Café Philos: an internet café

While I am absolutely certain that I have never met this person, he is equally certain he has met my penis.

I know he believes he has met my penis because he is not satisfied with it. It it is too short for him. Sometimes it is even too thin for him. But it is never just right. So, at any hour of the day or night, I am very likely to get an email from him insisting that I add "up to three inches" to my penis. Insisting that I do so. Demanding it, in fact. It is as if the only thing keeping him alive is his demented goal of vastly improving my penis.

I have thought of writing back to the deranged idiot telling him that if I wanted to vastly improve my penis I would tattoo a bold racing stripe down the side of it -- or better yet, a lightening bolt -- but that I am quite satisfied with its size, and perhaps he should get a life. But I have learned in my 50 years to never argue with idiots. It only brings out the worse in them, and I most assuredly do not want to see this particular idiot at his very worse.

I know I am not the only one he is concerned about. I have heard others complain that they too are the target of this demented fool's obsession with their penises. So, my real question is, "Who is encouraging him?" "Who is responding to him often enough that he is ever hopeful someone else will also buy his penis growth product?" And I can only imagine one group of people who are characteristically so naive, so stupid, and so gullible that they would respond to this guy's emails: Bimbo Talk Show Hosts.

Yes, it must be those Bimbo Talk Show Hosts. Who else is stupid enough to buy his product? Only the Administration comes close and even the Administration is smarter than the world's Bimbo Talk Show Hosts. The Administration would never compensate for their very small neocon penises by buying his scam growth product. Instead, they would compensate by invading a country or two. But Bimbo Talk Show Hosts -- that's another matter. They are so gullible I bet even the female Bimbo Talk Show Hosts have bought his product. Surely, Ann Coulter has. Worse, she is probably disappointed she hasn't seen any results yet.

"Nobody today is normal, everybody is a little bit crazy or unbalanced, people's minds are running all the time. Their perceptions of the world are partial, incomplete. They are eaten alive by their egos. They think they see, but they are mistaken; all they do is project their madness, their world, upon the world. There is no clarity, no wisdom in that!"

- Taisen Deshimaru



This might be the first time I've seen a Zen Buddhist so lament "people today". I confess I largely agree with him! I think he might describe most of us to one extent or another. Yet, I don't recall ever having read in any accurate history of an age when his lament would not be true of most people. Those who are not "a little bit crazy or unbalanced" have always been as rare as monks -- maybe even as rare as Buddhas. The notion there was a Golden Age in which people in general were fundamentally much better and wiser than they are today is a myth, rather than an historical reality.

Yet, does that mean we should forgo trying to be as wise and sane as possible? Of course not! The fact there are some very wise and sane people in this world means it is possible to be very wise and sane. Maybe the vast majority of humanity will always be -- as humanity has always been -- "eaten alive by their egos." Yet, that does not mean all of us need be.

Had the Buddha been a god, like Christ, people would say, "Enlightenment is only possible for gods", and "Only the Buddha was fully authentic". They say those things about Christ, you know. "Only Christ was perfect." And, "Only Christ could love everyone". To make your mentor a god is a form of escapism. It's a way of denying your potential.

"[A]ll they do is project their madness, their world, upon the world." Your enlightenment will not solve all the world's problems. But perhaps it will mean that you become aware -- deeply aware -- of when you are projecting your madness, your world, upon the world. Then you can at least choose wisely whether to do it or not. As near as I know, that's one of the things enlightenment most does for you -- makes you wise and sane.

It does not make the world's problems go away. If you have no skills and are unemployable before you are enlightened, you will have no skills and be unemployable after you are enlightened, etc. But perhaps you will have a realism, a wisdom, and a sanity about your situation that you never had before. And that, of course, can help you meet your challenges quite a bit better than you have ever met them before.

Krishnamurti observed that no one seeks enlightenment until they get into trouble. It's only when we suffer, and wish to escape our suffering, that the possibility of enlightenment becomes a burning, passionate goal. Yet, as Krishnamurti once again said, when we seek enlightenment as an escape from suffering, enlightenment will not come. We will find some escape, but it will not be enlightenment.

Most of us will always want to live as the people Taisen Deshimaru laments. We will never experience a crisis so profoundly unsolvable that we are forced by it into enlightenment. For some say enlightenment comes only when every form of escape has been exhausted. Perhaps that is why so few people are enlightened and why every age has a right to repeat Taisen Deshimaru's lament.

It bugs me that many people just don't get science. In my weaker moments, when I want the world to be radically other than it is, I want everyone to understand science. Not just to know scientific fact, but to understand scientific reasoning. But what bugs me more -- much more -- than the simple fact not everyone understands science is the horrible fact some people will consider you stupid if you don't understand science.

Thirty or so years ago when I was in college, I tutored logic for the Philosophy Department. It was while tutoring students in logic that I began to suspect there was more to "intelligence" than I had been taught.

At that time, thirty years ago, Howard Gardner had not yet invented the theory of multiple intelligences, and no one else was seriously entertaining the notion that intelligence might have more than one axis. The IQ test ruled the day: intelligence, everyone thought, could be summed up as a single thing.

Yet, when tutoring logic, I discovered people who were amazingly bright in some ways, but who just could not for the life of them grasp logic. It perplexed me no end. Until I actually sat down to work with such people, I had always assumed anyone who was bright was bright in everything. And anyone who was dull was dull in everything. But now I was confronted with people who needed exceptional help just to pass an introductory course in logic, but who excelled in other ways -- I could not deny they were in those ways bright people.

The question never went away. Over the following years, I was always alert to noticing how people could be bright in some ways and not so bright in others. Eventually, I came to think, "There are many different kinds of human intelligence", and I tried to categorize the different kinds based on my own experience of people. Then one day, after several years thinking I was alone in my heresy, it occurred to me others too might be thinking along the same lines as I was. So, I Googled several search terms until I hit the key one, "multiple intelligences". Up popped Howard Gardner's work, and I became as excited as a boy who has just discovered his first real friend.

Today, there is a movement among people to label themselves "Brights". The people who like to do that largely seem frustrated with the fact not everyone gets science as well as they do. I find the movement unsettling. "Bright" is not a term that should be reserved only for people who get science. There are at least eight distinct kinds of intelligence, according to Gardner, and so there are at least eight distinct ways to be bright. Moreover, even if one is not especially bright in any of those eight ways, perhaps one has a mix of intelligences that allows one to see certain things more surefooted than other people see those things.

Of course, the temptation to see our own kinds of intelligence as superior to any other kind is not limited to people who like to call themselves "Brights". It's done all the time -- even by people who are not "Brights". For instance: Many people who have a great deal of interpersonal intelligence tend to see others who lack such "people smarts" as inferior to them. And many people who are exceptional athletes.... I could go on, but every example is at heart the same: Many people think their own brand of intelligence makes them decisively superior to everyone else. That, my friends, is not too smart.

It is also arrogant. I do not mean to mean to imply any moral condemnation of arrogance here. I mean only to be descriptive -- not prescriptive. The essence of arrogance is a lack of realism or proper perspective about how our own talents, abilities and skills compare to the talents, abilities and skills of others. To be arrogant, you must be to some extent deluded.

Life presents us with many challenges and not one of us is equally adept at meeting each and everyone of those challenges. Humans have the great advantage, though, of being able to communicate exceptionally well with each other (when compared to other species). In practice, that means we can seek advice on how to handle challenges that play to our weaknesses, rather than our strengths. Suppose I don't understand politics as well as you do. If that's the case, then it would be wise of me to ask for your advice about politics when I have need to -- so long as you yourself are honest in giving advice. In that way, I combine your strengths with mine.

On the other hand, if I am arrogant, I believe that your knowledge of politics is inferior to my own because -- at least in part because -- I have no real grasp of my own limits. Most likely, I see myself as intelligent in every way that really matters. Why then should I seek out anyone else? Why should I look for opinions that are fundamentally different from my own? In my delusion of across the board superiority, I merely consider any fundamental difference in opinion to be the proof you are wrong and I am right. Worse, I probably don't even understand your point of view.

When we are too arrogant to consider any views but our own, we cease to take advantage of one of our species greatest strengths -- the ability to draw on the strengths of others to meet the many challenges of life that play to our own weaknesses. That strength is nowhere more highly developed than in humans. It's almost inhuman not to use it.

Last night and this morning, I have been engaged in arguing about premarital sex with a friend on an internet forum. My friend is: (1) idealistic, (2) idealistic, and (3) idealistic. Apart from those three things, she's idealistic. But it's not entirely her doing, for she has been raised to be idealistic.

She's a bright, articulate, and humanely decent young person who has had the misfortune of having been sheltered from many of the realities of life by her parents.

Her parents even went so far as to home school her -- both in order to give her a superior education in some things and an indoctrination in other things. For instance: They did not think it was advantageous to her to know too much about the theory of evolution, other than why they considered it wrong. So now she's well educated about certain things and poorly educated about others.

I suspect her parents did a very good job indoctrinating her on the subject of sex and relationships. Added to that, she has never had a boyfriend. That is, she has had insufficient experience to contradict her ideals. She believes in Prince Charming. She really does! He is as real to her as the theory of evolution is wrong and she is holding out for him in more ways than one. Most obviously, she is holding out for him sexually. She wants to be a virgin on her wedding day. But more subtly, she is holding out for him emotionally. She does not want to date anyone who she thinks is not the Prince.

It has never really occurred to her that everything has a learning curve, and even love is no exception to that. In a vital way, we must learn how to love. And we can only learn so much about love from words, just as we can only learn so much about playing tennis from listening to words. At some point, if we are going to love well, then we must practice loving, just as we must practice tennis to play tennis well.

Ideally, in tennis, you hit the ball over the net, return each volley, and all goes well. But unless you have actually practiced doing that -- and practiced it and practiced it and practiced it -- you will be unable to do it well.

Of course, she would say she only wants to practice love with one special person, her Prince Charming. I think that's fine, if that's the way she wants to do it. I am not actually opposed to anyone holding out for their prince or princess. But I do object that she doesn't truly realize there will be a learning curve when she finally meets the Prince.

How do you keep your ideals when life smashes them down? In some cases, you simply don't. During the Korean War, the Americans attempted at first to conquer North Korea. Then the Chinese entered the war and the Americans had to change their goal or ideal from the conquest of North Korea to the defense of South Korea. They managed to accomplish this second goal or ideal, but had they not in time changed from the attack of the North to the defense of the South, they would have lost both goals, rather than just one. To accomplish anything in life you must sometimes be flexible about your ideals. And, somehow, I don't think my friend is flexible about her sexual and relationship ideals. She may very well end up loosing everything.

I wrestle with what to think about idealism. That's to say, I don't feel I understand it. And I don't feel I understand it because, for the most part, all I see are its follies and excesses. If you really understand something, then you tend to have a balanced view of it. But I do not have a balanced view of idealism: I see it's weaknesses, but not its strengths. So there is a large part of me that hopes she will find exactly what she wants in life. Even though I doubt that will be the likely outcome of her stubborn idealism.

This is the 100th post for the month of August. What could possibly commemorate such a grand achievement?

Well, I looked around the house and discovered just the thing! So, anyone who drops by Colorado Springs to party hardy with me in celebration of this month's 100th post will not go away empty handed. No, sir! Not at all!

I fully intend to present any and all partiers with -- at no cost to them -- a FREE Lipton tea bag!

This valuable commemorative tea bag is destined to be cherished by you. Each tea bag comes with it's own fine cotton string, making it ideal for steeping in hot water. The string can then be recycled as dental floss! An added value -- but not an added cost!

Do we know how to party, or what?

In July, Republican Senator David Vitter of Louisiana admitted to a profound taste for female prostitutes.

Since David Vitter is a staunch proponent of "family values", his use of call girls caused some public displays of consternation in conservative circles, but no powerful Republicans called for his resignation.

Now, it has been discovered that Republican Senator Larry Craig of Idaho, another staunch defender of "family values", has a profound taste for sex with men. But unlike in the case of Vitter, some powerful Republicans, including the White House, are either distancing themselves from Senator Craig, or outright calling for his resignation. According to the BBC:

Republican leaders announced on Wednesday that Mr Craig had agreed temporarily to stand down from three Senate committees.

"This is not a decision we take lightly, but we believe this is in the best interest of the Senate until this situation is resolved by the ethics committee," a statement issued by Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell and others said.

Speaking on the NBC network's Tonight Show, Arizona Senator John McCain said: "It harms our reputation with the American people, which is already pretty tarnished."

Republican Senator Norman Coleman, of Minnesota, called for him to stand down, saying: "Senator Craig pled guilty to a crime involving conduct unbecoming to a senator."

Michigan Republican Congressman Pete Hoekstra also urged his resignation, saying Mr Craig "represents the Republican Party".

[White House] Spokesman Scott Stanzel said in a statement that the White House was "disappointed in the matter".

"We hope that it will be resolved quickly, as that would be in the best interests of the Senate and the people of Idaho," he said.

Mr Craig has already resigned from the 2008 presidential campaign of Mitt Romney, former Republican governor of Massachusetts.

At first blush it seems frequenting call girls is still within the Republican's definition of "conduct becoming to a senator", but having sex with men is somehow still taboo for a senator. Otherwise, why are the Republicans distancing themselves from Craig when they didn't do the same to Vitter? Is there a double standard going on? Is homophobia to blame?

Some folks in the blogosphere are saying that's the case. They are speculating that the Republicans want Craig out because he's a homosexual, while Vitter has been allowed to stay because he's a heterosexual.

However, homophobia might not be the full story here. If Vitter resigned, the Governor of Louisiana, Kathleen Babineaux Blanco, would appoint his successor. Ms. Blanco is a Democrat, and would presumably appoint a Democrat to replace the Republican senator. But if Craig resigns, the Governor of Idaho, C. L. "Butch" Otter, would presumably appoint his successor -- and Butch is a Republican. So, it's safe for Republicans to call for Craig's resignation on moral grounds, but not safe for them to call for Vitter's resignation on moral grounds.

I should note, though, that I've had the devil's own time confirming that the Governor's of both Louisiana and Idaho would be responsible for appointing a senator's successor. Yet, even if one, the other, or both governor's are not, the equation doesn't change that much. That's because if the governor doesn't appoint a successor, the alternative would be for an election to be held. And in Louisiana, that's most likely to lead to a Democrat as senator, while in Idaho that's most likely to lead to a Republican as senator. So, if Vitter steps down, the Senate most likely picks up a Democrat, but if Craig steps down, the balance of power between Republicans and Democrats in the Senate stays the same.

When I think of dating, I think of courtship. Every few years, one or another of the big magazines is sure to run a cover story asking, "Is Courtship Dead?". The magazine will claim that's a serious question and to prove it's a serious question, they will point to some recent poll in which 67% of the respondents between the ages of 18 and 24 adamantly declare courtship means nothing to them. It's something their grandparents might have done in their day, but today's hip 18 - 24 year old has no use for it, etc. etc. etc.

You might recall from your studies of social history that "radical thinkers" in every generation within the last 150 years have declared courtship dead. Courtship is always being declared dead by people. Yet, every generation courts. Why is that?

"Why is that?" would have been a hard question to answer accurately back in the good old days. In this case, the good old days are the 1970's when everyone in academia seemed to believe that humans were born with a "blank slate". That is, the predominant paradigm in nearly every field back then was that humans were born with no innate behaviors -- nor even any predispositions to behaviors -- and that all significant human behavior could be explained as learned behavior.

On the other hand, today, it's very well known that humans are genetically predisposed to some behaviors. Contra the old 1970's paradigm, not everything humans do is entirely learned (although learning does play a role in most everything). Most likely, courtship has never died out -- despite all its obituaries -- primarily because we humans are genetically predisposed to court.

More specifically, it seems courtships follow a certain general pattern, and that pattern is what we're genetically predisposed to follow. For instance, a graduate student in anthropology discovered that women are more likely than men to initiate successful courtships -- at least in bars. One of his methods was to attend campus town bars where he could record the exchanges between mostly undergraduate men and women. He found that women initiate courtships nonverbally, with their eyes. In other words, they offer "come on looks" to men who interest them. The grad student noticed that courtships initiated by women were more successful than those initiated by men. Success in this case was measured by whether the people engaged in the courtship left the bar in each other's company. What the graduate student discovered was part of the general pattern of human courtship.

A while back, I read of two psychologists who had concluded that dysfunctional courtships -- courtships that do not follow, or that slight, the general pattern of human courting -- almost invariably result in dysfunctional relationships and marriages. If that's true, the importance of courtship in humans is clear.

I have a strong hunch, but based only on anecdotal evidence, that when dysfunctional courtships result in sex, one, the other, or both partners is very apt to feel exploited, abused and even humiliated by the sex. From what I've seen, it seems courtships prepare us emotionally and psychologically for sexual intimacy. Without a good courtship, we are not prepared for that level of intimacy, and our feelings afterwards often show it.

So far as I know, there is nothing in our genes that prescribe we must be married to have a healthy sex life. But if the anthropologists, biologists and psychologists are right, then our genes might indeed prescribe we must have a healthy courtship to have a healthy sex life.

Last, I think courses taught in the public schools on human sexuality should include a section on courtship. If dysfunctional courtships lead to dysfunctional relationships and marriages, it might be wise to teach kids what the value of courting is and something about how to go about it.

Ed Diener is America's foremost psychologist researching human happiness. In a 2003 study, he and Shigehiro Oishi discovered that European and Asian Americans behaved differently when choosing tasks to perform.

The European Americans typically picked tasks they were good at, while the Asian Americans were significantly more likely to ignore whether they were good at something when choosing whether to do it. Diener and Oishi further discovered that over time the European Americans expressed greater happiness with their tasks than the Asian Americans. That is, both groups were given a choice what tasks to perform, but only the European Americans picked tasks that made them happy.

Given a choice, why would anyone not choose to do what makes them happy?

Unfortunately, not everyone in this strange world has the option of fully playing to their strengths. It seems in many cases the reasons for that are economic. I would guess the need to earn a living, combined with a lack of opportunities for doing so, has probably forced more people into jobs and lives that play to their weaknesses than perhaps any other single factor. Just imagine how many immensely talented people in the long course of human history have been street beggars because the society and economy they lived in provided them with little or no opportunity to do anything else! Yet, even in wealthy nations today many people find themselves going into jobs where they cannot make full use of their talents and skills, but must to one great extent or another play to their weaknesses.

Besides economics, many social and cultural factors can pressure people into opting for a job or life that does not play to their strengths and leaves them less happy than they would otherwise be. The classic example of that is the social and cultural oppression of women. Until recently, most societies allowed women very few choices in life. And minorities within a society often face similar restrictions.

A third set of factors are probably psychological. A few years ago, the Surgeon General of the United States released a startling report that concluded one in five Americans was mentally or emotionally ill. A symptom of many disorders is anhedonism -- that is, an aversion to pleasure. People who suffer anhedonism are more likely to seek things that make them unhappy than things that make them happy. Although I don't know what percentage of the population suffers from anhedonism, it seems likely enough that it could be a few million of us.

While playing to our strengths is a significant source of happiness, not all of us do so for many and various reasons -- some of which I've touched on.

"Happiness is the only sanction of life; where happiness fails, existence remains a mad and lamentable experiment."

- George Santayana

"The end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom. For in all the states of created beings capable of laws, where there is no law, there is no freedom."

- John Locke

Brian was an unhappy worker. He hated his job and was one of my least productive salespeople. By the time he got 12 sales, the group average was 36. He kept showing up at the office because he needed the money, but his heart just wasn't in it.

I first tried to retrain him. That didn't work because the problem was not his lack of understanding how to sell, but his absolute distaste for it. I was afraid I would have to fire him. I didn't much like Brian, but as his manager I considered it my duty to do my best by him. So I wracked my brain for some work -- for any work -- that I could reassign him to rather than fire him.

About that time, the monthly accounts receivable report crossed my desk and I noticed that the receivables were getting out of hand. The percentage of people who were agreeing to buy our product, but who were then ignoring the bills we sent them, had taken an upswing -- most likely because the economy was in recession. Something had to be done about it.

I don't know how long it took me to put 2 and 2 together to get 4, but I eventually did. That is, I decided to create a new position -- bill collector -- and assign Brian to it.

At first, Brian was just as pessimistic about his new job as he had been about his old one. But that suddenly changed sometime in his very first week. When I dropped by on Tuesday to ask how things were going, Brian grinned so broadly that I thought he was going to bite me. And by Friday, Brian was collecting as much money from the past due receivables as some of our salespeople were bringing in from new sales.

Brian began to change. He no longer bitched about everything from the office carpet to his fellow workers. He started coming in early, and was no longer the first to leave. I was convinced he had more energy than I'd ever seen in him before. And, perhaps most astonishing to me, he told me he loved his job.

By hit or miss, I had somehow managed to take Brian out of sales position that played to his weaknesses, and instead place him in a collections position that played to his strengths. In doing so, I had not only avoided firing him, but I had actually helped to make him a happy and productive worker. I will never forget how dramatically Brian changed when he was finally asked to do something he could do well.

According to the scientists who study what makes people happy, there are many factors involved in human happiness, but one significant factor is for people to play to their strengths, rather than to their weaknesses.

Playing to your strengths means that you position yourself to make the best use of your talents and skills. When you do that, the task you set yourself to perform becomes comparatively easy -- like bicycling downhill. But if you are unfortunate enough to play to your weaknesses, then just the opposite is true -- you might as well set yourself the task of always bicycling uphill through life.

So, there you have it. Whatever the obstacles, anyone who is at all concerned with their happiness would do well to pay close attention to themselves in order to figure out both their strengths and their weaknesses -- and then as much as possible always play to their strengths. That is often easier said than done. In a future post, I plan to offer some suggestions about how to play to our strengths and avoid playing to our weaknesses.

A new poll of young people (ages 13 to 24) jointly conducted by MTV and the Associated Press finds that "being sexually active leads to less happiness among 13 - 17 year olds" but more happiness in the moment for 18 - 24 year olds.

Of course, by "leads to", the folks at MTV and the Associated Press meant "it correlates with". So, the press release should have read, "being sexually active correlates with less happiness among 13 - 17 year olds, but correlates with more happiness in the moment among 18 - 24 year olds." The difference is important.

"Leads to" implies that sexual activity causes less happiness among 13 - 17 year olds.

However, there could be all sorts of other reasons why sexually active 13 - 17 year olds are less happy than their non-sexually active peers. For instance, it could be that unhappy kids start having sex earlier than happy kids (Perhaps unhappy kids are using sex to escape their unhappiness). If knowing why sexually active 13 - 17 year olds are less happy is important, then it is important to be straight about the difference between "leads to" and "correlates with".

Having said all that, I might add that if any kid were to ask me when they should start having sex, I would most likely tell them, "sometime between 18 and 24". That is, unless I knew the kid well enough to sense that he or she would be happier starting sex earlier or later than that age range. Yet, for most people, it seems a pretty good bet that sometime between 18 and 24 they will be emotionally and mentally mature enough for sex.

I do not know at what age someone will be emotionally and mentally mature enough for sex, but I do know that it's very difficult to be happy having sex if you are not emotionally and mentally mature enough for it.

"Nothing is so firmly believed as that which we least know."

- Michel de Montaigne

Yesterday, I noticed Café Philos had gotten a series of hits from around the world for the search term, "be true to oneself". So, I checked out Google and discovered that your favorite internet café comes up number six out of 2,240,00 hits for that search.

Naturally, I was pleasantly impressed, but not so impressed that I decided to write to you about it. After all, being number six is not quite the same thing as being number one. But today... today, I discovered Café Philos actually does rank number one for a vital and important search term!

The search term is, "recent nude deal between India and the US".

Out of 390,000 references to the "recent nude deal between India and the US", Café Philos beats 'em all.

Yay!

The only problem with this astonishing accomplishment is that I have absolutely no idea what the recent nude deal between India and the US is about.

Of course, I most strongly hope it means the fearless leaders of both India and the US have worked out a landmark cultural deal to exchange nude bloggers between our two great nations. Such a deal could only benefit the rapidly growing International Nude Blogging Movement.

Yet, I somehow doubt that's what's up with the "recent nude deal between India and the US". Instead, I fear the search term is a reference to the recent nuclear deal between India and the US. The 123 Agreement. About which I posted a short note here. The comments on that post are well worth reading, by the way.

Well, at least this community is number one for nude deals between India and the US. And if and when any such deal takes place, we will be perfectly positioned to reap the publicity from it.

Just think of the fame!

Norman Finkelstein is a controversial historian. He has both criticized Israel's role in the Israel-Palestinian Conflict and also asserted that the Holocaust is being exploited for pro-Israel political ends at the expense of its actual survivors. He even had the gall to defend President Carter's book on the Palestinian problem.

All of that has made him quite unpopular with many pro-Israeli scholars and pundits. In June, they managed to persuade DePaul University in Chicago, where Finkelstein teaches, to deny him tenure. But merely denying Finkelstein tenure has not been enough for his many enemies who apparently want a proper lynching. Fortunately, DePaul University has obliged. From the Democracy Now website for Monday, August 27, 2007:

On Friday, DePaul administrators announced they’ve canceled Finkelstein’s remaining classes for the upcoming fall quarter. Finkelstein has one year left on his contract with DePaul. Both classes were filled to capacity. ... Critics say DePaul administrators caved to pressure from outside groups opposed to Finkelstein’s vocal criticism of Israeli government policies.

I personally don't know enough about Finkelstein's work to offer an opinion about it's merits. But I do know that DePaul's lynching of Norman Finkelstein is an outrage against academic freedom. It is an immoral, unfair and underhanded attempt to silence a critic. The perpetrators of this lynching are no better than inquisitors and fanatics: They deserve nothing but contempt.


UPDATE: The American Association of University Professors is urging an immediate reinstatement of Norman Finkelstein.


UPDATE II: In an email interview, Finkelstein said, “If the university attempts to impede my movements I intend to engage in nonviolent civil disobedience and go to jail. If incarcerated I intend to go on a protracted hunger strike until DePaul comes to its senses. It is regrettable that I have been driven to such drastic actions to defend basic principles of academic freedom and my contractual rights, upon which DePaul has been riding roughshod for so long.”


UPDATE III: For those interested in following this struggle for academic freedom, Norman Finkelstein's website is here.

This week, the thought occurred to me that some of you might like a glimpse of an aspen grove. The photo to the left is of a grove on Boulder Mountain, Utah, by Bill Atkinson.

One of the things that often distinguishes Atkinson's work is how close it comes to abstract art. This week's photo is not necessarily the best representation of that, but I think you can still see a bit of the abstract in it. If you go to his website, you will find many examples of photos that prove how surprisingly close nature can be to abstract art.

When the sun falls through aspen leaves, it can create a soft, peaceful light. I think Atkinson has captured that light in this week's sidebar art. The light also tends to make the leaves luminous, and I think you can see that in the young leaves close to the grove's floor. The only detail of this photo that I might dispute is the darkness of the far background. That might be literally true, but in my experience, an aspen grove is suffused with light and one does not notice much in the way of any darkness. However, I'm not criticizing the photo here -- merely pointing out a difference between how things might actually be, as they are in the photo, and how they often feel in life.

The only title I can find for the work on the left is "Art Nude". Yet, as you can see, this is not a classical art nude. It is more like a nude portrait. The focus is on the model -- her face and expression capture us. Her body is not so much defined as suggested.

I think Liviu Burlea's work here shows us what can be accomplished when one combines the technique and style of classical nude photography with portraiture. In this photo, the use of light and shadow -- borrowed from nude photography -- creates for me at least the feeling that I am looking at someone's spirit or soul. Moreover, everything else seems to reinforce that feeling.

For instance, the model's expression is at once open, sincere and vulnerable. She seems to be revealing her inner self to us. Almost surrendering it. Her nudity merely reinforces the effect. You cannot look at the photo, I think, without feeling that you have met a person in her own right. Perhaps you want to reach out to her, hold her, question her, even comfort her. She challenges you to interact with her. Few enough portraits actually do that. This one is masterful.

I would have put it in the sidebar for this week, but Blogger intervened (again!) to prevent that by squashing and distorting the photo. So, I am sharing it with you this way instead.

I'm in love with the work to the left even though I am not generally a fan of pseudo-classical poses. But the pose is so dynamic that you almost have to love it. Or even perhaps hate it -- I suspect this is one of those works that brings out strong emotions. Am I right about that?

I tried putting the photo in the sidebar for this week, but unfortunately, blogger squashed and distorted it. The photo lost its power and became something of a cartoon of itself. Still, I wanted to share it with you, so here you have it.

To me, the pose captures extraordinary strength combined with magnificent grace. So, I'm willing to forgive that the setting is a pedestal and building, rather than nature.

Why do you suppose the artist chose that setting? What do you suppose Mark Jenkins was trying to convey? Is it merely an attempt to connect with Western Classical sculpture? Or, is there more to it than that?

If you click on the above picture, it will expand to full size. That is worth a look. The negative shapes are especially stunning, I think. The lighting seems perfect to me. It at once creates the mass of the body, defines the musculature, and brings out the grace of the shoulders and limbs. The lighting also perfectly creates the illusion that we are looking at a statue rather than a living man. And although I'm not entirely happy with that last effect, I must admit Jenkins is amazing.

Symbolically, I want to believe that what we have here is The Cosmic Dancer.

Is there any reason not to legalize, tax, and regulate prostitution?


Please note: By "prostitution", I am here referring to the sex trade and not to the far more common phenomenon of politicians, preachers, and pundits selling themselves out.

"Monogamy and prostitution go together."

- "J", a U.S. prostitute, as quoted by Kate Millet



"To the moralist prostitution does not consist so much in the fact that the woman sells her body, but rather that she sells it out of wedlock."

- Emma Goldman



"When prostitution is a crime, the message conveyed is that women who are sexual are “bad,” and therefore legitimate victims of sexual assault."

- Margo St. James



"Marriage is for women the commonest mode of livelihood, and the total amount of undesired sex endured by women is probably greater in marriage than in prostitution."

- Bertrand Russell



"My thinking tends to be libertarian. That is, I oppose intrusions of the state into the private realm—as in abortion, sodomy, prostitution, pornography, drug use, or suicide, all of which I would strongly defend as matters of free choice in a representative democracy."

- Camille Paglia

"Civilization is drugs, alcohol, engines of war, prostitution, machines and machine slaves, low wages, bad food, bad taste, prisons, reformatories, lunatic asylums, divorce, perversion, brutal sports, suicides, infanticide, cinema, quackery, demagogy, strikes, lockouts, revolutions, putsches, colonization, electric chairs, guillotines, sabotage, floods, famine, disease, gangsters, money barons, horse racing, fashion shows, poodle dogs, chow dogs, Siamese cats, condoms, pessaries, syphilis, gonorrhea, insanity, neuroses, etc., etc."

- Henry Miller

"The insight that everybody and everything has surfaced to the enlightened state of mind simultaneously with you is definitely accompanying the very moment of realization. This is why you know that the reality is perfect. It is not perfect in its potentiality, it is perfect in its fully actualized state, standing with you hand in hand, face to face."

"This feeling is extremely pronounced in the first several weeks following the enlightenment. Talking, even thinking about it is felt to be as superfluous as asking a fellow passenger on a train: "Are you, too, traveling in this train?" It's meaningless. Since everybody else is also enlightened, what's there to talk about?"


- Alex Bunard Source

When bimbo talk show host Rush Limbaugh recently interviewed bimbo presidential adviser Karl Rove on the radio, things quickly turned into an episode of mutual masturbation.

That might be the only way to describe the level of unreality they managed to jointly achieve.

For instance, in one short exchange between them, Rove begins by asserting that people who harbor any doubts about Bush are, "sort of elite, effete snobs who can’t hold a candle to this guy. What they don’t like about him is that he is common sense, that he is Middle America.”

That statement alone is so far out it must be considered masturbatory. In current poles, over 70% of Americans -- about 210 million people -- have serious doubts about George Bush. Are all of those millions "elite, effete snobs"? Is it possible that not one of those 210 million people thinks well enough, is sharp enough, to at least "hold a candle" to one of the world's foremost village idiots?

Yet, Limbaugh, with half his brain tied behind his back, easily swallows Rove's happy ejaculation. He asserts the reason that Bush critics are frustrated with the President is because the President “outsmarts ‘em.” But the only people the President has outsmarted are Rush Limbaugh, Karl Rove, and the less than 90 million out of 300 million Americans who still support the President. Limbaugh is simply indulging himself by joining in Rove's wild fantasy.

Comedy aside, it's unlikely that critics of Bush are worried about the President outsmarting them. During their six years in office, neither Bush nor his staff have shown themselves to be smart. True, they have surprised us. But not with their brains -- with their blunders.

Bush is a loose cannon. He combines at least two traits that make him unpredictable: First, he is delusional. Second, he is lawless. Like any loose cannon, there is no telling what he will do, except that it's unlikely to be constructive.

Anyone interested in how human and primate evolution helps make sense of our lives today should above all else avoid reading Eric's blog, The Primate Diaries.

That's because if you have any interest at all in the topic -- even just a little interest -- you will discover The Primate Diaries are so remarkable, so beautifully and knowledgeably written, so relevant to how we live today, that you will be inexorably drawn towards your monitor until you find yourself actually licking the essays as if they were the happiest candy in the world. And that could prove extraordinarily embarrassing should your spouse or significant other walk in on you to find you making love to a blog more passionately than you have made love to them all month.

It won't happen, you say? You're just too strong willed to make love to a blog, you say? Fine, you've been warned. So don't come running back here to sue me if clicking on any of the above links leads to your sleeping on the couch while your partner fumes about your betrayal of them.

Although many Americans approach sex in the spirit of moderation, American popular culture does not. In the popular culture, it's all or nothing. Addict or prude. Both extremes are merely obsessive.

"Sex. In America an obsession. In other parts of the world a fact."

- Marlene Dietrich

I've been neglecting everyone, not just here, so don't feel too personally offended.

This week I began my new job as office wench at a large home appliances outlet. It was also week 4 of a migraine that just isn't interested in going away.

After debating and ignoring and distracting myself for quite a long time, I dragged my sorry bum to the Emergency Room, where I was given a shot of morphine, a prescription for some outrageously expensive medication that causes birth defects and 'occasional loss of consciousness', and told to smoke more pot.

No joke.

While it is not necessarily typical to hear this from a doctor (no, not even in Canada, though I'm sure you've all heard stories) it didn't seem like horrid advice. I might have taken it if I was the type to smoke a joint in the evening and still wake up for work the next day.

It did leave me wondering, however, why drugs of any kind have been made illegal to begin with.

We obviously know that many drugs have harmful effects, both physical and otherwise. They can be dreadfully addictive, and cause us to make poor decisions, or leave us unable to drive and function safely.

There must be a thousand prescription medications (not to mention alcohol, caffeine, and cigarettes) that fit these criteria as well.

Not that I'm advocating the use of any or all drugs, just questioning how the problem became a lawful one.

A 'Crime' is something that has been designated unacceptable behavior.

How far should that label stretch?

Assuming that drug use/possession is an unlawful act just because it always HAS been concerns me a little.

Any input?

In 2006, the voters gave the Democrats control of both houses of Congress and a mandate to oppose President Bush. Since then, the Democrats have been far too cowardly to stand up to Bush, one of the most unpopular presidents in history, and have instead done little more than vote for his bills and policies -- even when that has meant joining with Bush to undermine the Constitution. In other words, they have betrayed the voters who put them in office.

The Democrats are not much more these days than the left wing of the Republican Party.

"Jealousy, that dragon which slays love under the pretense of keeping it alive."

- Havelock Ellis

Without first checking with my landlord, I recently took the liberty of landscaping my backyard. As you can see, the results have been disastrous. The lagoon is too shallow, the palms are
crooked, the vegetation has fallen off the mountainside.... But I know what you're thinking. You're thinking, "That's what he gets for using a cheap contractor." And you're right. I went with the lowest bid. Consequently, I have no one to blame but myself.

At the same time, the situation is intolerable. Something must be done to make my backyard livable again. And that's why I'm asking for help. Your help. The thought has occurred to me that I might be able to barely endure the situation if my backyard were full of scantily clad babes. So, if you're a babe, and you have a charitable streak in you, please ship yourself by overnight mail to Colorado Springs, Colorado. Please.

If you had to choose between writing something thought provoking and writing something profound, which would you choose?

I'm tempted to say that anything which is profound is thought provoking. But saying that breaks the rule because we have been asked to pretend the two can be separated and do not overlap.

Well, then, I know when I was much younger I would have chosen to write something profound. Among other things, it can be good mental discipline to try to write something that's profound. You end up questioning every one of your assumptions in an effort to dig deeper and deeper into the subject. You become like a child who asks, "Why?", "But why?", in response to every answer you come up with.

All that digging might not make you an entirely profound person -- you can still be someone with surprisingly shallow feelings, tastes and inclinations -- but it certainly helps to make whatever you write profound. I know that's true, because I married my first wife solely for her looks the very same year I was routinely getting compliments back from my professors along the lines of, "This is among the most profound papers -- published or unpublished -- I have ever read on the Bhagavad Gita. I realize in the cosmic scheme of things that does not matter. But in a warm, earthly way, I just wanted you to know."

That professor was right, of course. In the cosmic scheme of things, the reward -- in this case, the pride -- we might take in writing something profound does not matter, except perhaps in so far as that reward or pride becomes a burden and a hindrance. Instead, what we do, we should do true to ourselves. And what is true to ourselves can change.

Sometime in my 40's -- most likely in my late 40's -- I began feeling a need to give back to my community something in gratitude for all the good things my community had given me.

Such a feeling is sometimes confused for selflessness, but it is not selfless. I fully wanted to use my own unique talents and skills -- that is, to use my self -- to give back to my community. Nor had I any desire to give back to my community in a way that was not true to myself. I suppose that around the same time in my life, my answer changed to the question, "If you had to choose between writing something that was thought provoking, and writing something that was profound, which would you choose?"

Today, I would choose thought provoking. But I think for you to understand why, you must recall the silly rule we began with: Namely, that we should pretend a writing cannot be both profound and thought provoking at the same time, and that therefore we must choose one or the other. If you go by that rule, then it's reasonable to ask, "Which is better for people?" The way I see it, it's better for people to read something that provokes them to think, than it is for them to read something that is merely profound.

For one thing, it is more fun to think about something than it is to deeply understand something. Thinking is like traveling: The joy lies in the unexpected discovery. While understanding something is like staying home. The happiness is more akin to comfort than joy. Only homebodies would give up thinking about new things for deeply knowing something.

For another thing, thinking keeps the mind fresh and alert. It's good exercise for the brain and prevents its deterioration. But I've seen even quite profound people deteriorate rapidly in their mental capabilities when they stopped seeing things in new and interesting ways.

Last, when thinking becomes a habit, the politicians, preachers, pundits, and advertisers are much less able to manipulate us to suit their own agendas. So, there too, you are giving something back to your community when you provoke people to think.

There you have it. My answer to the absolutely most pressing question of our time. When I was younger, I would have easily chosen "profound". That was being true to myself yesterday. But today, things have changed -- I've changed. And I feel I could best be true to myself by writing something thought provoking.

Yet, how would you answer the question?

"If you had to choose between either writing something thought provoking or writing something profound, which would you choose?"

"Tony Perkins - head of the James Dobson associated Family Research Council - purchased the mailing list of former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke in 1996 for over 80,000 dollars and in 2001 Perkins addressed the Lousiana chapter of the white supremacist Council of Conservative Citizens."


- Hume's Ghost at "The Daily Doubter"

Nude bloggers all across the world today will be cheered to hear the news that Blader Industries, the huge international mega-conglomerate, has adopted a policy of blogging nude on Mondays for all its employees. Story here.


UPDATE: The ever growing Nude Blogging Movement has just scored another major victory -- it's first ever posting of a male nude in commemoration of Nude Blogging Mondays. See a gorgeous male nude at "In the Spirit of Chaos" here.


UPDATE: In yet another astounding victory for the Nude Blogging Movement, Guitar's Cry has composed a thoughtful essay on the belief nudity is a sin here.

"Love possesses not nor would it be possessed."

- Khalil Gibran


There are many kinds of love, but I think the rarest and purest kind is anything but possessive. It is that love which is most liberating, which is most life affirming, and in which we both transcend ourselves and are renewed.

That is the kind of love the Greeks called "agape" and that Jesus apparently believed caused us to be "born again".

Such love most often comes as an unexpected breeze -- and like a breeze it refreshes. Like a breeze, it seldom lasts for long. And like a breeze, it may return at any time.

"Always design a thing by considering it in its next larger context—a chair in a room, a room in a house, a house in an environment, an environment in a city plan."

Eliel Saarinen

Alas! Could Aristide Maillol have known when he sculpted his beloved "Flora" that someday the mere sight of her absolutely naked beneath her clingy garment would utterly destroy a child's morals? Would plunge the child into a vast spiritual darkness? And possibly lead to the child's future sexual promiscuity, if not to an unnatural lust for bronze dildos?

That, after all, is exactly what happened less than a year ago when Sydney McGee, a 5th grade Texas art teacher, took 89 of her students to the Dallas Museum of Art where "Flora" was lurking hideously on display. Within hours of the field trip, a parent called the school to complain that her child had been fatally exposed to a nude statue -- most likely "Flora".

Thankfully, the school was quick to take punitive action. The very next day, the school's principle, Nancy Lawson, called Sydney McGee into her office for a well deserved bashing during which Lawson pointedly mentioned McGee's criminal exposure of her students to nude art. Of course, a mere verbal bashing is never enough of a punishment in Texas, home to the death penalty, so within a short time of the bashing, it was announced by the school system that McGee's annual contract would not be renewed and that a replacement for her had been interviewed. Sydney McGee got what she deserved for allowing her 11 year olds to see nudity and near nudity, and that should have been the end of that.

Unfortunately, the story became public. Pesky people, morally sane people, complained in droves. The school did what every reasonable and responsible institution these days will do upon being caught out: They too went public and, of course, smeared Sydney McGee to the hilt in the press, while at the same time admirably backtracking by denying the parent's complaint that her child had been exposed to nude art was a factor in the decision to fire McGee.

If you, Gentle Reader, believe you have detected a certain amount of sarcasm in how I've presented this story, you are right. It is obscene that in the 21st Century a parent's complaint her child had been exposed to nude art could result in a teacher being reprimanded, let alone -- in all probability -- play a role in the teacher being fired. There is only one way to explain it: Moral insanity.

The morally insane among us do indeed believe that nudity is corrupting. They very much believe that. And they are quite often more than willing to impose their insanity on others. That is why a Texas art teacher could be reprimanded for exposing a child to nude art. It is why an Ohio District Attorney could prosecute a grandmother for taking photos of her granddaughters in their underwear. It is why a Colorado woman could sue a pharmacy on the grounds the photos she mistakenly received from the pharmacy of a nude man traumatized her and caused her great mental suffering. Such extraordinarily stupid prosecutions, reprimands and lawsuits are only possible because a significant number of people are morally insane.

But what can we do about it? Well, we can demonstrate to the world that we ourselves are not afraid of nudity. We can show others that we ourselves are not cowering in our homes worried the world will come to an end if Janet Jackson's left nipple appears again on TV. And, most of all, we can prove by our vast numbers that the morally insane among us are only a minority. And how do we do all that?

By publicly declaring our allegiance to the ever growing International Nude Blogging Movement, of course. By blogging in the nude on Mondays, as God and Darwin intended us to do. And by speaking out against the outrages of the morally insane.

Have a great Nude Blogging Day!

"The quality of the will to power is, precisely, growth. Achievement is its cancellation. To be, the will to power must increase with each fulfillment, making the fulfillment only a step to a further one. The vaster the power gained the vaster the appetite for more. "

- Ursula K. Le Guin

This week's sidebar art is a figure study by Raymond Delhaye. If you click on the photo to the left, you can see the study full size. Unlike last week's sidebar art, this art nude is a much more typical of the genre. The model's face is not shown at all (while last week it was), the focus is on the model's body (while last week it was on the model's eyes), and the pose -- rather than the model's expression -- is what holds our interest.

It seems to me that what makes this work interesting is without doubt the pose. The lighting, the slight soft focus, the use of light and shadow to define the model, and the positive and negative spaces are all secondary at best to the drama of the pose. But what do you think?

I was cruising the internet the other evening, recklessly swerving my way from one blog to another, happily dashing down the electron road, when I crashed into a notion. The notion I crashed into -- on blog after blog that evening -- was that unless God exists, life is meaningless. Several people were saying they had lost their faith in God and now felt "empty", "hollow", "full of angst", or "devoid of meaning". I checked, and none of them were teenagers. Teenagers typically mistake horniness for existential despair. But these folks were adults and it can be presumed they were not simply mistaking the emotional effects of testosterone for a crisis of meaning.

What all the bloggers shared was having been raised as Christians in churches where it is common to teach people the meaning of their life comes from God.

That is, the idea seems to be that without God, our lives are meaningless because after a few decades at most they end in oblivion, rather than continuing on in some fashion. Thus, it is argued the meaning of life depends on whether we -- that is, our soul, metaphysical spirit, or true self -- endures for all of eternity.

Yet, is it actually true that life has no meaning unless we continue on in some fashion after death?

I sometimes feel fortunate that I mostly escaped ever harboring the notion my life was meaningless without eternity. As a child, I attended church because my then agnostic mother believed it was important to expose me to the dominant religion of my culture -- Christianity (She also believed it was vitally important to get me out of the house Sunday mornings so she could stay home and indulge herself in the wonder of a few hours without having me under her feet). My exposure to Christianity led me to think quite a bit about it, but my exposure failed to make me a Christian -- except for a single month while I was in middle school. Other than that one month, I grew up agnostic like my mother. So, it was quite some long time ago that I examined the question of whether eternal life made temporal life meaningful and somehow I never bought into the notion that it did. Thus, I did not feel "empty", "hollow", and so forth upon leaving Christianity after my one month gig with it. But the bloggers I swerved into the other evening at one time certainly bought into that notion because giving up God and eternity for them has resulted in their feeling life is meaningless.

Our assumptions and expectations have much more to do with whether we feel life is meaningless than we might at first suppose. If we are successfully taught at a young enough age that life is meaningful if and only if we last forever, then we will feel life is meaningless as soon as we give up our belief we last forever. Yet, if we do not assume the meaning of life depends on how long we endure it in some form or another, then we look elsewhere for the meaning of our lives -- and many of us will succeed in finding a meaning (or meanings) for our lives that satisfy us.

Being true to oneself is a skill. It might even be the single most important skill we can acquire. A Zen poem beautifully expresses the emotional import of being true to oneself while expressing the art of it in the simplest terms possible:

I eat when I'm hungry.
I drink when I'm thirsty.
I sleep when I'm tired.
How wonderful!

For many people, the very closest they will come to being true to themselves happens during the earliest days of their lives when they cried when they felt like crying, puked when they had to puke, slept when they were tired. Yet, those days soon ended. As they grew, they were increasingly taught to ignore themselves and their own wants and needs. To sit still when they wanted to move about. To be quiet when they wanted to yell. To learn subjects they did not want to study. To pass exams they did not want to take. To hold jobs they did not want to hold. Much of what they learned about denying themselves was necessary, of course, for them to live and function in this strange world.

Yet, it's surprising at times to reflect on how much we unnecessarily deny ourselves. And if that is surprising, then it is absolutely astonishing to ponder all the ways we unnecessarily deny ourselves.

Sometimes those ways are obvious. I'm reminded of a friend whose father was a senior executive of an auto company. Early on, the father decided his son would become the Chief Executive Officer of a large corporation -- hopefully, General Motors. From that moment forward he pressured his son to conform to the ways of an executive in training. Nothing his son wanted or did was innocent: Everything must have a purpose and that purpose must be to produce an executive. Consequently, my friend grew up deeply confused about who he was and what he wanted for himself. How could he not have grown up confused? He was never taught how to find out who he was.

Yet, many times the ways in which we learn to deny ourselves are not quite as obvious. Today, consumerism is the prime example of that. Corporations, their advertising agencies and public relations firms are constantly teaching people in consumer societies that being true to yourself means little more than buying a brand. While that is a shallow, artificial and ultimately misleading way of expressing yourself, it is the primary way in which millions -- and soon billions -- of humans will simultaneously "express themselves" and deny their true selves. Consumerism merely promotes narcissism, and substitutes it for self-realization and accomplishment. In that respect, it is just another way of denying your true self. And how can you be true to yourself if you deny your true self?

So, broadly speaking, we have so far discussed only one way in which being true to yourself is skillful. That is, there is skill involved in avoiding the many and various ways of unnecessarily denying ourselves.

Besides the many and various ways in which we deny ourselves, there are other challenges to being true to oneself. For instance: To be true to yourself, you must, of course, know yourself. That is an ongoing process without end. We never complete the task of knowing ourselves: We merely get better at it. Because we never complete the task, there is always some uncertainty about who we are.

Yet, many of us avoid knowing ourselves precisely because knowing ourselves involves uncertainty, and uncertainty is uncomfortable. Instead of maintaining the open mindedness to genuinely learn about ourselves as we go along in life, many of us try to fashion personal myths about ourselves that we can cling to in order to avoid the discomfort of uncertainty. "I am such and such a person", we tell ourselves -- even though we do not act that way, or at least haven't acted that way in years. Paradoxically, to know yourself, you must be willing to live with the uncertainty of not knowing yourself.

There are many ways to learn about oneself, but perhaps the best way is to watch what one does as dispassionately as one would watch someone else's child at play, or a stranger on the street. That requires considerable skill because it is not at all easy to dispassionately watch ourselves. Yet, that might well be the best way to learn about oneself.

Being true to oneself is not effortless. It is instead a skill that requires development. To be skillful at it, one must combine the insight to give up the many and various ways of unnecessarily denying ourselves with the will to learn about ourselves. I believe, however, that it is impossible to be genuinely happy in this life without being true to oneself. Thus, being true to oneself might indeed be the most personally valuable skill we can acquire, for it leads to genuine happiness.

“The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place.”

- George Bernard Shaw

I think if there is one book in the world which has been overestimated as wisdom literature, that's the bible.

If you have been paying attention to the attack on the theory of evolution, the debate over abstinence only sex education, the attempt to characterize America as a Christian Nation, or any of several other topics, then you have almost certainly seen willful ignorance in action. Willful ignorance, of course, is not actually limited to the people on any one side of a debate, but in the case of those particular debates you could be forgiven for forgetting that.

Nearly everyone who opposes the theory of evolution, it seems, exercises some degree of willful ignorance. So too, nearly everyone who supports abstinence only sex education, or asserts America was founded as a Christian nation, or denies global warming, or believes gay marriage will undermine the sanctity of heterosexual marriage, or -- or ... on and on and on! -- nearly everyone who takes any of those positions exercises more than a little willful ignorance. So, it's pretty fair to ask, "Why are so many people so stubbornly opposed to learning about those things?'

To put that question in a context: How is it possible that an animal whose survival presumably has always depended on its ability to think clearly about the world evolve such a huge capacity for self-deceit? For willful ignorance is nothing if not self-deceit.

You would think, wouldn't you, that people prone to ignore rock solid evidence for something would have been weeded out of our gene pool sometime during the paleolithic era. Obviously, that is not the case. In fact, given how prevalent willful ignorance is -- not just in American culture, but around the world -- it could even be true to speculate that humans evolved a capacity for willful ignorance. That willful ignorance is not merely a flaw of some sort, but actually something that nature selected for. But why? Why would a lack of realism be of any benefit at all to an animal that in very large part survived the challenges of nature by its wits?

I am frankly stumped to explain how our species could so often be willfully ignorant. Do you have any ideas about it? I'd like to hear them.

"The aim of Zen is to focus attention on reality itself, instead of our intellectual and emotional reactions to reality...."

- Alan Watts


Source

Call me cynical if you must, but the thing that most amazes me about the 123 Agreement between India and the US is the normally incompetent Bush administration helped arrange something that will benefit both the US economy and the Indian economy -- and very possibly the environment of both nations, too. It's almost as if they had a moment of lucid good sense. Whoever dropped Prozac into the Administration's water supply is to be applauded. But what do you think of the deal?

Have you ever asked yourself, if this or that god were my neighbor, what kind of person would he be? Would you want someone with his personality living next to you? Or, if having called the police on him numerous times to no avail, would you contact your real estate agent, sell your home, and move to a better neighborhood?

It should be no news to us that gods have personalities. Gods, after all, are created by people, and in the image of those who created them. Since people have personalities, so do their gods.

Now, you just know that whoever created Kuan Yin, the Chinese Goddess of Compassion, was a good neighbor. And Kuan Yin herself would make a good neighbor. But that's certainly not true of all gods. The Greek god, Dionysus, would make a good neighbor only if you were young enough that you didn't need much sleep and you liked to party on the wild side.

I confess I do not think the Judeo-Christian god of the Bible's Old Testament, YHWH, would make a very good neighbor. I think YHWH is created in the image of an abusive, woman hating man. That thought has led me on numerous occasions to speculate to myself that the reason he claims to be the only god is because he wishes to hide from us, and all the other gods, the fact his mother, the Goddess, abandoned him in the desert because he was such a brat to her. Ever since he was abandoned by his own mother, he has hated women and desired to oppress them. Thus, there is no mention in the Old Testament of who he married. She's been kept out of sight and possibly barefoot. What kind of neighbor won't even allow his wife outside to hang the laundry up to dry?

Whether I am right or wrong about YHWH, it is indeed true that some gods would not make good neighbors. You have to wonder what kind of personalities their creators had? As Krishnamurti said, "A petty mind cannot conceive of anything other than a petty god."

I took most of the day off from blogging to go see the new Denver Art Museum extension, which you see in the above photo. The Rockie Mountains are said to have inspired the design. In person, it's a gorgeous titanium-sheathed building. Both the exterior shapes and the interior spaces are fascinating. And of course, someone stuck a bunch of great art inside of it.

Can a building inspire you so much you feel smarter? Sometime ago, I read of a study that somehow found a correlation between children's IQ's and the architecture of their school. According to the study, the more stimulating the architecture, the higher the IQ's of the kids. In a way, that makes sense to me, despite that I have some very serious doubts the authors of that study were able to control for all zillion variables that were surely involved in studying any link between school architecture and student IQ. Still, the Denver Art Museum extension is so stimulating both inside and out that you perk up and at least feel smarter and more alive when you visit it.

Takhdeer (n.) - Fate, Destiny ( in Hindi, Urdu, and Persian)

Do fate and destiny operate under the same definitions? Spare me the definitions in the comments section:

Fate
something that unavoidably befalls a person; fortune; lot: It is always his fate to be left behind.

2.	the universal principle or ultimate agency by which the order of things is presumably prescribed; the decreed cause of events; time: Fate decreed that they would never meet again.

3.	that which is inevitably predetermined; destiny: Death is our ineluctable fate.

4.	a prophetic declaration of what must be: The oracle pronounced their fate.

5.	death, destruction, or ruin.

6.	the Fates, Classical Mythology. the three goddesses of destiny, known to the Greeks as the Moerae and to the Romans as the Parcae.

Destiny

1.	something that is to happen or has happened to a particular person or thing; lot or fortune.

2.	the predetermined, usually inevitable or irresistible, course of events.

3.	the power or agency that determines the course of events.

4.	(initial capital letter) this power personified or represented as a goddess.

5.	the Destinies, the Fates.

Was it fate that brought your significant other to you? or was it your destiny that, in lieu of your father's trade (as a doctor) you too would join the same profession, but changed your destiny and became a lawyer?

From a metaphysical standpoint, our essence could represent our destiny - our purpose, but perhaps not our calling. If there should exist such a thing, is completion, or perhaps acceptance, and then the possible denial of it, relevant?

Is it simply a poetic metaphor?

Is destiny simply the end we place before ourselves?

I don't see it as any of my business whether God exists or not. Why would it be?

"Beware of computer programmers that carry screwdrivers. "

- Anonymous

A recent Federal survey reported that men had a median seven sex partners while women had a median four sex partners. Mathematicians quickly responded to the survey, pointing out the gap between men and women was too great for the survey results to be creditable. If there's that much of a gap between men's and women's median partners, then someone is lying. But who? And why?

The Federal survey is by no means alone in reporting an implausible gap between men and women: "In study after study and in country after country, men report more, often many more, sexual partners than women." So it's pretty common worldwide for folks to lie on sex surveys when asked how many partners they've had. But exactly who is lying and why are they lying? Are men doing most of the lying? Are women? Or, are both men and women lying about their number of sex partners?

Perhaps the answer to those questions was discovered four years ago. In 2003, Terri Fisher at Ohio State University and Michele Alexander at the University of Maine performed a perfectly ingenious experiment that found when men and women are told they have been hooked up to a lie detector, and are then asked how many sex partners they've had, the women report having had substantially more sex partners than they would otherwise report. On the other hand, the men who have been told they are hooked up to a lie detector pretty much report the same number of sex partners as they reported before. In other words, the women are the ones who are lying on these sex surveys, and they are lying by under-reporting how many sex partners they've had.

But why are the women lying? Well, Fisher and Alexander speculate that women under-report the actual number of sex partners they've had because they do not want to appear to be sexually promiscuous.

"The glass is neither half-full nor half-empty: it's twice as big as it needs to be. "

- Anonymous

Here are some results from a recent poll of New Hampshire voters:

Nearly all Democrats (97%) and 70% of Republicans agree that America’s standing has suffered in recent years. In addition to a strong military, Democrats (91%) and Republicans (78%) agree that the United States also needs to improve diplomatic relations by doing more to help improve health, education and opportunities in the poorest countries around the world. Both Democrats (81%) and Republicans alike (70%) agree that reducing poverty, treating preventable diseases and improving education in poor countries around the world will help make the world safer and the United States more secure.

Democrats and Republicans agree that America has a moral obligation as a compassionate nation to help the world’s poorest people through foreign assistance. More than nine in ten Democrats (93%) and 84% of Republicans agree that when millions of children around the world are dying from preventable diseases and hunger, we have a moral obligation to do what we can to help. Similarly, Democrats (90%) and Republicans (85%) agree that it is in keeping with the country’s values and our history of compassion to lead an effort to solve some of the most serious problems facing the world’s poorest people.

When it comes to addressing these issues, Democrats (86%) and Republicans (67%) agree that it is important for Presidential candidates to discuss their plans for addressing global hunger and poverty issues in this campaign. Additionally, eight in ten Democrats (81%) and Republicans (80%) agree that the next President should keep the commitments made by President Bush to prevent and fight the spread of AIDS in Africa.

Source: Daily KOS

Of course, who cares what the average American wants. Our sacred Foreign Policy Community is not listening.

A very large number of Americans believe we should stop acting the role of world ruler. Those Americans represent the majority opinion of the American people: They believe we should have a major role to play in the world's affairs, but not a predominant role.

Yet, the will of the majority of Americans is simply not represented by anyone in the American Foreign Policy Community. Neither the Liberals, nor the Conservatives, nor the Neocons of the Foreign Policy Establishment give a damn about what the majority of Americans want. Instead, there is an entrenched and dangerous consensus in the Foreign Policy Community that America should be the predominant power in the world. As Glenn Greenwald writes:

The Number One Rule of the bi-partisan Foreign Policy Community is that America has the right to invade and attack other countries at will because American power is inherently good and our role in the world is to rule it though the use of superior military force. Paying homage to that imperialistic orthodoxy is a non-negotiable pre-requisite to maintaining Good Standing and Seriousness Credentials within the Foreign Policy Community.

Conversely, one who denies that premise reveals oneself to be deeply unserious and unworthy of meaningful discourse. While differences on the "when" and "how" are permitted, there is virtually no debate within the foreign policy establishment about whether the U.S. has the right to continue to intervene and attack and invade and occupy other countries in the absence of those countries attacking us.

What the hell? Just how many Americans do you suppose would support the Foreign Policy Community if they knew how it thinks?

Make no mistake: This is the very same Foreign Policy Community that supported -- and still supports -- Bush and Cheney's tragic invasion of Iraq. It's the same Foreign Policy Community that even today calls for invading Iran while our forces are tied up in Iraq. And it's the same Foreign Policy Community that dropped the ball on North Korea, allowing them to develop nuclear weapons.

Those are our elite foreign policy scholars, folks -- and they bear an uncanny resemblance to our village idiots.

I read an extremely disturbing story earlier tonight of a young woman who was raped a few months before her planned wedding. Not only was she sexually violated, but afterwards, most of her community -- rather than rush to her support -- betrayed her. They turned against her as if she were the criminal. And they succeeded in destroying any chance she had of marrying the man she loved and who loved her.

We are the most insane of all the great apes.

As most of us know, rape is an atrocity. It ranks with murder and manslaughter as among he most heinous of crimes. It very often leaves its victims emotionally and mentally scarred for years. And the threat of rape alone is a curse against freedom. It is bad enough in itself, but it is even worse when the victim's community abuses the victim for having been raped. At that point, the community becomes despicable. It becomes immoral. And it becomes worse than the rapist himself.

Precisely the opposite should happen. The community should rally to the support of the rape victim. It should do everything within its power to reassure her that she is loved, valued, and held in esteem. It should make it its mission to help her heal from the trauma of rape, to recover her life, and to move on as best she can. A community that will not or cannot do at least that much for a victim of rape is treacherous. What possible allegiance could anyone owe such a community?

People's attitudes towards the victims of rape can and must change.

I can't recall if I've mentioned this before, but I prefer to think of humans as like snowflakes. All snowflakes are made of the same thing -- water. But each snowflake is shaped differently, so that no two flakes are precisely alike. In the same way, isn't it true enough that all humans share in a common human nature, but that no two of us manifest that nature in exactly the same way?

We all share something in common, and yet we are all unique. And therefore, I have often thought that many political ideologies misrepresent us, because they either over-emphasize our commonality, or they over-emphasize our individuality. They either pretend there are no significant differences between people -- and we can all be treated as interchangeable cogs in a social machine -- or they pretend there are no significant commonalities between people -- and we must be treated as rugged individualists who can at best barely tolerate living in a community. Where in either extreme is there realism?

That humans are unique individuals sharing in a common nature is not a paradox to me but merely a summary description of what seems most obvious about us.

The only things that seem to progress are science, technology, and wealth. On the whole, humans don't get smarter, they don't get wiser, they don't get kinder, and they don't get more compassionate than they've ever been. But neither do they get worse than they've ever been. So, while science, technology, and wealth progress, human nature remains the same from one generation to the next.

Among other things, the apparent fact human nature remains more or less constant seems to argue for the notion that something -- most likely our genes -- limits and stabilizes our range of behaviors.

In my neck of the woods, there lives and breathes a hate jock.

For those of you who have not had the pleasure, a "hate jock" is a radio program host who says hateful things on the air in the hope that by doing so he will draw a large audience of listeners. The bimbo hate jock who lives much too close to me works for a major radio station that broadcasts to 38 states and three countries. He is a very popular bimbo talk show host, and is on the air five times a week.

I very seldom listen to him. I simply do not want to be bombarded with his stupidity, to say nothing of his hatreds. I've seen too much of both stupidity and hatred in my life, and nowadays neither stupidity nor hatred is nearly as entertaining to me as intelligence and love. So, it's been about two months now since the last time I tuned in the bimbo.

Yet, I'm wondering this morning why so many people find the fool entertaining? I'm wondering why so many of his callers agree with him? I'm wondering why the company that employs him allows so much stupidity and filthy hatred on the air? But most of all, I'm wondering what it says about us as a society and a culture that we condone bigots like him to broadcast to 38 states and three countries, but won't give decent people the same chance?

Yup! It's Monday -- and that means the weekly International Nude Blogging Day has arrived! Time to get naked!

"It's important to remember that feminism is no longer a group of organizations or leaders. It's the expectations that parents have for their daughters, and their sons, too. It's the way we talk about and treat one another. It's who makes the money and who makes the compromises and who makes the dinner. It's a state of mind. It's the way we live now."

- Anna Quindlen

Source

As you might know, Karl Rove has resigned, effective the end of August. He publically stated the reason for his resignation is family. But do you buy that? If not, what do you think are the real reason(s) for Rove's resignation?

My own hunch is he's realized the Bush Administration has nowhere to go but down and that even he cannot prevent them from sinking.

BBC story here.