Fear of the Unknown, Authority, God, and other horrors and how Agnosticism helps with it all.

The premise of this presentation is that fear of the unknown is a powerfully damaging force in our world, and that the practice of agnosticism, practicing agnosticism, helps us deal with that fear in a positive way.

I am an unapologetic supporter of agnosticism over all other religious positions; I need nothing more. But in keeping with the UU idea that we can mix and match religious ideas to meet everyone’s needs; I would suggest that most would benefit from a healthy dose of agnostic candor.

Definitions

Ever since the tower of babble (apparently) as noted by Lewis Carroll, words only mean what each of us says they mean, so please allow me to define some words in my own way, and I beg you to remember and apply that definition for the course of this presentation:

· By "agnostic" I mean one who does not believe it is possible to know the unknowable, the supernatural, the mind of god. The agnostic says “there may or may not be a god, or anything else supernatural, I don’t know, I don’t claim to know, and I don’t see how anyone can claim to know but maybe they can: I’m not sure.” The goal of my practice of agnosticism is to become more comfortable with not knowing.

· By “atheist” I mean one who claims to know that there is no God. The atheist says: “All the available evidence points to there being no god at all, and so that is what I believe.”

· By “belief” I mean those things we hold true, but which are difficult to prove, and which guide our lives and actions.

When Beliefs go Bad.
Beliefs are scary. The land of belief is a dangerous place, where the unstoppable force of the unknown meets the immovable objectification of that which we believe. The actions of any person or group are driven by their beliefs. Hero or villain, whistle blower or corrupt leader, feminist or rapist, force of volunteers or angry lynch mob. In each case, they are doing the same thing: That which they believe to be the right thing to do. The most heinous actions ever taken, are in complete agreement with the beliefs of the people behind them.

Villains Are People Too
Few people take the time to understand the point of view of a villain, but they always have a point of view, and it is always one that is perfectly right to them. The manifesto of the unibomber is really worth reading; it makes a very solid argument against technology, if not for the remote killing of those who teach it. It is obvious that Ted Kaczynski truly believed he was doing his part to save the world. Hitler firmly believed that the world would be better off without Jews. They, in their own minds, believed they were doing the best possible work for all humanity. Their beliefs led them to become the horrors they were.

How Much Belief Can We Afford?
Of course, we need beliefs; we must do something and we can’t always know for sure just what to do, so we must follow our beliefs. And beliefs can lead people to do things every bit as wonderful as others are horrible. But in asking the question of which beliefs to follow, I think we may fall into the trap of seeing that as the only question when there is actually another question of even greater importance: How sure are we that any given belief is right? Yes, pick a belief, but also decide how strongly to believe it.

Under WHOS God?
I hear people say “there is only one god” and “you will have no other gods before god” or that their religion will overcome all others. Non-religious people may believe in a leader "Obama will save us" or a tradition which guides their daily life. Ok, fine, I’ve got no problem with people believing that they are right and others are wrong. I also believe that my beliefs are right, and differing beliefs are wrong: If I did not think that my beliefs where right, I would have changed my beliefs to the ones I thought are right and again, believed that I was right. Just like standards, the wonderful thing about beliefs is that there are so many to choose from. The problem comes with people holding their beliefs so strongly that they are unable to change them when reality shows them to be wrong.

Fact Over Belief

And I will not say that there is anything generally wrong with continuing to believe what we have believed, or what we are taught to believe, or what reason leads us to believe... but to cling to these when our experiences clearly show our beliefs to be wrong, in the face of conflicting fact... to hold to a belief based on the unknowable even in the face of what we see around us, this is truly frightening.

She Chose Her Belief Over Her Precious Baby

There is a girl, about 14, who is living with her Grandmother because her mother is dead. I’ve talked to both of them several times, and they have told me the story of this late mother. Before the mother died, the entire family disowned her, and her husband left her, and the grandmother would not take her back, because she came out as a bi-sexual. All of them, including her own mother, disowned the mother for being bi because her church told them to believe, and they had always believed, and it seemed to them reasonable to believe that bisexuality was evil. Now… this is a grandmother, faced with a choice between her religious beliefs, what she trusts that her pastor knows from the mind of god, and the daughter she raised from a baby. The grandmother was a stay at home mom; as a girl, the mother attended a school run by the church, and spent most all afternoons and evenings at home because she was shy and introverted. No mother could say she know her daughter less well than this grandmother knew her daughter. Yet she rejected the reality of the goodness of the person she had raised, in favor of the beliefs of her second hand knowledge of the unknowable mind of god. She looked at the evidence of her good upbringing, of her goodness and believed she was evil despite that.

What Will You Believe?
The idea of belief without evidence, in the face of evidence to the contrary scares the living crap out of me. If you are willing to believe in heaven and hell because your pastor tells you they exist, are you also willing to believe in WMD's because the President tells you they exist? If you are willing to believe the devil is real simply because the evangelist and your mommy warned you about him, are you willing to believe that, I don’t know… that I'm a child molester because a rumor spreads out of control?

Dale Akiki And Why I Don't Eat At Jack In The Box
Does the name Dale Akiki mean anything to you? Mr. Akiki was a simple man, a simple minded man, with a slight deformity which made him appear strange to others. He was a kind, loving, caring person, as are many uncomplicated people. He and his wife volunteered as babysitters at the Faith Chapel church in Spring Valley, CA. A rumor was started against him… and it grew… the former CEO of Jack in the Box, whose children attended, pressured the DA in office at that time to prosecute despite a complete lack of any physical evidence. It was just a funny story that a little boy told when his mommy asked him what they did in child care after his fist day with Mr. Akiki. After 2.5 years in jail and the longest trial in SD county history, 7.5 months, he was acquitted. His life was destroyed. The CEO of Jack in the Box went on to believe that his meat was just fine and he killed 8 customers. Food poising. He lost his job. The DA went on to believe he could buy a re-election. He lost his job too. Dale still loves people, kids, and his wife who stood with him through it all. He’s afraid to leave his home.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_Chapel_Church_ritual_abuse_case

Belief Conquers Fear
Why do people need to believe so strongly? Well, belief conquers fear. And our greatest fear is fear of the unknown. I certainly understand being afraid of the unknown. I’m scared to death of not knowing; will I keep my job? Will I be able to provide for my family? Will we find a way to keep our home? Not knowing is a mind bending fear.

Gods Plan
I hear people say: “I believe there is a god and god has a plan for me and if I follow that plan, everything will be all-right” and I don’t blame them at all for believing that. If it comforts, so be it.

The Mind Of God
But the tricky part comes from trying to follow gods plan. To follow the plan, you have to know it, and if god wrote the plan, then knowing the plan means knowing a little part of the mind of god. And I don’t see how anyone can claim to do that. More likely, those who claim to know the plan, are following a plan that someone else heard second hand from the mind of god, actually… a plan that was written down by some one a long time ago who says they talked to god. Ok, that’s fine, I don’t mind if they follow that plan. I’ve read it, it actually seems pretty good in most places (with a few notable exceptions^). But then they listen to people who interpret that plan, people who say god talked to them and I think about Joan of Arc.

Joan of Arc
Joan heard voices. They told her to do things. She thought it was the voice of god. Others believed her. They were desperate to hear from someone who had heard from god. They were desperate to know the plan. They were afraid of not knowing. They were pretty sure they, themselves didn’t know, but they were ready to believe that a simple peasant did know. Maybe she did know… maybe she was schizophrenic… but an entire nation followed her into 24 more years of bloody war.

I Don't Know
We live with a fear of letting go of the idea that we, or anyone else, can ever really know the mind of god, or how the universe completely works, or what will happen to us. From my point of view, Atheists are just as religious as all the others are because they claim to know there is no god. I understand how scary it is to admit that we simply don't know one way or the other. Those who claim to know, and yet cannot explain it to me in a way I can understand, are either deluded or far more intelligent and advanced than I am. Again, I have no way of knowing! Agnostics (again, my definition) have simply come to accept not knowing, but we understand that this isn't desirable or welcomed.

You Don't Know

I fear challenging others to admit they do not know. We challenge the knowledge of others in so many ways and that sometimes provokes hostile reactions. We challenge the people who "know" that the sign in the Huston shop window was about honoring a 9/11 hijaker.
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/photos/martyr.asp

We challenge the people who "know" that climate change is absolutely caused by carbon emissions OR that it is absolutely NOT caused by carbon emissions. We challenge people who "know" what the RIGHT thing to do is. Most of all, we point out that it is the ultimate hubris for ANYONE to claim to know the mind of God. Asking people to give up the comfort of "knowing" the unknowable requires bravery.

Your Leaders Don't Know Either

I fear that people are unwilling to question authority because they (sometimes unreasonably) expect those leaders to know the unknowable when they do not. This unwillingness to question authority, due, we fear, to the misplaced belief that the leaders know "all", has lead to some of the most horrific episodes in human history. (Nazi officers "just following orders" while exterminating the jews, etc...).

Stanley Milgram Didn't Know (but people still killed for him)
The extreme willingness to follow leaders was studied by Stanley Milgram and documented in his book "Obedience to Authority". From his study, we learned, much to our shock and horror, that more than half of the people in society are perfectly willing to kill another human being when directed by an authority figure. I fear that this willingness to blindly follow is based in a fear of the unknown causing a dependence or expectation that others know better. If we could embrace the unknown, we may increase our ability to question the knowledge of others. When the fear of doing wrong is greater than the fear of not knowing, we can question authority.

Who Will We Kill For?

I fear that leaders constantly use the human fear of the unknown to bring society to the goals and benefit of those leaders at the cost of the society:

Hermann Goering, Hitlers Reich-Marshal on trial at Nuremburg after WWII said:

"Naturally, the common people don't want war, but after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag people along, whether it is democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country"

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

Agnostics Are Used To The Unknown
Agnostics, although still scared to death of many other things, seem less affected by fear of the unknown. It often comes due to an unwillingness to reject logical thinking or to reason in advance of the facts; a determination to accept the obvious conclusions of a logical, reasoned approach to the world despite the fear that accompanies this form. Our acceptance of, and dependence on logic, of the value of clear and reasonable thought, forces us to deal with our fears. This is the scientific method, often claimed by the atheists, but which, at it’s best, is based on theories not absolutes; on correlations and probabilities never on claiming to know the unknowable. It is the deepest tenant of science than when the evidence fails to support the commonly held theory, and another theory is advanced which better fits the evidence, we change our minds.

Global Warming Is Probable, NOT Certain
Global warming is caused by human activity with a /probability/ of 85 % according to scientists. That means there is a 15% chance, in the IPCC’s own estimation, that it may NOT be caused by human activity. Of course, in this case, wouldn’t it be good to err on the side of caution? But let us not sweep away the pain of those who will be injured by radical changes in our use of fossile fuels; let us do those things we can which do not cause others great damage.

Oh, Whatever Should We Do?
I think there is a link between a peoples ability to accept matters on faith, without proof; as in religious beliefs and their desire to believe that something is in charge and that they can understand the will of that something. When it comes to climate issues, people are desperate to believe that someone understands this and can say with authority what should be done.

As an Agnostic, I have worked long and hard to accept the possibility of failure, of being wrong, of NOT knowing, of the universe being too complex for anyone to understand... It is the hight of hubris to assume any human knows the mind of God OR the workings of the universe.

Do Not Meddle In The Affairs Of Dragons...

And when you don't know what effect you will have, I feel it best to err on the side of having very small effect. So that is all I'm willing to argue with regard to climate changes. The earth has trundled along for ages unknown without us so let us pretend we aren't here and hope it will continue that way.

Teach Thought Over Belief

I respect the right of everyone to find their own way, to choose their own beliefs. But I fear that remaining silent will lead our children to question the value of human thought vs human belief and to be unwilling to accept the idea of not knowing which may lead us to a future society that fails to question assumptions, to question leadership, or to think for its self.

Reason Over Bliss

It scared me that there has been a very positive reaction to the story of Jill Bolte Taylor, an agnostic and a brilliant scientist who studied the brain and then suffered a massive hemorrhage in her own brain. She now tours the world, saying that her brain damage allowed her to feel connected to the rest of the world, to feel interdependent, and that this point of view would lead to a peaceful future. I should be clear: I have no concern with what Ms. Taylor says, it is how her words are taken that concerns me. I’ve seen comments from people saying that they wish they could have a stroke in order to feel like she does.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyyjU8fzEYU (summary: Brilliant agnostic suffers brain damage and develops spirituality.) Show a frightening trend towards valuing a connection to the unknowable over even a fully functional brain.

Or Is Ignorance Bliss?
I fear that ignorance might be bliss... because I refuse to claim to know the unknowable.

How can we regulate companies when we can't regulate ourselves?

I completely fail to understand how anyone can say that corporations are not accountable to us… Every single dime they have, every bit of power they exert is given them by the sale of their products. We have complete control over corporations based on what products we choose to purchase. The only exception to that, corporate welfare, is a relatively minor source of income for them, but one that I agree should be cut off, if possible. Read about Farmer Percy to see how hard that will be.

The problem is one of educating the people, not of regulating the companies. WE need to be reformed… the companies will follow our dollars like puppies after mothers’ milk. If you want to talk about how to effectively re-train the poor spending habits Americans are exhibiting, I will be right there with you, but regulating the corporations is shifting the blame; unnecessary and ineffective.

The stated and obvious goal of every corporation is to turn a profit. As long as they can do that though immoral means, they will continue to do it. We have no hope of regulating morals in corporate actions except though our purchasing decisions. "As long as people will accept crap, it will be financially profitable to dispense it." Dick Cavett.

The cigarette companies ran wild until the public was educated effectively on the cost of smoking. Not by a little warning label introduced by regulation, but by a series of TV and billboard ads paid for by health care organizations that were being financially damaged by the costs of treating lung cancer. Remember those? The woman talking through her throat? The guy who killed his wife with second hand smoke? "Mind if I smoke? Care if I die?"

Those ads, and the backlash to Joe Camel, shifted public opinion and vastly reduced the power and influence of those companies. The more recent ads, paid for by the companies themselves due to regulation, have been FAR less effective; less hard hitting. If people stopped buying cigarettes, they would be gone, but as long as people want to use nicotine as a drug, and damage their lungs, who are we to tell them they can’t? Or to prevent a company from supplying them what they ask for?

In the same way, if people accept food grown NOT locally and organically but instead GMO, insecticide soaked, in factory farms, who are we to outlaw that?

If people want to purchase cheap shoes or clothing made by exploited workers under inhuman conditions, how can we change the morals of the producer, if we can’t even change the morals of the purchaser? Get people to watch this show:
http://planetgreen.discovery.com/tv/blood-sweat-tshirts/ if you want to make a difference.

A population of sheep must begat a government of wolves; and so too idiot consumers fuel exploitive corporations.

http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/category/y-2009/ Project censored tracks stories that are from reliable, peer reviewed sources that are being ignored by all major news media outlets. Very interesting... "And now you know... the REST of the storys"

Obama Drastically Scales Back Goals For America After Visiting Denny's

Top 10 Reasons why Same-Sex Marriage is "wrong"

Please note: If you are one of my friends, and this offends you, you either aren't that close a friend, or you are suffering from sarchasm: the gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it.

Top 10 Reasons why Same-Sex Marriage is "wrong"

10) Same-Sex marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the Internet, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

9) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children, require both mom and dad to spend time equal time with kids rather than making the mom the primary care giver.

8 ) Same-Sex marriage is not supported by traditional religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we all, without exception, go to church on Sunday.

7) Obviously same-sex parents will raise gay or lesbian children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

6) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Same-sex couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

5) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if same-sex marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Brittany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

4) Marriage shouldn't change now because it has never changed before; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

3) Legalizing same-sex marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets; this is entirely possible since dogs and cats have legal standing and can sign marriage contracts.

2) Same-sex marriage will encourage people to be homosexual, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall. If you are absolutely convinced that being homosexual is a choice, standing on the street corners protesting "gay" marriage and generally ensuring it is a topic on the news every day will certainly keep your kids from thinking about it or becoming curious as to why anyone would want to be anything other than straight.

And the number one reasons why same-sex Marriage is "wrong":

1) Being homosexual is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, medicine, and air conditioning.

~ Modified from the original, which is copyright Mana Bear on facebook

HR1: Indexed and serchable version of the stimulus bill

http://www.USARecoveryAct.com has a pdf version of the stimulus bill with a full index, table of contents, etc.. which makes it a lot easier to browse. Worth the $6 they charge to download it.

I can't wait to see how big business will warp the intended use of our tax dollars for their own purposes. Maybe this pdf will enable some of us to find ways to recover part of our taxes as funding for new business opportunities? If we don't, they will!

My answer to "Afghanistan South" by Patrick J. Buchanan

A friend sent me the "Afghanistan South by Patrick J. Buchanan" email, which goes on about how our boarder with Mexico must be better patrolled to keep the drugs and drug cartels out and this was my response:


The solution to this is easy: Decriminalize drug production and sale. Production will move into the USA, and Mexican exports will become unprofitable for the cartels who will then fold up and go away.

Pour the funds currently used to police the boarder, chase drugs, and imprison drug users into drug use education, marketing campaigns against drugs, and the enforcement of driving or other critical activities while under the influence of ANYTHING. We should be telling our people that although drug production and use by adults is not illegal, there are very good reasons why they shouldn't use drugs, that drug use is uncool (like the anti-smoking ads) and that if they get caught high while doing anything of a critical nature, they will go to jail. That includes:
- Being the adult in charge of a minor while high
- Supplying drugs to a minor or allowing a minor to steal drugs from them.
- Driving or operating any machinery high
- Showing up for work high
- Applying for any sort of medical care while the after traces of any drug is present in your body. E.g. if you have lung cancer and THC in your hair, you don’t get treated unless you can pay for it. You pay the price or die. If you have rotting teeth and traces of meth, your dental program doesn’t cover the work.
- And so on.

On the other hand, if anyone wants put their responsibilities in good hands, lock themselves up in their bedroom, and go for a ride, that's just fine.

And most importantly, if you want to grow some pot or poppies or brew up some LSD and sell it that should absolutely, perfectly legal. In a location and with equipment to manage the explosion hazard, you should be able to make meth. The drug lords would shrivel up and wash away.

Actually, you don’t even have to decriminalize drug USE. You just have to allow us to produce it to meet the demand. The fact that I am not free to make and sell drugs is a major offense against the constitution of the USA in my opinion. Not that I would ever want to, but I am allowed to make and sell guns, booze, porn, and so on, and it is morally wrong and just plain stupid that I can’t make and sell drugs. The law that says I can’t has created this drug crisis as surly as if it had ordered the scum in Juarez to kill each other and us.

Fixing Congress

My friend Al says:

I don't have a blog for my various strange ideas, but you can post this if you like it.

Congress is out of touch. They are insulated from voters by the rich few who finance the campaigns. Here's a few ideas to get them back in touch.

* Take congress off the their health care package. Give them health care through Medicare (or make them buy their own on the open market). They don't get any more medical coverage after they lose their job (OK, they could qualify for COBRA).

* Take away the retirement program for congress and put them on social security. Right now, they don't pay into social security and they have their own retirement package.

* Put them on a pay for performance package. Their pay should be linked to the economic performance of the country. When the country runs a deficit, their pay gets cut. You could link it to GNP or some other indexes. They can then make choices knowing that the result will hit their wallet.

Three simple things that could really change the way congress works.

What is the Justice System doing to bring some to Dick and G.W.?

To:
Honorable Karen P. Hewitt
U.S. Attorney’s Office
San Diego County Office
Federal Office Building
880 Front Street, Room 6293
San Diego, California 92101-8893
Karen.P.Hewitt@usdoj.gov ?

Cc:
Honorable Bonnie Dumanis
San Diego County District Attorney
330 W. Broadway, Suite 1300, San Diego, CA 92101
619-531-4040 (phone), 619-237-1351 (fax)
publicinformation@sdcda.org (email)

Ms. Hewitt / Ms. Dumanis,

Isn't there anything that you could (should) be doing to move our country towards making the former President and Vice President pay for their crimes?

Does it not worry you that your predecessor / colleague lost her job after putting Cunningham in jail for his crimes?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_Lam

If you let people like those who fired her go unpunished for their other crimes, it sends a CLEAR message to the current administration that in the future, they can take politically motivated action against YOU if you fail to do what they want?

- The lies about Iraq.
- Warrantless wiretapping.
- War crimes such as torture.

Clinton lied about a blow-job, Nixon lied about a break-in; they were both at least investigated. Here you have a man who may have ORDERED the commission of war crimes and you can't even open an investigation?

People go on about "no man being above the law" and we both know that’s not as true as people hope, but when it is a case as obvious as this, doesn't something need to be done to at least maintain the illusion?

--
James Newton

See also:
- http://www.groundsforimpeachment.com/
- http://feralhouse.com/titles/images/BushImpeachment.pdf
- http://www.wexlerwantshearings.com/

NAIS is a scam.

NAIS was designed by NIAA (the National Institute of Animal
Agriculture), a corporate consortium consisting of Monsanto,
industrial meat producers such as Cargill and Tyson, and surveillance
companies such Viatrace, AgInfoLink, and Digital Angel. The NAIS
scheme fits agribusiness, biotech, and surveillance companies to a T:

1) They are already computerized, and they engineered a corporate
loophole: If an entity owns a vertically integrated, birth-to-death
factory system with thousands of animals (as the Cargills and Tysons
do), it does not have to tag and track each one but instead a herd is
given a single lot number.

2). NAIS will only be burdensome and costly (fees, tags, computer
equipment, time) to small farmers which helps push them out of
business, thus leaving more market to giant agribusiness.

3) Agribusiness wants to reassure export customers that the US meat
industry is finally cleaning up its widespread contamination. NAIS
would give that appearance ... without incurring the cost of a real
cleanup.

4) NAIS will allow total control over the competition: Owners of even
a single chicken would be required to register private information,
the Global Positioning System (GPS) coordinates of their 'premise'
and if any animal leaves its 'premise', the owner will be required to
obtain an ID number for it and have the animal microchipped. All
information, including 24 hour GPS surveillance would be fed into a
vast corporate data bank, allowing for ease of false slaughter to
hide true problems or to substitute biotech's genetically engineered
animals.

5) NAIS may allow plundering of farmers through required DNA samples:
DNA samples would be invaluable to Monsanto and biotech corporations
genetically engineering animals. Farmers who raise heritage breeds
would have no say in how their distinct DNA would be used and to the
sole profit of biotech companies.

6) The advantage for the surveillance companies is obvious:
Compulsory tagging of 6 million sheep, 7 million horses, 63 million
hogs, 97 million cows, 260 million turkeys, 300 million laying hens,
9 billion chickens, and untold numbers of bison, alpaca, quail, and
other animals -- and new animals being born, means a massive
self-perpetuating market.

Please take action now to stop this insanity. Our health and our
lives depend on it.

Stop NAIS Action Page: http://www.peaceteam.net/action/pnum942.php

What HAVE seniors done for the new generation?

I got this email from the stogies about a young man complaining to a senior that old folks can't understand because they grew up in a world without all the modern tech that has shaped our new generation; and how the old guy says (in less pleasant words) "yeah, we didn't have those things, so we invented them; what are you going to do for the next generation?"

That is only half of the story...

Young people today are:
- Dying in wars our senior citizens started in countries that have never lifted a finger against us. How did you vote? When did you last attend an anti war rally?
- Dealing with the environmental, health, and economic impact of the “I care for nothing but profit” industries our seniors have left behind. Do you have solar panels on your home? Planted a fruit tree? Feed your kids organic foods? Taken a bus or train instead of driving?
- Going to jail in numbers unmatched by any country in the world, which I blame to a large degree on the selfish lack of involvement of seniors with needy kids in our neighborhoods. How many kids have you tutored after school? Donated to your local library? Boys and girls club? Anything?
- Trying to figure out what hope they have of paying off the mind-numbing national debt all of those issues have caused. Add up the minutes you've spent thinking about your retirement and compare it to the minutes you've spent thinking about what kind of life is left for your children.

I personally will be amazed if our young people are able to even sustain what we currently have for the next generation. I will be proud of my kids if they survive.

...save more than a life, you could save a lifestyle.

Reminds me of the scene in “the Jerk” where the guy from Texas is asking Naven for money because he can’t afford to reupholster the leather seats on his private jet.

And are these industry bailouts any different? How much of that money is really going to the worker? Why not setup vocational and other education to retrain those workers for other, growth industries? Why not put infrastructure projects out to bid for new and existing companies?

How much of a boost to our economy would we get from having free wireless internet everywhere? We have free roads, why not free “pipes” and “tubes”?

Fund the placement of a free set of solar panels on every single house in America. Millions of jobs and no more power stations operating; during the day, at least.

Same thing with those new vertical wind turbines, and now we don’t need power at night.

We could do those things if we wanted. If we hadn’t gone to war. If we weren’t ruled by lobbyists. If we weren’t Sheeple.

A REALLY Different Christmas Poem.

A friend sent the "Different Christmas Poem" email that has been circulating the internet. You can read it in the snopes link below if you are an idiot. This was my response to it.

Nice poem. It would mean more to me if the war we are currently fighting had any actual basis in protecting our country from a threat. However… LCDR Jeff Giles didn’t write it
http://www.snopes.com/holidays/christmas/glurge/different.asp and the soldiers in Iraq are NOT protecting us from any real threat. No WMD’s, no Iraqi’s involved in 9/11, Osama bin Laden is not now, and never was, in Iraq… Not to mention the fact that we don’t seem to be actively looking for him anymore.

And from a purely humanitarian standpoint, while Saddam did apparently kill a lot of people (~600,000), we have now killed quite a few ourselves.
www.iraqbodycount.org/ says it’s around 90,000 at last count. And we have to wonder if we will leave the area (assuming we ever actual leave…) in a more or less stable state. It may just be that when working with a people who are insanely violent due to religious differences, an insane leader is the best possible match.

In fact, when you look at the deaths per day and compare days under Saddam’s rule with deaths during our occupation, the difference is less obvious. Saddam killed about 100 people per day (70-125), since we took over, it’s been about 40 or so per day (16-72). Just for comparison, on the average day in the USA, 119 people die in automobile accidents.

And even if (I say IF) our troops were protecting us from terrorists, the total death toll in the USA from terrorist action is less than 5,000… over ALL time. Less than 3000 in 9/11. Yet 9/11 was used to remove freedoms, change laws, justify torture, and send millions of our boys and girls into harms way.

In the USA, every single year, MORE than 60,000 people die in automobile accidents. Who at Firestone or Ford went to jail for knowingly putting inferior tires on a car with too high a center of gravity? Where was the service man protecting me from them? Where is the light rail line (Trains are THE safest way to travel, although airlines are safer than cars) for me to use going to work?

The point I’m trying to make here is that humans, and especially Americans, use emotion, rather than logic and statistics, to make decisions and justify actions. This poem, although lovely, plays to that fatal flaw. My logic and numbers may strike most as cold, and will never be repeated ad nauseam over the internet the way this poem WILL be, but they have a truth, clarity, and beauty that would better serve the USA.

http://techref.massmind.org/techref/other/911.htm
http://techref.massmind.org/techref/member/jmn-efp-786/MyLovelyCommute.htm
http://techref.massmind.org/techref/other/USAenforcesOPECprices.htm

Bail out the WORKERS, not the companies.

All I want to ask the people who are crying about the loss of jobs in Detroit is this ONE question: How many mortgate payments, full tuition college educations, free health care insurance policies, and meals could that same bailout money provide to those workers?

Let the crappy car companies FAIL. Do not reward failure. Reward the companies who make good cars by providing them with a better trained, happy work force.

We. Do. Not. Need. To. Invade. Iran.

There is another "invade Iran" eamil going around. It says:

"While Iran's low-enriched uranium is not quite weapons-grade, the Institute for Science and International Security, after reviewing the IAEA report, estimated that the further enrichment necessary could be done "within a few months."

That would give Iran a nuke right around Inauguration Day. "

Although the email provides no references, it seem to be quoting this report:
http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iran/ISIS_analysis_Nov-IAEA-Report.pdf

My response:

No references. Hear-say. Fear mongering. I smell FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt. The standard means of manipulating the public into an action that benefits the authors).

"Naturally, the common people don't want war, but after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag people along, whether it is democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country" -- Hermann Goering, Hitlers Reich-Marshal at Nuremburg after WWII. (This is true: check snopes: http://www.snopes.com/quotes/goering.htm )

As it happens, every country with about a square mile of dirt has “enough fissionable material to develop a nuclear weapon”. That isn’t the question. The question is: do they have the technology to extract and purify the fissionable material from that dirt to the point that it would actually fission… err… go boom. And then, do they have a way of delivering that bomb to a target. What they have now is LEU or Low Enrichment Uranium. It’s good for nuke power plants, useless for A-Bombs. Moving it to weapons grade material is quite the trick.

These links are as close as I could find to the stuff they say in the email,

http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iran/ISIS_analysis_Nov-IAEA-Report.pdf seems to be what this email is referencing at the end. And what they say IS scary. But who are “they”? I couldn’t find anything about their funding on their actual site, but I did find this:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Institute_for_Science_and_International_Security and for the most part, that funding looks pretty good. A lot of it does, however, have ties to the dreaded "Military Industrial Complex"... The people who scare us into paying them to build better weapons, and then into sacrificing our kids into using those weapons so they can get paid to build more.

http://www.isisnucleariran.org/nuclear-faq/ is a very informative document from the same I.S.I.S. outfit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran is an even better document that tells both sides of the history. Very much worth the read.

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/IaeaIran/index.shtml is the International Atomic Energy Agency but I couldn’t find any mention of 630 Kilograms of ANYTHING on their site:
http://www.iaea.org/googleResult.html?cx=004828748078731094376%3Am_jpm98tdns&cof=FORID%3A11&q=IRAN+%22630+kg%22+OR+%22630+kilograms%22+&sitesearch=IAEA.org#241

I did, eventually find a document at I.S.I.S. that says it is from the IAEA and quotes the 630 KG figure:
http://www.isisnucleariran.org/assets/pdf/Iran_Report_11-19-08.pdf Note that just after that figure it says “All nuclear material at FEP, as well as all installed cascades, remain under Agency containment and surveillance.” So the IAEA is right there watching and holding on to that material. If Iran starts trying to turn it into weapons grade material, the IAEA will know.

And if we wanted to, our Tomahawks could easily hit the processing facility and remove that threat. In any case, and this is the important part, there is NO need for us to invade Iran as we did with Iraq. WE, and not they, have the technology for war at a distance. There is NO NEED for our boys to risk life and limb in Iran… other than to justify the increased funding of the Military industrial complex.

We own the air. We own space. We own the planet. There is NO NEED for us to set foot on every part of it. We have the aircraft carriers, the ICBM’s, the F117’s, the Patriots, and so on and so on. We already paid for all that. Asking us to pay with our children is monstrous.

In the end, the key point is that there is NOTHING wrong with Iran having nuke power and having LEU to run it. The fact that they now have enough LEU to make the weapons grade material for one bomb does not mean that they will. They don’t even have the equipment to do it, as far as I can tell. If they did pull all their LEU and put it into a new facility for making weapons grade material, we would know in advance and could easily stop it. Even if we didn’t stop it and they did make a bomb, there is no evidence that they would use it. Iran has never committed any terrorist act against US or our allies. The idea that they would hand over a bomb to a terrorist or allow a terrorist to steal it is… unlikely. If terrorists wanted a bomb, there are lots of other places to steal one; security in Russia isn’t exactly stellar right now. On one seems to be freaked out that Pakistan, another militant Islamic country, already has the A-Bomb. If we are going to invade Iran, why didn’t we invade Pakistan? They have more ties to terrorists than Iran ever has. And again, even if all the very worst is true. We can just blow up their enrichment facility. It isn’t like you can hide that sort of a plant…


We. Do. Not. Need. To. Invade. Iran.

My buddy is afraid he might accidentally marry a guy.

There are apparently a large number of people in California, who are so unsure of themselves that they believe they need to government to keep them from accidentally marrying people they don’t want to marry. I have a neighbor, a man, (not the brightest bulb, but a nice guy) who is a Christian and feels that it would be wrong to marry another guy. So he voted YES on this prop 8 amendment to the state constitution that would prevent him from accidentally marrying another man. It’s amazing to me how people want the government to protect them from themselves…

He is a really nice guy and never tried to convert me to his religion, so I know that he isn't worried about OTHER people who might feel it is OK for a man to marry a man or a women to marry a women; he wouldn't be so pushy as to try to force his morals on another when it does him NO damage at all if a gay marriage happens.

His kids are all grown and out of school, so what they teach in school can’t be bothering him… and even if it was, the California Educational Code section 51240 specifically states that a student will be excused from teachings in conflict with the religious or moral code the parents. Any public school that failed to follow that directive is breaking the law.

And although he isn't all that smart, he does understand the separation of church and state guaranteed by the First Amendment to the US Constitution and agrees that having the government enforce religious ideals could be a real problem. After all we are one nation under whose God? I mean the Christians wouldn't want the government telling people they have to confess their sins on a regular basis. And the Catholics wouldn't want the government selecting only married men to lead their services. No, I’m sure he didn't vote for it as a way to make the government get into the business of religion.

My best guess is that he is worried about transgendered or hermaphroditic people. He might meet someone who he thinks is a women and then have it turn out that this is actually a man or someone who has both male and female organs. Like Thomas Beatie, the pregnant man. If my friend had a sister, and she happened to fall in love with Thomas, wouldn't it be horrible if the state didn't stop them from getting married, since he happens to have a womb and has given birth… twice… I mean, how would she know? He looks like a man, hairy chest and all. Of course, a background check would reveal that he used to be a she and was surgically altered to become man looking… so does that mean my male friend COULD marry him? Err… her… Or will the church/state decide that no one can marry Thomas since s/he brought all this on his/her self?

But then what about Lynn Edward Harris who was born with both sets of sexual organs. No surgery, no drugs, but today appears to be a man, after appearing to be a really cute girl (beauty pageant contestant at 18) through high school. If my friend had married her would the church/state annul the marriage when she turned into a he?

Anyway, the state law is now being tied in knots. Legal experts are expecting millions of dollars and years of lawsuits. The attorney general of the state of California has said that this proposition has pushed the state into a constitutional crisis with one part of the state constitution saying you can’t discriminate based on sexual orientation, and another part saying that only those of heterosexual orientation are allowed to marry.

I don’t think the government is going to do a very good job of protecting my buddy from accidentally falling in love and marrying a guy…

A friend of mine sent me one of those emails that circulate every veterans day where they show pictures of our boys and talk about how good we have it and how they are suffering to ensure our freedom.

I was totally with it until this one:

"You criticize your government, and say that war never solves anything.
He sees the innocent tortured and killed by their own people and remembers why he is fighting."

And that is a total load of crap.

1. While war does solve problems (in the least competent, most violent, way) I strongly question what the hell this war was supposed to solve. It SURE as hell wasn’t about preventing the torture and killing of innocents. All we did was trade our own boys lives for the lives of forigners. No WMD’s, No Nukes, No terrorist support. We were, at best, missinformed, and at worse, LIED to. And if we are all about preventing torture and killing of innocents, why did we do nothing in Darfur? Sudan? Congo?

2. Anyone who tells me I should criticize my government needs to pull their head out of there ass. And using our boys to justify that should be a crime. The American Sheeple have been manipulated into giving over more power to the government than ever before by shear terror mongering on the part of the American Wolverment. Go check this out:
http://techref.massmind.org/techref/other/war-machine.htm Really worth hearing. The USA is using the same tactics the Nazis (and every other government) used on it’s people. Hearing it from Hitlers Reich-Marshal has an impact, though.

3. Yeah, those boys need an excuse to keep going everyday. I used that excuse in the first Gulf War:
http://techref.massmind.org/techref/other/incompetence.htm It was a lie. I lie I told to myself. There should have been better solutions. We are part of the problem.

4. If you just really get off on war pictures, see this:
http://techref.massmind.org/images/member/jmn-efp-786/war/index.htm

Damn it… Send this to the people you sent those pictures too…

And how about this last thought?

SUPPORT OUR TROUPS!
BRING… THEM… HOME!

Well, he got ONE right....

I do not support Brian Bilbray for congress... He has voted on the WRONG side of so many things: His racist attacks on the boarder issues and constant pandering to big oil make me sick. Which makes it all the harder to admit that on the bank bailout, he.. um... did the right thing. I was blown away when megavote emailed me that he had voted AGAINST the bailout. I wrote him an email asking why? This is part of his reply:

While I am in agreement with the Secretary that the state of the financial markets called for some form of government involvement, I held two serious concerns with his approach. First, I believe this plan would undermine the free market from promoting economic growth. Today, our system rewards innovators and entrepreneurs, but Paulson's plan subsidizes poorly managed companies at the expense of more responsible and competitive companies and the taxpayer. In so doing, this bill represents one of the greatest intrusions of the government into the free market in our history and it is a precedent I fear will be exploited to justify even greater federal intrusion into our own lives. Second, our government does not have the expertise or incentive to run Secretary Paulson's plan effectively or efficiently. Under the terms of the plan, our government would purchase thousands of mortgages and hold them for five years, or more, until the market improves. As it stands now we have neither the manpower nor the knowledge base to purchase, administer and sell mortgages on such a scale. For proof, we have to look no farther than the Recovery Trust Corporation from the Savings and Loan bailout of the 1980's which ultimately cost the taxpayer dearly because of mismanagement and private manipulation. Far too often in recent years people have looked to the
government for answers only to be met with waste and incompetence. We cannot allow that to happen again.

Ultimately, when the bill came before the House of Representatives on September 29, 2008, I joined with the majority of my colleagues to defeat the bill and it failed by a vote of 205-228. While I did not support the bill, I fervently believe that government should take some action to help restore accountability and stabilize our financial market. Not doing so would potentially risk that our credit markets would dry up and middle class Americans would be unable to receive car or home loans and small businesses would not have access to the loans they need to operate. To address these issues, I advocated for a mandatory insurance plan where banks would be required to insure their toxic debt with the government, which would have Wall Street foot the bill for much of their own bailout and greatly reduce the risk to the taxpayer. I also strongly supported raising the FDIC insurance limits to $250,000 to better protect the middle class from bank runs. Additionally, I fought to eliminate
mark-to-market mortgage pricing regulations for banks. This allows homes to be priced based on their long term value and not on recently imposed fair market accounting regulations that have turned mortgages whose owners have never missed a payment into toxic debt because the home is no longer worth the buying price. Moreover, I believe we need to update and more stringently enforce our financial oversight laws to reflect a twenty-first century economy and ensure that crises like this one cannot happen again.

Following the House's failed vote, the Senate passed the same measure, but only after adding more than $110 billion in pork to draw in additional support. These riders are laden with the type of wasteful pork-barrel spending Americans have come to expect, and fear, from Washington, including $192 million for Puerto Rico
and Virgin Islands rum producers, $128 million for auto-racetracks and $148 million for wool producers. Rather than working to forge a compromise that myself and many of my colleagues could accept the Congressional leadership added billions of handouts to Members of Congress as a way to buy their support. I believe that is a betrayal of the citizens we represent. As a result, when the Senate proposal came before the House on October 3rd I voted against the bill. Unfortunately, the bill did pass by a vote of 263-171 and President Bush has signed it into law.

Well, he nailed that one. Both the dems voted FOR it, Boxer doesn't get them all right.

Sick, sad, world. Shaved legs molest girls.

Women abhor pedophiles, and rightfully so, yet they continue to shave their legs and wear lipstick, blush, and false eyelashes.

*pause for a moment to let the apparent disconnect in that statement settle in with the confused reader*

The average age where a young woman's leg hair becomes visible is between 12 and 18 depending on hair color, genetics, etc...

What other reason is there for shaving ones legs, besides wanting to appear to be jail bait?

*pause to really allow the increasingly shocked reader to think hard about that*

Take your average 13 year old girl and stand her next to a 30 year old women while neither is wearing makeup. Notice that the 13 year old has ruby red lips, blushed cheeks, and strong dark eyelashes. The 30 year old has pale lips, sallow cheeks and thinning eyelashes. Now ask the 30 year old to go put on her make up. Compare again and feel slightly sick to your stomach. Don't take my word for it. Go see for yourself. 

*hurries on to reassure the now outraged reader of the limits of my insanity* 

Please note, I am not blaming women for this, I am trying to point out how sick our society is. I am not saying that women are knowingly encouraging men to look at jail bait, nor am I saying that men are knowingly pressuring women to look like jail bait in order to be attractive. I am also not attempting to excuse the actions of your local neighborhood child molester. We are all responsible for our actions, and must pay the consequences, no matter to what bad influences we are exposed. I am also NOT saying that I am sexually attracted to girls, just on the off chance that someone is getting worried here... I'm all about the MILF and specifically, my wife.

But something is wrong here. Very, very wrong. In Europe, or at least in the non-westernized parts of Europe, women do not feel a compulsion to do these things.

It may be that the problem is an unintended consequence of the advertising engine that must needs accompany each industry in our consumer driven economy. I once saw an interview where an experienced older man who had lived through the 60's and remembered it was asked why "blonds have more fun?" His answer was surprising to me: He said "Well, originally it was to sell hair care products." Apparently that saying was started by ads placed for a company that had come up with a new non-bleach hair coloring product and who wanted to create a greater demand. By convincing women that they would have more fun as a blond, they created a feedback loop where the women who wanted more fun, perhaps unknowingly advertised the fact by dying their hair. Men then saw dark eyebrows and blond hair, knew that the woman wanted to have "more fun" and so were more likely to ask her out. It was a self fulfilling prophecy.

I think the same sort of thing may have happened in the makeup industry. Makeup has several functions, including accentuating the difference between men and women, or sending that same "I want to have fun" signal, but mostly it is designed to mask the effects of aging. When an older lady caked on the powder to hid a few wrinkles or age spots, she was perhaps returning her appearance to that of a healthy 30 year old. No problem there. But how to sell lipstick, for instance, when the lips of a 30 year old are really no more red than those of a 50 year old? And why sell only to 50 year olds? 

By presenting the women of the USA with an idealized, sexuallized, version of a younger than legal Brooke Shields or Kate Moss, companies could then push the sale of more lipstick. And so enlist the women who buy it in the consequence of training the men to be pedophiles. Please note that I am in NO way attempting to excuse men who molest children. This idea that men have no control over their actions is insulting and disempowering. Men (everyone) are responsible for their actions, in any case. 

Face it, or tell my why I'm wrong in an unemotional, rational, and logical argument backed up with references and facts. Hysterical rants, unsupported denials, and blame deflecting accusations will be deleted. 

I'm tired of just accepting the sickness.

Bail-out WHO?

So let me get this straight: The banks wrongly loaned money to people who purchased houses and could just barely make their house payment... When the economy sagged a bit (due to high fuel prices?) they suddenly couldn't make those mortgage payments and defaulted on their loans. 

Now the banks are in trouble because so many people stoped paying their mortgage payments. 

So... Gee Whiz... the solution is to forgive the bankers the bad debt and forget about the home owners.

Why not pay off part of the mortgage of those home owners so that they can continue to make their (now lower) payments and move back into those abandoned houses?

What I asked my representatives is this: "Why is welfare for people wrong, while welfare for the banking industry is right?"