why there are so many climate conferences held all over the world? They tell us to start restricting and eliminating unnecessary travel- buy local produce that doesn't have to be trucked in, take public transportation or bike in to work- or better still, work from home via computer. And for God's sake, stop all that wasteful business travel- telecommute, video conference, twitter your customers! And yet, all the climate change brass hats jet all over the world non-stop, holding conferences in distant lands- why?
Politiken.DK provides the answer- the whole story is contained in the headlines: Climate conference sex boom
Copenhagen’s sex trade did brisk business during the recent business climate conference.
This suggests a new tactic for political activists, less expense than campaign contributions, and potentially far more effective: I call it "Lysistrata by proxy". All you have to do is target the conferences, seminars, and summit meetings of your special interest, arrive the day before they do, and pay all the prostitutes to stay home and watch TV during the summit meeting. Be it a climate conference or a G-20 meeting, I'm guessing they'll get bored by the second day, pass the agenda in a voice vote, and rush home to their regular mistresses... after resolving to video conference next time instead!
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
The California Supreme Court was right to uphold Prop 8
Seriously- the plaintiffs had no case at all; it wasn't even close. 6-1; that's one vote short of having the decision phrased, "You're lucky we don't fine you for wasting our time."
Look, marriage equality has few proponents more dedicated than I; one of my earliest posts on this blog was Why pro-marriage equality IS a conservative position . But as I noted in my previous post , I also believe in the rule of law and the democratic principle. Elections have consequences; I believe in these things even when they don't go my way. Principles that you uphold only when they favor you are not principles at all.
The only moral and ethical way to deal with this setback is to learn an important lesson from it: the Prop 8 supporters simply worked harder; this is an object lesson in "Nothing worth having comes easy." Don't waste your efforts writing blog posts castigating the Ca. Supreme Court for a terrible decision. Don't poison the waters by trying to take revenge on the supporters; preaching hate in the support of love is an untenable position. Just get out there and work as hard as they did.
Look, marriage equality has few proponents more dedicated than I; one of my earliest posts on this blog was Why pro-marriage equality IS a conservative position . But as I noted in my previous post , I also believe in the rule of law and the democratic principle. Elections have consequences; I believe in these things even when they don't go my way. Principles that you uphold only when they favor you are not principles at all.
The only moral and ethical way to deal with this setback is to learn an important lesson from it: the Prop 8 supporters simply worked harder; this is an object lesson in "Nothing worth having comes easy." Don't waste your efforts writing blog posts castigating the Ca. Supreme Court for a terrible decision. Don't poison the waters by trying to take revenge on the supporters; preaching hate in the support of love is an untenable position. Just get out there and work as hard as they did.
President Obama picks Sonia Sotomayor for Supreme Court
And it's a poor choice, in my view. Although technically qualified, the following exchange alone would have put her off my short list:
Given the implied attitude above, it is scarcely surprising that Judge Cabranes, a fellow Clinton appointee, objected to the opinion she participated in of Ricci v. DeStefano that contained "no reference whatsoever to the constitutional issues at the core of this case." (from The Case Against Sotomayor ) Frankly, I think her primary qualification is that she would make history as the first Hispanic woman on the court.
That being said, she should be confirmed without any senate theatrics. Why? Because she is the President's choice. Elections have consequences- and the right to choose judges is one of them. The "Advise and Consent" function of the Senate was intended to prevent an ambitious President from stacking the courts with cronies that would make him emperor- it was not intended to let partisans effectively overturn the election. The rule of thumb should be that any objection that would not be grounds for impeaching a sitting judge should not be grounds for denying confirmation; any lesser standard would be a de facto attempt to change our form of government.
I know this position has made me unpopular with both sides over the years, most recently with UUs opposed to Justice Alito. But my position has been consistent through six administrations: the US can survive bad appointments better than it can survive the subversion of democracy.
Given the implied attitude above, it is scarcely surprising that Judge Cabranes, a fellow Clinton appointee, objected to the opinion she participated in of Ricci v. DeStefano that contained "no reference whatsoever to the constitutional issues at the core of this case." (from The Case Against Sotomayor ) Frankly, I think her primary qualification is that she would make history as the first Hispanic woman on the court.
That being said, she should be confirmed without any senate theatrics. Why? Because she is the President's choice. Elections have consequences- and the right to choose judges is one of them. The "Advise and Consent" function of the Senate was intended to prevent an ambitious President from stacking the courts with cronies that would make him emperor- it was not intended to let partisans effectively overturn the election. The rule of thumb should be that any objection that would not be grounds for impeaching a sitting judge should not be grounds for denying confirmation; any lesser standard would be a de facto attempt to change our form of government.
I know this position has made me unpopular with both sides over the years, most recently with UUs opposed to Justice Alito. But my position has been consistent through six administrations: the US can survive bad appointments better than it can survive the subversion of democracy.
Monday, May 25, 2009
Move over, Babylon,
Make room for the Hanging Gardens of Victoria's Secret ! Learn how to grow strawberries in your bra and enjoy the real fruit of the loom!
Obama man
Comedian Greg Morton sings his new song, "Obama Man" on Indianapolis' own Bob and Tom Show
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Calling all UU bloggers
I've put off mentioning it until now, because some family things had put it in jeopardy, but they are now resolved, and so I can announce that we will be going to GA as delegates for our congregation. Who else is going? I'd like to meet all of you I've been reading for so long- can we plan a get together of some kind?
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
A video for teens
We couldn't show this on American TV, but this British video deserves to be shown at every high school
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Sustainability: resources
In my previous post , I addressed the issue of how many people the Earth could support, just as animals. It's a lot of people, double our current population- but we don't want to live like animals. Can the earth support the lifestyle we would prefer? That's a question of resources. Again, I'll use America as a microcosm of the Earth. So what's the first resource environmental activists warn us we're running out of? Clean water is the biggie; all others pale next to that. The common numbers quoted is that the US consumes some 408 billion gallons a day. That's a big, scary number... surely that couldn't be sustained, could it? No, it couldn't- if it were true.
We don't consume 408 billion gallons, we merely use it. What do I mean? Look at your daily life... it takes a lot of water just to wash- yourself, your clothes, your dishes. But you didn't consume that water; you just borrowed it for a few minutes, then opened the drain and put it right back into the environment. (hopefully after being treated first) Water is endlessly recyclable. Yesterday's bath water is returned to the environment and comes back as tomorrow's bath water- that 408 billion gallons isn't a consumption rate, it's the flow rate of a cycle.
But surely we keep some of it, even if only temporarily, right? Sequestered away from the environment? Certainly. In your life, you've ingested thousands of gallons of water in food and drink- depending upon your age, perhaps a hundred thousand pounds of water... how much have you kept? Your body mass, of course. At an average of 150 lbs., that's some 18 gallons. That's all- the rest was returned to the environment, as water vapor in your breath and sweat, and flushed down the toilet. That, plus what you keep in your pipes and water heater (assuming you don't have a flow-through heater), is all you're keeping out of the environment.
And even that ratio is high compared to manufacturing, because the human body is actually composed of water plus some trace elements. All told, it took hundreds of thousand of pounds of water to manufacture your car- virtually all of which was used and returned to the environment, again hopefully after treatment. (We spend tens of millions of dollars enforcing compliance with the Clean Water Act- didn't it ever occur to the government that there's an easier way to ensure compliance? Simply require that their intake pipes be downstream of the output- they'd make damn sure the output was clean then, wouldn't they? But I digress.) But after all that water usage manufacturing that car, how much was kept? The ten pounds or so in the radiator. That's all. We don't dam up the flow of rain on the plains which mainly runs to rivers which runs to oceans who evaporate and rain on the plains... we just divert a small portion of it in a different direction along the way.
So how big is that flow? The Mississippi river discharges an average 12,740 metric tons of fresh water into the ocean per second. The St Lawrence only slightly less. And there are a lot of rivers. Plus underground rivers. Plus billions of tons as clouds and atmospheric water vapor. Many times what we're currently using. I've been speaking so far of just North America; how much water is available for world use? What is easily useable is groundwater and fresh surface water- lakes and rivers. According to Wikipedia , there is 13,000,000 km³ of groundwater and 250,000 km³ of freshwater; a cubic kilometer is one billion metric tons of water.
What's that you say? Despite all my claims, there are genuine shortages out west, aquifer levels dropping, cities and states suing each other over water rights- what do I have to say about that? It's all true- but it doesn't mean the needed water doesn't exist; it merely means that it's not where they need it. You know, the Romans faced that problem a couple millennia ago, and they came up with this bizarre, counterintuitive solution: move the water from where it is to where you want it. We've proven we can do it with the vast oil pipelines around the world. The only reason they don't do it out west is economics; at this moment, it's cheaper to just dig the wells deeper and sue your neighbor over the surface water within arm's reach.
So to make a long story short, (I know, too late!), how many people do I think can the Earth sustain, at our level of civilization? To start with, the land area of the earth is 148,940,000 square kilometers; let's say only a third of that is comfortably usable. As to how to live on that land, I look to Europe- they've been civilized a long time; I'll presume they're doing things in a more or less sustainable way. The have a nice energy mix; France, for example, gets 80% of their electricity from non-polluting nuclear plants. Belgium, despite being sustainable, (as I noted in The Myth of Overpopulation Part 2 , they're a net food exporter) has an excessive population density. France, being the flattest European country, is perhaps not representative of the diverse geography of the world. So let's look at Germany- they have mountains and forests with wild animals, ocean front beaches, and farms in-between. Germany has a population density of 230/km; multiplied by a third of the land area mentioned above, that's 11.4 billion people. That's without altering our lifestyle, other than actually enforcing anti-pollution laws and using existing green energy techniques. If we went vegetarian, or nearly so, did more public transportation, all the obvious things, we could double that and still have a comfortable lifestyle.
What's your estimate?
We don't consume 408 billion gallons, we merely use it. What do I mean? Look at your daily life... it takes a lot of water just to wash- yourself, your clothes, your dishes. But you didn't consume that water; you just borrowed it for a few minutes, then opened the drain and put it right back into the environment. (hopefully after being treated first) Water is endlessly recyclable. Yesterday's bath water is returned to the environment and comes back as tomorrow's bath water- that 408 billion gallons isn't a consumption rate, it's the flow rate of a cycle.
But surely we keep some of it, even if only temporarily, right? Sequestered away from the environment? Certainly. In your life, you've ingested thousands of gallons of water in food and drink- depending upon your age, perhaps a hundred thousand pounds of water... how much have you kept? Your body mass, of course. At an average of 150 lbs., that's some 18 gallons. That's all- the rest was returned to the environment, as water vapor in your breath and sweat, and flushed down the toilet. That, plus what you keep in your pipes and water heater (assuming you don't have a flow-through heater), is all you're keeping out of the environment.
And even that ratio is high compared to manufacturing, because the human body is actually composed of water plus some trace elements. All told, it took hundreds of thousand of pounds of water to manufacture your car- virtually all of which was used and returned to the environment, again hopefully after treatment. (We spend tens of millions of dollars enforcing compliance with the Clean Water Act- didn't it ever occur to the government that there's an easier way to ensure compliance? Simply require that their intake pipes be downstream of the output- they'd make damn sure the output was clean then, wouldn't they? But I digress.) But after all that water usage manufacturing that car, how much was kept? The ten pounds or so in the radiator. That's all. We don't dam up the flow of rain on the plains which mainly runs to rivers which runs to oceans who evaporate and rain on the plains... we just divert a small portion of it in a different direction along the way.
So how big is that flow? The Mississippi river discharges an average 12,740 metric tons of fresh water into the ocean per second. The St Lawrence only slightly less. And there are a lot of rivers. Plus underground rivers. Plus billions of tons as clouds and atmospheric water vapor. Many times what we're currently using. I've been speaking so far of just North America; how much water is available for world use? What is easily useable is groundwater and fresh surface water- lakes and rivers. According to Wikipedia , there is 13,000,000 km³ of groundwater and 250,000 km³ of freshwater; a cubic kilometer is one billion metric tons of water.
What's that you say? Despite all my claims, there are genuine shortages out west, aquifer levels dropping, cities and states suing each other over water rights- what do I have to say about that? It's all true- but it doesn't mean the needed water doesn't exist; it merely means that it's not where they need it. You know, the Romans faced that problem a couple millennia ago, and they came up with this bizarre, counterintuitive solution: move the water from where it is to where you want it. We've proven we can do it with the vast oil pipelines around the world. The only reason they don't do it out west is economics; at this moment, it's cheaper to just dig the wells deeper and sue your neighbor over the surface water within arm's reach.
So to make a long story short, (I know, too late!), how many people do I think can the Earth sustain, at our level of civilization? To start with, the land area of the earth is 148,940,000 square kilometers; let's say only a third of that is comfortably usable. As to how to live on that land, I look to Europe- they've been civilized a long time; I'll presume they're doing things in a more or less sustainable way. The have a nice energy mix; France, for example, gets 80% of their electricity from non-polluting nuclear plants. Belgium, despite being sustainable, (as I noted in The Myth of Overpopulation Part 2 , they're a net food exporter) has an excessive population density. France, being the flattest European country, is perhaps not representative of the diverse geography of the world. So let's look at Germany- they have mountains and forests with wild animals, ocean front beaches, and farms in-between. Germany has a population density of 230/km; multiplied by a third of the land area mentioned above, that's 11.4 billion people. That's without altering our lifestyle, other than actually enforcing anti-pollution laws and using existing green energy techniques. If we went vegetarian, or nearly so, did more public transportation, all the obvious things, we could double that and still have a comfortable lifestyle.
What's your estimate?
Sustainability
This is an offshoot of the discussion on overpopulationThe Myth of Overpopulation Part 2 The topic of sustainability was raised- this is a big concern of environmentalists. The problem is that experts with doctorates differ wildly about what population level is sustainable; some say as few as 2 billion, others upwards of 50 billion. How's a poor layman to know what is right when the experts disagree?
The first step is to realize that experts are people, too, and so can become attached to pet theories, fail to consider alternatives. Their specializations sometimes induce tunnel vision- this phenomenon is so well known that it spawned an aphorism: "an expert has mastered his discipline from B to Z and forgotten A". This is where common sense and a pocket calculator come in. If you remember your college algebra, I can show you a syllogism that proves 2 = 1; but you don't need a doctorate in math to know that's wrong, you only need your common sense. As Bob Dylan said, you don't have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.
Ok, the first thing to remember is that this is a closed system; other than a couple tons of metal we left on the Moon, what happens on Earth, stays on Earth. The second thing to remember is that we do not exist apart from the environment; we are part of it. The third thing to remember is that life is persistent, it expands to fill the niches. If we, as animals, did not exist, that would not mean fewer total animals on Earth, it would mean other animals would be born to eat what we're not eating- so the actual question is, how much animal life is sustainable on Earth?
An equally hard question. Let's look just at North America, a good microcosm of the whole. A few centuries ago, it was in a natural state, in that the people living here were, speaking only environmentally, living as animals- their art, music, and complex culture was not polluting or depleting the environment. How much animal life was being naturally sustained then? Still too complex; let's take another microcosm, an animal we know something about: the North American Bison, or buffalo.
Experts say there were between 30 and 60 million buffalo; split the difference and call it 45 million. Buffalos run upwards of 2,200 lbs. each; round that down to an even ton. That gives us some 90 billion pounds of animals- what's that in human terms? The average human runs 150 lbs.; that gives us 600 million people! Yeah, yeah, that's overly simplistic, it's not a pound for pound ratio, yada yada. But it's not a meaningless number, either- it really was 90 billion pounds of hot, pulsing mammal flesh, and that was only a single species, ignoring deer and moose and elk and beaver and a couple hundred million squirrels and a couple billion birds and a few trillion insects, all sustained without digging a single well or plowing a single furrow!
Of course, directly replacing the buffalo would mean living like a buffalo- there's a visual for you, 600 million naked vegetarians! People won't live like that- I want my MTV! We have a civilization to maintain, and that takes a lot of resources- resources that we're running out of. Or are we?
Next: Resources.
The first step is to realize that experts are people, too, and so can become attached to pet theories, fail to consider alternatives. Their specializations sometimes induce tunnel vision- this phenomenon is so well known that it spawned an aphorism: "an expert has mastered his discipline from B to Z and forgotten A". This is where common sense and a pocket calculator come in. If you remember your college algebra, I can show you a syllogism that proves 2 = 1; but you don't need a doctorate in math to know that's wrong, you only need your common sense. As Bob Dylan said, you don't have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.
Ok, the first thing to remember is that this is a closed system; other than a couple tons of metal we left on the Moon, what happens on Earth, stays on Earth. The second thing to remember is that we do not exist apart from the environment; we are part of it. The third thing to remember is that life is persistent, it expands to fill the niches. If we, as animals, did not exist, that would not mean fewer total animals on Earth, it would mean other animals would be born to eat what we're not eating- so the actual question is, how much animal life is sustainable on Earth?
An equally hard question. Let's look just at North America, a good microcosm of the whole. A few centuries ago, it was in a natural state, in that the people living here were, speaking only environmentally, living as animals- their art, music, and complex culture was not polluting or depleting the environment. How much animal life was being naturally sustained then? Still too complex; let's take another microcosm, an animal we know something about: the North American Bison, or buffalo.
Experts say there were between 30 and 60 million buffalo; split the difference and call it 45 million. Buffalos run upwards of 2,200 lbs. each; round that down to an even ton. That gives us some 90 billion pounds of animals- what's that in human terms? The average human runs 150 lbs.; that gives us 600 million people! Yeah, yeah, that's overly simplistic, it's not a pound for pound ratio, yada yada. But it's not a meaningless number, either- it really was 90 billion pounds of hot, pulsing mammal flesh, and that was only a single species, ignoring deer and moose and elk and beaver and a couple hundred million squirrels and a couple billion birds and a few trillion insects, all sustained without digging a single well or plowing a single furrow!
Of course, directly replacing the buffalo would mean living like a buffalo- there's a visual for you, 600 million naked vegetarians! People won't live like that- I want my MTV! We have a civilization to maintain, and that takes a lot of resources- resources that we're running out of. Or are we?
Next: Resources.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
The trickle-down effects of torture
In my post Why I don't buy the ticking bomb scenario , I spoke of how accepting torture in extraordinary circumstances becomes lesser abuses as standard operating procedure. Before I continue, watch this video . If that video doesn't play, try this , and search "Arizona pastor tazed, beaten" on Youtube.
It would be nice to think that this was a freak occurrence, but it's not- something of the kind happens on a near-daily basis somewhere in America. There are some police officers for whom "being a wiseass" is the ultimate crime, to be punished on the spot with a beating. Such abusive police officers are a big problem for police forces. Among some circles, they're called "dead men walking", because they know that sooner or later he's going to bully the wrong guy, and get 9mm justice- and nobody wants to be standing close to him when it happens. But weeding such characters out is never easy, not least because even the clean, decent cops (the large majority) understand the frustration that can cause it.
But the "never easy" becomes the "nearly impossible" if the social pressure is not there, and societies respond to leadership- the fish rots from the head. When Woodrow Wilson made speaking against WW I illegal, we had vigilante groups burning small newspapers who opposed it. In the 20's-50's, when the government was busy enforcing racial segregation, (another Wilson initiative), we had mass lynching. In the 60's and 70's when the most common three syllable word in politics was "lawnorder", beating up "filthy hippies" was a popular redneck pastime. And throughout all this, police behavior reflected social behavior as a whole; the best Chiefs of Police couldn't hold their men to a higher standard than the public demanded.
This is why it's so crucial for the Federal government, from the President on down, to be beyond reproach in such matters. People respond as quickly to good example as bad; nobody wants to feel like a monster- and close-knit societies like law enforcement feel peer pressure even stronger than most. To fall from grace hits those in uniform harder than a bullet- but only if there is grace to fall from. In a very, very real sense, to protect the inherent dignity of prisoners is to ensure your own- and vice-versa.
It would be nice to think that this was a freak occurrence, but it's not- something of the kind happens on a near-daily basis somewhere in America. There are some police officers for whom "being a wiseass" is the ultimate crime, to be punished on the spot with a beating. Such abusive police officers are a big problem for police forces. Among some circles, they're called "dead men walking", because they know that sooner or later he's going to bully the wrong guy, and get 9mm justice- and nobody wants to be standing close to him when it happens. But weeding such characters out is never easy, not least because even the clean, decent cops (the large majority) understand the frustration that can cause it.
But the "never easy" becomes the "nearly impossible" if the social pressure is not there, and societies respond to leadership- the fish rots from the head. When Woodrow Wilson made speaking against WW I illegal, we had vigilante groups burning small newspapers who opposed it. In the 20's-50's, when the government was busy enforcing racial segregation, (another Wilson initiative), we had mass lynching. In the 60's and 70's when the most common three syllable word in politics was "lawnorder", beating up "filthy hippies" was a popular redneck pastime. And throughout all this, police behavior reflected social behavior as a whole; the best Chiefs of Police couldn't hold their men to a higher standard than the public demanded.
This is why it's so crucial for the Federal government, from the President on down, to be beyond reproach in such matters. People respond as quickly to good example as bad; nobody wants to feel like a monster- and close-knit societies like law enforcement feel peer pressure even stronger than most. To fall from grace hits those in uniform harder than a bullet- but only if there is grace to fall from. In a very, very real sense, to protect the inherent dignity of prisoners is to ensure your own- and vice-versa.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
The charitable divide
There are two recent posts on charitable giving that touch on each other tangentially. Michael at "Postcards From Myself" has a post entitled The politics of Altruism that explores different types of giving, and The Naked Theologian has a post entitled How good are we without God? exploring who does the giving. TNT writes about a new book by Robert Brooks about the difference in giving between liberals and conservatives. “When I started doing research on charity,” Mr. Brooks wrote, “I expected to find that political liberals — who, I believed, genuinely cared more about others than conservatives did — would turn out to be the most privately charitable people. So when my early findings led me to the opposite conclusion, I assumed I had made some sort of technical error. I re-ran analyses. I got new data. Nothing worked. In the end, I had no option but to change my views.”
Although liberals advocate on behalf of those who are hungry and homeless, Brooks’ data shows that conservative households give 30% more to charity. A Google poll puts these numbers even higher—at nearly 50% more. Conservatives even beat out liberals when it comes to nonfinancial contributions. People in the conservative states in the center of the country are more likely to volunteer and to give blood."
Actually neither TNT nor Mr. Brooks should have been surprised; if you Google "red state blue state charitable giving" you'll find research showing these results going back ten years- much of the research done by the charitable organizations on the receiving end of the giving. But TNT doesn't explore why. Conservatives believe it's because liberals are hypocrites; liberals find it inexplicable, because they know they genuinely care more about others than conservatives. I believe that the explanation- both of the giving, and of the views liberals and conservatives hold about each other- lies in the different types of giving described in "The politics of Altruism" being viewed through different ideological lenses.
Liberals believe much more in what Michael calls "the second method" than conservatives do. This is philanthropy by proxy, spending your time and/or money on organizations and programs that will do the charitable work, rather than doing it personally. And of course the ultimate in programs is the government; liberals believe in government programs and push them heavily. Since conservatives generally oppose these programs, liberals believe they don't care.
Conservatives tend to believe in the first method- direct, personal giving and doing. Secular conservatives believe in this method because they don't trust the government to do a good job, and fear political strings on their charity. Religious conservatives give directly because all facets of spiritual work are their personal responsibility, not a collective one- souls are saved retail, not wholesale. So no matter how many government charities a politician may set up, if he doesn't give personally he's not really giving- he must be a hypocrite.
The truth is that both care, and neither are hypocrites. And there are lessons both can take away- conservatives need to learn that there are some government programs worthy of supporting, and Joe Biden might consider giving more than seven-tenths of one percent of his income in charity (to use the example from TNT). But the most important thing for both of them to learn is to look a little deeper into their opponent's arguments, learn why they do the things they do, and stop demonizing one another.
Although liberals advocate on behalf of those who are hungry and homeless, Brooks’ data shows that conservative households give 30% more to charity. A Google poll puts these numbers even higher—at nearly 50% more. Conservatives even beat out liberals when it comes to nonfinancial contributions. People in the conservative states in the center of the country are more likely to volunteer and to give blood."
Actually neither TNT nor Mr. Brooks should have been surprised; if you Google "red state blue state charitable giving" you'll find research showing these results going back ten years- much of the research done by the charitable organizations on the receiving end of the giving. But TNT doesn't explore why. Conservatives believe it's because liberals are hypocrites; liberals find it inexplicable, because they know they genuinely care more about others than conservatives. I believe that the explanation- both of the giving, and of the views liberals and conservatives hold about each other- lies in the different types of giving described in "The politics of Altruism" being viewed through different ideological lenses.
Liberals believe much more in what Michael calls "the second method" than conservatives do. This is philanthropy by proxy, spending your time and/or money on organizations and programs that will do the charitable work, rather than doing it personally. And of course the ultimate in programs is the government; liberals believe in government programs and push them heavily. Since conservatives generally oppose these programs, liberals believe they don't care.
Conservatives tend to believe in the first method- direct, personal giving and doing. Secular conservatives believe in this method because they don't trust the government to do a good job, and fear political strings on their charity. Religious conservatives give directly because all facets of spiritual work are their personal responsibility, not a collective one- souls are saved retail, not wholesale. So no matter how many government charities a politician may set up, if he doesn't give personally he's not really giving- he must be a hypocrite.
The truth is that both care, and neither are hypocrites. And there are lessons both can take away- conservatives need to learn that there are some government programs worthy of supporting, and Joe Biden might consider giving more than seven-tenths of one percent of his income in charity (to use the example from TNT). But the most important thing for both of them to learn is to look a little deeper into their opponent's arguments, learn why they do the things they do, and stop demonizing one another.
Monday, May 11, 2009
The myth of overpopulation part 2
This post is inspired by a post on Ms Kittys Saloon and Road Show . As all her posts are, it is well written and well reasoned; I believe, however, that she was starting from a false premise: the world is not overpopulated. I know it's easy to believe the people who say it is- we look around us, and see lots of people. But the fact is the world is mostly empty- social pressure makes us clump together, and so all we see is people. It's like a lone anthill in a big field; the ants will still feel crowded.
The world has an average population density of 44.7 people per square kilometer. That's about the same as the state of Kentucky- a beautiful, green state. What if we double that population density? You have the state of Illinois, home to the nation's second city, Chicago. But if you look at this population density map of Illinois, you can see virtually the whole state is farm and field with a few dense population centers; most of the state has a density of 10 people per square kilometer or less. Now let's look at the most extreme example- Belgium. Belgium has the densest population of any nation that's not a city-state: 344.32 people per square kilometer, some 8 times the world average. Is Belgium one vast city, depending upon others for sustenance?
No. Despite having a smaller area and population devoted to agriculture than any European nation, it's still a net food exporter. The 10 million people of Belgium produce 6.15 million metric tons of sugar beets, 2.7 million metric tons of potatoes, 1.63 million tons of wheat, 3.1 million head of cattle, 7.3 million pigs, 3.2 million tons of milk, 3.97 million eggs, 175,000 tons of butter, over 500 varieties of beer, and still has room for a modest timber industry!
As I reported in this post , the United Nations says the world has enough food right now to make every man, woman, and child on Earth morbidly obese- and if western farming methods were used in the third world, that could easily triple. The only thing preventing starving people from getting food is politics and war. Poverty does not cause war; war causes poverty.
So what causes war? I quote Eleanor from The Lion In Winter: "Of course he has a knife, he always has a knife, we all have knives! It's 1183 and we're barbarians! How clear we make it. Oh, my piglets, we are the origins of war: not history's forces, nor the times, nor justice, nor the lack of it, nor causes, nor religions, nor ideas, nor kinds of government, nor any other thing. We are the killers. We breed wars. We carry it like syphilis inside. Dead bodies rot in field and stream because the living ones are rotten. For the love of God, can't we love one another just a little - that's how peace begins. We have so much to love each other for. We have such possibilities, my children. We could change the world."
Individuals must change before the world can change. That's why I would like our church to be more spiritual, to focus on individual development, not politics and activism and causes. As long as we carry war within us like syphilis, no political system or economic theory will make any difference- haven't the last couple centuries proven that? Until we do look within, it will always be 1183.
The world has an average population density of 44.7 people per square kilometer. That's about the same as the state of Kentucky- a beautiful, green state. What if we double that population density? You have the state of Illinois, home to the nation's second city, Chicago. But if you look at this population density map of Illinois, you can see virtually the whole state is farm and field with a few dense population centers; most of the state has a density of 10 people per square kilometer or less. Now let's look at the most extreme example- Belgium. Belgium has the densest population of any nation that's not a city-state: 344.32 people per square kilometer, some 8 times the world average. Is Belgium one vast city, depending upon others for sustenance?
No. Despite having a smaller area and population devoted to agriculture than any European nation, it's still a net food exporter. The 10 million people of Belgium produce 6.15 million metric tons of sugar beets, 2.7 million metric tons of potatoes, 1.63 million tons of wheat, 3.1 million head of cattle, 7.3 million pigs, 3.2 million tons of milk, 3.97 million eggs, 175,000 tons of butter, over 500 varieties of beer, and still has room for a modest timber industry!
As I reported in this post , the United Nations says the world has enough food right now to make every man, woman, and child on Earth morbidly obese- and if western farming methods were used in the third world, that could easily triple. The only thing preventing starving people from getting food is politics and war. Poverty does not cause war; war causes poverty.
So what causes war? I quote Eleanor from The Lion In Winter: "Of course he has a knife, he always has a knife, we all have knives! It's 1183 and we're barbarians! How clear we make it. Oh, my piglets, we are the origins of war: not history's forces, nor the times, nor justice, nor the lack of it, nor causes, nor religions, nor ideas, nor kinds of government, nor any other thing. We are the killers. We breed wars. We carry it like syphilis inside. Dead bodies rot in field and stream because the living ones are rotten. For the love of God, can't we love one another just a little - that's how peace begins. We have so much to love each other for. We have such possibilities, my children. We could change the world."
Individuals must change before the world can change. That's why I would like our church to be more spiritual, to focus on individual development, not politics and activism and causes. As long as we carry war within us like syphilis, no political system or economic theory will make any difference- haven't the last couple centuries proven that? Until we do look within, it will always be 1183.
Friday, May 08, 2009
A better friend to gays
Do you know, or can you guess, which nationally ranked politician- a man with presidential dreams- way back in 1978 had the guts to publicly oppose a ballot initiative to ban gays and lesbians from teaching in public schools? He wrote a newspaper editorial saying, “Whatever else it is, homosexuality is not a contagious disease like the measles. Prevailing scientific opinion is that an individual’s sexuality is determined at a very early age and that a child’s teachers do not really influence this.” Remember, this was 1978.
Think you know? Ok, I've got another one: Which US president stood by silently while one of our dependent allies permitted death squads to freely roam the streets, torturing gays to death? Got a name in mind?
Ok... now read Why Reagan Was a Better Friend to Gays Than Obama
Think you know? Ok, I've got another one: Which US president stood by silently while one of our dependent allies permitted death squads to freely roam the streets, torturing gays to death? Got a name in mind?
Ok... now read Why Reagan Was a Better Friend to Gays Than Obama
Finally, imagery I can understand
Every article about the bailout and the budget contains some simile to demonstrate the size of our debt. If all the similes were laid end to end, they would reach the Moon and back seven times. But none of them have worked for me; there's no emotional or visceral context.
After all, I've never been to the Moon; there's no way for me to grasp what it means that a stack of $100 bills can reach it. I've been half way around the world, but I did it in an airplane in a few hours- fewer hours, in fact, than the layover in Chicago, so again there's no emotional connection. The numbers, with all their zeros, also have no emotional connection to someone who chooses a product on the basis of saving 17 cents... my eyes glaze over looking at them.
Well finally, Sen. Judd Gregg, speaking to MSNBC, using numbers from the Congressional Budget Office, explained it in a way that sinks in to me: the United States debt load- both annual deficit and total debt- are now so high that we wouldn't meet the standards of the European Union if we asked to join. As economic managers, the United States government is less competent than Bulgaria.
What Sen. Gregg didn't say, but is the obvious conclusion, is that despite all rhetoric, someday soon the tax rates must rise to match the debt payments, or we must default like a Third-World nation... which means that in the next few years we will have higher taxes than any nation in Europe.
That, I understand.
Hat tip to The Hill
After all, I've never been to the Moon; there's no way for me to grasp what it means that a stack of $100 bills can reach it. I've been half way around the world, but I did it in an airplane in a few hours- fewer hours, in fact, than the layover in Chicago, so again there's no emotional connection. The numbers, with all their zeros, also have no emotional connection to someone who chooses a product on the basis of saving 17 cents... my eyes glaze over looking at them.
Well finally, Sen. Judd Gregg, speaking to MSNBC, using numbers from the Congressional Budget Office, explained it in a way that sinks in to me: the United States debt load- both annual deficit and total debt- are now so high that we wouldn't meet the standards of the European Union if we asked to join. As economic managers, the United States government is less competent than Bulgaria.
What Sen. Gregg didn't say, but is the obvious conclusion, is that despite all rhetoric, someday soon the tax rates must rise to match the debt payments, or we must default like a Third-World nation... which means that in the next few years we will have higher taxes than any nation in Europe.
That, I understand.
Hat tip to The Hill
Improbable beauty
I've recommended the blog Waking Up In Dream City before, and his post titled "Improbable beauty" makes me do it again. You see, amongst many, many other things, Gatheringwater is a fine amateur photographer who manages to capture haunting moments. I have stood in the exact spot where he shot the photograph in that post- and didn't capture the moment as he did.
The post before, A Cloud Hanging Over Me, Literally , is archival- he ought to submit it to some contest somewhere. All of his work is really, really good. Check it out.
Thursday, May 07, 2009
What do you do with a teacher who can't teach?
If you're the Los Angeles Unified School District. you pay him not to teach! From the Los Angeles Times : "For seven years, the Los Angeles Unified School District has paid Matthew Kim a teaching salary of up to $68,000 per year, plus benefits.His job is to do nothing.
Every school day, Kim's shift begins at 7:50 a.m., with 30 minutes for lunch, and ends when the bell at his old campus rings at 3:20 p.m. He is to take off all breaks, school vacations and holidays, per a district agreement with the teacher's union. At no time is he to be given any work by the district or show up at school. He has never missed a paycheck."
He is under review after complaints to judge his fitness to teach. Seven years of review, and still counting. Surely an anomaly, right? "About 160 teachers and other staff sit idly in buildings scattered around the sprawling district, waiting for allegations of misconduct to be resolved.The housed are accused, among other things, of sexual contact with students, harassment, theft or drug possession. Nearly all are being paid. All told, they collect about $10 million in salaries per year -- even as the district is contemplating widespread layoffs of teachers because of a financial shortfall."
But of course, that's just California, La La Land. Nobody else would sign a union contract making it so hard to do anything about bad teachers... or would they? "In New York City public schools, which make up the country's largest district, teachers are confined to "rubber rooms." About 550 of the district's 80,000 teachers spend school hours "literally just doing crossword puzzles, waiting for the end of the day" until their cases are resolved, spokeswoman Ann Forte said. Some have been there for years."
One might think that if you're contractually forbidden to given them non-teaching related work, maybe you could assign them to just grading tests and homework without having contact with the children. Not in Plano, Texas... "Plano school officials are exploring a policy for middle schoolers that would not dock grades for cheating or late assignments. And teachers wouldn't grade some homework at all.", says The Dallas Morning News .
The teachers themselves know what the solution to all this is: "In Philadelphia, 44 percent of the teachers put their children in private schools; in Cincinnati, 41 percent; Chicago, 39 percent; Rochester, N.Y., 38 percent. The same trends showed up in the San Francisco-Oakland area, where 34 percent of public school teachers chose private schools for their children; 33 percent in New York City and New Jersey suburbs; and 29 percent in Milwaukee and New Orleans.", according to The Washington Times . Wouldn't it be nice if everyone could afford to do that? There's not a state in the union that doesn't spend enough per student to give them a top-flight private education, if the dollars followed the students. But that's not how it's done- we spend the money on school systems, not school children. Of course, our system guarantees a two tier educational system- one for the ruling class, and one for the ruled. But hey, Matthew Kim's not complaining.
Every school day, Kim's shift begins at 7:50 a.m., with 30 minutes for lunch, and ends when the bell at his old campus rings at 3:20 p.m. He is to take off all breaks, school vacations and holidays, per a district agreement with the teacher's union. At no time is he to be given any work by the district or show up at school. He has never missed a paycheck."
He is under review after complaints to judge his fitness to teach. Seven years of review, and still counting. Surely an anomaly, right? "About 160 teachers and other staff sit idly in buildings scattered around the sprawling district, waiting for allegations of misconduct to be resolved.The housed are accused, among other things, of sexual contact with students, harassment, theft or drug possession. Nearly all are being paid. All told, they collect about $10 million in salaries per year -- even as the district is contemplating widespread layoffs of teachers because of a financial shortfall."
But of course, that's just California, La La Land. Nobody else would sign a union contract making it so hard to do anything about bad teachers... or would they? "In New York City public schools, which make up the country's largest district, teachers are confined to "rubber rooms." About 550 of the district's 80,000 teachers spend school hours "literally just doing crossword puzzles, waiting for the end of the day" until their cases are resolved, spokeswoman Ann Forte said. Some have been there for years."
One might think that if you're contractually forbidden to given them non-teaching related work, maybe you could assign them to just grading tests and homework without having contact with the children. Not in Plano, Texas... "Plano school officials are exploring a policy for middle schoolers that would not dock grades for cheating or late assignments. And teachers wouldn't grade some homework at all.", says The Dallas Morning News .
The teachers themselves know what the solution to all this is: "In Philadelphia, 44 percent of the teachers put their children in private schools; in Cincinnati, 41 percent; Chicago, 39 percent; Rochester, N.Y., 38 percent. The same trends showed up in the San Francisco-Oakland area, where 34 percent of public school teachers chose private schools for their children; 33 percent in New York City and New Jersey suburbs; and 29 percent in Milwaukee and New Orleans.", according to The Washington Times . Wouldn't it be nice if everyone could afford to do that? There's not a state in the union that doesn't spend enough per student to give them a top-flight private education, if the dollars followed the students. But that's not how it's done- we spend the money on school systems, not school children. Of course, our system guarantees a two tier educational system- one for the ruling class, and one for the ruled. But hey, Matthew Kim's not complaining.
Wednesday, May 06, 2009
The day we learned...
A poem by J Huger
The day we learned that
The Sun doesn't go around the Earth,
The sunset was still beautiful.
The day we learned that
Evil spirits don't make us ill,
The sick still suffered.
The day we learned that
Our hearts are not where we feel,
We were still in love.
Our world is not a conjurer's trick.
Knowing how it's done
Doesn't make the magic go away.
The day we learned that
The Sun doesn't go around the Earth,
The sunset was still beautiful.
The day we learned that
Evil spirits don't make us ill,
The sick still suffered.
The day we learned that
Our hearts are not where we feel,
We were still in love.
Our world is not a conjurer's trick.
Knowing how it's done
Doesn't make the magic go away.
Monday, May 04, 2009
Thank goodness for an objective press corps
UPDATE: CBS News White House correspondent Mark Knoller posted an explanation on the Hotsheet : It was no disrespect to President Bush because the briefing room is informal; they were just so excited when President Obama entered that they forgot.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
In honor of Beltane and Mayday
I offer you The Mummers' Dance by Loreena McKennitt
P.S.- This is my 500th post!
P.S.- This is my 500th post!
Oldsmobile, Pontiac, and UU
In the last few years we have seen two iconic American automobile companies killed by the incompetent management of General Motors. Any car buff who isn't also a corporate executive can tell you why they died; they were niche products- the best in their niches- but the managers never understood that.
The Oldsmobile was the luxury car for those who despised Cadillacs. Its customers were an uniquely American blend of status seeking and puritanical reverse snobbery... it was everything the Cadillac was at half the price; so somehow buying it was not an extravagance, but sensibly seeking good value for the dollar.
The Pontiac line was simply the highest performance motor vehicle that it was possible for normal mortals to buy. It was the Ferrari at one tenth the price- and GTO and Trans Am owners would often tell you that in normal street corner to street corner driving where a a full race engine couldn't wind up, they were better than the Ferrari. They were the heroes of number one hit songs, movies, TV shows, and frequently at the top of the most-stolen lists.
But GM tried to turn a niche product into a full product line, econoboxes, sedans, etc., just like every other automobile. It evidently never occurred to them that Olds and Pontiac customers didn't want econoboxes and "sensible" sedans, and that those who did already had brand names they were loyal to. Requiescat in pace, American Icons.
What does this have to do with UU? Unitarian Universalism is a niche religion, as Unitarianism and Universalism before them had been. At some levels, UUs understand this; there are many jokes- composed by UUs- to demonstrate how different we are. But many UUs don't seem to understand another facet of niche products- that they are a fixed percentage of the market, neither growing nor falling without some unusual circumstance at work.
UU's market share has fallen in recent decades because of some competition, just as GTO and Trans Am sales fell slightly whenever a new model Mustang came out. Some of the more spiritual types became Pagans or liberal Christians. Some of the ones who were strictly political action types left when secular action groups became more viable. Some of those who were UUs only because we would marry them when nobody else would have now been welcomed back to their preferred churches.
But the spiritual types who also valued reason and seeking stayed. (And thank you, Boston, for hurting their feelings by disaffiliating all the believer organizations) The political activist who also needed fellowship in their lives stayed. We have achieved our market share of the current social structure, after the upheaval of the last few decades.
What this means is that no vast growth program is going to work, any more than a vast advertising campaign can make an F150 customer buy a Celica. The way to increase Celica sales is to make it more of what the Celica buyer is looking for to retain your current customer base, and wait for social change to naturally increase that base- appealing to F150 buyers is a waste of resources. Similarly, the way to grow UU is to make sure it is giving existing UUs more of what brought them here, make it the best UUA it can be, and not waste resources in scarce times trying to attract people who aren't going to stay anyway. Stop doing those things that are driving current UUs away, retain our base, and the numbers will take care of themselves. Something to think about for the upcoming election.
The Oldsmobile was the luxury car for those who despised Cadillacs. Its customers were an uniquely American blend of status seeking and puritanical reverse snobbery... it was everything the Cadillac was at half the price; so somehow buying it was not an extravagance, but sensibly seeking good value for the dollar.
The Pontiac line was simply the highest performance motor vehicle that it was possible for normal mortals to buy. It was the Ferrari at one tenth the price- and GTO and Trans Am owners would often tell you that in normal street corner to street corner driving where a a full race engine couldn't wind up, they were better than the Ferrari. They were the heroes of number one hit songs, movies, TV shows, and frequently at the top of the most-stolen lists.
But GM tried to turn a niche product into a full product line, econoboxes, sedans, etc., just like every other automobile. It evidently never occurred to them that Olds and Pontiac customers didn't want econoboxes and "sensible" sedans, and that those who did already had brand names they were loyal to. Requiescat in pace, American Icons.
What does this have to do with UU? Unitarian Universalism is a niche religion, as Unitarianism and Universalism before them had been. At some levels, UUs understand this; there are many jokes- composed by UUs- to demonstrate how different we are. But many UUs don't seem to understand another facet of niche products- that they are a fixed percentage of the market, neither growing nor falling without some unusual circumstance at work.
UU's market share has fallen in recent decades because of some competition, just as GTO and Trans Am sales fell slightly whenever a new model Mustang came out. Some of the more spiritual types became Pagans or liberal Christians. Some of the ones who were strictly political action types left when secular action groups became more viable. Some of those who were UUs only because we would marry them when nobody else would have now been welcomed back to their preferred churches.
But the spiritual types who also valued reason and seeking stayed. (And thank you, Boston, for hurting their feelings by disaffiliating all the believer organizations) The political activist who also needed fellowship in their lives stayed. We have achieved our market share of the current social structure, after the upheaval of the last few decades.
What this means is that no vast growth program is going to work, any more than a vast advertising campaign can make an F150 customer buy a Celica. The way to increase Celica sales is to make it more of what the Celica buyer is looking for to retain your current customer base, and wait for social change to naturally increase that base- appealing to F150 buyers is a waste of resources. Similarly, the way to grow UU is to make sure it is giving existing UUs more of what brought them here, make it the best UUA it can be, and not waste resources in scarce times trying to attract people who aren't going to stay anyway. Stop doing those things that are driving current UUs away, retain our base, and the numbers will take care of themselves. Something to think about for the upcoming election.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Where readers come from
Do those of you with blogs of your own ever spend time looking at where your readers come from? It can be fascinating. I get a lot of hits from other blog's blogrolls. (Thanks, y'all) But there are other sources- the largest being Google searches- some very interesting ones. Here are some of the recent Google searches that linked to me:
conservative unitarian
marijuana hazards
large uu churches theist
rubin edgar
cuumbaya chords
"peter parker is an asshole"
gay basher forums
nice-what's the original meaning
cause of the war in iraq
silly beliefs
generic chaos magic
another phrase for according to
GOBBLEDYGOOK kleding
"conflict with my friend"
quantum god
cubic function for bmi
the word for the definition, to have lost blood
racism programs
Some of those connections are obvious- they're actually tittles of some of my posts. Anything about the war in Iraq is bound to be a popular search, and that Rubin bloke has gotten me a lot of hits, and more than a few have become regular readers. And I can understand a search for gobbledygook or silly beliefs leading right to me... but getting a first-page association with "another phrase for according to"? I know why the search for "peter parker is an asshole" led to me, as that phrase appeared in comments to a post- but who searches for something like that?
Does anyone else get such curious referring links?
conservative unitarian
marijuana hazards
large uu churches theist
rubin edgar
cuumbaya chords
"peter parker is an asshole"
gay basher forums
nice-what's the original meaning
cause of the war in iraq
silly beliefs
generic chaos magic
another phrase for according to
GOBBLEDYGOOK kleding
"conflict with my friend"
quantum god
cubic function for bmi
the word for the definition, to have lost blood
racism programs
Some of those connections are obvious- they're actually tittles of some of my posts. Anything about the war in Iraq is bound to be a popular search, and that Rubin bloke has gotten me a lot of hits, and more than a few have become regular readers. And I can understand a search for gobbledygook or silly beliefs leading right to me... but getting a first-page association with "another phrase for according to"? I know why the search for "peter parker is an asshole" led to me, as that phrase appeared in comments to a post- but who searches for something like that?
Does anyone else get such curious referring links?
Monday, April 27, 2009
Why I don't buy the "ticking bomb" scenario
Behind the political debate over the actual torture memos and instances is the generic question of situational ethics versus absolute moral codes. I come down on the side of absolute moral codes because I do not believe in the unique situation.
Some things must be unthinkable; once the unthinkable becomes merely the unusual, then it becomes an ever more attractive option. It becomes the destruction of all morals by the salami method- slice by slice. You don't think so? Let us stipulate, for the sake of argument, that torture would be effective and the information gathered thereby accurate, even though history questions this. Now let's examine the classic ticking bomb scenario- NY is about to be bombed, and you have one of the terrorist gang in your custody- do you torture him for the location of the bomb?
If you said yes, let me reset the scenario for you. Suppose that your captive is not a member of the cell that is actually doing the bombing, but is a member of the organization, and knows the names and contact information of the perpetrators- do you torture him? Logically, if you said "yes" before, you should agree here, too- if not, can you give any logical reason why not?
If you said yes, then answer me this: suppose your captive was not himself a terrorist, but knows who the terrorists are and how to find them- a brother perhaps, whatever? After all, both Christian and Islamic moral codes- as well as all other religions I'm aware of- teach that if you know of a criminal plot and do nothing, you are guilty of the same crime- "One who eats meat cannot sneer at the butcher". In many countries, he would be legally guilty as well- accessory before the fact. Do you torture him? If you said yes to both of the above, I don't see how you can say no now- the principle is the same.
Now let us suppose the captive is a real hard case- you've waterboarded him a hundred times, and he hasn't talked. Time is running out, and 14 million lives are at stake. Do you move on to more traditional means, hot coals and nutcrackers? Is he more important than 14 million Americans? Isn't the principle the same as it was before? Before you answer, let me offer you an alternative- would you waterboard his child in front of him to break him? After all, everyone keeps telling me that waterboarding leaves no lasting physical effects, the kid is in no physical danger. What do you do- give up, put him on the rack, or waterboard his child?
Now suppose your chain of information was wrong at any point- congratulations Mr. macho Jack Bauer, you've just tortured the innocent child of an innocent man.
There are other slippery slopes than the one above, once you have established the principle of "greater good". Suppose it weren't 14 million New Yorkers. Suppose it was a real life version of the movie "Black Sunday", an attack on the Super Bowl. Would you torture him to save 100,000 people? Suppose it were an office building- do you torture for 1,000 people? Suppose it were a nightclub- do 200 victims justify torture? Knowing that we will torture when necessary, how many police will feel justified "merely slapping some guy around a little bit" when he feels it's necessary? After all, it's not like it's "real torture". Or maybe using his Taser to torture instead of to subdue, because "it leaves no lasting effects"? I mean, I wouldn't ordinarily do it, but this case is so important...
At this point, whenever I'm arguing "situational ethics" with someone, I'm always asked, "What if it were your wife at stake?" I am going to answer, but before I do, let me point out that this question is not a valid question for the discussion, because societal ethics and personal ethics are entirely different things. for example, it's moral for a society to tax its members, but it's not moral for me to shove a gun in my neighbor's face and demand money. My answer: I don't know for sure; nobody knows how they would behave in an emergency unless they've experienced it. But I do know this: if I succumbed to temptation and tortured the perp, I would NOT claim that I had done the right thing. PG had it exactly right in her comments on The Chaliceblog" ; I would expect to be arrested and prosecuted for it, and I would plead guilty. I would be guilty, both of the law and of my personal understanding of right and wrong. It has been said that we will have justice when those who were not injured feel as outraged as those who were; I would add that we can get there if those who are injured can retain their morals and ethics.
Some things must be unthinkable; once the unthinkable becomes merely the unusual, then it becomes an ever more attractive option. It becomes the destruction of all morals by the salami method- slice by slice. You don't think so? Let us stipulate, for the sake of argument, that torture would be effective and the information gathered thereby accurate, even though history questions this. Now let's examine the classic ticking bomb scenario- NY is about to be bombed, and you have one of the terrorist gang in your custody- do you torture him for the location of the bomb?
If you said yes, let me reset the scenario for you. Suppose that your captive is not a member of the cell that is actually doing the bombing, but is a member of the organization, and knows the names and contact information of the perpetrators- do you torture him? Logically, if you said "yes" before, you should agree here, too- if not, can you give any logical reason why not?
If you said yes, then answer me this: suppose your captive was not himself a terrorist, but knows who the terrorists are and how to find them- a brother perhaps, whatever? After all, both Christian and Islamic moral codes- as well as all other religions I'm aware of- teach that if you know of a criminal plot and do nothing, you are guilty of the same crime- "One who eats meat cannot sneer at the butcher". In many countries, he would be legally guilty as well- accessory before the fact. Do you torture him? If you said yes to both of the above, I don't see how you can say no now- the principle is the same.
Now let us suppose the captive is a real hard case- you've waterboarded him a hundred times, and he hasn't talked. Time is running out, and 14 million lives are at stake. Do you move on to more traditional means, hot coals and nutcrackers? Is he more important than 14 million Americans? Isn't the principle the same as it was before? Before you answer, let me offer you an alternative- would you waterboard his child in front of him to break him? After all, everyone keeps telling me that waterboarding leaves no lasting physical effects, the kid is in no physical danger. What do you do- give up, put him on the rack, or waterboard his child?
Now suppose your chain of information was wrong at any point- congratulations Mr. macho Jack Bauer, you've just tortured the innocent child of an innocent man.
There are other slippery slopes than the one above, once you have established the principle of "greater good". Suppose it weren't 14 million New Yorkers. Suppose it was a real life version of the movie "Black Sunday", an attack on the Super Bowl. Would you torture him to save 100,000 people? Suppose it were an office building- do you torture for 1,000 people? Suppose it were a nightclub- do 200 victims justify torture? Knowing that we will torture when necessary, how many police will feel justified "merely slapping some guy around a little bit" when he feels it's necessary? After all, it's not like it's "real torture". Or maybe using his Taser to torture instead of to subdue, because "it leaves no lasting effects"? I mean, I wouldn't ordinarily do it, but this case is so important...
At this point, whenever I'm arguing "situational ethics" with someone, I'm always asked, "What if it were your wife at stake?" I am going to answer, but before I do, let me point out that this question is not a valid question for the discussion, because societal ethics and personal ethics are entirely different things. for example, it's moral for a society to tax its members, but it's not moral for me to shove a gun in my neighbor's face and demand money. My answer: I don't know for sure; nobody knows how they would behave in an emergency unless they've experienced it. But I do know this: if I succumbed to temptation and tortured the perp, I would NOT claim that I had done the right thing. PG had it exactly right in her comments on The Chaliceblog" ; I would expect to be arrested and prosecuted for it, and I would plead guilty. I would be guilty, both of the law and of my personal understanding of right and wrong. It has been said that we will have justice when those who were not injured feel as outraged as those who were; I would add that we can get there if those who are injured can retain their morals and ethics.
Monday, April 20, 2009
It's not been a hard winter,
but evidently the kitties think it's been a long one. Our oldest, Laurie, about whom I've written here , here , and here has commandeered the Easter basket- despite being ridiculously too large for it- I guess on the theory that artificial grass is better than no grass.
Today, while sitting at my desk, working on my novel, I saw Laurie pulling plastic grass out of the basket and shoving it over the side of the table. I shifted my seat to see what the heck she was doing, and was able to see she was burying a catnip mouse on the floor below the edge of the table, where someone else had left it. When the mouse was well and truly covered, she jumped down to a chair, then to the floor, and walked right past it and out to the sunroom, presumably for food and/or water. I just shook my head- I've long since given up trying to figure out cats. I returned to my novel.
A little while later I heard the frantic scrabbling of claws, and looked up in time to see Laurie run at full speed back into the living room and leap upon the pile of plastic grass! Little green streamers went flying everywhere as she dug through the pile of grass 'til she "found" the mouse- which she bit in the middle of the back and shook in that patented kitty neck-breaker move. Then she flung the "dead" mouse in the air and rolled upside-down in the "grass".
I don't know how old 14 cat years are to a human... but I hope when I'm that age and senile, I'll be able to make my own fun like she does!
Wholly human
Logan Geen over at The New Unitarian Universalist has an interesting post on The Humanity of Jesus . This is an issue I wrestled with as a teenager some forty years ago, eventually deciding, in the words of former All Souls minister Ed Harris, that wholly God and wholly human was one too many wholly's for me.
For me, one of the bigger convincers was doubt. It is basic human nature to doubt- and the question of the existence and nature of God is the greatest source of doubts. Mighty cathedrals are monuments to doubt, not faith- grandeur to convince followers they backed the right horse. Even if you have no doubts whatsoever about the existence of some God, you will have doubts about your understanding of God- in the Bible, even prophets who had conversations with God had moments of doubt. Even Jesus had doubts on the way to the cross, and said "Why have you forsaken me?" while on the cross. To me, these doubts made Jesus wholly human.
But wholly God? How can God doubt God's existence, purpose, and plan? I have never said, "Me, me, why have I forsaken me?" Did Jesus, perhaps while meditating alone in Gethsemane, induce a state of autohypnosis and plant a posthypnotic suggestion to forget himself for a while to experience human doubt and fear? Why did God have to die to satisfy a law that he himself had written? I could not believe that Jesus was wholly God.
Was Jesus special? Certainly. Was he a conduit of God? Yes- as are we all. Of course, conductors come in large capacity and small, with more or less resistance... he was a transcontinental high-voltage line, where most of us are the wire that connects the battery pack in the back of the radio. But God? No. To me, there was clearly a reason the word "trinity" does not appear in the Bible- that Jesus was wholly human.
For me, one of the bigger convincers was doubt. It is basic human nature to doubt- and the question of the existence and nature of God is the greatest source of doubts. Mighty cathedrals are monuments to doubt, not faith- grandeur to convince followers they backed the right horse. Even if you have no doubts whatsoever about the existence of some God, you will have doubts about your understanding of God- in the Bible, even prophets who had conversations with God had moments of doubt. Even Jesus had doubts on the way to the cross, and said "Why have you forsaken me?" while on the cross. To me, these doubts made Jesus wholly human.
But wholly God? How can God doubt God's existence, purpose, and plan? I have never said, "Me, me, why have I forsaken me?" Did Jesus, perhaps while meditating alone in Gethsemane, induce a state of autohypnosis and plant a posthypnotic suggestion to forget himself for a while to experience human doubt and fear? Why did God have to die to satisfy a law that he himself had written? I could not believe that Jesus was wholly God.
Was Jesus special? Certainly. Was he a conduit of God? Yes- as are we all. Of course, conductors come in large capacity and small, with more or less resistance... he was a transcontinental high-voltage line, where most of us are the wire that connects the battery pack in the back of the radio. But God? No. To me, there was clearly a reason the word "trinity" does not appear in the Bible- that Jesus was wholly human.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Kentucky Derby Dilemma
(Guest post by Ginger Monka)
I'm in a dilemma for Kentucky Derby Day this year. I've always made an event of the Kentucky Derby and probably have the world's largest collection of Kentucky Derby hats and mint julep cups for someone who's never actually attended the race but only watched in on the telly. But, this year, my dear friend for nearly 40 years is having a 50th birthday party that day in another part of the state. (Her birthday was in March but the party is on Derby Day, go figure)
For most of my life, there's been no dilemma; any time that Dad and I were in the same city, getting together to watch the Derby and sip mint juleps was a given. Dad wasn't particularly a horse fan or a racing fan, but he spent his adolescence in Louisville, so the Derby was special. One of my favourite stories of his youth involved the only time he was a live spectator at this event, when he sneaked into the infield through a hole in the Churchill Downs fence. Since Dad was the most punctilious arbiter of exemplary conduct I've ever known, this anecdote made him more human and accessible to me.
The first Kentucky Derby I remember, I was rooting for a horse named No Robbery. Research shows that this was the 1963 Kentucky Derby, won by Chateaugay, while No Robbery finished fifth. (Google is a wonderful thing, n'est ce pas?) I was following Dad around the yard while he did yard work while listening to the pre-race festivities on a transistor radio. When he harvested the mint for the juleps, he gave me a sprig to chew and I was amazed and entranced that this wonderful flavour, heretofore linked only to Christmas candy, was in a plant that grew in the yard.
One Derby day, the year after college graduation, the minister brought me a Siamese kitten (there was a long-running supply of same, due to one prolific queen with a tendency to escape; a number of the kittens ended up in our family). Said kitten had not yet been named by post time. After the race, (1982), Dad and I concluded that the only conceivable name for this kitten was Gato del Sol, the same Gato del Sol mentioned in this post.
Dad passed eight days before Derby Day three years ago. His memorial service was the evening before, and quite a few family members were still in town over the weekend. A bunch of siblings and step-siblings assembled in the motel room to watch the race and even those in family who ordinarily don't do mint juleps did that year, in honour of Dad.
The following year, Joel and I were in Lexington for Dad's Jahrzeit on Derby Day, very lucky to have found a motel room, since it incidentally happened to be UK commencement day as well. We watched the Derby in the hotel bar, where, although, alas, no juleps were to be had, the race was on and most spectators rose for My Old Kentucky Home.
I have mixed feelings this year. The tragedies of Barbaro and Eight Belles demonstrate that a race horse's quality of life isn't what I would hope and that breeding for speed at the expense of strength isn't such a great idea. There's the conflict with my friend's birthday party. And yet...I'll go to the party but try to get home in time to do the Derby ritual. And as a Plan B, find a sports bar between there and here that serves juleps.
I'm in a dilemma for Kentucky Derby Day this year. I've always made an event of the Kentucky Derby and probably have the world's largest collection of Kentucky Derby hats and mint julep cups for someone who's never actually attended the race but only watched in on the telly. But, this year, my dear friend for nearly 40 years is having a 50th birthday party that day in another part of the state. (Her birthday was in March but the party is on Derby Day, go figure)
For most of my life, there's been no dilemma; any time that Dad and I were in the same city, getting together to watch the Derby and sip mint juleps was a given. Dad wasn't particularly a horse fan or a racing fan, but he spent his adolescence in Louisville, so the Derby was special. One of my favourite stories of his youth involved the only time he was a live spectator at this event, when he sneaked into the infield through a hole in the Churchill Downs fence. Since Dad was the most punctilious arbiter of exemplary conduct I've ever known, this anecdote made him more human and accessible to me.
The first Kentucky Derby I remember, I was rooting for a horse named No Robbery. Research shows that this was the 1963 Kentucky Derby, won by Chateaugay, while No Robbery finished fifth. (Google is a wonderful thing, n'est ce pas?) I was following Dad around the yard while he did yard work while listening to the pre-race festivities on a transistor radio. When he harvested the mint for the juleps, he gave me a sprig to chew and I was amazed and entranced that this wonderful flavour, heretofore linked only to Christmas candy, was in a plant that grew in the yard.
One Derby day, the year after college graduation, the minister brought me a Siamese kitten (there was a long-running supply of same, due to one prolific queen with a tendency to escape; a number of the kittens ended up in our family). Said kitten had not yet been named by post time. After the race, (1982), Dad and I concluded that the only conceivable name for this kitten was Gato del Sol, the same Gato del Sol mentioned in this post.
Dad passed eight days before Derby Day three years ago. His memorial service was the evening before, and quite a few family members were still in town over the weekend. A bunch of siblings and step-siblings assembled in the motel room to watch the race and even those in family who ordinarily don't do mint juleps did that year, in honour of Dad.
The following year, Joel and I were in Lexington for Dad's Jahrzeit on Derby Day, very lucky to have found a motel room, since it incidentally happened to be UK commencement day as well. We watched the Derby in the hotel bar, where, although, alas, no juleps were to be had, the race was on and most spectators rose for My Old Kentucky Home.
I have mixed feelings this year. The tragedies of Barbaro and Eight Belles demonstrate that a race horse's quality of life isn't what I would hope and that breeding for speed at the expense of strength isn't such a great idea. There's the conflict with my friend's birthday party. And yet...I'll go to the party but try to get home in time to do the Derby ritual. And as a Plan B, find a sports bar between there and here that serves juleps.
Friday, April 17, 2009
I almost know what it feels like to have a disease named after you.
Yesterday's post required several man-hours of highly trained labor to produce. Yeah, I know, it reads like it took about ten minutes of a fourth grader's time, but "The miracle of the dancing bear is not how well it dances, but that it dances at all"- I was having computer problems that almost had me thinking the only way to reach my readers would be by postcard.
Ok, we've all joked about how twitchy Microsoft products in general are, and how Vista is easier to spook than an abused Arabian horse. But I developed a strange problem, even for the Vista/Explorer combo- whenever I attempted to paste from Works (I use Works rather than Word because I'm too cheap to pay for Word, while Works is bundled free. There, I said it.) to email or Blogspot, Explorer crashed! This was a catastrophe... I must have a spellchecker, and the email program doesn't have one. (well, it does, but it borrows the dictionary from Word. And as I haven't paid to activate Word...)
So, with a bit of trepidation, I contacted MSN online chat tech support. Man, did I get a pleasant surprise- their customer service people are just as nice as their products are twitchy! After the first screener determined I wasn't the type who calls to complain that the cupholder that slides out from the side of the computer is broken, I was quickly transferred to a real tech named Cathy. She was both patient and good humored (meaning she sent a smiley face at one of my bizarre comments), and quickly set up a shared desktop link. Then over the course of a couple of hours, she did a disk clean, optimized performance, ran both the MSN9.6 and the Explorer 7.0 through all kinds of cartwheels, uninstalled and reinstalled them, retested, and finally declared that she had determined that the MSN software was not at fault, apologized for not doing more, and gave me a case number and contact info for the Microsoft troubleshooters. As it was approaching midnight, I put that call off to this morning.
So this morning, after breaking fast and getting fresh coffee, I call Microsoft. The answering computer connected me to a nice man from India (I'm not guessing from his accent, we chatted about the weather here and there) who also set up the shared desktop connection, and started plumbing into the bowels of the browser. He was able to determine that one of the automatic security updates sent out yesterday had caused an unforeseen compatibility problem, and that downloading the latest generation of Explorer would solve it. He actually thanked me for bringing them the problem so quickly, because it was a specific combination of conditions that had caused it, and that he would immediately email this information to the developers and other techs so they would be prepared for the complaints they were sure to be getting shortly.
For a moment there, I felt special. There must be millions of year old laptops using Vista and Explorer who download their updates faithfully, and I was the very first to complain- the kind of perverse pride Baron Munchausen might feel at having a syndrome named for him. But then it occurred to me that perhaps there weren't as many as I thought- of student laptops whose owner was too damn cheap to activate the preloaded Microsoft Office Suite when the six months free trial expired- it was only the combination of Works, Explorer 7.0, and the specific security update that would cause the problem.
Oh, well, the real point is that I received hours of individual attention both from the Microsoft Network and from the Microsoft Explorer tech team, and they solved the problem, (and more; my computer is running better now than it did before this all happened!) and they did it all for free. The cost for the right to bitch is the obligation to give kudos when deserved. Kudos, MSN. Kudos, Microsoft.
Ok, we've all joked about how twitchy Microsoft products in general are, and how Vista is easier to spook than an abused Arabian horse. But I developed a strange problem, even for the Vista/Explorer combo- whenever I attempted to paste from Works (I use Works rather than Word because I'm too cheap to pay for Word, while Works is bundled free. There, I said it.) to email or Blogspot, Explorer crashed! This was a catastrophe... I must have a spellchecker, and the email program doesn't have one. (well, it does, but it borrows the dictionary from Word. And as I haven't paid to activate Word...)
So, with a bit of trepidation, I contacted MSN online chat tech support. Man, did I get a pleasant surprise- their customer service people are just as nice as their products are twitchy! After the first screener determined I wasn't the type who calls to complain that the cupholder that slides out from the side of the computer is broken, I was quickly transferred to a real tech named Cathy. She was both patient and good humored (meaning she sent a smiley face at one of my bizarre comments), and quickly set up a shared desktop link. Then over the course of a couple of hours, she did a disk clean, optimized performance, ran both the MSN9.6 and the Explorer 7.0 through all kinds of cartwheels, uninstalled and reinstalled them, retested, and finally declared that she had determined that the MSN software was not at fault, apologized for not doing more, and gave me a case number and contact info for the Microsoft troubleshooters. As it was approaching midnight, I put that call off to this morning.
So this morning, after breaking fast and getting fresh coffee, I call Microsoft. The answering computer connected me to a nice man from India (I'm not guessing from his accent, we chatted about the weather here and there) who also set up the shared desktop connection, and started plumbing into the bowels of the browser. He was able to determine that one of the automatic security updates sent out yesterday had caused an unforeseen compatibility problem, and that downloading the latest generation of Explorer would solve it. He actually thanked me for bringing them the problem so quickly, because it was a specific combination of conditions that had caused it, and that he would immediately email this information to the developers and other techs so they would be prepared for the complaints they were sure to be getting shortly.
For a moment there, I felt special. There must be millions of year old laptops using Vista and Explorer who download their updates faithfully, and I was the very first to complain- the kind of perverse pride Baron Munchausen might feel at having a syndrome named for him. But then it occurred to me that perhaps there weren't as many as I thought- of student laptops whose owner was too damn cheap to activate the preloaded Microsoft Office Suite when the six months free trial expired- it was only the combination of Works, Explorer 7.0, and the specific security update that would cause the problem.
Oh, well, the real point is that I received hours of individual attention both from the Microsoft Network and from the Microsoft Explorer tech team, and they solved the problem, (and more; my computer is running better now than it did before this all happened!) and they did it all for free. The cost for the right to bitch is the obligation to give kudos when deserved. Kudos, MSN. Kudos, Microsoft.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Equal rights for Gods and Goddesses?
Remember last October how Joe Biden concealed a statue of the Goddess Diana behind a draped flag when he gave a speech in Pueblo? (See it at The Wild Hunt ) Everyone assumed it was the brass boobies that offended- but maybe not! President Obama gave a speech at Georgetown University Tuesday, and the White House requested a similar cover-up, but in this case it was the name of Jesus that was covered up. Perhaps it was the divinity rather than the cleavage at issue. We could test the issue- ask him to speak at a UU church, and see if the White House asks us to cover up our patron saint
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
The 50 best US Television Shows
It's always interesting to see what others think of us and our culture- here, courtesy of the TimesOnline, a British critic gives us The 50 best US Television Shows
My question for the telephone forum
I received an email from the UUA yesterday announcing a telephone forum with the candidates for UUA President.
"On Friday, April 17, at 3:00 PM (EDT), the Unitarian UniversalistAssociation will host a one-hour telephone forum with the two candidatesfor UUA president, Rev. Dr. Laurel Hallman and Rev. Peter Morales. The forum will originate from UUA headquarters in Boston and will bemoderated by UUA Secretary Paul Rickter.
Those wishing to ask questions of the candidates are invited to submitthem by emailing secretary@uua.org no later than Thursday, April 16,9:00 PM (EDT).
Those who wish to listen to the conversation are invited to call1-213-286-1201. When connected, please enter the following access code:117-113-425.For technical difficulties during the actual conference call, pleaseemail electionforum@uua.org ."
My question is this: I notice that the time and day of the forum guarantee that whatever time zone one lives in anywhere in the continental US, it will occur during the workday. Do you assume that everyone interested in, let alone voting in this election is retired, or has an employer willing to let them place an hour-long long distance phone call on company time?
"On Friday, April 17, at 3:00 PM (EDT), the Unitarian UniversalistAssociation will host a one-hour telephone forum with the two candidatesfor UUA president, Rev. Dr. Laurel Hallman and Rev. Peter Morales. The forum will originate from UUA headquarters in Boston and will bemoderated by UUA Secretary Paul Rickter.
Those wishing to ask questions of the candidates are invited to submitthem by emailing secretary@uua.org no later than Thursday, April 16,9:00 PM (EDT).
Those who wish to listen to the conversation are invited to call1-213-286-1201. When connected, please enter the following access code:117-113-425.For technical difficulties during the actual conference call, pleaseemail electionforum@uua.org ."
My question is this: I notice that the time and day of the forum guarantee that whatever time zone one lives in anywhere in the continental US, it will occur during the workday. Do you assume that everyone interested in, let alone voting in this election is retired, or has an employer willing to let them place an hour-long long distance phone call on company time?
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Religious Right concedes defeat
That is the headline of a story last Friday in the Telegraph.co.uk . "Leading evangelicals have admitted that their association with George W. Bush has not only hurt the cause of social conservatives but contributed to the failure of the key objectives of their 30-year struggle." They see the church as the main victim of this failing. "Unease is rising that a nation founded - in the view of evangelicals - purely as a Christian country will soon, like northern Europe, become “post-Christian”. Recent surveys have suggested that the American religious landscape has shifted significantly. A study by Trinity College in Connecticut found that 11 per cent fewer Americans identify themselves as Christian than 20 years ago. Those stating no religious affiliation or declaring themselves agnostic has risen from 8.2 per cent in 1990 to 15 per cent in 2008."
Their anger is not aimed at liberals, however. "A growing legion of disenchanted grassroots believers does not blame liberal opponents for the decline in faith or the failures of the religious Right. Rather, they hold responsible Republicans - particularly Mr Bush - and groups like Focus on the Family that have worked with the party, for courting Christian voters only to betray promises of pursuing the conservative agenda once in office." I see an object lesson for liberal Christians and UUs in all this. We have been taking the same route, with far too many expressing their religion by faxing congressmen rather than serving their community. We are in a very real and present danger of having this evangelical's lament becoming ours: "Ray Moore, president of Exodus Mandate, a South Carolina-based group which organises home-schooling for Christian children, said: “Political involvement by Christians is not wrong, but that’s all the big groups did for 25 years. They were more concerned with fund-raising and political power than they were with our children’s welfare.” Any objective observer would say that sounds a whole lot like us- anyone who receives the social justice emails must acknowledge it.
We must take this lesson to heart. Politicians and political movements come and go- the pendulum always swings. I have lived long enough to see both the Democratic and Republican parties, both Liberalism and Conservatism, declared dead and buried. The way to avoid being swept aside by the swings is to lead on moral principal rather than following partisan positions- which we have been guilty of in the past. I hope the new President of the UUA, no matter who it may be, will stand firm on the separation of church and political party, so that we UUs can avoid in the future the frustration the Religious Right is feeling today.
Their anger is not aimed at liberals, however. "A growing legion of disenchanted grassroots believers does not blame liberal opponents for the decline in faith or the failures of the religious Right. Rather, they hold responsible Republicans - particularly Mr Bush - and groups like Focus on the Family that have worked with the party, for courting Christian voters only to betray promises of pursuing the conservative agenda once in office." I see an object lesson for liberal Christians and UUs in all this. We have been taking the same route, with far too many expressing their religion by faxing congressmen rather than serving their community. We are in a very real and present danger of having this evangelical's lament becoming ours: "Ray Moore, president of Exodus Mandate, a South Carolina-based group which organises home-schooling for Christian children, said: “Political involvement by Christians is not wrong, but that’s all the big groups did for 25 years. They were more concerned with fund-raising and political power than they were with our children’s welfare.” Any objective observer would say that sounds a whole lot like us- anyone who receives the social justice emails must acknowledge it.
We must take this lesson to heart. Politicians and political movements come and go- the pendulum always swings. I have lived long enough to see both the Democratic and Republican parties, both Liberalism and Conservatism, declared dead and buried. The way to avoid being swept aside by the swings is to lead on moral principal rather than following partisan positions- which we have been guilty of in the past. I hope the new President of the UUA, no matter who it may be, will stand firm on the separation of church and political party, so that we UUs can avoid in the future the frustration the Religious Right is feeling today.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Forgiving one's religion
Is the message of Wiccan priest Harry Dorman, published in the Traverse City Record-Eagle . "Beyond interfaith considerations, there can also be "intra-faith" issues creating points of discomfort within one's own faith. In such instances, we may need to forgive our religion in order to set aside its perceived imperfections." He says. "...one must step back and embrace the larger question -- whether a circumstance is significant enough to destroy the faith-follower relationship.
If the answer is "no," the proper action becomes that of forgiving one's religion and moving on within it. This is a better course of action than quickly and/or blindly divorcing one's religion in favor of another -- one that most likely comes with its own imperfections."
While understandable, this behavior is unseemly. Whether your pain came from a former religion or a current congregation, give it up- forgive your religion. As Rev. Dorman says, "Learning to forgive ourselves, those around us and, when necessary, our religion will help us find joy in our diverse and interconnected existence."
Thursday, April 09, 2009
An inadequate answer
In the latest post in the "Peter Morales for UU President" blog, Morales Addresses “Humanist/Theist” Question , Peter addresses the following question: "Our denomination seems to be undergoing a philosophical shift. Twenty years ago in our congregation, the concept of a “Christian UU” seemed nonsensical. Now our congregation has a Christian UU minister and many of the secular humanists of previous generations, despite the acceptance of diversity that we say we believe in, are feeling bereft - bereft of a sanctuary from the world of deity (Christian or otherwise). The UU church was the one place in many UU’s lives where those who lived to a different drummer, theologically speaking, could live without the expectation that they subscribe to a divine being. Where they could go on a spiritual or religious journey without having to subscribe to the supernatural. How will you lead us as we struggle with this fundamental challenge?"
I thought his response began well- "Religion is not ultimately about what we believe. Religion, literally “that which binds us together,” is much more about what we love, what we share and what we aspire to become. A congregation is a religious community of memory and hope." I thought he carried that a bit too far with "Only in modern western society are religious groups defined by what they believe."- that's only true if you define "modern" as "within the last couple thousand years", and "western" as "including the middle east, and as far as the Indian subcontinent and up to Tibet", but I realize that's a quibble. But I don't believe he ever directly addressed the last and most important sentence of the question, "How will you lead us as we struggle with this fundamental challenge?"
I would have liked to have heard him address some of the underlying assumptions of the question. While I realize that historically many UU congregations have been- and many still are- majority atheist, has there really ever been a time when the very concept of a "Christian UU" was "nonsensical"? And if so, wasn't that an offense against our tradition of openness and welcome, rather than a policy to be protected? Why does the presence of a theist in the congregation create "...the expectation that they subscribe to a divine being."? Not all Christians are evangelical, and many other faith traditions actively discourage- even forbid- conversion. While I am happy to answer questions about my faith, for example, not only do I not seek converts, I would be less likely to accept one than an orthodox rabbi. Am I, or that rabbi, really so scary atheists need a sanctuary from us?
I believe that the questioner was right that finding fellowship between atheists and theists is a fundamental challenge we must struggle with. This may be an even more important issue that the much-debated question of growth, for growth is certain to throw ever more theists and atheists into the pews together... and if the presence of a Christian UU Minister is going to leave atheists "feeling bereft - bereft of a sanctuary from the world of deity (Christian or otherwise).", and believers are going to hear Dawkins quoted at them, (which the questioner did not do, but is a common happenstance in my experience), then not only will the new members not stay, but many old ones will leave. It's all well and good to say, "Compassion, community, justice, peace. These are good humanist values. They are also the teachings of Jesus. Let’s join hands and bring these values to life.", but we need leadership to get there from here.
I thought his response began well- "Religion is not ultimately about what we believe. Religion, literally “that which binds us together,” is much more about what we love, what we share and what we aspire to become. A congregation is a religious community of memory and hope." I thought he carried that a bit too far with "Only in modern western society are religious groups defined by what they believe."- that's only true if you define "modern" as "within the last couple thousand years", and "western" as "including the middle east, and as far as the Indian subcontinent and up to Tibet", but I realize that's a quibble. But I don't believe he ever directly addressed the last and most important sentence of the question, "How will you lead us as we struggle with this fundamental challenge?"
I would have liked to have heard him address some of the underlying assumptions of the question. While I realize that historically many UU congregations have been- and many still are- majority atheist, has there really ever been a time when the very concept of a "Christian UU" was "nonsensical"? And if so, wasn't that an offense against our tradition of openness and welcome, rather than a policy to be protected? Why does the presence of a theist in the congregation create "...the expectation that they subscribe to a divine being."? Not all Christians are evangelical, and many other faith traditions actively discourage- even forbid- conversion. While I am happy to answer questions about my faith, for example, not only do I not seek converts, I would be less likely to accept one than an orthodox rabbi. Am I, or that rabbi, really so scary atheists need a sanctuary from us?
I believe that the questioner was right that finding fellowship between atheists and theists is a fundamental challenge we must struggle with. This may be an even more important issue that the much-debated question of growth, for growth is certain to throw ever more theists and atheists into the pews together... and if the presence of a Christian UU Minister is going to leave atheists "feeling bereft - bereft of a sanctuary from the world of deity (Christian or otherwise).", and believers are going to hear Dawkins quoted at them, (which the questioner did not do, but is a common happenstance in my experience), then not only will the new members not stay, but many old ones will leave. It's all well and good to say, "Compassion, community, justice, peace. These are good humanist values. They are also the teachings of Jesus. Let’s join hands and bring these values to life.", but we need leadership to get there from here.
Wednesday, April 08, 2009
A religion for hard times?
I have been pondering Doug Muder's UUWorld article by that title, and his blog follow-up , which sums up the article nicely: "What I want to call faith -- and I think I'm being consistent with many major religions here -- is a third response to uncertainty, one that senses a way to move forward without demanding promises about how it will all come out. That kind of faith is independent of dogma, and many UUs have shown it at some point in their lives." He asks in the article, "Does Unitarian Universalism provide, support, or engender that kind of faith?", and asks those of us who have survived hard times to testify about our experiences.
Like many others, I'm a hyphenated UU- in my case, a UU-Pagan. My Pagan faith does not guarantee that everything will be alright in this world. Nor does it provide certainty about the afterlife, if any; the only thing I'm sure of that in respect is that the Divine is not small or petty- if I make myself worthy of this world, I need have no fears about the next. In a way, my Pagan divinities have something in common with a good general or political leader... a good leader does not promise victory; he gives his followers the tools needed to win, then asks them to do their best.
What tools am I given? My Pagan faith tells me that I am loved. It gives me a place in the universe- "Like the trees and the stars, you have a right to be here." It gives me techniques to still panic, find calm, and banish despair. It shows me how to take that calm, gather energy, and address my problems. It sets boundaries, what situations and solutions are acceptable, and what is beyond the pale. This prepares me well for what Doug calls "the third response", moving forward without demanding promises; indeed, to my faith, that is the first response.
But that is after the hyphen- what about the UU part? There are echoes of much of my credo in the Principles and Purposes- though the PPs are stated as suggestions rather than truths. My spiritual life has been greatly enhanced by my UU experiences- making community with a far more diverse group than I had known before, invaluable discussions, small groups, fascinating forums and blogs, But despite having been an enthusiastic UU for more than a dozen years, I'm afraid that UU itself is still like monosodium glutamate in my life- a flavor enhancer for what I already had, rather than a stand-alone religion in its own right. For me, the answer to Doug's question is that UU does not provide or engender that faith. It does support it- although even there I have to ask whether UU supports the faith, or merely provides a venue to meet the friends who support that faith.
But I also realize that I come to this question with my own preconceptions, so I will repeat Doug's question to all of you with a different slant to it. This is directed at the unhyphenated UUs; those who were raised UU, or came to UU completely unchurched, with no previous faith tradition, and have survived truly hard times: Did Unitarian Universalism give you what you needed to persevere through those dark times, or did it merely enhance and assist what you already had? Was it the entree, or the monosodium glutamate? What did it give you?
Sunday, April 05, 2009
Some flaws in the Belief-O-Matic test
The The New Unitarian took the Beliefnet Belief-O-Matic test and posted his results, which inspired patter pensée to do the same. I've done this before, but decided to do it with commentary this time, as I have some questions about how they get their results. In any kind of sorting program, the choice of criteria and how heavily to weight them is crucial- in Cladistics , for example, if you count bipedal locomotion too highly, you'll have humans more closely related to ostriches than orangutans. Here are the results:
1. Unitarian Universalism (100%)
2. Neo-Pagan (94%)
Not surprising that these two are on the top; I claim them both- but I think the order should be reversed. There are two reasons why; the first is abortion. Pagans and NeoPagans tend to be as split as the general public on abortion, but I have never met, nor heard of, nor even met anyone who has heard of a pro-life Unitarian- except me. It should be noted however that I am pro-life in the moral and religious sense, but not in the political sense- I have come to believe that it is not possible to craft legislation that will not be abused by one side or the other. But I am unaware of any other UU anywhere who believes that life begins at conception.
The other dividing issue is God. Belief in a divinity is completely optional for a UU, but other than the Satanists, I have never heard of a Pagan atheist. They may argue about how many gods there are, but every Pagan I know agrees on at least one. Were I writing the test, I would weight these questions much higher in separating UUs from Pagans.
3. Liberal Quakers (91%)
4. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (86%)
I can't argue with numbers 3 and 4; I get along well with Quakers and liberal Protestants. Mainline Protestans are a little more problematical- there's this "Trinity" thing...
5. New Age (85%)
6. Secular Humanism (84%)
I find it hilarious that these two are rated so closely together. While there are tolerant religious humanists, everyone I've ever known who self-describes as Secular Humanist has nothing but contempt for anything New Age- or "Woo-Woo" as they prefer to call it.
7. Mahayana Buddhism (77%)
8. Theravada Buddhism (72%)
These two look better on paper to liberal eyes than they do in practice, especially in terms of social justice.
9. Reform Judaism (70%)
10. Baha'i Faith (68%)
11. Orthodox Quaker (67%)
12. Sikhism (67%)
13. Taoism (66%)
14. Nontheist (65%)
I have no real comment for most of 9-13, but Nontheist? Personally, I'd have put that at the very bottom!
15. New Thought (64%)
16. Scientology (60%)
17. Jainism (59%)
18. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (53%)
19. Orthodox Judaism (52%)
20. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (46%)
21. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (46%)
22. Islam (45%)
23. Hinduism (38%)
24. Eastern Orthodox (36%)
25. Roman Catholic (36%)
26. Seventh Day Adventist (27%)
27. Jehovah's Witness (16%)
No real arguments on these, either. How about you? any surprises on your matches?
1. Unitarian Universalism (100%)
2. Neo-Pagan (94%)
Not surprising that these two are on the top; I claim them both- but I think the order should be reversed. There are two reasons why; the first is abortion. Pagans and NeoPagans tend to be as split as the general public on abortion, but I have never met, nor heard of, nor even met anyone who has heard of a pro-life Unitarian- except me. It should be noted however that I am pro-life in the moral and religious sense, but not in the political sense- I have come to believe that it is not possible to craft legislation that will not be abused by one side or the other. But I am unaware of any other UU anywhere who believes that life begins at conception.
The other dividing issue is God. Belief in a divinity is completely optional for a UU, but other than the Satanists, I have never heard of a Pagan atheist. They may argue about how many gods there are, but every Pagan I know agrees on at least one. Were I writing the test, I would weight these questions much higher in separating UUs from Pagans.
3. Liberal Quakers (91%)
4. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (86%)
I can't argue with numbers 3 and 4; I get along well with Quakers and liberal Protestants. Mainline Protestans are a little more problematical- there's this "Trinity" thing...
5. New Age (85%)
6. Secular Humanism (84%)
I find it hilarious that these two are rated so closely together. While there are tolerant religious humanists, everyone I've ever known who self-describes as Secular Humanist has nothing but contempt for anything New Age- or "Woo-Woo" as they prefer to call it.
7. Mahayana Buddhism (77%)
8. Theravada Buddhism (72%)
These two look better on paper to liberal eyes than they do in practice, especially in terms of social justice.
9. Reform Judaism (70%)
10. Baha'i Faith (68%)
11. Orthodox Quaker (67%)
12. Sikhism (67%)
13. Taoism (66%)
14. Nontheist (65%)
I have no real comment for most of 9-13, but Nontheist? Personally, I'd have put that at the very bottom!
15. New Thought (64%)
16. Scientology (60%)
17. Jainism (59%)
18. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (53%)
19. Orthodox Judaism (52%)
20. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (46%)
21. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (46%)
22. Islam (45%)
23. Hinduism (38%)
24. Eastern Orthodox (36%)
25. Roman Catholic (36%)
26. Seventh Day Adventist (27%)
27. Jehovah's Witness (16%)
No real arguments on these, either. How about you? any surprises on your matches?
Thursday, April 02, 2009
10 terms not to use with Muslims
That is the title of a fascinating article from Christian Science Monitor writer Chris Seiple.
"As President Obama considers his first speech in a Muslim majority country (he visits Turkey April 6-7), and as the US national security establishment reviews its foreign policy and public diplomacy, I want to share the advice given to me from dear Muslim friends worldwide regarding words and concepts that are not useful in building relationships with them. Obviously, we are not going to throw out all of these terms, nor should we. But we do need to be very careful about how we use them, and in what context. " What follows is a study in how translations- even word for word- frequently do not convey the exact meanings intended; words, even ideas, are colored by history and culture that you may be unaware of.
While this phenomenon is fairly obvious to students of language and history, it is equally true but much less obvious that this occurs within cultures as well. We talk about the melting pot, and "American culture", but even with TV and the internet we are not a unified culture- just a few miles or a few years can still make a vast difference in the words we use and the meanings of them. If race and religion are factored in, the differences can arise within just a few blocks. Or even in the same house, between generations.
I first became aware of this as a teenager. My mother had destroyed some of my literature that she had found, deeming it obscene. During the course of the ensuing fight I called her a book burner. She burst into hurt and furious tears. "How can you call your own mother a Nazi?", she screamed. You see, when and where she grew up, a "book burner" was a Nazi. Not "Nazi" like people at church use it today, meaning "Republican", but a genuine Jew-killing, goose-stepping Nazi. So even though she had in fact just burned a book, she was certainly no book burner!
I know that this effect crops up in the blogs and forums I frequent. Sometimes a response will be (to me, or to the original poster if it's my response) so non-linear, so non-sequiter that it's obvious that we have just talked past each other without comprehension. But I suspect that sometimes when emotions flare, the same thing has just occurred, but just subtly enough that it wasn't caught. I wonder how much pain and violence has been caused over the years by an uncaught connotation-shift?
"As President Obama considers his first speech in a Muslim majority country (he visits Turkey April 6-7), and as the US national security establishment reviews its foreign policy and public diplomacy, I want to share the advice given to me from dear Muslim friends worldwide regarding words and concepts that are not useful in building relationships with them. Obviously, we are not going to throw out all of these terms, nor should we. But we do need to be very careful about how we use them, and in what context. " What follows is a study in how translations- even word for word- frequently do not convey the exact meanings intended; words, even ideas, are colored by history and culture that you may be unaware of.
While this phenomenon is fairly obvious to students of language and history, it is equally true but much less obvious that this occurs within cultures as well. We talk about the melting pot, and "American culture", but even with TV and the internet we are not a unified culture- just a few miles or a few years can still make a vast difference in the words we use and the meanings of them. If race and religion are factored in, the differences can arise within just a few blocks. Or even in the same house, between generations.
I first became aware of this as a teenager. My mother had destroyed some of my literature that she had found, deeming it obscene. During the course of the ensuing fight I called her a book burner. She burst into hurt and furious tears. "How can you call your own mother a Nazi?", she screamed. You see, when and where she grew up, a "book burner" was a Nazi. Not "Nazi" like people at church use it today, meaning "Republican", but a genuine Jew-killing, goose-stepping Nazi. So even though she had in fact just burned a book, she was certainly no book burner!
I know that this effect crops up in the blogs and forums I frequent. Sometimes a response will be (to me, or to the original poster if it's my response) so non-linear, so non-sequiter that it's obvious that we have just talked past each other without comprehension. But I suspect that sometimes when emotions flare, the same thing has just occurred, but just subtly enough that it wasn't caught. I wonder how much pain and violence has been caused over the years by an uncaught connotation-shift?
Monday, March 30, 2009
Yet more inconvenient truths
Some now say that variations in atmospheric dust levels affect the temperature of the Atlantic ocean far more than global warming. They are claiming that 70 per cent of the change in Atlantic temperature over recent decades has resulted from reduced dust, rather than climate change. What kind of Holocaust-denying, flat-Earth, anti-science right wingnuts are saying this?
"The new analysis comes from scientists in the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the University of Wisconsin. They say that the Atlantic temperature trend has been warmer by approximately a quarter of a degree each decade since 1980: but that most of this is actually because more sunlight is reaching the sea due to reducing levels of dirt in the air above it.
"A lot of this upward trend in the long-term pattern can be explained just by dust storms and volcanoes," says Amato Evan of Wisconsin uni. "About 70 percent of it is just being forced by the combination of dust and volcanoes, and about a quarter of it is just from the dust storms themselves."... The researchers say that predicting what will happen to atmospheric dust levels in future is difficult, with volcanoes notoriously random and African dust storms poorly understood. Nonetheless, according to Amato, future ocean-warming models will need to make allowance for them somehow or their predictions will be well out of whack." (my emphasis)
The Register story here
The actual paper here (requires subscription)
"The new analysis comes from scientists in the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the University of Wisconsin. They say that the Atlantic temperature trend has been warmer by approximately a quarter of a degree each decade since 1980: but that most of this is actually because more sunlight is reaching the sea due to reducing levels of dirt in the air above it.
"A lot of this upward trend in the long-term pattern can be explained just by dust storms and volcanoes," says Amato Evan of Wisconsin uni. "About 70 percent of it is just being forced by the combination of dust and volcanoes, and about a quarter of it is just from the dust storms themselves."... The researchers say that predicting what will happen to atmospheric dust levels in future is difficult, with volcanoes notoriously random and African dust storms poorly understood. Nonetheless, according to Amato, future ocean-warming models will need to make allowance for them somehow or their predictions will be well out of whack." (my emphasis)
The Register story here
The actual paper here (requires subscription)
Friday, March 27, 2009
Does Satan exist?
That was the subject of an interesting debate on Nightline, here in two parts.
I rather doubt that anyone reading this blog would say that Satan exists- but it is important to understand that a majority of our fellow Americans do, and to understand what that means to them.
I rather doubt that anyone reading this blog would say that Satan exists- but it is important to understand that a majority of our fellow Americans do, and to understand what that means to them.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
A Quantum God?
I have speculated that god may exist in the quantum world. Now, according to this BBC story,
physicists are wondering the same thing.
physicists are wondering the same thing.
Calling out the gay-basher
This doesn't mean homophobia has ended, any more than the election of President Obama means that racism has ended- but it does mean we've turned the corner. Keep up the pressure!
Find out your brainsex
British neuropsychologist Dr Anne Moir is at the front line of the struggle to try and make the boys in Britain's schools enthusiastic about learning. Body sex does not necessarily match brain sex so Dr Moir has devised a test to determine the gender of the brain.
I scored a six, which is decidedly male, with some feminine traits- fair enough. But I wonder, is it just that I fit certain stereotypes, or are they stereotypes because they're true? I'd be curious to see if transsexuals score as being in the wrong body, or if the body controls enough of the stereotypes to make the test indecisive?
I scored a six, which is decidedly male, with some feminine traits- fair enough. But I wonder, is it just that I fit certain stereotypes, or are they stereotypes because they're true? I'd be curious to see if transsexuals score as being in the wrong body, or if the body controls enough of the stereotypes to make the test indecisive?
Monday, March 23, 2009
Biblical morality
One question Christians frequently ask Pagans is how, absent the Bible, can you develop a moral sense and moral code? Evidently their fears are justified; I scored a zero on this test of Biblical morality
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Are some Anti-Racism, Anti-Oppression programs really another form of racism?
I have long thought so, and a recent news story reminded me of a lively blog discussion that touched on this. The blog discussion (here and here)concerned the definition of cultural racism used by a public school system:
Cultural Racism:Those aspects of society that overtly and covertly attribute value and normality to white people and Whiteness, and devalue, stereotype, and label people of color as “other”, different, less than, or render them invisible. Examples of these norms include defining white skin tones as nude or flesh colored, having a future time orientation, emphasizing individualism as opposed to a more collective ideology, defining one form of English as standard, and identifying only Whites as great writers or composers.
Cut to the news story that reminded me of these discussions: First Lady Michelle Obama Reflects on Talking 'Like a White Girl' . I was particularly struck by this exchange between Ms. Obama and a grade school student:"And when one student asked her, "How did you get to where you are now?" she credited, in part, her command of the language.
"I remember there were kids around my [Chicago] neighborhood who would say, 'Ooh, you talk funny. You talk like a white girl.' I heard that growing up my whole life. I was like, 'I don't even know what that means but I am still getting my A.'"
In other words, she got where she is by "...having a future time orientation, emphasizing individualism as opposed to a more collective ideology, defining one form of English as standard,..." What if Barack and Michelle had grown up with more enlightened teachers who knew that defining one form of English as standard was racist, and encouraged them to keep it real with ebonics? What if Michelle had been told to conform to a more collective ideology with her peers, rather than adopting the white ambition for individual A's? What if they had been told that "a future time orientation"- things like punctuality and delayed gratification- were white concepts, and it was racist to expect it of them? While they are both so talented they'd have succeeded at something, there's no way in hell she'd have been a corporate executive, and he the President of the United States. How many minority children have been kept from being all that they can be anti-racism programs, using modern definitions of "racism", that result in the child being totally unprepared for real life after leaving the public schools? And isn't any program that results in real harm to minority children racist, regardless of intent?
Cultural Racism:Those aspects of society that overtly and covertly attribute value and normality to white people and Whiteness, and devalue, stereotype, and label people of color as “other”, different, less than, or render them invisible. Examples of these norms include defining white skin tones as nude or flesh colored, having a future time orientation, emphasizing individualism as opposed to a more collective ideology, defining one form of English as standard, and identifying only Whites as great writers or composers.
Cut to the news story that reminded me of these discussions: First Lady Michelle Obama Reflects on Talking 'Like a White Girl' . I was particularly struck by this exchange between Ms. Obama and a grade school student:"And when one student asked her, "How did you get to where you are now?" she credited, in part, her command of the language.
"I remember there were kids around my [Chicago] neighborhood who would say, 'Ooh, you talk funny. You talk like a white girl.' I heard that growing up my whole life. I was like, 'I don't even know what that means but I am still getting my A.'"
In other words, she got where she is by "...having a future time orientation, emphasizing individualism as opposed to a more collective ideology, defining one form of English as standard,..." What if Barack and Michelle had grown up with more enlightened teachers who knew that defining one form of English as standard was racist, and encouraged them to keep it real with ebonics? What if Michelle had been told to conform to a more collective ideology with her peers, rather than adopting the white ambition for individual A's? What if they had been told that "a future time orientation"- things like punctuality and delayed gratification- were white concepts, and it was racist to expect it of them? While they are both so talented they'd have succeeded at something, there's no way in hell she'd have been a corporate executive, and he the President of the United States. How many minority children have been kept from being all that they can be anti-racism programs, using modern definitions of "racism", that result in the child being totally unprepared for real life after leaving the public schools? And isn't any program that results in real harm to minority children racist, regardless of intent?
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
I drove Ginger to work today
And as she works on the far North-east corner of the city, that involved a trip on I465. For those of you who don't know Indianapolis, that's the high speed Interstate loop around the city. Now, as anyone who lives in a major city with a three-digit loop knows, that can be quite an adventure at rush hour; either terrifying or exhilarating, depending upon your reaction to adrenaline. Over the years, I have developed a method of handling the traffic- I won't say it's the only way, but it at least has the virtue of being unique: I use signals. I have noticed commuters have three basic reactions to this:
Some will freeze behind the wheel in shock, like a deer caught in headlights. As they struggle for composure, their speed tends to bleed off a bit- if I time it right, it allows me to change lanes.
Others become confused- signals on the Interstate? Is he insane, or is this some new form of road rage? Either way, they want no part of it; they clear room around me until I look like a bit of penicillin mold on a Petrie dish.
A few- possibly resident aliens who learned to drive in Paris or Rome- have never seen a turn signal before, and rush up on you to see what's about to happen. Those are easily handled; just lightly touch the brake pedal enough to make the brake lights come on. Even a Roman taxi cab driver knows what those are, and respects them- at least when they're on the back of a pickup truck.
As I said, I have done this for a number of years now, and i think some other drivers may be copying my technique- I've seen other cars use signals twice now; once last October, and then again this morning. Who knows- maybe someone will put it on YouTube and it'll go viral! I hope they warn me first though, I'd like to wash the truck.
Some will freeze behind the wheel in shock, like a deer caught in headlights. As they struggle for composure, their speed tends to bleed off a bit- if I time it right, it allows me to change lanes.
Others become confused- signals on the Interstate? Is he insane, or is this some new form of road rage? Either way, they want no part of it; they clear room around me until I look like a bit of penicillin mold on a Petrie dish.
A few- possibly resident aliens who learned to drive in Paris or Rome- have never seen a turn signal before, and rush up on you to see what's about to happen. Those are easily handled; just lightly touch the brake pedal enough to make the brake lights come on. Even a Roman taxi cab driver knows what those are, and respects them- at least when they're on the back of a pickup truck.
As I said, I have done this for a number of years now, and i think some other drivers may be copying my technique- I've seen other cars use signals twice now; once last October, and then again this morning. Who knows- maybe someone will put it on YouTube and it'll go viral! I hope they warn me first though, I'd like to wash the truck.
Friday, March 06, 2009
Police probe 'pagan' attacks on church
The congregation of a Grantown church has been alarmed by a year-long series of "pagan" attacks, according to a story in the Strathsprey & Badenoch Herald . The attacks have been in the form of messages, in red ink. Said Deacon Fishwick, "...He added: "The last one was a warning that we shouldn't bring in the authorities. It had a drawing of the all-seeing eye and said: 'We are always watching you'.
"It seems to be the work of a bit of a crackpot. They only ever pick out our church; none of the others have had this, but we don't know why.
"The notes are heathen quotations: things like 'Your days are numbered', 'Wrongs remain unrectified' and 'Judgement has been passed'."
The strangest thing about this story is that it comes from Scotland! Scotland? I mean, a psycho with an obsession about God's eye sending notes to a church for years about unrectified wrongs... that's just so Canadian!
Update
No, there's been no further news from Scotland that I'm aware of; this is an update about the post itself. I've received private comment about my oblique reference to Vancouver based church protester Kevin Annett - and now I'm told some other nutcase is claiming I was talking about him. It seems hard to credit- are there really people so starved for attention, with egos so vast that they claim any reference to a psycho must be aimed at them???
"In the midst of life...
...we are in death. Earth to earth, ashes to ashes, dust to dust." says the burial service in the Book of Common Prayer. While in the "midst of life", we seldom realize how closely death brushes past us at any given moment. One such moment occurred this week as an asteroid- seen only two days before- passed within 48,800 miles of Earth. If that doesn't sound very close to you, remember that a slow meteor is traveling some 30,000 miles per hour!
The article referenced casually mentions that this asteroid was about the same size as the one that exploded over Siberia in 1908, leveling more than 800 square miles of forest. If you're unfamiliar with the Tunguska Event, the explosion was about 1,000 times as powerful as the Hiroshima bomb. From the Wikipedia article: "The explosion registered on seismic stations across Eurasia. Although the Richter scale was not developed until 1935, in some places the shock wave would have been equivalent to an earthquake of 5.0 on the Richter scale. It also produced fluctuations in atmospheric pressure strong enough to be detected in Great Britain."
And for all our satellites and telescopes, we had less than 48 hours warning.
Just a thought to remember when you're getting all frazzled about projections of budgets ten years in the future, or worries about your personal future are driving you to despair... we are all living under the Sword of Damocles- you, me, the whole human race. No man knows when the stroke will fall. So do your duty for the day- including making plans for the future; that's today's duty- and then put it aside. Let it go, and enjoy the day... it's the only one you've got.
The article referenced casually mentions that this asteroid was about the same size as the one that exploded over Siberia in 1908, leveling more than 800 square miles of forest. If you're unfamiliar with the Tunguska Event, the explosion was about 1,000 times as powerful as the Hiroshima bomb. From the Wikipedia article: "The explosion registered on seismic stations across Eurasia. Although the Richter scale was not developed until 1935, in some places the shock wave would have been equivalent to an earthquake of 5.0 on the Richter scale. It also produced fluctuations in atmospheric pressure strong enough to be detected in Great Britain."
And for all our satellites and telescopes, we had less than 48 hours warning.
Just a thought to remember when you're getting all frazzled about projections of budgets ten years in the future, or worries about your personal future are driving you to despair... we are all living under the Sword of Damocles- you, me, the whole human race. No man knows when the stroke will fall. So do your duty for the day- including making plans for the future; that's today's duty- and then put it aside. Let it go, and enjoy the day... it's the only one you've got.
Wednesday, March 04, 2009
Monday, March 02, 2009
Does UU have a mission?
This question began as thoughts from the discussions about UU chaplains and Transient and Permanent's question, Do Unitarian-Universalist Ministers Have a Calling? , and finally crystallized while rereading notes from a writing class. What made the penny drop was a lesson about "the story question". If you haven't had that class, it goes like this: your book can be broken down to a simple question and a simple answer- just two simple sentences... if it can't, it's too complicated to handle in a readable book. It struck me that this lesson- very difficult for a beginning writer, believe me- carries into life as well.
The simple question for a faith- NOT the religious organization, but the faith itself- is "what is your mission?" Most faiths, it seems to me, can answer with an equally simple sentence. For Christianity, it would be "To save your soul from eternal damnation." For Buddhism, it would be "To awaken you to the causes of your suffering." For many NeoPagans, "To reunite you with the natural world you have separated yourself from." Others might say things like "To achieve balance with the universe", "To connect with God".
What is the mission of Unitarian Universalism?
The simple question for a faith- NOT the religious organization, but the faith itself- is "what is your mission?" Most faiths, it seems to me, can answer with an equally simple sentence. For Christianity, it would be "To save your soul from eternal damnation." For Buddhism, it would be "To awaken you to the causes of your suffering." For many NeoPagans, "To reunite you with the natural world you have separated yourself from." Others might say things like "To achieve balance with the universe", "To connect with God".
What is the mission of Unitarian Universalism?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)