Live.the.Future's Space

Of what use is magical & fantastical thinking?

2006-08-11T01:49:00.000-05:00

[This is an answer I supplied to a question in Yahoo Answers. I thought it was good enough to stand on its own as a separate blog entry.]

The very notion of the supernatural is self-contradictory. If something is supernatural, then it is "beyond nature." But if it can interact with us, with material beings and things, then it must itself be material & natural, a part of our universe. The only alternative would be a god who was completely removed from our universe, never interacting with it. But in that case, its existence becomes a moot point.

Since the first cavemen heard spooky wind blowing and attributed it to spirits, humans have had a bad and annoying tendency to engage in magical thinking, particularly whenever something happened that they couldn't explain. This creates all sorts of problems, especially later on when we ARE able to explain stuff, but the previous mystical belief has solidified into a religious belief that is nearly impossible to dispell, even with tons of evidence against it.

Humans believe all sorts of weird and irrational things. Why? Because WE WANT TO. One of the unfortunate signs that we are still a primitive species is that we have a hard time accepting that our wishful thinking is indeed fantasy and not reality. In the TV show "The X-Files," Fox Mulder had this poster up in his office. It's a picture of a flying saucer with the caption, "I Want To Believe." That sentiment is one of our most self-destructive ideas, and has done more than just about any other idea to retard the process and the maturity of the human species.

Is it really such a cruel, unbearable world if it is completely naturalistic, with nothing supernatural? Does nature brook no wonders of its own? What benefit is there in believing in stuff with no foundation in reality, no evidence to support it, no chance of passing objective scientific scrutiny?

death

2006-08-01T12:13:00.000-05:00

Death sucks.

A couple weeks ago a friend of mine lost his father. The father had been admitted into a hospital for a medical emergency, and passed away while my friend was en route to there.

About a week ago I learned that the cancer my dad had been battling on and off for the past 15 years, was now terminal. He's got a year hopefully, maybe even two or three depending on the effectiveness of the treatments he's getting now, but he won't be recovering from this.

Then just yesterday, I lost an uncle (one of my mom's brothers). He had been in declining condition for a while now with heart problems, but his passing was still rather sudden.

Dammit. I need some Grim Reaper Repellent.

I don't believe in an afterlife. The whole concept never made much sense to me, except as a human invention as a primitive way to teach morals and also as a comforting way of dealing with the grief of death. Me, I find no comfort in this kind of wishful thinking. For the person who dies, death is the end. It is oblivion. It is no more thinking, feeling, remembering, or experiencing.

For those around the deceased, death is a phase transition. When a person is alive, they are in your past, present, and future. Your past as memories of that person, your present as interactions & experiences with that person, and your future as future plans & events with this person. When they die, they are no longer a part of your present or your future, only your past. You will never again have new meetings, events, talks, or experiences with this person. They are forever-more removed from our lives, residing only in the untouchable, unreachable past.

If I'm sounding a bit fatalistic or nihilistic right now, I don't mean to. If anything, death should be a reminder of just how precious our own lives are. We shouldn't squander it with petty worries, or making life unpleasant for others. (If only the politicians would take that to heart!) Life really is a great thing to experience, and the longer you can live, the better. As for myself, I'm hoping to live a nice long time--not so much because I fear death, but because I just love living. I don't want to miss a thing!

A solution for the Mexican election dispute--should also work for the U.S.!

2006-07-11T01:10:00.000-05:00

Mexico's contentious election has been fraught with allegations of voting irregularities & electoral fraud, and the race is so close that neither side is willing to concede defeat without a major legal battle. Whew, it's a good thing we Americans have never had to go through something like that!

Well, I've got a solution for Mexico that should also work for the US: have a poly-presidency. Everyone who votes for the conservative guy, gets ruled by the conservative guy. Everyone who votes for the liberal, gets ruled by the liberal guy. The only catch is, any laws passed by either president only apply to those who voted for him.

If we did that here, every conservative could have a Big Brother camera in every room of their house, and a warrentless tap on every phone (yes, even cell phones!). Each conservative family will have its very own personal gov't spook to monitor their financial transactions, their library records, their bedroom relations, make sure they're attending the "right" church (it's the one gov't will be endorsing), and also ensure that no conservative ever burns a flag, joins an Islamic terror cell (Christian ones are still OK though), or marries someone of the same gender.

Every liberal, in turn, will finally get their own full-fledged universal healthcare--paid for entirely by other liberals. They'll be able to see any doctor the gov't chooses, in as little as 6 months (4 months for critical emergencies). Additional taxes to pay for this new deal should be modest (by liberal standards), costing only about an additional 30 or 40% of your paycheck...assuming no one ever gets sick or injured. Liberals will also have their very own "living wage" rate, set at a nice, comfy $20/hour (about $6/hour after taxes & union dues). Those high taxes will be put to good use supporting the 25%+ of liberals who will become quickly unemployed by that same living wage. Finally, shopping at Wal-Mart and other Evil Capitalist Corporations® will be strictly prohibited, unless a liberal can show proof of residence in a trailer park.

Of course, democracy & politics aren't about choosing what system of gov't you want to live under; it's about choosing what system of gov't you want to force everyone ELSE to live under. A minor technicality, but one which I'm sure could be worked out.

George W. Bush: Worst President in History

2006-07-07T14:59:00.000-05:00

It's official, Dubya is the Emperor Nero of the U.S. So says Rolling Stone, a magazine I normally wouldn't consider for in-depth political commentary, but in this case they make a pretty good argument.

Proving that neocons have little in common with "traditional" conservatives, Bush has abandoned all semblance of fiscal responsibility and small gov't. He entered office with the biggest budget surplus in American history; he's turned it into the biggest deficit in our history.

If one needs further evidence that he is pissing away this country's future, consider this. Every president in the history of this country, thru and including Clinton, has borrowed a sum total of $1.01 trillion for gov't financing. Bush, to date, has borrowed a total of $1.05 trillion--more than all previous presidents combined. This is big, big money that will have to be repaid by all future generations. The yearly interest on it alone will have a noticeable dampening effect on our economy.

Bush fiddles while America burns--and to boot, he's the arsonist.

Good news on China

2006-07-07T12:47:00.000-05:00

Up-and-coming economic superpower China continues its evolution into a market-based economy and away from the stagnation of communism. The above article details two good pieces of news. First, China's move to a market economy is further along than we thought it was. Market reforms are also spreading from the eastern coastal areas inland and to the west.

Second, China's environmental conditions are improving, not degrading, with their increased market capitalism. Furthermore, the best environmental conditions are to be found in the areas with the most private enterprise.

This latter point is not all that surprising to those of us who know a thing or two about economics & environmentalism. It's been well-established for some time now, that the more capitalist a country is, the better its record on environmental issues like pollution. Conversely, the worst environmental degradation can be found in areas with the highest levels of state-owned enterprises.

This is true in the U.S.; the federal gov't creates about three times more pollution than all private industry combined. As the above article points out, it is also true in China; treated waste-water is highest in those areas with the most private industry, lowest in areas with the most state-owned industry. And it's true pretty much everywhere else in the world. The worst environments can be found in places like the former East Germany and former Soviet republics, while the cleanest can be found in the U.S., Japan, Canada, & western Europe.

The reasons for this are twofold. First, being environmentally clean is expensive, and non-capitalist societies often simply can't afford to run cleanly. For-profit, market-based economies have much more (albeit still limited) of a monetary cushion to absorb those extra costs. Second and perhaps more importantly is the issue of personal accountability. While private industries' pollution is constrained both by market forces and by environmental laws, state industries have neither of these constraints. As a function of the gov't they exercise sovereign immunity, meaning that any enviro laws passed simply do not apply to them. Also, as they are usually monopolies, they have no accountability to their customer base. Their customers have no ability to demand green products & manufacturing methods, since the state industry is the only supplier.

But, getting back to China, the above article is good news for all of us. A more economically developed China will be a boon to the world economy as a whole, as they will be demanding more and more products and services from abroad. Increased trade relations have always been good for peace as well; with both sides benefitting greatly from trade, neither will feel inclined to "kill the goose that lays the golden eggs" by starting some silly war.

While China still could use more improvement on the state of their environment, and their communist leaders are still trying to run the country with an iron fist in the civil liberties and human rights areas, overall they have progressed stupendously in the past few years. It was only about 3 decades ago that millions were starving to death under dictator Mao's retarded economic and agricultural fantasies. I think China's progression toward more economic freedom will continue; their current leaders know a good thing when they see it. This, in turn, will be a boon both to the U.S. and the rest of the world.

Why Bush is no friend of the free market

2006-06-23T12:56:00.000-05:00

...and why protectionist trade measures inevitably backfire, doing more harm than good. It's almost frightening to see how many billions of dollars and countless jobs America has lost because the president or some Congress-critter wants to buy a few more votes. To say nothing of the ongoing total destruction of any semblance of US credibility in the world.

The US gov't simply is not acting in the best interests of the country or people it rules over. What, then, are we to do about it?

Your family owes the gov't $510,678 (plus interest)

2006-06-22T15:57:00.000-05:00

Yep, that's what your household owes. You didn't think that all those social programs were free, did ya? That's your share of the $57,800,000,000,000 ($57.8 trillion) in unfunded obligations run up by our esteemed representatives in local, state, & federal gov't.

That amount has gone up about 20% just in the past couple years, and is increasing at the rate of about $25,000 per household, per year. How much does your household make?

As first reported in USA Today and covered in Liberator Online, here's what you're shelling out for:

Program..................................Liability per household

Medicare.................................$263,377
Social Security..........................$133,456
Federal debt.............................$42,538
Military retirement benefits.............$25,443
State-local debt.........................$16,395
Federal employee retirement benefits.....$14,256
State-local retirement benefits..........$13,257
Other federal............................$1,956

Total....................................$510,678 per household

Expect costs for Medicare & SS to balloon even more within the next 5 years as the Baby Boomer generation retires & gets cranky. Sheesh, this gives a whole new meaning to "Baby Boomer"!

This is, needless to say, unsustainable in the long term without some very drastic benefit cuts and/or tax hikes. If we move to a socialized medicine system, as seems at least somewhat likely the next time the Dems are in control, expect things to get that much worse, that much sooner.

We could, of course, cut most of our losses now, by privatizing SS and switching to medical savings accounts (MSA's). Unfortunately, that would require two things that Congress is sorely lacking in: brains and courage.

I was born in 1971, and if I continue to live a fairly healthy life and don't meet an untimely end, I might expect to possibly live to see the year 2050. While I eagerly look forward to the advances in science & technology that should happen in that time frame, I am beginning more and more to fear for the political and economic future of this country. As an optimist though, I have faith in human ingenuity, but we may still be facing much unnecessary pain and hardships in the coming decades. We'll see.

How far we've fallen....

2006-06-21T16:39:00.000-05:00

The brutality and war crimes being perpetrated by the U.S. military are reminiscent of Stalin's USSR, or Hitler's Germany. Anyone involved in these incidents needs to be punished, swiftly and very severely. And that includes command personnel.

One of the worst passages from the above link:

The worst incident that I was privy to was in late November. The prisoners were protesting nightly because of their living conditions. They protested the cold, the lack of clothing, the rotting food that was causing dysentery. And they wanted cigarettes. They tore up pieces of clothing, made banners and signs. One demonstration became intense and got unruly. The prisoners picked up stones, pieces of wood, and threw them at the guards. One of my buddies got hit in the face. He got a bloody nose. But he wasn’t hurt. The guards asked permission to use lethal force. They got it. They opened fire on the prisoners with the machine guns. They shot twelve and killed three. I know because I talked to the guy who did the killing. He showed me these grisly photographs, and he bragged about the results. “Oh,” he said, “I shot this guy in the face. See, his head is split open.” He talked like the Terminator. He shot this guy in the groin, he took three days to bleed to death.” I was shocked. This was the nicest guy you would ever want to meet. He was a family man, a really courteous guy, a devout Christian. I was stunned and said to him: “You shot an unarmed man behind barbed wire for throwing a stone.” He said, “Well, I knelt down. I said a prayer, stood up and gunned them all down.” There was a complete disconnect between what he had done and his own morality.

Come on, you unAmerican thugs posing as soldiers. The U.S. is better than this!!

Addendum: The Pentagon seems to be moving forward with plans to do away with Geneva Convention anti-torture provisions in the Army field manual. Link 1, link 2, link 3.

The Catholic Church as an economic monopoly

2006-06-16T15:19:00.000-05:00

Here is an interesting page which reviews an article comparing the Reformation and Counter-Reformation to economic moves by a new firm trying to break into a monopoly market. There are quite a few things in life that can be viewed in fresh terms from an economic perspective. A religious movement, though, is not typically seen in that light. (Other than perhaps taking a look at televangelists and their fortunes....)

The problem with gov't-funded science

2006-06-14T16:33:00.000-05:00

One of the complaints against leaving science to "the market" is the unreliability of funding, depending on the health of the market or the whims of those who control the purse strings. Another is that privately-funded science funds might be squandered on pet projects, or science that only benefits a select few (i.e. the company that develops it & brings it to market).

Those arguments are, however, mostly meaningless when it becomes apparent that the alternative, gov't-funded science, is at least as bad in those respects. At least privately-funded research can lead to new services or products that are of use to society. One could argue that basic (as opposed to applied) research is also of benefit to society, and perhaps there is a case to be made for gov't funding of basic research.

But with gov't-funded science, as with gov't-funded anything, the purse strings are controlled by Congress, a greedy, demagogic, self-interested, irrational body that acts like a 5-year-old in a candy store with unlimited money. As such, it should come as a surprise to absolutely no one that the funding priorities of Congress might not match up with those of actual scientists & engineers.

Or so you'd think, but apparently it did come as something of a surprise for NASA's top management, who with much wailing and gnashing of teeth are now complaining bitterly to Congress that they must now cut funds on their pet projects to fund Congress'.

While I support much of the genuine science & engineering that NASA does, they need to do a better job of budgeting to account for the inevitable changes in the political wind. They also should do a better job of prioritizing their commitments, keeping in mind that there will always be additional demands being made by their kid-in-a-candy-store overlords.

The xtian right, in a nutshell

2006-06-13T12:54:00.000-05:00

The above link is one of the most succinct summaries of what exactly the Xtian Right is, and what they stand for. Or more precisely, what they stand against. The above article is good because it is a statement of facts, not a teeth-gnashing ad hominem. Give it a read and let me know what you think of it.

How to deal with lawyers

2006-06-13T12:22:00.000-05:00

While I normally frown upon the gov't treating adults like children, here's a judge whom I'll let get away with it, at least in this case. The case involves two bickering lawyers who can't seem to agree on even the most trivial matters. So how did the judge resolve it? Good ol'-fashioned rock-paper-scissors.

Granted, it's not as good as the method sometimes used a couple centuries ago--namely, a gun duel. But they are lawyers, so you have to treat them appropriately.

One small victory for good and freedom:Gay marriage Constitutional amendment defeated

2006-06-07T12:54:00.000-05:00

In a highly unusual instance of doing the right thing, the Senate defeated passage of a Constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage. While I am not gay myself, I have at least two big reasons for being opposed to a gay-marriage ban.

First, while my marriage is heterosexual, it is also interracial. One thing that has been very obvious to me about the gay marriage debate is that the same arguments used in opposition to it are virtually identical to the arguments used in opposition to interracial marriage 40-50 years ago. I suspect that similar arguments were also made against interfaith and interethnic marriages in the more distant past.

The second reason is that this is simply the right thing to do. The bible-thumpers and religious homophobes may disagree (and may not like being called homophobes, but that's exactly what people with those beliefs are), but their sense of good has been overriden by religious dogma--dogma which states ever so emphatically that it is good, that it has a monopoly on morality and defining what's good. But actions always speak louder than words, and the actions of those working to ban gay marriage are screaming with venom, "I hate you!"

Our Constitution was always intended to be a document which protects the rights of the individual while limiting the power of the state. Most of the amendments to it have been to further those goals, with the notable exceptions of Prohibition and the income tax. The former was later repealed, and well, we can see the results of the latter. A Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage would be another step in the wrong direction. It would be saying that all Americans are not equal and do not enjoy the same fundamental liberties as others. It would say that a majority sees fit to restrict the freedoms of a minority because they find that minority's actions personally distasteful, even though those actions do no harm to others.

Had this atrocious piece of crap actually passed and become part of our Constitution, do you really think that those who favored its passage would stop there? I don't. Why wouldn't they then want to go on and ban other forms of marriage that they found to be against their personal religious beliefs? Interracial marriages were illegal once, and the reasons cited were the same; why wouldn't these same people push to outlaw it once again? Why not outlaw civil marriages, too? In one stroke, that would eliminate both interfaith marriages, and marriages by anyone who's not religious. Outrageous, you claim? Now, yes. But once the country has acclimated to a ban on one form of marriage, it will be ready for others. And future bans will be much easier, once the precedents have been set.

Repubs and the religious right need to get the hell out of America's bedrooms, and stay out. How consenting adults live and love, is none of their business.

Addendum: This blogger has a funny--and scary--post about what marriage laws would be like if such laws strictly conformed to biblical standards. Yikes!

Happy Devil's Day!

2006-06-06T12:47:00.005-05:00

Feeling a bit fiendish today? Maybe it's because today is Devil's Day--a once-a-century occurence. Today's date, 6/6/6, is the "number of the beast".

Of course, for those of us who choose to live rational lives and regard stuff like this as superstitious nonsense, today is just another day like all the others. I think even many xtians would attach little or no significance to this date. There are, though, some highly superstitious types out there, especially of a more fundamentalist bent, who may regard this date with ominous foreboding. These are probably many of the same people who thought the world was going to end at the turn of the millenium (because don'tcha know, god likes nice round numbers to end worlds on), and who forbid their kids from trick-or-treating because they think Halloween is a satanic holiday.

On the chance that you actually know any such people, give them a devilish grin and be sure to wish them a happy Devil's Day.

Addendum: Look out, Satan has taken over Blogspot! While trying to publish this, I got numerous "connection reset" browser errors, as well as several Blogspot "sorry for the inconvenience" errors. When I finally succeeded, there were six copies of this post. I deleted five of them. I've gotten numerous more errors just trying to edit this post to add this addendum, and this addendum mysteriously disappeared once....

Innocent? Prove it!

2006-06-01T15:19:00.000-05:00

Our airports have, for several years now, been miniature police states, in nearly every sense of the word. One of the hallmarks of a police state is that innocent people are accused of heinous crimes for arbitrary (or no) reasons, using secret evidence (i.e. hearsay) that can not be challenged. As a result, in a reversal of our once-honored "innocent until proven guilty," hapless victims of the Securitate (aka Homeland Security) are presumed guilty, and must prove their innocence. Which, even worse, may still not let them off the hook.

The above article is yet another example of what happens when "national security" is allowed to trump pesky Constitutional concepts such as due process.

What's the difference between a conservative & libertarian?

2006-06-01T14:27:00.000-05:00

It's probably true, though some libertarians feel uneasy admitting it, that among libertarians, there are a bit more former conservatives than former liberals. It's probably easier for a Repub to warm up to cultural liberalism than it is for a Dem to accept free-market economics. Plus, the GOP probably is a bit more egregious at violating their claim of being pro-free market than the Dems are at violating their claim of being pro-civil liberties. So, among those libertarians who were formerly of a different political persuasion, a majority probably come from the conservative side.

Because of libertarians' support for free-market economics, liberals often have a hard time distinguishing between the two. This damning piece should highlight some of the differences.

some ideas for possible LP/libertarian commercials: #1

2006-06-01T12:14:00.000-05:00

This is the first of several occasional ideas for commercials or advertisements for my party of choice, the Libertarian Party. This first one would build on the Advocates' "Operation Politically Homeless" theme. In its entirety it's about 2:45, a bit long for a single commercial, but perhaps it could be shortened or broken into smaller parts.

Middle-aged guy: "For years I've voted Republican. I have strong concerns about the economy, and it's proven knowledge that a gently-regulated free market is the best way to go. I had thought that Republicans also supported the free market. But even with a Republican president and Congress, federal spending has gone through the roof. There's more pork than ever! This is wasteful spending that our kids, and their kids, will be paying for long after we're gone. And corporate cronyism? That's not a part of capitalism!"
20-something guy: "Any way you look at it, the war on drugs is a failure, and has been since its creation. We spend hundreds of billions of dollars on feel-good, 'tough-on-crime' laws that only make the bad effects of drug use worse, while shredding the Constitutional rights of everyday citizens. Support for the drug war I expected from Republicans, but I thought the Democrats would stick up for protecting our rights and for compassionate, sane legislation. Unfortunately, they seem to think it's more important to pander for votes than to stick up for principles."
Black guy: "I grew up in the inner city. All my life I watched businesses flee my neighborhood, leaving unemployment, higher crime, and dependency on welfare in their wake. So I decided to do something about it. I opened up my own business. Then, I found out why the businesses were leaving: political corruption, outrageous taxes, and so much red tape you couldn't hardly run a business. All the while, the same Democratic politicians who created this mess keep preaching about how they support the little guy. It's hypocrisy!"
Woman: "As a practicing member of a minority religion, I always thought I should be voting Republican, because they're the party that's supposed to be concerned with religious liberty. Instead, they've been all but taken over by far-right religious extremists, who want to impose their specific brand of religious belief on the rest of the country, to the exclusion of any others. Their idea of religious liberty just means they want the right to force their particular religion down everyone else's throat!"
Announcer: "Tens of millions of Americans have grown jaded and disillusioned with the two major parties. Tired of corruption, weary of pork-barrel spending, and wanting a party that still stands for something, they find themselves politically homeless. To those Americans, we want you to know that there is a place for you. There's a party that supports both a free economy, and the civil liberties that are our nation's most defining and successful traits. A party that supports and will stick to the principles of freedom--freedom of commerce, and of self. Come home to a party you can feel good about again. We're America's third largest party, and first in principles. Come home, to the Libertarian Party."

Atlas Shrugged and Objectivism

2006-05-30T12:12:00.000-05:00

I finished “Atlas Shrugged” a couple weeks ago and was fairly impressed with it. I have mixed feelings on Objectivism. On the one hand, some of its ideas I find quite attractive, and many of the complaints against it strike me as being sour grapes by people who have decided a priori that they didn’t like Rand because of her political, economic and/or atheistic views.

At the same time, I would not call myself an Objectivist. Their dismissal of altruism, while not meritless, goes overboard I believe, and their idolatry of Saint Rand is just too cultish for me. “Randroids” also have an annoying belief that because they use rationality, then everything they do, say, decide, and believe is not only correct, but is the only correct way. Objectivists I’ve met don’t seem too keen on the concept that two perfectly rational people can still disagree.

One of the things I do find appealing about Objectivism is also one of its most misunderstood aspects. Its appeal to the concept of the Nietzschean “superman” is something I find very empowering. Despite Rand’s frequent division of people into either “supermen” or oblivious “sheeple”, I think her concept of the superman was meant as an inspiration rather than as a class division. While the Nazis used the concept as a divider to proclaim their own superiority, the superman concept in Rand’s literature seems more like a challenge to the reader to do more, think more, be more than they are now. To be in control of your own destiny. And not be bogged down by artificial, meaningless limits placed upon us by society, culture, tradition, religion, or other institutions which impress conformity upon its members.

King George II

2006-05-24T14:17:00.000-05:00

(Alternate link to Advocates coverage of this story is here.)

What do you call the ruler of a country who considers himself to be above the law, able to ignore it whenever it inconveniences him? Conceited, arrogant, and dangerous are some terms. Dictator would be another. If that ruler also thinks his rule comes from divine mandate, then perhaps king might be the most accurate.

The articles linked to above and in the title detail a dangerous new expansion of presidential powers, to the point where Bush has decided that legislative and judicial checks and balances do not apply to him. I've long held that all presidents are more or less roughly equal in political corruptness and incompetence. Bush, however, seems to be setting himself quite apart from previous presidents who, despite their politicking and demagoguery, nevertheless seemed to understand the importance of having a balance of power between the 3 branches of gov't.

The gist of the above articles, is that Bush has been attaching hundreds (750+) of "signing statements" to bills he signs, essentially saying that he retains the right (what right?) to ignore any such law as he sees fit. Gee, can we do that too? Signing a bill into law, and then attaching a signing statement to it, is exactly analogous to a little kid who says "I promise" while keeping his fingers crossed behind his back.

This in itself is a pretty serious thing for a president to do, but the exact types of bills Bush has been doing this with should be a real cause for alarm. Some bills that Bush feels he needn't comply with include:

military rules & regulations, such as how military prisons are operated (secret & otherwise)
protections for nuclear safety whistleblowers
requirements that he inform Congress on immigration service problems
requirements that he inform Congress on how he's putting the Patriot Act to use
requirements that he inform Congress on funding secret military operations
Congressional oversight of presidential actions
a ban on military combat engagement in Colombia
bans against the use of torture
bans against the use of information collected illegally in direct violation of the 4th Amendment

I've remarked previously that many Republicans seem to regard the Constitution as a nuisance, something nice to hold over other nations' heads but otherwise just an impediment to "tough on crime" policies. Bush seems to hold this view quite literally.

The next presidential election is going to be a mess. The Repubs will pick a candidate who is as close to Bush's policies as possible. The Dems, in turn, will not feel obligated to choose a truly qualified candidate either; their slogan will be, "Even a garden slug would make a better president than Bush." Which is probably just what they'll pick as a candidate.

I fear that the next president, Dem or Repub, instead of reversing all the damage that Bush is doing, will decide that they feel just fine with the level of expanded presidential power that Bush has left them. That, I think, is one of the worst parts of all this. The effects of bad presidents don't go away when they leave office; the policy changes, expansions of power, new bills & programs, & new practices have a bad habit of sticking around many years or decades into the future. As a president, Bush will most certainly leave quite a legacy; it's just too bad that the results of that legacy may prove disastrous for this country.

Does working six jobs qualify me as a workaholic?

2006-05-19T16:14:00.000-05:00

Yes, I'm actually holding six jobs right now--sort of. I work for a local ISP from about 11am to 5pm each day. Been doing that for a couple months now.

In the mornings, and if needed right after I get off at 5pm from that ISP job, I also work for a second local ISP. Pretty much the same work--troubleshoots, installs, & handling customers. The two companies were in merger talks at one time, I don't know if that's still on or not.

Job #3 I work from 6-10pm. I score state exams for 5th- & 6th-grade math. Although occasionally entertaining, this job is mostly mind-numbing. It's also given me a real appreciation for just how badly our public schools are utterly failing to do their job--either that, or lead pipes are back in style.

The fourth job is a recent weekend gig. A friend of mine runs an ISP up in northwestern Indiana, and I've been helping him do wireless site surveys, installs, and network infrastructure maintenance & repairs. Some of that work I've been doing for him pro bono, in part because we've been friends since about 5th grade (about 25 years), and partly because it's a real educational opportunity for me.

Then there's some editorial work I'm doing for a local publishing house. It's freelance work, and I can do it in my spare time. My wife actually signed me up for that job, she was working there for some time and now also freelances for them.

My sixth job is with a consulting/temp agency. They get me the occasional one-shot gig doing PC/server deployments, site inventories, POS rollouts, and such. They're one of the many I.T.-oriented temp agencies you can find out there. My work with them isn't very regular, but it gives me a few extra bucks every now and then, plus some more resume-padding.

I'll tell ya, I'm hoping I don't get burned out. The good thing about being as busy as I am, though, is that you don't have time to get burned out. :-) Also, the variety of work I do keeps things from getting too monotonous. There are downsides, of course. I miss sleeping in, I'd like more time to spend with my wife, I'm still not making as much money as I would be with a single good career, and my Tivo's getting piled up with a backlog of programs. But, my current work status certainly isn't going to be permanent. I have some possibilities on the horizon for full-time work at either yet another local ISP (which in turn is also looking to partner with one of the ISP's I currently work for), my friend's ISP up in NW IN, or possibly as a network tech at the local university. It will probably be next month at least before I know anything definite about any of those, though.

What a busy life I'm leading! I'm not feeling any self-pity though; I don't like that emotion in others, and I like it even less in myself. Self-pity is a very disempowering emotion...but that's a subject for a future blog entry. It's almost 5pm as I write this now, and I've got 4 more hours of work plus a two-hour drive ahead of me!

FCC attacks 1st Amendment again, gets laughed out of court

2006-05-16T12:57:00.000-05:00

Finally, a judge with some sense! In yet another grab for power by the FCC at the expense of our freedoms, the FCC this time is trying to force colleges, at huge expense, to make Internet communications more "friendly" to wiretaps. Problem is, there's nothing authorizing them to do so. U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards ridiculed them for this, saying, "Your argument makes no sense. When you go back to the office, have a big chuckle. I'm not missing this. This is ridiculous. Counsel!"

The FCC, among many other federal agencies, is in desperate need of many more such bitch-slappings. It's good to see there are still friends of freedom in the judiciary.

morning energy drink recipe

2006-05-03T14:47:00.000-05:00

This is the first--and possibly only--recipe you'll see on my blog. It's something I came up with on my own. I make this on most mornings to down my vitamins with. Not as nutritious as a fruit smoothie, but it's fast to make, cheap, and you don't need to use (or clean) a blender.

1-Minute, No-Mess Orange-Strawberry Morning Energy Drink

A tall glass of milk, filled to a bit less than an inch from the top
A heaping spoonful of orange-flavored, smooth-texture Metamucil (or store brand) fiber
A good squirt (about 2 tbsp.) of Strawberry Nesquik syrup

Use a spoon to measure the orange-flavored fiber into the glass of milk, and stir it in. Then add some strawberry syrup drink mix and stir. That's it!

OK, so both the orange and strawberry flavors are artificial. Big deal. The point of this recipe is that you don't have to mess with cutting up fruit, blending it in a blender, then washing out the blender. If that's your thing, fine. This is a quick substitute that will give you a quick dose of sugar for now plus fiber and protein for energy later. For those who don't usually eat breakfast, this drink will also postpone that pre-lunch hunger.

I highly recommend the fiber be of the smooth-texture variety, as that stirs in much easier. Similarly, I don't recommend using Strawberry Quik powder, since with the fiber powder it will not mix very well and may settle out in chunks quickly. (Quik-ly?) This recipe if followed should still be drunk soon after you make it, as any fiber powder has a tendency to settle out regardless. That's why I use the smooth-texture fiber and liquid syrup.

Bottoms up, and enjoy!

"America, Right or Wrong"

2006-05-02T14:13:00.000-05:00

This book review is one of the best descriptors I've read of the "American attitude" or, as the reviewed book calls it, the "American Creed." This might be described as "a civil nationalism that promotes values like democracy, liberty, law, egalitarianism, and individualism." While generally perceived by Americans and non-Americans alike as a good thing (and as an "American thing"), these can also have their negative consequences, particularly in the area of foreign relations, when pride in these attributes morphs into a messianic or superiority complex which in turn leads to imperialism and/or nationalistic arrogance. But read the review and you'll see what I mean. Time permitting (har har) I may even try to read the book itself.

As something of an anti-nationalist, I don't particularly care for the phrase "America, right or wrong." The "...or wrong" part is just, well, wrong. Those who agree with this phrase are essentially putting blind faith in the American ideal ahead of recognizing any faults this country has and doing something about them. There is nothing wrong with having faith in the American ideal, just in having blind or unconditional faith. One should not turn a blind eye to America's faults, but should instead strive to correct them. "Germany, right or wrong" was a popular sentiment during the first half of the 20th century among Germans, and we can see how well that turned out.

Neocons nowadays similarly seem to live by the motto, "Bush, right or wrong." They are apologists for Bush, no matter what he does, even when his actions go against what more traditional, "old-style" conservatives believe in. (Bush is certainly no friend of minimal gov't or laissez-faire economics.) They feel a loyalty to him and his administration that seems to transcend (or transgress) rationality, consistency, or principles. They excuse and justify his actions rather than protesting when his actions go badly or go against core conservative beliefs. (Which is not to imply that the Democratic party is any better at sticking to their principles.)

No country, belief, or idea is ever made better by ignoring or covering up its faults. Indeed, one of the great strengths of free speech and democracy are that we can speak out against wrongs, and hopefully take action to correct them. The Soviet Union imploded because wrongs in its economy and in its actions and behaviors were excused and covered up until their cumulative effects caused the collapse of the country. China, on the other hand is experiencing rapid economic growth now that they've embraced capitalism and foreign investment (in practice, even if the Old Guard keeps spouting its communist slogans).

The bottom line is that wrongs should be and need to be corrected. To excuse, attempt to justify, or cover them up is not only a perpetuation of wrongness, but ultimately self-destructive.

Capitalism, atheism, and the meaning of life

2006-04-27T16:21:00.000-05:00

"Taxation of earnings from labor is on a par with forced labor. Seizing the results of someone's labor is equivalent to seizing hours from him and directing him to carry on various activities." -- Robert Nozick, Harvard philosopher

What do the three items in the title have to do with each other? The above quote is a hint.

The quote from Nozick sums up a common libertarian and capitalist sentiment, and is itself a somewhat radical, but also concrete, concept. It boils down to this: taxation is functionally equivalent to slavery. Do you disagree? Think about it. What is slavery, but one human forced to turn over his life's efforts and the fruits of his labor to another, against his will and under threat of severe punishment? The slave at best owns only part of his life. When he works for his master, the meaning and purpose of his life are subjugated to that of his master's. Taxation is simply another form of slavery. How much of your taxes--income, property, sales, etc. etc. etc.--would you pay if they were 100% optional? Like today, you still wouldn't get to choose how they were spent, just how much you would give. And indeed, much of your taxes would be squandered on pork and other spending you would not agree with. You are, in short, giving up your life's time and labor involuntarily to others for uses that neither benefit you nor are agreeable to you. You may partially benefit from some of the taxes collected, but black slaves also "benefitted" by receiving food and shelter. That certainly doesn't mean slavery was good for them though, because they lacked the freedom to control their own destiny, to create their own meaning and purpose in life. Similarly, taxation means the meaning and purpose of a part of your life are no longer yours to control--no longer your own.

What does this have to do with atheism? Many theists believe (see article linked to in title) that meaning and purpose in life are determined by, or handed down from, god. That we are all a part of "god's plan." Many of these same theists find it hard to imagine how an atheist can have any meaning in their life. "If you don't believe in god or an afterlife, then what's the purpose of living? Why don't you just kill yourself now, since in another 100 years it won't matter anyway?" I have actually been asked that, though I'm paraphrasing. My response, is that meaning and purpose in life are something we each need to create for ourselves. We have to. To have meaning and purpose handed to us from an external source, be it from god or gov't, means that it is not truly our own. Indeed, our lives cannot have true meaning or purpose unless we create it ourselves.

Religious theists, many of whom claim to be of a capitalist bent, should take a lesson from free-market economics. The law of supply & demand states that a finite good is more valuable than an infinite good. Life is like that too. How valuable would--could--life really be, if we knew for a fact that there was an eternal afterlife afterwards? Eternity, it's been said, is a really, really long time. Any finite lifespan is infinitessimal and worthless by comparison; if you had an infinite amount of money, what value would there be in picking up a dollar off the street? What value would a few decades of flesh-and-blood life have compared to an infinitely-long afterlife? Contrary to theist thinking, life is all the more precious when you know that this life is all you have.

Liberals, on the other hand, tend to be more individualistic and/or irreligous than conservatives, but many liberal economic policies seem to either ignore or flat-out oppose the laws of supply & demand. They also tend to support many programs requiring high levels of taxation. So there's a bit of learning to be done at the opposite end of the political spectrum as well. How much of our lives and destinies are truly our own when taxation takes nearly half our earnings?

This life is the only one we get, though even if you don't believe that, it's still wise to behave as if you did. We can achieve maximum happiness in life only with the maximum liberty to find and pursue that happiness. Intellectual liberty, civil liberty, and economic liberty. In the end, all three of those are the same. Only within the framework of liberty can we create a meaning and purpose for our lives which is truly our own.

Goodbye Millenium, Hello XP

2006-04-26T15:58:00.000-05:00

Today I moved up in the world of computers. Gone now are the days of running an obsolete operating system, now I'm running a merely soon-to-be-obsolete OS.

I bought Windows Millenium (ME) not long after its release, and have been running it on my computer continuously until just earlier today, when I finally upgraded to XP Home Edition. Despite the shocked looks of horror whenever I tell someone I was running ME on my computer, it's served me well these past 6 years or so. True, it can be unstable at times, but on my computer at least it was unstable in a fairly predictable way. I leave my computer on 24/7, and I averaged maybe a bit over one reboot a week. It helped that I have a gig of RAM in my computer, seldom install new programs (and I uninstall them if they seem to make the system unstable), and also make liberal use of the "winmgmt.exe /kill" command. Winmgmt seems to be a primary cause of memory leaks, and when the system starts acting funny and I do a cntl-alt-del it's often found there. Winmgmt /kill will often restore stability to my system.

I stuck with ME because it worked for me. It was stable enough, ran the programs I used, and didn't consume gobs of RAM or hard drive space. Also, I run a lot of older programs on my computer (mostly games from the early 90's), and I was concerned about compatibility should I upgrade to XP.

As far as network security is concerned, ME is not as advanced as XP, but I keep Windows updated, my computer clean of malware, and I'm behind a NAT firewall. When XP first came out, it was touted as more secure but soon was revealed to be a security swiss-cheese. The Blaster worm and others caused much grief for the ISP I work for, not to mention all the poor souls whose computers got infected sometimes just seconds after going online. So that was another reason to stick with ME.

XP has definitely improved over the years in security, but still I found no real reason to upgrade. But over time, the obsoleteness of ME started to sink in. More and more programs nowadays are XP-only. I also wondered if having an OS built on the more stable 2000 platform might improve my computer's stability even more. So early in 2006 I figured OK, maybe it's time to upgrade to XP, but not if I have to pay full price for it. So I watched for it to go on sale.

A couple times this year it did, but as luck would have it, both those times coincided with some financial stress, so I missed out. Finally though, this week Best Buy put it on sale for $60, with--get this--no mail-in rebates. That's the price you pay at the register! So I finally sprang for XP and got it.

After being sure to back up my important files, I installed it on my computer this morning. The upgrade took a bit over an hour, with about another hour of tweaking it to my preferences, and downloading & installing all the current updates. (Over 50! And 50+ MB, excluding .NET which is another 22MB or so. The install CD was SP2.) I really haven't had a chance to twiddle with it and really check it out, as I had to go to work. When I finish up my third job today at 10pm (yes, I work 3 jobs!), I'm looking forward to converting one or both of my drives from FAT32 to NTFS, and also doing test-runs on my most commonly-run programs to see how they run under XP. A few programs I'll probably uninstall if there's a newer, XP-specific version I can replace them with. (E.g. Adobe Acrobat Reader.)

From the (very) short amount of time I used the new OS this morning, it seems stable, and I'm actually somewhat surprised that the upgrade process went error-free. Still, there are a few, albeit minor disappointments already. First, the Home edition I got does not support NTFS file encryption. That's partly my fault, as I didn't want to splurge to get XP Professional. Second, despite the repeated claim during the setup process, XP doesn't seem to load any faster than ME on my computer, though it doesn't seem much slower either.

My biggest disappointment so far though is its stupendous hard drive requirements. My C: drive used 4.35GB under ME; it now uses nearly 9GB. Where did those 4+ GB go? The package says XP only needs 1.5GB of hard drive space, and the updates, even uncompressed, couldn't be more than 100-200MB more. My C: drive is only 10GB big, so that's a major chunk of it that's gone. Similarly, my D: drive, which used 49 of 60GB under ME, now uses 57GB, an 8GB increase. And Windows is on my C: drive! WTF did it do to take up 8GB extra on my D: drive? I turned off the paging/swap file, so it can't be that. Maybe when I convert to NTFS I'll regain some or all of that, but still, that's a big annoyance.

Well I guess I'll see how XP works out. Hopefully for the better. Windows Vista will be released sometime early next year it looks like. Vista is something that actually looks pretty darned good for a Microsoft product; it may just be their first true "OS done right." Still, I think I may wait at least until they release SP1 for it before upgrading from XP, or better yet, wait a few more years until I can get it on sale for $60. :-)

Tainting science with politics

2006-04-25T14:30:00.000-05:00

This article shows the dangers of what happens when an inherently political institution is put in charge of policy for a scientific endeavor. The inevitable: politics and dogma trumps science and evidence.

The article in question is about yet another display of corrupt incompetence and power-mongering by the FDA, this time in regards to medical marijuana (MMJ). Using old data--because old data is all there is, since the gov't has quashed any new research from being done--they have declared that MMJ has no medicinal value. Funny thing is, from what data there is, that scientists disagree with them. But saying that MMJ is a beneficial drug might lead to calls to have it downgraded from its current status as being slightly less harmful than drinking a barrel of cyanide. And that, in turn would send a "mixed message" to the American public, who are all too stupid to know what a bad, evil, lethal thing MJ is.

Now I should offer the standard disclaimer that I've never done MJ, medicinally or otherwise, so I don't have any first-hand experiences with either its benefits or hazards. The legal status of MJ is still of interest to me, though, for the same reason you don't need to be black to be concerned about civil rights or female to be concerned about womens' suffrage. It's a freedom thing--freedom isn't one of those things you can pick-and-choose who you're going to offer it to. All of us should have the freedom to live our lives as we please, constrained only so far as is necessary such that we take responsibility for our actions, and do no harm to the health, property, or freedoms of others.

And if ever there was a prime example of how drug prohibition has harmed society far more than the drugs themselves, MJ is it. Corruption of law enforcement, ruination of countless lives, a gov't that engages in blatant and untruthful propaganda, erosions of fundamental liberties, and untold billions of dollars pissed away are all part of the legacy of drug prohibition. And to the MMJ controversy one can also add denial of the will of the people, as the federal gov't continues to resist and deny referendum after referendum where clear majorities of the people say they want MMJ legal.

Addendum: on a separate issue, climate change, here is another example of a politician trying to sway, punish, or chill scientific research he disagrees with. While I myself may have some reservations about the methodologies and/or conclusions drawn from climate research, nevertheless it is critical that the research itself be conducted free from political influences or persuasion.

Birth of a new religion?

2006-04-24T14:51:00.000-05:00

Sometimes I'll spot a trend of some sort and I'll think I'm one of the few people to see this trend, but then someone else will write about it. The latest observation is the emergence of a religious-style environmental movement, or depending on your point of view, an environmental-style religion.

I'm not talking about anything as concrete as, say, the Wiccan religion. Not yet at least. But there are some segments of the environmental movement which are developing some strong similarities to a religion. Some of these similarities include:

A strong Puritanical streak. Humans are inherently impure or evil. These enviros see humanity as a figurative, or literal, cancer upon the Earth. Only those who "see the light" are worthy of being associated with, or ultimately of salvation.
A strong resistance to modernity. Fundamentalist religion is not so much a zealous, literalist interpretation of holy texts as it is a resistance to modern culture, modern living, and modern traditions. It is a desire to return to some perceived "simpler time" when humanity was supposedly more conscious of his place and closer to god/nature than today.
A profound ignorance and dislike of particular biological concepts. Just as most creationists and ID'ers know very little about the actual workings of genetics and evolution (despite what they may claim), so too do most "enviro-fundamentalists" know little about genetics as applied to technology and modification. Fear of and resistance to genetically-modified organisms (GMO's) is mostly founded on ignorance of the process involved in creating GMO's as well as how genes behave.
Periodic doomsday or end-of-the-world predictions. Enviros have been tossing out doomsday-scenarios as fast as the media will lap them up. In recent years they've probably out-stripped the xtian end-timers in both the number and urgency of predictions. Abrupt climate change, global pandemics, Malthusian overpopulation, lethal pollution everywhere, out-of-control Frankenfoods rampaging down Main Street...one way or the other, humanity is apparently doomed, and it will be Any Day Now.
An "us vs. them" mentality. Are you a capitalist, an entrepreneur, a Republican, a xtian, an SUV-owner, or simply someone not obsessed with saving the environment? Then you're part of the problem; you're one of them.
Behaviors and beliefs which are considered not just bad, but sinful, as an affront to the object being worshipped (in this case, nature). Such behaviors include technological innovation (especially in the service of a corporation), capitalism (or anything involving obvious profit-making), being of another religion (particularly xtianity), polluting (or contributing to pollution), tampering with nature (e.g. genetic engineering), etc.
Pop-culture phenomenons which, despite being based on junk science or outright fantasy, are taken almost as "gospel truth" the way xtians view such fiction like The DaVinci Code or the Left Behind series.

It is kind of exciting to watch all this play out: the birth of a new religion before our eyes. To be sure, environmentalism isn't a full-fledged religion yet. It is still, for the most part, lacking in such things as houses of worship, ceremonies, and common symbols. It does have, however, organized assemblies, various denominations, growing political involvement, and even a holiday. Like traditional religious denominations, enviro denominations are mostly united on the overall theme but differ on some of the details. For instance, some enviros are opposed to wind or hydroelectric power for various reasons, while others see these as essential alternatives to fossil fuels.

The enviro movement claims to be based on science, and to a degree it is. Where they depart from science, though, is in their misuse and abuse of science. Cherry-picked data, overreliance on and overconfidence in modelling and predictions, trotting out worst-case scenarios as what "will happen," and relying on emotional arguments. To be sure, they also accuse anyone who disagrees with them of doing the same, and in any "us vs. them" situation that is probably true. But the environmental movement, particularly its more radical elements, is much less science-based than they would like people to believe.

And indeed the point of this article isn't so much a condemnation of the entire movement as it is a comparison of its more radical fringe (the stereotypical "bitter enviro") with its supposed polar opposite in the Religious Right. Both of these groups have much more in common than a penchant for teeth-gnashing. They are, literally or figuratively, both religions, and both prone to the same type of dogmatic thinking and zealous beliefs found in religion.

Customers--gotta love 'em!

2006-04-21T11:55:00.000-05:00

I work for two ISP's in the local area where I live. As a network technician, I handle Internet installations and troubleshoots. Most of the clients are college students, so most of the installs occur at the beginning of each semester, leaving most of the rest of the year's work as troubleshoots.

It is a most unfortunate fact of life that Shit Happens. Here in central Illinois, quite a bit happens. Much of it can ultimately be traced back to either the weather, or the crappy electical grid we have here. We don't seem to get nearly as many blackouts as people do up in northern IL with ComEd, but that's more than made up for with frequent brownouts, power spikes, and the occasional lightning strike.

Anyway, sometimes when crap happens we get some rather unreasonable customers calling in. Not that they don't have the right to be frustrated when their service goes out, but I've just gotta chuckle at the way some of them behave.

One common thing I hear is, "My Internet's been out for two days!!!" Translation: it went down at 11pm yesterday, and they're calling in at 1am today.

One unfortunate side effect of the local university's vast computerization of many of its classes, including homework assignments, is that students are now dependent on the Internet like a crack addict is to his rock. As a result, when a site goes down now I hear a lot of, "I've got homework to do and it needs to be done tonight!" This is usually in a voicemail left at 11pm or so.

Now, both the ISP's I work for are what you might call economy service providers. The prices for service are cheap, about half what the local cable company is charging. AT&T/SBC DSL is cheaper, but they require you to have a land-line phone with phone service through them, and that isn't cheap. We don't, and that's a big plus with college students nowadays, the great majority of whom only use cell phones. And while our networks probably aren't as reliable overall as cable or DSL (though I don't have exact figures to compare), our response times are a helluva lot quicker. Most of our troubleshoots can be solved in an hour or two, compared to maybe a day or more for cable, and good luck getting anyone from AT&T/SBC to come out and look at your DSL. (If you can, expect to get charged through the nose for it.)

But of course the customers don't know this. Not that they should be expected to, but it's kinda frustrating to know this, and it's not like that's something I can tell the customers. Still, I have received numerous compliments from them on the quick response time, and actually had some customers switch back to us after they got frustrated with the Big Names.

My job could be a stressful one, but I'm usually a pretty mellow guy and it takes a lot to make me lose my cool. In three years I've never snapped at a customer or treated them poorly, though I have bitten my tongue on several occasions. Customers usually mouth off the most when leaving a voicemail message. They're not so bad when I'm talking to them live on the phone, and are usually quite well behaved when I visit them in person. Interesting psychology there....

I encounter a broad spectrum of customers. Like I said most of them are college students, but even so there's a lot of diversity, especially since there's a large foreign student population here. (Most are from India or China.) Some are pretty mellow, others are high-strung. Some are obvious boozers. There are quite a few prima-donnas and spoiled brats too, of both genders.

Some are chronic complainers who call in the minute something happens. These are the people who expect you to wait on them hand and foot, and can't understand why at $25/month they can't expect a technician to be sent out immediately at 2am in the morning when their net goes down. And we're not talking about some mission-critical situation where someone is remote-piloting a plane or doing tele-operation surgery. No, it's some student who procrastinated for two weeks on some assignment that's now due the following morning.

A few other students are just the opposite; I've actually had several calls along the lines of, "Yeah my Internet went down a week ago, but I just never got around to calling you about it."

Then there's your Internet morons who download half a dozen spyware and adware programs onto their computer, along with at least one virus, then wonder why they're having so much trouble with their net. Looking at their computers, these students are usually pretty easy to spot. Their desktop is an icon farm, and all the programs loaded into their taskbar stretch across half their screen. Their Internet Explorer (or as I call it, "Inter-nyet Exploder") has at least two 3rd-party search bars installed, from companies you've never heard of, complete with shortcut icons for shopping, gambling, and other spam sites.

But all in all, I like my ISP jobs. I get to use my brain, the physical activity keeps me fit, I'm forced to keep up on the latest tech advances (but this is a good thing), and I've also honed my customer-relation skills. The customers, for better or for worse, always keep things interesting.

Customers...ya gotta love 'em!

Why Iraqis & most others in the middle east hate us

2006-04-20T16:40:00.000-05:00

This story pretty much says it all: paranoid, trigger-happy, undisciplined troops indiscriminately shooting unarmed women and children. This is the sort of story you'd expect to hear describing the actions of Nazi SS troops during WW2. For something like this to have happened, not just one thing but many big things must be going terribly wrong over in Iraq, and I doubt that relieving 3 senior officers of duty will do much of anything to fix it.

Disgraceful. We're supposed to be better than this! We're supposed to be the good guys, but the Iraqis are saying they fear our troops more than the extremists and insurgents.

What fundies & alien-abductee believers have in common

2006-04-19T14:13:00.000-05:00

This article provides an interesting scientific explanation for the phenomenon of near-death experiences (NDE's). The gist of it is that NDE's may best be explained by a phenomenon called REM intrusion, which is a mid-way state between dreaming and being awake. During this state the muscles of your body may be disengaged as during sleep, while your visual cortex is highly active. This may lead to a sensation of paralysis, or of leaving your body. As hearing may not be affected too much, this could explain how some people can recognize or "know" who is around them during the NDE. The visual part is essentially hallucination, albeit a fairly convincing one.

The article didn't mention alien-abductees, but I couldn't help but notice the strong similarity in the description of symptoms. Many who claim to be "visited" by aliens during the night also report feeling paralyzed and/or detached from their bodies. The only real difference would seem to be the type of visual experience, seeing aliens instead of a bright light. The aliens could easily be the result of their dreaming mind, while the bright light is quite likely the result of the end-stage hyperactivity, randomization of neuronal firings, and decreasing oxygen supply of a dying brain.

I highly doubt this new research will change anyone's mind, though. Those who believe strongly in an afterlife, or in alien abductions, are not the type to be swayed by contrary scientific evidence or explanations. Personal convictions, especially when bolstered by personal experiences or sensory perceptions, will very often override one's objectivity and rational judgement on the issue at hand.

Why I'm a pacifist

2006-04-19T13:46:00.000-05:00

War on Poverty: Social programs designed to help the poor have made us all poorer and threaten the financial future of this country.
War on Drugs: Have increased crime & violence, made drugs highly profitable, corrupted law enforcement, and decreased purity & consistency, leading to more deaths & illness.
War on Tobacco: This regressive tax has enriched gov't tax coffers and trial lawyers by billions of dollars while sending up in smoke many simple, everyday freedoms like the right to smoke in public outdoors or the right of business owners to establish their own smoking policies.
War on Gun Violence: Blatant abridgement of peaceful citizens' Constitutional right to own a firearm.
War on __(insert country name here)__: Has made America-hating the #1 sporting event in the world.
War on Improper Entertainment: Mandatory gov't rating of TV shows & video games, mandatory for all TV's to have censorship chips (V-chips), and repeated attempts to censor lawful Internet content.
War on Fast Food & Obesity: This one's still heating up, but rest assured we'll soon have fewer choices and higher prices for the food we buy.

Is it just me, or does it seem like politicians just need to have some holy crusade going on against some perceived Threat du Jour in order to feel like they're accomplishing anything important? Though truth be told, 99% of what politicians do is not important in the grand scheme of things....

Torture and the decay of gov't

2006-04-18T15:30:00.000-05:00

While there are, sadly, quite a number of apologists for torture in this country (most of whom appear to be conservatives who argue its necessity for the all-encompassing "national security"), the good majority of Americans are still repulsed by the notion, and sickened that our gov't should engage in it, or even appear to engage in it.

Torture, secret prisons, and imprisonment without charge or trial were, pre-9/11, things that only dictatorships engaged in. (One could very well argue that that is still the case....) They are, in and of themselves, terrible acts of pain, suffering, and gross injustice for their victims. There are, however, reasons why even those not involved in it should oppose it. The damage done by such practices are not confined to their victims, but also infect the offending gov't with the seeds of its own eventual downfall: secrecy & unaccountability, destruction of vital checks & balances, a dampening of citizen engagement, undue presumption & practice of power, and the inevitable abuses and corruption that follows from any and all of these.

The dynamic between citizenry and gov't can be a fragile one. If the citizenry gets free reign over gov't, you get tyrannies of the majority, and gov't run by desires rather than reason. France would seem to be a good example of this, with its whiny citizens calling national strikes for any little thing they don't like, and the gov't usually caving in. At the other end of the spectrum, with gov't having free reign over the citizenry, you have dictatorship, kleptocracy, and brutal rule. The examples of this are all too numerous.

It is probably much better to err on the side of a too-powerful citizenry, though the results can be the same: a tyranny of the majority can be every bit as harsh as a dictatorship of one. Oddly, though, the two also have a similar root cause. In both cases, the gov't has too much power. Who wields that power, a leader or the masses, is less important than the fact that too much power in the first place always leads to bad results.

The ideals that America was founded on recognize this key fact, and our Constitution is one of the few ever to place explicit limits on the power of gov't, as well as to set up checks and balances against the accumulation and abuse of power. The Founders knew that the way to maximize both liberty and prosperity was to minimize the power of gov't. Checks & balances, accountability, and transparency were all designed to keep gov't from growing into the monster that so many previous regimes had.

Torture. Secret prisons. Imprisonment without charge or trial. Widespread, secret surveillance of citizens. These are acts that no just, healthy gov't should ever engage in, for any reason. They are a sickness, an infectious agent that can turn a healthy gov't into a deranged one, a responsible one into an unaccountable one, and a gov't for the benefit of the people into a gov't that exists only for its own benefit. For several years now America has been sliding down the path of gov't decay. It's time we stopped it.

Addendum: Another good article on Emperor Bush's steady slide into dictatorship can be found here.

Anti-abortionists' poor grasp of English

2006-04-18T14:26:00.000-05:00

It seems as if many people in the anti-abortion movement persist in redefining words to suit their purpose. The most common example is, that you rarely hear them call a fetus a fetus. It's always a "baby" or "child." The fact that it hasn't been born yet seems to be one of those annoying facts to them that's best swept under the carpet, much the same way Bush thinks of the Constitution's limits on gov't power and protections for individuals.

The idea behind this anti-abortionist propaganda technique, of course, is that they want to humanize something which is, at best, a future human. This is also why they're fond of showing pictures of fetuses that have been airbrushed to make them look more human and more developed.

But when you stretch the meaning of words beyond all reason, you lose the definition altogether. I mean, if calling a fetus a child is legitimate, then why not call a sandwich a child? If a kid eats a sandwich, it will be digested and some portion of it will become a part of him, used as material for building more cells. And, in a whole lot less time than a fetus takes to become a child, too.

Of course even the anti-abortionists know you can't go as far as calling a fetus an adult. They know that doing so would stretch credulity too far. Besides, it might remind people that many anti-abortionists also are strong supporters of the death penalty. And anyone who's anti-abortion but pro-death penalty is lying if they call themselves pro-life.

So yesterday I'm driving around town, and I see a minivan with the following bumper sticker on it:

"If it's not a baby, then you're not pregnant!"

What an example of abusive wordplay! Here, they are being quite explicit in equating a fetus to a baby in the present tense. Never mind that everyone else defines a baby as having already been born. So I would argue, that if it is a baby, then you're not pregnant, at least not with the same baby in question.

It's a pity that anti-abortionists feel the need to be linguistically deceptive in order to get their point across. Perhaps they don't realize that others are on to their word games, and that persisting in doing that only turns people (smart ones, anyway) away from their cause. Does the anti-abortion movement care more about having sheer numbers on their side as opposed to having smart proponents who can make valid arguments? Perhaps; as most anti-abortion efforts have had a legislative focus, it could be that they simply want enough numbers to pass a ban by law, without the bother of having to justify their views on a rational basis. Now this is not to say that anti-abortionists have no rational basis for their beliefs, maybe they do, but they don't seem to put forth anywhere near the effort they do in emotional propaganda.

The meaning of life

2006-04-14T12:37:00.000-05:00

What is the meaning of life? That's been a question pondered by philosophers, theologians, and laymen for ages. The answers, it seems, are many. Some of the more popular responses are:

To serve others
To serve god
To live a good life
To live a meaningful life
To create a legacy for yourself, either through offspring or your accomplishments
42 (Trivia fact: 42 is also the ASCII code for the asterisk [*], which in computer jargon is aka the wildcard character, meaning it can represent anything and everything.)
There is no "universal" meaning of life, it's something we each have to create for ourselves

Many people of a moderate to strong religious persuasion seem to believe in one or both of the first two. Aristotle was one of the proponents of the 3rd & 4th choices. Goal-oriented people often live by the 5th choice, and most sci-fi fans should be familiar with the 6th. And me? I'm a firm believer in the 7th, that meaning is something we each create.

You could call me a moral relativist, though not in the sense most MR critics think of it in. But it's not the reason I don't believe in any universal or pre-ordained meaning, at least not entirely.

I suppose if you look at life from a strictly genetic viewpoint, a strong case could be made that the meaning and purpose of life is simply replication. Our bodies are no more than vessels for the genetic coding contained within. Indeed, in much of the animal kingdom (and in humans up until the invention of medicine) there are not many physical adaptations for living significantly longer than the time needed to reproduce and successfully raise young. (There are exceptions, of course, but they are mostly that--exceptions.)

But even those of us who don't believe in gods would argue that we are more than the sum of our genetic material. Sentience and self-awareness may have arisen as a survival technique, but through evolutionary pressures or sheer accident (or Design, if you're of that thinking) it has blossomed into something much more, especially in humans. As clever, tool-using creatures we've become so successful as a species that we now have the luxury of devoting a significant portion of our time and energy into efforts that have nothing to do with survival or reproduction. Blogging, for instance. :-) What we choose to do with this surplus of ability, is up to us.

Even for theists (at least those not of a Calvinistic persuasion), the idea of self-determination and self-invented purpose should follow, at least roughly, from the concept of a god who created humans with free will. Free will, and sentience itself, would only detract from being able to use us as part of some Divine Plan. For a car engine to run smoothly, all its component parts need to perform as intended. If a spark plug decides it would rather study opera or an intake manifold is more interested in starting a business, your car isn't going to run very long, if at all.

Some theists may respond that we have a choice as to whether to accept god/religion or not, but this is not the same as being able to say, "there is a universal plan and this is what it is." Indeed even among people who believe in preordination or a universal plan, there is little agreement as to just what that would be. Seems to me if god wanted our lives to have some meaning external to any meaning we may create for ourselves, he should have been a lot less ambiguous about it. Or better yet, just not have free will in humans at all. Perhaps if there was a god though, he might just realize that our lives can only have meaning with free will, i.e. with the ability to create that meaning for ourselves.

One argument used in favor of a "divine plan" or some other external meaning to life, is that without it, life would have no meaning, and thus no value. This assertion simply denies any possibility that humans can create meaning and purpose for themselves. I would respond that without any ability to create meaning for our own lives, this is when our lives really don't have much value. Whether your life's meaning is "assigned" to you by some greater authority (a god or dictatorial gov't), or simply has no meaning at all, how can it have value to you? For our lives to mean something and have value, we have to create it ourselves.

This is also why I place so much value on personal freedoms. When we live unfree lives, we lose the ability of self-determination, the ability to create meaning for, and value in, our lives. Loss of freedom is a loss in the value of life. When the purpose of our lives is not our own, then neither is the value of our lives; we are reduced to interchangeable cogs in someone else's purpose.

For another blog perspective on meaning and purpose in our lives, check this out.

Global warming solutions that won't break the bank

2006-04-13T14:47:00.000-05:00

Global warming (GW) has become a crusade for environmentalists. Although many still warn against threats such as pollution, rainforest loss, and biodiversity reduction, most of the attention--and dire warnings--now center around GW and in particular, CO₂ emissions. The growing scientific consensus seems to be that GW is a real phenomenon, though there is still debate over how much (if any) is of human origin.

For those who acknowledge GW, and especially humanity's involvement (or culpability) in it, the next obvious question becomes: What do we do about it? To this, most responses have polarized into one of two camps. The first, claims that either GW is not significantly anthropogenic, or that GW might actually be good for us, but that either way it's not really a concern we need do anything about. The other side, claims that the solution is both simple, and singular: We need to significantly reduce CO₂ emissions, and we do that by significantly reducing energy consumption. (Or make major changes in how that energy is generated.)

To enact CO₂ reductions large enough to have a meaningful effect on GW will require major changes in energy generation and/or consumption--and accordingly, will have major costs and major negative effects on economies and standards of living. The Kyoto Protocol alone, which even its proponents admit will have negligible effects on global climate (it is intended as a starting point toward more draconian and costly measures), will cost the world hundreds of billions of dollars annually and have a measurable dampening effect on economies. Indeed, several of its most supportive signatory nations are now saying they will probably not be able to reach its target emission levels by the deadline date.

This dichotomy of actions--do nothing, or do major damage to the world's economies--seems to be a self-polarizing phenomenon. Both sides refuse to give any consideration to the other, and both sides also see no point to any kind of mid-way compromise. A half-strength Kyoto Protocol, for instance, would be unacceptable to both sides. The economists (for lack of a better term; I don't want to use "anti-environmentalists," as that is a loaded term and inaccurate) would point out that it would still fail a cost/benefit analysis, while the enviros would say that it doesn't go far enough to be meaningful. So, both sides seem stuck in their respective camps.

There may be other solutions to the all-or-nothing tug of war, though, which have the potential to make both sides happy. Pollution credits are one solution with potential, though many enviros still get severe allergic reactions to anything having to do with "market-based." Some have also tried to bridge the gap between ecology and economy, with mixed results. This article, then, accomplishes a major feat: it may offer a workable solution to GW with measurable results, while also actually being minimally destructive towards economies.

The solution is not so much a specific course of action as it is a general concept: GW mitigation. The idea is that rather than cutting off GW at its (most significant) source, thus attempting to "save the planet" at the expense of human well-being, we should attempt to use a variety of cheap yet highly-effective forms of geo-engineering. Geo-engineering might be described as "terraforming lite." This idea recognizes that it simply isn't feasable to roll back the clock on human economic development.

To be sure, there will be some knee-jerk opposition to this from enviros who view any human activity as destructive. Such enviros also tend to view humanity as a figurative, or literal, cancer upon the Earth. I'm not sure how widespread such anti-human sentiments are in the enviro movement, but if enviro postings on Yahoo science message boards are an accurate sampling, such views are certainly not merely in the fringe. (I would post links to some specific examples, but Yahoo message board posts are subject to rapid link-rot.)

Still, if enviros are serious about reducing mankind's effects on the climate, this is something they should seriously consider. And unlike actions like the Kyoto Protocol which need global compliance (and thus global agreement), GW mitigation can be done regionally. The exact technique used, in fact, depends on the region where it's used.

Some examples of GW mitigation include increasing Earth's albedo to reflect more sunlight back into space before it can be absorbed as heat, and ways of removing CO₂ from the atmosphere. Methods of the former include slighly altering the composition of concrete to make it doubly reflective, making rooftops white, increasing the presence of sulfuric acid in the upper atmosphere (fired directly from naval guns, or included in remote sulfur-burning operations), and/or adjusting jets to burn a more fuel-rich mixture, thus increasing cloud cover. To remove significant quantities of CO₂ from the air cheaply, we can seed the oceans with iron (thus greatly increasing phytoplankton production), and/or plant many more forests in currently unusable or marginally-usable wilderness or farmlands.

GW mitigation has several big advantages going for it. The first is that for most of these techniques, "just a little bit'll do ya." They have the promise of being incredibly effective.

Another advantage is that, especially compared to Kyoto and other onerous enviro regs, these techniques are a comparative bargain. Most are in the range of a few tens of billions of dollars, about a tenth the cost to achieve similar results using Kyoto-style CO₂ reductions. This would deflate much of the opposition from concerns over economic harm.

And a big appeasement for "don't-mess-with-nature" enviros, is that most of these techniques are relatively short-term in their effects. If further research shows one of these techniques (e.g. oceanic iron-seeding) to be ineffective or even harmful, they can be stopped, and their effects would dissipate away in days or weeks.

That last point may be something of a weakness for the concept, though. The prevailing winds of politics can be fickle, and although gov't bureaucracies tend to be immortal, the actual programs they administer are not. Still, many of the techniques outlined in the article could conceivably be carried out by NGO's and other grassroots orgs. (The Nature Conservancy, for instance, has been very successful at buying up land for conservation purposes.)

So, GW mitigation can appeal to both sides, those who put the economy at a higher priority than the environment, and those who value the environment above any economic concerns. It is effective, technically feasable, safe to try, scalable, and economically feasable. This may just be the solution both side have been looking for.

And finally, as a futurist, I can't help but hope that GW mitigation could increase our knowledge and expertise in eventual full-scale terraforming, so that one day we may be able to transform Mars into a planet full of life. The promise of GW mitigation is enormous, the risks few. We just need to give it a try.

The evangelical meme

2006-04-12T13:04:00.000-05:00

It's been about a week since my last blog entry, I've been quite busy with work as well as a family medical emergency. I've just started a third (yes, third) job, with a potential fourth weekend job on the horizon, and two more potential jobs which may replace 1 or more of the 3 jobs I'm holding now. Anyway, on to our feature presentation....

This article provides an insightful look into the evangelical movement. One point of interest is how, despite their vocal support for "family values" and the "traditional nuclear family," the evangelical movement of both past and present actually practice a form of worship designed to segregate members from their families through an active and controlling presence in their personal lives. This intentionally strong influence is designed to blur familial lines, by firmly integrating members into the "flock," thus inserting itself as a sort of substitute family. This has the effect of making it easy for new, lone converts to feel comfortable and welcome, while also providing cover for those members whose other family members are not part of the congregation. This likely goes a long way in explaining the rise of evangelicalism from fringe cult to, um...mainstream cult. :-)

(Standard disclaimer: I think all religions are cults to some degree, not just evangelical xtianity. :-) )

New "featurette" for this blog

2006-04-05T13:10:00.000-05:00

I've just added another little block-column to the right-hand sidebar of this blog, titled What I'm "Reading" Now. "Reading" is in quotes because some of the books I don't actually read, but listen to on CD or MP3. My job requires me to spend enough time in my car each day that audiobooks are a good alternative to music or talk radio. (Plus the antenna's broken on my car, so radio reception is kinda crappy.)

In the past month or so I've also taken a liking to the wonderful world of podcasting. I can download a podcast MP3, burn it to CD-RW, and listen to it in my car. My current podcast faves: Scientific American, and NPR's Science Friday. What can I say, I'm a science geek. :^)

The Plan?

2006-03-29T12:31:00.000-06:00

This article (with a slightly more in-depth alternate article here) by Charles Murray has an interesting proposal to completely scrap the current welfare state in America--regular welfare, social security, medicare/medicaid, everything--and replace it with a flat, all-encompassing payout of $10K per year to every adult American, $3K of which must be spent on health care (either health insurance or actual medical costs). I don't know that I like the plan well enough to defend it in a debate, but neither am I ready to dismiss it.

One of the biggest things the plan has going for it is exemplified by the first sentence of the referenced article: "This much is certain: The welfare state as we know it cannot survive." It is plain economic reality that barring some major reforms, welfare & entitlement spending will eventually go bankrupt, or bankrupt this country. It probably won't happen in the lifetimes of today's Baby Boomer generation, and there's a chance it might not even happen in the lifetimes of the Gen X crowd (my genereation). But beyond 2040 or 2050, all bets are off. On our current course, the Gen Y people are in for some miserable, terrifying retirement years. Younger generations will have it bad years or decades before they can even think of retiring.

And for what? Because Americans today, especially the politicians, don't have the will, the guts or the intellect to do something meaningful about this ass-backwards train wreck we're riding (or which is riding us).

"The plan" would be expensive at first: around $350 billion in its first year above what entitlement spending costs now. (Think Iraq war + Katrina spending.) It would break even with current spending in another 5 years, and beyond that will go on to save this country (and hence us) hundreds of billions of dollars every year, and many trillions over the course of decades, trillions which could be used to pay down the nation's debt or even--I know this may sound radical to some out there--stay in the pockets of those who earned it in the first place.

By greatly simplifying the structure of the entitlement welfare state, it would realize vast efficiencies in administrative costs and general gov't overhead. (Gov't is roughly half as efficient as private charities in terms of the fraction of dollars that ultimately reach the intended recipients.) It would also put more personal responsibility into the hands of recipients, something which some people might object to, but let's face it: if someone's going to blow their welfare handout on drugs, booze or gambling, they're already doing so now.

The effect this plan would have on jobs is mixed. It is pretty hard, though not impossible, to eke out an existence on $10K/year. (Actually $7K, as $3K would be diverted to health care.) This would put strong pressure on those currently unemployed on welfare to get at least a part-time job. On the plus side, with an income floor they would be under less time pressure to get a full-time, higher-paying job, which can be much harder to get than a part-time job if you're unemployed and/or unskilled. Current welfare is significantly reduced or eliminated for people who get part-time jobs, so with the added difficulty in getting a full-time job, it can be hard to get off of welfare.

On the other side of the jobs issue, having a comfy $10K margin to go on could encourage a lot of people to work less, switching from full-time to part-time. To be sure, those who enjoy their current jobs or don't want a reduction in income wouldn't make the move, but others may decide they would rather have more free time. This could have the effect of reducing the tax base necessary to pay for this program. It could just as well, however, create enough of a pull on labor, especially in the part-time job market, to employ many currently-unemployed.

So at this point I'm not sure if this plan would be a net benefit, a negative, or a wash. What I do know, though, is that it is worth looking at by this country's policymakers.

Funny "screensaver"

2006-03-28T18:26:00.000-06:00

OK, this is one of those things that's really bad, yet really good too. If Bush gets stuck, you can grab him with your cursor and drag him through a skinny opening, or throw him around like a rag doll. I don't normally condone violence against anyone, even tyrannical two-bit incompetent dictator presidents, but hey, this is a fun bit of pure escapist fantasy.

Censorship on the left

2006-03-28T16:56:00.000-06:00

Many people associate censorship in this country with the holier-than-thou religious right, and this stereotype is far from unfounded. But censorship is most definitely a bipartisan issue, and those on the left have also seen fit to engage in censorship when offense is given to some group or cause favored by the Politically Correct.

Such is the case with the daily paper of my alma mater, UIUC. The Daily Illini has seen fit to fire, by email no less, its Editor in Chief, Acton Gorton, for the high crime of daring to publish the Danish Mohammed cartoons. The article linked to in the title pretty much says it all.

I have always been proud to have gotten my degree from UIUC, but this action is nothing short of shameful. The cowardly weasels involved in the firing should be ashamed, and should be required to take a course in First Amendment freedoms. Such overt censorship has no place in newspaper publishing, especially for a paper claiming to represent a student body as diverse and large as that found at UIUC.

This explains a lot!

2006-03-27T13:05:00.000-06:00

Why has the federal gov't continued to pile on more and more debt? This quote may explain why:

"Things have gotten really bad, though, if the government thinks that only terrorists pay off their debts."

Read the full background story (it's short!) here.

Some numbers to digest

2006-03-23T14:31:00.000-06:00

Can we say, "unsustainable?"

What the federal gov't cost every household in 2005: $21,800 ($2.4 trillion budget divided by 110 million households)
What the federal gov't will be costing every household by 2016: $25-29,000 (adjusted for inflation)
Cost of everything now which is actually federal tax (on average): 19-22%

Growth in the size of gov't:
Since 2001, 5 years ago: 45% (7.75% annual growth)
Over the past century: 25,000% (5.67% annual growth)

US population growth rate over past century: 1.3% (just 0.92% for 2005, est.)
Nominal growth in per capita GDP over past century (with inflation): 11,760% (4.9% annual growth)
Real growth in per capita GDP over past century (corrected for inflation): 651% (1.9% annual growth)

Real growth in per-capita GDP times population growth: 3.2% (limiting gov't growth to this amount would keep it at zero growth in "real" terms; see various TABOR proposals)

National debt (1986): $2 trillion
National debt (2006): $7.7 trillion ($70,000 per household)
Annual growth of debt, past 20 years: 7.0%
Actual national debt if, as companies are required to do, all future liabilities are included: $72 trillion ($654,500/household!)

What the gov't will be spending every second under Bush's proposed 2007 budget: $87,836

Wake up, people!! You're being robbed blind. Congress may sincerely believe they have the best interests of America in mind, but their actions will bring this country to eventual ruin.

Sources: here, here, here, here, & here.

Yet more Big Brother run amok

2006-03-23T12:54:00.000-06:00

Remember the Census? That questionaire thingy you have to fill out every ten years? Its purpose is to give the gov't a reasonably accurate count of the population and its distribution for purposes of determining Congressional districts. It's actually one of the few bureaucracies actually mentioned in the Constitution and thus actually legitimate for the gov't to be doing, at least as far as actual people-counting goes.

I've had some personal experience with the Census myself: in 2000 I was a "census enumerator," which is a fancy way of saying that I handed out & collected questionaire forms from a table set up in various dorms of the local university, UIUC. I was also part of a team that went out around town to parking garages, parks, & other places looking for homeless people to count. All in all it was an interesting and positive experience, despite the paperwork. Even my supervisor, who was either fundamentalist or evangelical (I'll admit I often have trouble telling the two apart), was fun to work with.

The local Census operated out of a rented office space in downtown Champaign, IL. There I saw for the first time the 100% corrugated cardboard office desk, a marvel of disposability and cardboard engineering which I'm guessing the gov't still managed to pay way too much for. (In case you're wondering, they were actually surprisingly sturdy.)

One other thing that sticks in my mind from that experience was hearing about the budget shortfall. Several weeks before the work was actually completed, word came down from the higher-ups that our branch (which, IIRC, covered Champaign County) had already gone over its budget by double. Well I suppose that one of the good things about gov't agencies compared to the private sector (good, at least, from their perspective) is that there is an almost endless pot o' gold to dip from--namely, taxpayers. Budget overruns are certainly a source of worry, but not nearly to the degree as is the case with private companies. How many gov't agencies have you ever heard of who had to close their doors forever because they went bankrupt? At worst, usually what happens is the agency will simply lay off low-level employees who don't make that much to begin with.

But I digress. As I said, overall the work experience was, despite its occasional tediousness, a positive one. I was one of the people who got to man tables at the college dorm. I both worked with and met an interesting mix of people. One student in particular, I recall, when asked about his ancestry on the form, was adamant in his insistence that he was precisely 1/3rd Irish. He either couldn't understand, or didn't care about, our explanations that being 1/3rd anything was genetically impossible. I hope he wasn't majoring in biology. If so, maybe he got a job working for the Discovery Institute.

Most people got the short form of the Census, which consists of six basic questions and is fairly quick and painless to fill out. A few, about 1 in 6 IIRC, got the long form, which went into more detail about all kinds of asinine things like what kind of plumbing you have in your house. The long form was probably a bit less painful and time-consuming to fill out (though not by much) than a 1040 tax form. Probably 90%+ of the complaints and questions we got from people, were because of the long form.

At the time, I sympathized with those for whom the long form gave difficulty, though being a part of "the machine," I didn't say much out loud. A few people complained that the gov't simply had no business knowing the kind of things they were asking. Quite frankly, they had a point. Still, the long form fell short of being truly excruciating, and there was some cold comfort in knowing that roughly 1/6th of the population also had to deal with it.

That's changed now, and not for the better.

Now comes news of three rather insidious expansions of the Census Department's inquisitiveness into true Big Brother territory. The first is the use of a much longer, and much more personal questionaire. At 73 questions it is more than twice as long as the previous long form. Click on the link above to see what kind of personal info they are now wanting to know.

The second expansion is that these forms are no longer sticking to the every-ten-years time scale, but have in fact already been mailed to a number of people. Might we eventually have to fill out Census forms yearly, as we already have to do with our tax returns? Major elections affected by Census numbers are, at most, every two years, you might say. But most of the info on the regular long form is already totally irrelevant to determining Congressional districts. It's being collected for no other reason than because the gov't wants to know. Both the nature of the questions, and the non-10-year timetable of the new Inquisition-length form do away with any facade of being used for redistricting purposes.

The third form of expansion is in the sheer insidiousness of this new form. It's only being mailed to a few isolated people in remote locations, apparently designed from the start to try to avoid the light of media glare. Furthermore, in a very Orwellian move, it not only threatens a $5,000 fine for not completing it, but essentially deputizes the recipient into an involuntary Inquisitor of anyone who lives in the same household. It forces the recipient, by threat of law, to extract all info from his housemates, a la the secret police of East Germany, the Soviet Union, and Orwell's Oceania. Can you imagine that conversation? "Yeah, I know these are intensely personal questions about your income, medical and psychiatric history. But if you don't tell me all they want to know, we're both screwed!" And in a move that Big Brother would be proud of, the form stipulates that any info collected may be shared with "other agencies." If the info you provide doesn't match up with the info the gov't has already obtained about you, look out!

A couple columns down I asked, What happens when the gov't becomes the enemy? The enemy of any expectation whatsoever of privacy, the enemy of being able to live free without fear of the gov't? How much more of this are we really prepared to put up with, for no good reason? Hopefully, not much more.

Thought for the day: A question for creationists

2006-03-22T16:53:00.000-06:00

Cretinists--er, creationists--often argue that the phenomenon of "irreducible complexity" (irreducible to them, anyway) is evidence for a Creator or Designer. This begs the question, though: Is their god irreducibly complex? If so, then who created their god?

We atheists already know the answer to that one.... ;-)

What happens when gov't becomes the enemy?

2006-03-22T13:42:00.000-06:00

"This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector." -- Plato, Greek philosopher (427-347 BC)

The worst sort of betrayals come from those sources you most want to believe in. And when they betray you, it can be hardest to admit that they've done you a grave wrong. And so it has become in this country.

To many or most Americans, the American gov't and the country of America are synonymous; you can't have one without the other. It is the American gov't which, through the Constitution and Bill of Rights, grants us our most cherished freedoms. It is the gov't which is charged with protecting those freedoms from those who would want to destroy what it means to be an American, to be free. It is the gov't which shields us from oppression and tyranny...right?

What happens, then, when that same gov't becomes the source of oppression and tyranny, not merely against the "undesireables" of society (criminals, terrorists, etc.), but against everyday, innocent civilians?

To more than a few, admitting that the gov't itself is guilty of treason against freedom is akin to turning in one's own parent or child to the KGB, or admitting that your religious beliefs are totally false. It's just something that many people are not prepared to do on a deep emotional level. This reluctance to admit deep wrongdoing on the part of an entity we want to believe in, unfortunately only allows it to go that much further into tyranny.

In the past, I have been reluctant to give a free ride to either the Dems or Repubs; both are offenders of freedom and American ideals. As a libertarian, I have often watched in dismay while Dems blame Repubs for everything bad even as they turn a blind eye to their own ignorance, incompetence and corruption, while Repubs do likewise against Dems while excusing their own misdeeds. I have been hesitant to ever claim that one side is substantially worse than the other, for fear that doing so may unduly take focus away from the bad deeds of the other side.

And sure enough, it usually wasn't long before the other side would do something at least as egregious. Repubs acting like fascists under Bush Senior? Sure, but then came Janet Reno and Waco. Dems acting like tax-and-spend drunken sailors? Sure, but then came Bush Jr. and a Repub-controlled Congress who have taken federal spending, pork, and debt to stratospheric levels. (Reagan would be spinning in his grave, were he not guilty of the same in his time.)

So even though I'm not and have never been a Bush supporter, it nonetheless comes as no easy task for me to say, that Bush Jr. has got to be one of, if not the, worst President in American history.

Now when I say "worst," I don't mean "most disliked" or "most at odds with my personal beliefs." I mean, worst for the economic health of this country, worst for its future, and worst offender of America's most cherished notions of what it means to be free.

Of course, there's more than enough blame to go around; Bush himself is not solely responsible for all that's happened. There are the members of his administration, and 500+ members of Congress (Dems & Repubs) who have all acted in concert to put in motion the machinery of oppression and ruin.

What, exactly, is this machinery? What precisely is the blame for? Well, where to begin....

How about federal budgets, and debts, which have been growing much faster than the rate of population or economic growth? This is simply unsustainable, and a recipe for economic ruin.

Warrantless wiretaps on Americans who have nothing to do with terrorism.

National ID cards. Are your papers in order?

Orwellian police states in our airports. "Please remove your shoes, forfeit your nail clippers, wait while we check to see if you vaguely match the description of some secret list of people, and have a good flight!"

Military tribunals for American citizens--no access to defense lawyers, no opportunity to confront, examine or refute secret evidence, no opportunity to defend yourself.

Secret "black prisons" in totalitarian countries. Abuse and torture of prisoners. Indefinite detention without charges.

The ability to examine any American's medical records, financial records (banks & credit cards), library books checked out, etc., even if there is no indication of involvement with terrorism.

And the latest offense (that we know of), the deliberate infiltration of pacifist groups (one confirmed, and possibly 100+ others; see link 1, below) whose only "crime" is being anti-war. This is, unfortunately, nothing new, but it is still disturbing to see this specter from the past active again. (Link 1, link 2, link 3.)

Both the nazis and the communists at their heights of power (and terror) used such powers themselves, and like the current administration, justified such abuses and tyranny on the grounds of national defense, keeping the "homeland" safe, and routing out boogeymen. And if liberties end up permanently curtailed, protests chilled, thousands of innocents harassed, spied on, and even rounded up, well, it's all for your own good, and all you need to do is trust the gov't, not be of middle-eastern descent, and not join any groups the gov't doesn't like.

With every passing day, the American gov't grows more and more similar to the totalitarian regimes it once so proudly denounced. And like them, it paints these increasing curbs on our liberties and privacy as necessary for our protection and well-being. It tells us that if we're good, that we have nothing to fear. But it neglects to tell us that its definition of "good" may be totally different from ours. It asks us to trust that it will never abuse its vast powers for its own gain, or simply for the sake of exercising its powers. It tells us that many of these measure are temporary, just until we can eradicate every last bit of evil everywhere in the world for all time. It tells us, this is not tyranny, but freedom.

And most of us want to believe it, because this is our own gov't. Of us, by us, for us.

So what are we to do when our own gov't starts destroying our freedoms and privacy, just as surely as any communist dictator or sharia-implementing muslim fundamentalist? The first step, as with any problem, is to admit that there is a problem. A big problem. Stop defending, apologizing for, or attempting to justify these misdeeds. Keep shining the light on them. Fight to keep gov't transparent and accountable. Keep yourself educated. And refuse to give in to tyranny.

See also: this article.

Repubs are for free markets & capitalism? I don't think so....

2006-03-22T12:28:00.000-06:00

One of the many reasons I dislike the GOP is because they falsely claim to be in support of capitalism & free markets, when what they practice is anything but. How many Repubs out there--particularly of the neocon variety--have you heard speak out against subsidies (the lion's share of which goes to mega-farms, not mom-&-pop farms)? Against corporate welfare? Against business-gov't cronyism? Against pork projects & earmarks that benefit businesses (especially in their own districts)? Against gov't-mandated employee "benefits" like social (in)security or medicaid/medicare?

Repub hypocracy with respect to free markets is not in itself the only damage they're doing to economic liberty. Their hypocracy has been used to great effect by liberals & other free market-haters to paint capitalism as a cruel, corrupt, impoverishing system of greed and cronyism--everything that it is not, but everything that Repubs themselves put into practice and call capitalism.

It's always refreshing when I come across an article that shows that I am not alone in these thoughts, especially when the article is well-written and expands on the original point. This article does just that, and goes further to show how it's not just the Dems, but much of the gov't itself which is perpetuating these false images. The article is ultimately a call to arms for libertarians to speak up to dispell these myths & lies, but also does a valuable service in exposing the sources of all this misinformation & propaganda.

So for my part, I would call on all Bush-supporting neocons out there to take a good hard look at what exactly it is you've been supporting with his economic policies, and either start advocating real capitalism, or stop calling yourselves capitalists, because you are anything but.

gay marriage, interracial marriage

2006-03-20T14:59:00.000-06:00

For some time I've wondered if I was the only one who saw virtually no difference between the arguments against gay marriage today, and those against interracial marriage a couple generations ago:

"God/the bible prohibits it."
"It's unnatural."
"It's filthy."
"If we allow this, then we'll eventually see people marrying animals."
"It will lead to the degeneration of society."
"It defies the definition of what a 'true' marriage is supposed to be."

Those arguments were total bullshit then, and they're total bullshit now. They are nothing more than excuses and rationalizations for the bigotry, gross ignorance and hatred of those making the arguments. Fortunately, most people no longer have a problem with interracial relationships, and a lot of those who do would feel embarrassed and ashamed if they expressed their opinions in public.

I'm not gay, but I am in an interracial marriage. I fully support gay marriage, though not (just) because of the parallels between gay & interracial marriage. I would support both gay and interracial marriages even if I weren't in the latter form of marriage myself. It's simply a matter of equal--yes, equal, not "special"--rights. This article does a fairly decent job of pointing that out.

One does not have to be a woman, after all, to support womens' suffrage, or a racial minority to support civil rights & racial equality. Freedom is simply not whole, until it encompasses the whole of society.

Now, about the military's ban on gay soldiers....

How to ruin health care

2006-03-15T21:34:00.000-06:00

For all its faults, real or perceived, American health care is on the whole pretty good. Criticisms of it usually center around its lack of universality in insurance coverage. Many liberals in this country equate the "necessity" of having health insurance with the necessity of, say, breathing. This despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of hospitals do not turn away patients for lack of an ability to pay. (That is, in fact, a good part of the reason you can expect to pay $7 for a single aspirin in a hospital.)

Those who argue in favor of universal health care often do so from a gross ignorance of basic economics. Everything that universal health care is supposed to do, such as sheltering patients from the true cost of service, and increasing the customer base to 100% of the population, actually put strong upward pressure on prices. Since it also controls costs by force, though, the result is a significant decrease in both the quantity and quality of care.

This is especially evident in Canada's failing health care system, where new pharmaceuticals are introduced at less than half the rate as here in the States, and the waits for medical treatment are approaching ridiculous lengths. In England, kidney dialysis is seldom approved for anyone over the age of 55, because the limited medical resources are considered better spent on younger people who don't have just a decade or two to live anyway. And in many countries with socialized medicine, medical expenditures (the costs that the end patient isn't supposed to feel the effects of) are gobbling up budgets despite sharply rationed care.

Now, the Peoples' Republic of California may be following these other dimwits down the Feel-Good Road to Hell (paved, of course, with one part good intentions, to ten parts taxpayer moulah). As this well-researched article astutely points out, the consequences are almost inevitably going to be ruinous for both California's budget and health care industry, should they actually proceed with this. It would appear that once again, fundamental economic truths are being flat-out ignored in favor of feel-good political doctrine.

If this measure passes, I'd be tempted to chastise voters on their self-destructive decision, but most of them are simply the products of grossly incompetent public schools that teach little in the way of real, meaningful economics. The real people to blame are the politicians who vote in favor of bills like this, and especially the self-serving cretins who come up with these legislative cancers in the first place. They may not know much economics either (in fact I'm pretty sure they don't), but that does not lessen their culpability in voting for something that will ultimately decrease quality of health care and bankrupt future generations. Of course by the time the full effects of socialized medicine are felt in California, those who originally enacted it will have been out of office (and possibly deceased) for many years, leaving their successors--and all future Californians--to make the painful sacrifices and clean up the awful mess.

It's really a pity that there isn't some way of holding legislators personally responsible for such irresponsible, ignorant, ruinous, and costly acts. And no, I don't consider merely voting them out of office as any kind of accountability. Make the SOB's serve jail time, and have their fortunes & possessions liquidated and all future earnings confiscated as reparation (or at least the beginnings of reparations; how could one possibly repay tens of billions of dollars?). Yeah, I know that would never happen; politicians go to great lengths to shield themselves from any kind of real accountability for their legislative misdeeds. (Step one: vehemently deny they've ever passed any bad legislation.) But hey, we can dream of justice for our rulers, can't we?

"...while the rich get richer."

2006-03-09T16:44:00.000-06:00

Many of you may recognize that title as part of a liberal catch-phrase. While bemoaning poor people getting poorer may be a legitimate gripe (at least if it's true), it's always disturbed me that many liberals feel the need to also point out that rich people are getting richer. Often, if there is any thought that goes into it at all, it is the mistaken notion of economics as a zero-sum game: that one person can only prosper at the expense of another. Getting a bigger piece of the pie necessitates someone else getting a smaller piece.

Those with more than an elementary-school level of understanding of capitalism (this excludes, sadly, probably at least half of all Democrats and a considerable number of Repubs as well) know that capitalism is an economic system of wealth creation, meaning it is not a zero-sum game.

(Side note: Many anti-evolutionists make the same mistake with regards to thermodynamics, when they argue that increasing complexity over time isn't possible due to entropy. They assume Earth is a closed energy system, which it certainly is not.)

I had previously assumed that bemoaning "the rich getting richer" was caused by a malicious form of envy. This article, however, paints a different picture. The gist of it is that most people apparently would rather be better off relative to their peers than better off in absolute terms. The example given is that most people would prefer a job making $100K/year in a company where most others only make $90K/year, rather than a job where they make $110K/year whilst their coworkers pulled in $200K/year. This is more than merely envy or a case of "keeping up with the Joneses" though. Earning or having less than your peers in relative terms is a signal that you are not as valued among them. Earning less could mean less job security (since presumably your job is not valued as much), while having less could potentially lead to social exclusion. And on a deeper evolutionary level, at least for men, those who tend to earn and have more also tend to be more successful at attracting mates and passing on their genes.

That said, I'm not quite prepared yet to give up on the notion of plain ol' class envy to explain the hatred of the rich among liberals and many poor. And it's certainly no basis for enacting liberal or socialistic economic policies which try to level the playing field, not by raising the poor, but by lowering the rich. Still, this is a good additional insight into such thinking.

Thought for the day: Optimism vs. pessimism

2006-03-09T16:36:00.000-06:00

The pessimist complains, despite all the good things in life, "What is there to be happy about?"

The optimist proclaims, in spite of any bad things in life, "What is there to be unhappy about?"

Which side do you lean toward?

Crank calls from god

2006-03-08T16:14:00.000-06:00

This article explores the dilemma of obedience to god when that obedience would mean doing something you and the rest of society would consider wrong or evil. If god commanded you to kill your (or another person's) kids, would you do it? Austin Cline writes:

The above question opens a huge can of worms for believers, which is why I think many simply try to avoid dealing with it. If you think that you have received such an order but believe that it’s from Satan rather from God, or merely a delusion, then how can you believe that anyone else who has claimed to received communication from God also wasn’t deluded or tricked? If you accept that such an order is genuine, how can you dismiss anyone else as being deluded?

In short, how would you have any way of knowing that it was actually god giving the order, and not a delusion?

At some basic level, humans often fall back upon their own judgement and values. If another person says they received orders from (or merely talk with) god, it's much easier to dismiss it as a delusion (or deception) if it's something that strikes you as being self-serving or not right. But people are much more hesitant to dismiss such things when it happens to themselves rather than to other people. The reason for this is that because hallucinations and other mental anomalies happen internally to one's mind, they can seem very real to the person they're happening to. Our real-world perceptions share the same mental space as hallucinations, thus the two can be hard to distinguish. So if a person thinks they are hearing a voice from god, it may be really quite difficult for that person to realize that it is, in fact, just an auditory hallucination. And of course, people generally do not want to admit (even to themselves) that they're not actually hearing real voices, because that would mean there's something wrong with them mentally.

I think it may be the case that those who are of a more rational mind, who practice rational thought regularly and are not prone to belief in things without evidence, may have a mental edge in protecting themselves from such rogue mental occurences. A person with a firm grip on reality may have a brain that wired to better protect against certain mental disorders and hallucinations. I'll admit I have absolutely nothing to back up this assertion with, and I do recognize that some mental disorders are unavoidable due to hormone imbalances or drug use. But if a person has the mental tools to recognize when his perceptions don't match with reality (i.e. that he's hallucinating), he may be less prone to "hearing voices from god" or "talking with god."

I think there's a good reason why atheists and other non-theists don't receive personal communiqués from god, and it's not because god doesn't like them.

The future of religion?

2006-02-22T15:30:00.000-06:00

The blog article linked to in the title above is a critique of an article in Wilson Quarterly regarding the future of religion. In the WQ article, the author puts forward the claim that religion is likely here to stay, so all the secularists & atheists out there should give up the dream of it eventually fading away. In response, the bright (albeit spelling-challenged) blogster & About.com atheism guide, Austin Cline, points out that there have been a number of institutions which also seemed like they were here to stay but are either well on their way out or gone completely. Racism, segregation, aristocracy, dictatorships, slavery, etc. must have seemed "too big to fail" in their time. Indeed, the fall of the Soviet Union and of communism generally probably was as much a surprise to most Westerners as to those under communist rule.

Still, we can look at the reasons why those other institutions failed and ask if those reasons might also apply to religion. My conclusion is that most of them do not, at least not enough to seriously hurt the institution of religion.

In retrospect (hindsight is, of course, often 20/20), the fall of communism was inevitable; communism substituted doctrine and politics for real economics, which was the economic equivalent of substituting a belief that you can fly for the laws of gravity. It's somewhat remarkable that the Soviet Union didn't implode earlier than it did.

Similarly, humans tend to be moral creatures at our core. Evilness is not just bad in its own right, it's also stupid. Naziism, slavery, and various other forms of ruthless dictatorships are simply not sustainable indefinitely; eventually, something has to give. It may take decades or even more than a century to do so, and cost millions of lives, but it does happen. It also happens all the more quickly if those perpetuating the evil are inflexible and strict in their dogmas.

Such failed institutions also often have another thing in common: they do not make life better for their adherents, at least at the societal level. Many of these institutions result in poverty and/or oppression not just for the targets of the evil they inflict but for their advocates as well. Communism, naziism, and slavery all created hardships (economic and personal) for those who advocated and lived under them.

So where does this leave religion? Religion definitely has its downsides, but it has two qualities which greatly aid its survival and continuation. The first is, religion does provide some benefits, real or perceived, for a sizeable number of people. It fills two deep needs of many people, one being a sense of community and the other a desire to believe in something bigger than oneself. Other factors, such as offering the belief of an afterlife and a sense of authoritative morality and meaning of life, also come into play.

This article has some of the biggest meanings of what a religion is. By understanding just what religion is, we can get a better picture of its lasting qualities.

The other quality religion has is that it is very adaptable. Religion has been often referred to as the ultimate example of a meme, or mind virus, and it actually behaves rather similarly to one. It "mutates" often, adapting itself to its local hosts in the process. It also has several "defense mechanisms" to keep out competing memes/ideas. (See Wiki entry at the previous link.) As there are dozens or hundreds of varieties of a particular virus, so too for religions. Different religions can be regarded as different species, while different denominations within a religion are akin to different variants of a viral species. Religion and local culture very often influence and change one another, just as virii may adapt to a particular host and also change that host's immune profile.

"Varieties" of religion which tend toward killings & oppression, such as theocracies or all-out holy wars, tend to burn themselves out, given enough time. Atheists & heathens generally don't need to fear being burned at the stake in Western countries. I think this is part of the reason why suicide bombings & other religious killings by Muslims are so disturbing to Westerners. (Those who believe in and advocate such killings, unfortunately, seem to realize this.) Even then, though, there are many Muslims who would be more than content to not go around killing non-Muslims. Like Christianity with its Dominionists and Reconstructionists, Islam also has its extreme fundamentalist, angry-nutcase section. Such extremists are generally, however, more the exception than the rule.

It is these two qualities of adaptability and benefits to the believers which will ensure that religion will be around for some time to come. Religion, to be sure, has plenty of negative aspects; many secularists, humanists & atheists would be happy to see it fade into history, and the sooner the better. I would count myself among them. But I don't think it's going to go away on its own until either a suitable institution (or several institutions) arise to fulfill the needs it currently fills, or if it pulls society back into another Dark Age and the great majority of society just gets so fed up with its oppression that they decide to chuck the institution altogether. I think though, that even that latter option will not permanently do away with religion until the former condition is also met.

So what institution(s) could do away with religion? To answer that, it may be helpful to look at what institutions are today eroding away at religion. Three that come to mind are science, education, and, ironically enough, gov't endorsement of religion. All three of these are, if not causing of a decrease in religiousness, at least strongly correlated with it.

The first, science, is perhaps the most obvious. Generally in society, atheists are found in highest concentration in the scientific community. In quite a few fields of study, rates of atheism or agnosticism exceed 90%, with National Academy of Science biologists ranking the highest at around 95%. Despite what a number of creationists choose to believe, science itself is not an "atheistic doctrine." Sometimes, it's just that nonbelievers are naturally attracted to the field. But while science does not preach atheism, logical thinking and the scientific process do give people the mental tools they need to throw off unfounded beliefs and see the world as it really is.

The second institution, education, is also a somewhat obvious "cure" for religion, but I feel that it needs to be distinguished from the study & practice of science. Like science, education can provide one with the mental tools needed to abandon baseless beliefs. And indeed, religiousness often tends to be inversely proportional to education level. Simply being educated, however, is much more general than being a scientist. Not everyone has the mental capacity, or inclination, to study science for a living (or a hobby). And, you can't have an entire society of scientists. It is possible, though, to have a well-educated society. (This will probably be a whole other article for me at some future time.) Also unlike science, it is possible to use indoctrination in schools to achieve an atheistic society; just ask the Chinese or former Soviets. From personal observation, though, I can say that this indoctrination often produces only an artificial sort of atheism; as a number of evangelicals will attest to, these "artificial atheists" are quite susceptible to conversion. Many are atheists only because it is expected of them; religion is the "forbidden fruit," like drugs in America, that only makes them more curious to experience it. Opiate of the masses indeed.... True atheism from education is not achieved through political indoctrination, but by providing young minds with the mental tools they need to be independent thinkers. And for education this includes not just lessons in logic and the scientific process, but also exposure to different cultures, religious beliefs, & modes of thought.

The third institution which can erode the institution of religion, may be counterintuitive. A state-sponsored religion would initially seem like one method for ensuring its continued survival, but in the real world it appears the opposite may actually be the case. At least among Western nations, one can compare rates of religious belief and church attendance to whether that nation has a state-sponsored church or religion. In many European countries like Britain, Norway, Finland, etc. that have official state religions, rates of belief & church attendance are markedly lower than in those countries which don't, such as the US & Canada. There are some exceptions to this rule, of course, including many outright theocracies elsewhere in the world. But generally, it seems like giving the official gov't seal of approval to a religion is one of the quickest ways to empty the pews. The best way to explain this is that it is the opposite of the "forbidden fruit" syndrome. Call it the "eat your veggies" syndrome instead. Make something Establishment, and it becomes a lot less desireable. Religion has so flourished in the US because the gov't has refrained from officially endorsing it. Those who would like to see a theocracy in this country, are as ignorant of history and the world as they are of science and the Constitution.

So what might a country look like that had managed to evolve beyond the need for religions? Such a society would have strong community ties, unlike in many places in modern America where people hardly know their neighbors, thus often necessitating churches as a community glue. This society would also be well-educated and science-friendly. And, it may have had a state religion at some time in its past before disestablishing it.

I think religion will probably be with us for at least several more centuries to come, possibly for millenia. It is my hope that we will someday be able to leave it behind as another part of our more primitive, barbaric past. But I also think we have a long ways to go before our (or anyone's) educational system can consistently turn out graduates of sufficiently high mental integrity and education that they do not need to depend upon the crutch of religion.

And God said, "Whew! I'm pooped."

2006-02-20T16:07:00.000-06:00

While reading this article on how necessary it is for evolution to be false for creationists, I got to thinking about the literal translation of Genesis. In it, god created "life, the universe, and everything" in six days, resting on the seventh. But...isn't he supposed to be omnipotent? Why did he need six days? Couldn't he have done everything in the blink of an eye? And what need does an omnipotent being have for rest? A literal reading would then suggest that maybe he's not so omnipotent after all. (Or omniscient, either.)

Careful consideration of the consequences of a literal translation of creation would then reveal that maybe god isn't omnipotent after all. Of course given all the other contradictions and nonsense found in the bible, it is rather obvious that the great majority of literalists give little or no actual, rational thought to the bible. Ergo, it's not a problem for them.

As a heathen unbeliever, biblical contradictions don't weigh on my beliefs. It does bother me, though, that such biblical issues also don't seem to weigh on the beliefs of many self-professed christians. Such is the nature of blind faith, I suppose.

Does god exist?

2006-02-18T17:24:00.000-06:00

Does god exist? There are 3 basic possibilities:

God exists, and although we don't have any firm evidence for it now, such evidence is obtainable at least in theory.
God exists, even if we can't prove his existence (even in theory).
God doesn't exist.

Most theists, outside of the intelligent design movement, would opt for the second choice. The first choice--that god exists in a provable manner--would require that god interacts with the natural world in a measurable, verifiable way. This means we could put god under the microscope. Most theists just don't attribute such a property to god. If god's existence could be proven scientifically to anyone and everyone, then such existence necessitates that god be subject to natural laws. (And, such existence likely would have been proven by now, barring some hugely massive conspiracy.) That god is supernatural, and thus outside of natural laws (and thus unobservable in any verifiable manner), is a given for most theistic religions. So, we can safely strike option one.

So either god exists, but his existence is utterly unprovable, or he doesn't exist. The problem for theists here, though, is that both logically and functionally, the two statements are equivalent.

When making any assertive claim, the burden of proof is always on the person making the positive assertion. If person A says, "X exists" and person B says, "X doesn't exist," where X can be anything real or not (gods, the tooth fairy, money, apples, etc.), the burden of proof is on person A. Again, keep in mind that in this statement, X is a variable, and can be anything, real or not. The burden of proof is on person A regardless of what X is. To put the burden of proof on person B, is to say that anything can exist, not just the specific thing represented by X in one particular instance.

If a third person C were to claim that the burden of proof should be on person A for proving some things (e.g. the tooth fairy) but on person B for other things (e.g. proving the non-existence of gods), this would indicate (and indeed, require) that person C have some reason for differentiating between tooth fairies and gods. But the only reason for differentiating between the two would be if person C had some special evidence that favored one over the other--i.e. which would allow A to prove that gods existed, which then would place the burden (disproving the proof) on person B. If this is the case, however, then person C's assertion becomes moot, because person A should then be able to use that evidence to prove that gods exist. So, again, the default should always be that it's up to person A to prove that X exists; if he's right, he has nothing to lose by having this burden.

If there is a situation where the existence of X can neither be proven nor disproven, as is the case with gods, then the statement "X exists" is moot and meaningless. Again, logically, asserting that "X exists" with no evidence to show that that is so, the result is logically and functionally equivalent to "X does not exist."

Now, I don't suppose this proves the non-existence of god; after all, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." (Is it though? See below.) What it does mean, though, is that there is no difference between options 2 & 3 above. Lacking any evidence as to the existence of god, a universe with a god who keeps proof of his existence a secret looks and works exactly the same as one with no god.

(Oh and before you ask, the bible is not evidence for the existence of any god, much less a christian one. If you believe it is, do you also accept the Koran as evidence for the existence of Allah? Or of Hindu holy texts as proof of Vishnu et. al? You can't pick one holy book and dismiss all others, simply because that's the holy book you grew up with or the only one you've bothered to read & study.)

If one were to throw out the burden of proof and accept that anything--anything at all--can exist, then one quickly runs into contradictions. For instance, the existence of a One Singular God is at odds with the existence of, say, infinite gods. You also can't have anti-matter people walking around, or water that freezes at 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit at 1 ATM of pressure, or a perfectly round square, etc. In fact, for anything one can imagine which can not be proven real (in theory, not in practice), it should be possible to conjure up something else that can negate it which, also having no evidence of its existence, is on equal ground and thus equally valid to the first. So, anything which can not be theoretically proven can not be claimed to exist even beyond theory, as there should always be something else in the same realm of unprovable-existence which could negate it. To put it in math theorem terms, if X can exist without evidence, then there's no reason why -X, "not X", or anti-X can't also exist (again, without evidence).

And finally, there's the odds. If one accepts that some things can exist without any evidence (even in theory) that they existed, there would still be an infinite number of things that could not exist without evidence, and do not exist. The odds that any one of them exists, then, is one out of infinity. And if one recalls his high school math, one divided by infinity is equal to zero. Again, in math theorem terms: if object X_n can exist without evidence, where X is the set of all things that could possibly exist within and beyond our ability to conceive of it without evidence of its existence, then the set X is of infinite size (n=1 to infinity). So the odds that any finite number y of members of that set actually exist, out of the infinite number that for whatever reason can not, is y/infinity, or zero.

To sum it all up, god could exist, but without any evidence, his existence is on equal footing with an infinite number of other possibilities, including ones that would contradict the existence of one particular, or any, god. The odds of his existence then, are infinitesimal.

Addendum: Many more (32, to be precise) "disproofs" of god's existence can be found in this book. Many of those are disproofs against specific versions or qualities of god, but it's all quite strong nonetheless.

$87,836

2006-02-18T14:14:00.000-06:00

That's the amount of money that the federal gov't would be spending each second under Bush's proposed 2007 budget. That's a bit more than twice what the average American household makes in a year. Gone. Every second of every day.

The total proposed budget for 2007 comes to a whopping $2.77 trillion. Not so long ago, that was the size of the nation's entire debt, and people were saying that that was too high.

I fear that nowadays, people are becoming numb to the true scale of numbers this high. Million, billion, trillion...they only differ by the first 1 or 2 letters. But how much is $2.77 trillion, really?

One way of looking at it is to say that if you took 2.77 trillion dollar bills and put them end-to-end, it would stretch well over half-way from the sun to Jupiter. (For you astronomy buffs out there, 1 trillion dollar bills are almost exactly [just over] 1 AU in length.) Still, that may not give enough of a picture for some. It may be better to put it into relative terms.

The average American makes a bit over $1 million over the course of his/her lifetime. (Say for the sake of argument an average of $25,000/year times 40 working years.) Now when the gov't taxes us in whatever form to raise the money it spends, it is effectively removing that money from the economy. (Plus a good chunk more, when you factor in opportunity costs, regulatory compliance costs, etc. etc.) So when the gov't decides it needs $2.77 trillion of America's money, that means it is removing from the economy the equivalent total lifetime economic activity of about 2.77 million Americans, a bit under 1% of the total (not just taxpaying) population. Economically, it's as if these people never were born.

Of related interest, the US population growth rate (2005 estimate) is 0.92%, or about roughly the same as the percentage above. This raises an interesting question. What happens when gov't spending equals or exceeds the total lifetime economic output of the growth rate of the country? Such a level of spending would seem to cancel out (or more) any increases in real GDP from population growth, leaving just per-capita productivity increases as a means of growth. Perhaps someone with more of an economic background would care to argue this point with me, but from where I see it, gov't spending at such high levels would seem to put the country in a rather precarious economic position.

In Houston (and Chicago), it's 1984 again

2006-02-17T12:14:00.000-06:00

Police cameras in private residences? That's what Houston police chief Harold Hurtt wants. This article details his stated desire to require police surveillance in all new malls and apartment complexes, regardless of pre-existing crime levels (in fact some of the places are in safe neighborhoods), as well as in some private residences of known troublemakers. I wonder if such private-residence cameras would be removed if the person moves, or is found not guilty. My guess is, no friggin' way....

Chief Hurtt's idea to put video surveillance in private residences is not new. As far back as 1948, at least one guy also raised the idea in a novel of his, though most people not in law enforcement generally recognize it as not exactly a good thing. Hurtt must have had an urban public school education, where if such concepts and literature are presented at all, they are often not done so in the negative light they deserve to be in. (Many public schools, especially but not limited to urban ones, seem to be evolving into small models of what an Orwellian police state should look like.)

Addendum: this Yahoo poster pointed out another 1984 parallel, and in hindsight it should have been an obvious one: the use of manufactured wars by gov't to stir up support for itself, both patriotic and financial.

Update: In a case of "fascist see, fascist do," "Hizzoner" Mayor Daley of Chicago seems to be following suit. Daley wants to stick telescreens--er, cameras--into every business that's open for 12 hours or longer, and every bar still open at last call. This article has the details.

An interesting article on Rose & Milton Friedman

2006-02-14T16:42:00.000-06:00

Most anyone who knows these champions of smaller gov't & free markets either idolizes them or despises them, depending on the reader's own political & economic leanings. Here is a fairly balanced article on the husband-&-wife economist team, giving a general overview of their long and noteworthy life & accomplishments.

Welcome!

2006-02-01T16:11:00.000-06:00

Hi all, this is the personal blog of Andrew, aka "Live.the.Future". I have another blog which I post to on occasion, but that one I'm hoping to keep limited to topics of political science. After a while I realized that there were other things I'd like to write about and comment on, so rather than lose the focus of my first blog, I've created this one as a supplement to it. Here you'll find anything that strikes my fancy.

So enjoy, and feel free to comment on anything I write, even if it's to disagree. And don't worry, I seldom bite. :-)