moral implications" that some see, I'm having a really hard time finding fault with choices in human sexuality that don't harm anyone. Pedophilia and the like are clearly harmful, as children are not capable of giving informed consent. But adults are quite capable of deciding for themselves. And should. I can think of many sex acts heterosexuals routinely perform with each other that wouldn't be allowed if some folks had their way. I mean, no one should ever tell me what I can and cannot do with my wife, who certainly consents to our actions. I'm not doing it out in public and stopping traffic, etc., so what's the deal? For me, and I may be thoroughly amoral from your perspective, I really can't see the essential difference between various sex acts, whether the persons involved have penises, vaginas, or some combination of the two. Your equipment is just an accident of how you're made. All you really need to do is find someone else with the kind of equipment you like, and that likes the equipment you have. Period. Everything else is mechanics.

So, since the choice is as legitimate as any other, I'm hard-pressed to deny someone the right to marry any other kind of human adult that they choose. It's not a moral decision; it's no longer a matter of the impact on me (since in some situations children are involved, and they trump everything else). What I mean to say, if we must allow same-sex parents to marry so their children are taken care of, then the issue of choice becomes irrelevant.

Now, my argument may be specious because I'm using something I argued previously as "proof" in my current argument. Begging the question, as it were. But I still would fall back on the idea that being gay is not really a matter of choice. You either are, or you're not. Everything else in between is a choice. I won't even get into multiple marriages. That's another argument for another time, and the decision there is probably just as surprising.

My last point about not permitting choice is a fundamental part of my beliefs. Obviously there are choices that are harmful to others. But even the notion of "harm" can be a matter of opinion. Some feel "liberals" (a choice of political philosophy) are harmful to the political health of the country. Others might feel the same way about conservatives. But we still do need both sides of the debate. Governing in a democracy should be a balance, a compromise between extremes. You need dark for light to be important. Because the acts we perform legally with our spouses don't appear to rip the fabric of society, I can't really see how having a spouse who happens to have the same equipment as me is any more damaging. Not harmful if I don't have to see actions I don't like. And that's a choice I can make that no one is trying to inhibit. No one.

Denying choice for what are harmless relationships between consenting adults is not a strong argument. There are just as many currently legal choices that are clearly much more harmful, yet no one is proposing to limit those. Call it what you like, legally enabling parental partnerships is essential. The law must be clear and non-discriminatory, which implies that if we allow marriage between people of the same sex for parental reasons, we have to allow it for any other reason (or no reason), as well, OR we must limit marriage between heterosexual couples for the exact same reasons. No discrimination can be permitted based on sex, race, or sexual preference. What's good for one is good for all--or for none.

While we're talking about discrimination ...

Phil Plait of Bad Astronomy posted a video where every reference to "same-sex" was changed to "interracial" in an appeal against Prop 8 in California. For those of you who might be living under a rock, that's the amendment being proposed that would constitutionally ban same-sex marriage in California. Recently the California Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriage is legal. A bunch of folks, many NOT Californians, have decided to weigh in on this decision by supporting the amendment. Yes, it's stupidly framed, but voting "Yes" here means voting "No" for same-sex marriage. "Yes" means you are against it. Got that? (Me, either.)

Here's my background on this: Some time ago I was opposed to same-sex marriage because I felt it would be extending certain benefits under law in situations where they should not be applied. Yes, it was a very naive perspective. So I got educated. Turns out (to no one's surprise) that many same-sex couples have children. Perhaps they're from a previous heterosexual arrangement, or perhaps from some other arrangement. For me, I would want the children to be taken care of, and that means that both partners absolutely MUST have the same rights with respect to the kids. I don't care what their sexual orientation is, you just don't take children from their parents (or their families, if 'parents' is too restrictive a term for you), and you don't deny the rights of any parent to care for their children.

OK, here's the logic I had to use to get from A) no same-sex marriage, to B) same-sex marriage permitted. I'm going to construct some straw men just to knock them down.

"Marriage is only between a man and a woman for the purposes of procreation. Nothing else."

Good one! But now we have to define procreation, because my wife isn't capable (anymore) of having children. And I knew that before I married her. Oh, and yes, I did marry her legally. Just ask the State of Ohio, County of Franklin. Procreation is the creation of more human beings. But beyond simply getting pregnant and having a rugrat or two, it's about providing for the optimal care of the younguns. It's about having help raising your kids. From your partner.

We can't decide that men and women can't marry each other if they don't intend to have kids. No one can predict the future, and even if you marry someone with the intent to raise a family, you can't then go back and declare them unmarried if they fail in that regard. Maybe men used to divorce their wives because those wives couldn't bear pups (I'm looking at you, Henry VIII), but these days that's not going to hold up. So clearly it's not practical to deny marriage between heterosexual couples on the arbitrary basis that they can't or won't have children. The law has to be permissive, here, because no one can predict the future. Case in point: I have a grandson. If something terrible happened to his parents, then I would want to be there to care for him. And so would my wife. Having us married means we both have the same necessary rights to provide the best care for him. He may not be blood-relation to me, but he is family. I'm his "grandpa."

"Same-sex marriage will force us to do things against our will/belief/etc."

Ah, this is a subtle argument that says churches will have to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies. Bottom line, it's an argument that because someone doesn't happen to like same-sex couples, they don't want to be exposed to them, see them, talk to them, interact with them, etc. OK, fine. That's the exact same argument Christians use against atheists. They don't like them around, so they want them to just shut up and go away. "If you don't like America, then get the hell out." Of course, who gets to define what America really means? Is it you? (Methinks not.) Ironically, opponents of same-sex marriage frame this as a First Amendment argument, claiming same-sex marriage threatens their rights of free speech or freedom of religion or choice. Huh. Odd way to think of it.

Let's play a quick analogy game. Let's say a new religion is starting up, and has strange beliefs that many Christians (or Muslims, or Buddhists, or Wiccans) find offensive. Not too hard to do, under the circumstances. So, if we see people subscribing to this new religion, the established religions start saying that it's somehow going to force them to acquiesce to these strange beliefs, thus robbing them of their rights to have whatever church services they want. But that's absurd, isn't it? You can do whatever you want in YOUR church, including throwing people out who don't fit your idea of suitable church attendees. No one is going to force you to admit these strange folk, if you don't want them. And that even includes interracial wedding ceremonies, too. Don't want them? You don't have to have them. I really cannot see same-sex weddings being any different. If you don't want to host them, you won't have to. Just don't do it.

But let's attack the "I don't want them in my face" argument. I've heard this argument many times from Christians in reference to atheists. Leaving my beliefs out of it, for the moment, I want to substitute "bricklayers" for "atheists" and repose the argument. I don't like bricklayers. Damned filthy men standing on scaffolds all day, getting their hands in all that muck and goo. Carrying bricks up, mixing mortar. Disgusting! Can't we tell them to go somewhere else so we don't have to see their despicable, immoral behavior?

This is a pluralistic society. It has all kinds of people, and in fact it takes all kinds. You can't simply tell one part of us to go away and get out of your face. No matter how strongly you feel that you represent the One True Notion of what being American means. It's changing all the time.

OK, so this isn't about atheists, but about gays. Frankly, the arguments are identical in my mind. Some states are trying to pass laws prohibiting atheists from holding public office. Yeah, let's see them try to keep openly gay people from holding public office. It would decimate the Republican party, at the minimum. And easily do worse to the Democrats. Those damn Liberals! They're all gay!! (And I'm kidding, of course. But you get my point.)

As as matter of law we have no choice but to rule on the side of what's best for our kids. This means we cannot narrow the definition of marriage, even between a man and a woman. If we accept that there are children in same-sex partnerships, today, and we must because there are children in these families, then if we are honest and truly have our children's best interests in mind, then we have to allow same-sex couples to marry, under the legal definition of marriage. As I said above, we can't take these children away--that's inhuman and does not provide the best standard of care for them. Whether you think the "beliefs" of gays is best for kids, or not, you have to allow that followers of strange religions will also have kids and want to teach them in their own, strange ways. Just as you want to do. Being gay, of course, is not a "belief," it's who you are. Like being short.

All it takes here is a shift in perspective. I'm not calling for the abolition of religion, or the removal of personal freedoms to act and believe as we all, as Americans, want the freedom to act and believe. Bricklayers are people, too, and they deserve the same rights (if not the privileges) that everyone else has. Two Wiccans can marry and teach their kids to be tree-worshipers, and no one bats an eyelash (well, except in one famous case, but that was ridiculous). Personally, I worry about the utter nonsense that some Christians want to teach their children, because those beliefs run completely against my strong beliefs in rational thought--my belief in reality. We need more rational thinking, not less, but obviously I don't have the power to force them to do anything. I suppose that's a good thing.

We need to keep matters of law separate from matters of belief, because I don't want to have to be or believe a certain way, just because it's the law. Rather, the law must allow all of us to be and believe, and more than that, achieve our own persoanl versions of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

(I didn't put in a bunch of links to the things I mention, above. Do your own damn research if you care enough about it.)