I've missed a couple of days of blogging because my brother, his wife, and my new nephew have come to visit. Also, a Forum I help administer has required more attention than usual. But I'll be back to excessively prolific blogging very soon!
Here are the "issues" I've been hearing the Right Wing froth about on blogs and radio this past ten days or so:
1) The MoveOn ad that called General Petraeus, "General Betray Us".
2) Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's desire to visit Ground Zero.
3) Hillary's sweep of the Sunday talk shows.
4) Dan Rather's law suit against CBS.
Yup. That's what the Right has most focused on, near as I can see. Which seems to raise the question: Has the Right gone bonkers? What kind of issues are those?
Does anyone know why the Right considers those issues so important?
"A political ideology is a very handy thing to have. It's a real time-saver, because it tells you what you think about things you know nothing about."
- Hendrik Hertzberg
Until last Thursday, Steve Bitterman was an instructor in Western Civilization at the Red Oak campus of Southwestern Community College in Iowa. It was on Thursday, according to Bitterman, that Linda Wild, the College's vice president of instruction, called him on the phone to fire him.
His offense?
He told his students the story of Adam and Eve was not to be taken literally.
From Inside Higher Education:
This fall, [Bitterman was] teaching Western civilization at Southwestern’s Red Oak campus, and his lectures [were] broadcast to students at the Osceola campus, with a live hook-up so he [could] see students. Much of early Western civilization focuses on the myths and beliefs of ancient peoples. Gilgamesh was no problem for students, Bitterman said. But when he got to the Bible on Tuesday, a student walked out of the Osceola section when, Bitterman said, when he wouldn’t agree with her that the story of the Garden of Eden was historically true. Several other students appeared disturbed by the incident, he said. From their questions and statements, he believes that they are evangelical Christians.Furthermore, according to the DesMoines Register, in a conversation with a student after Tuesday's class, Bitterman called the myth of Adam and Eve a "fairy tale". He was then told some of "the students had threatened to see an attorney."
Sarah Smith, director of the school’s Red Oak campus, declined to comment Friday on Bitterman’s employment status. The school’s president, Barbara Crittenden, said Bitterman taught one course at Southwest. She would not comment, however, on his claim that he was fired over the Bible reference, saying it was a personnel issue.And Linda Wild is responding neither to emails nor phone calls.
“I can assure you that college understands our employees’ free speech rights,” she said. “There was no action taken that violated the First Amendment.”
“A few of the students thought I was knocking their religion by not promoting it,” he said. “They were upset that I didn’t say that the Bible was literally true.” Bitterman said that he treats the Bible as a historically significant, important work, but that he does not accord it status beyond that. “That really seemed to come as a shock to some of them,” he said.And:
“I’m just a little bit shocked myself that a college in good standing would back up students who insist that people who have been through college and have a master’s degree, a couple actually, have to teach that there were such things as talking snakes or lose their job,” Bitterman said.So who to believe? At this point, it's just a "he said, she said" situation, but the College seems somewhat cagey in how it's responding, which gives a bit more creditability to Bitterman's side of the story.
The commander of U.S. military forces in the Middle East, Admiral William Fallon, was recently interviewed by Al-Jazeera television, which released a partial transcript of the interview Sunday.
According to Al-Jazeera's transcript, the Admiral made several statements about Iran, including the following:
This constant drum beat of conflict is what strikes me, which is not helpful and not useful.His remarks put him at odds with Vice President Cheney's camp, which is reportedly pushing hard for bombing Iran.
I expect that there will be no war and that is what we ought to be working for.
We should find ways through which we can bring countries to work together for the benefit of all.
It is not a good idea to be in a state of war. We ought to try and to do our utmost to create different conditions.
Newsweek Magazine reported Sunday that Vice President Richard Cheney may have considered a plan for Israeli missile strikes against an Iranian nuclear site in an effort to draw a military response from Iran, which could in turn spark a U.S. offensive against targets in the Islamic Republic.Steve Clemons, the Washington blogger who first broke the story of Cheney's deviousness, has argued for some time that, "[A war with Iran] would most likely be triggered by one or both of the two people who would see their political fortunes rise through a new conflict -- Cheney and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad."
Citing two unnamed sources the magazine called knowledgeable, the magazine quoted David Wurmser, until last month Cheney's Middle East advisor, as having told a small group of people that "Cheney had been mulling the idea of pushing for limited Israeli missile strikes against the Iranian nuclear site at Natanz - and perhaps other sites - in order to provoke Tehran into lashing out."
According to the report, "The Iranian reaction would then give Washington a pretext to launch strikes against military and nuclear targets in Iran."
The United States Air Force has set up a highly confidential strategic planning group tasked with “fighting the next war” as tensions rise with Iran.What makes Project Checkmate especially interesting is that it bypasses Admiral Fallon's command:
Project Checkmate, a successor to the group that planned the 1991 Gulf War’s air campaign, was quietly reestablished at the Pentagon in June.
It reports directly to General Michael Moseley, the US Air Force chief, and consists of 20-30 top air force officers and defence and cyberspace experts with ready access to the White House, the CIA and other intelligence agencies.
Detailed contingency planning for a possible attack on Iran has been carried out for more than two years by Centcom (US central command), according to defence sources.Yet, by by-passing his command (which is Centcom), Project Checkmate can hope to do an end run around the military opposition to war with Iran. Not surprisingly, according to some sources, Dick Cheney is the man in the Administration most responsible for setting up Project Checkmate.
A source who met privately with Fallon around the time of his confirmation hearing and who insists on anonymity quoted Fallon as saying that an attack on Iran "will not happen on my watch".I don't know how likely the story is to be true, but it is at least consistent with Admiral Fallon's recent remarks on Al-Jazeera television.
Asked how he could be sure, the source says, Fallon replied, "You know what choices I have. I'm a professional." Fallon said that he was not alone, according to the source, adding, "There are several of us trying to put the crazies back in the box."
Since 1992, 636 journalists have been killed worldwide.
73% (or 462) were murdered.
Reference:
Committee to Protect Journalists
In a time of war, the very last thing you want young soldiers doing is looking at photos of naked women in the pages of Playboy and Penthouse. That, at least, seems to be the trenchant conclusion of the moral experts at the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF).
The upright band of bimbos at the ADF recently began lobbying the Department of Defense to ban Playboy and Penthouse from being sold on military bases.
According to Wikipedia, the ADF,
is a conservative Christian non-profit organization with the stated goal of "defending the right to hear and speak the Truth through strategy, training, funding, and litigation." ADF defines "Truth" according to a socially conservative Christian perspective. In practice ADF is opposed to all forms of abortion, same-sex marriage, adoption by same-sex couples, allowing LGBT persons to serve in the military, and sex education in schools that includes comprehensive education on contraception. ADF also works to establish public prayer in schools and government events, and to protect religious displays in government settings, like crosses and other religious monuments built on public lands.In short, the ADF thinks Jesus Christ arrived on the scene 2000 years ago in order to limit human freedom -- except the freedom to be a socially conservative Christian. So, it is little wonder the moral experts at the ADF are passionately demanding that soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines give up their right to buy magazines containing photos of naked women.
So, the ADF is all in favor of further limiting the First Amendment rights of military people, even to the point of banning the mild nudity found in the pages of Playboy and Penthouse.Patrick A. Trueman, attorney for the Alliance Defense Fund, said the members of the review board need to use “a little common sense” in determining which materials cannot be sold on Defense Department property.
“The law is not complicated in its definition of ‘sexually explicit,’ ” Trueman said. “The porn magazines that are allowed such as ‘Nude Playmates,’ ‘Playboy,’ ‘Penthouse,’ etc. are sexually explicit.”
Trueman also noted that Congress has the ability to limit troops’ First Amendment rights: “Military men and woman are not permitted to wear anti-war symbols and may be required to shave and wear their hair at a certain length, for example.” He said the intent of the Military Honor and Decency Act is clear.
“Congress was concerned about sexual harassment in the military and making military duty more accommodating to servicewomen,” he said. “It was also attempting to protect military families, particularly children, who frequent the exchanges and should not be exposed to porn.”
Over on Religious Forums yesterday, I stated, "Anthropologists have identified rituals in every religion they've studied", and then asked, "Why are rituals so wide-spread in religions? What function(s) do they serve?"
Laurie, who blogs at "Just Another Day", answered:
Rituals raise the ordinary to the extraordinary by imbuing them with greater significance. Repetition of actions and words fix the rituals deeply into our brains so we access the meaning of the ritual without really even thinking about it. It also creates a shared experience which bonds a community together and taps into the history of the people and gives them a unified context from which to talk about their religious experience.It occurs to me that's the best explanation of how rituals function in religion that I've yet to hear.
Two years ago, the Republican mayor of San Diego, Jerry Sanders, was elected on a platform that included opposition to gay marriage. Yet, on Wednesday, he suddenly dropped his opposition and signed a City Council resolution supporting a challenge to California's gay marriage ban. He had previously promised to veto it.
Why the change of heart? It seems the most important reason is Lisa Sanders, the mayor's daughter, who it turns out is a lesbian:
The move most likely carries some political risk for Mayor Sanders since, "in 2000, 62% of San Diego voters endorsed a statewide measure to restrict marriage to a union between a man and woman."The Republican mayor said he could no longer back the position he took during his election campaign two years ago, when he said he favored civil unions but not full marriage rights for homosexual couples.
He fought back tears as he said he wanted his adult daughter, Lisa, and other gay people he knows to have their relationships protected equally under state laws.
"In the end, I could not look any of them in the face and tell them that their relationships — their very lives — were any less meaningful than the marriage that I share with my wife Rana," Sanders said.
Mystic Eye has included a post from Cafe Philos in their carnival this week. Thank you, Mystic Eye! The post was "How the Existence of God is No Match for the Experience of God".
What's been going on around the net this past week? Here are my picks for some interesting posts:
Farideh at "Informed Comment" has a post up on the Iranian reaction to Washington's recent threats. His post is more comprehensive and detailed than anything I've seen in the mega-media.
Time and again, Glenn Greenwald has written knowledgeably about how out of touch the mega-media and the right wing noise machine are with the American people these days. Here, he posts a scathing article on the clear divide between what the buffoons and the people are thinking about the recent testimony of General Petraeus.
Mahendra argues "Poverty is not the root cause of terrorism" here. The commentary on his post is hugely insightful and informed -- not to mention lively.
Bora briefly reports some recent news on the FOXP2 gene here. The FOXP2 gene is sometimes called the "language gene" for the role it plays in human speech. For instance, a mutation to the gene prevents people from forming grammatically correct sentences.
Popular Mechanics recently published an article, "25 Things Every Man Should Know". Decrepit Old Fool insightfully critiques their list here and offers some wise suggestions of his own.
Susan at "Hug the Monkey" discusses a recent study that found breaking up is not as hard as one might expect. She points out some glaring weaknesses in the study here. Susan, by the way, has written a book to be published next Spring on the neurochemistry of oxytocin and it's role in relationships, trust and love. I'm looking forward to it.
Ordinary Girl thoughtfully reviews Gore Vidal's Julian here, a novel about the last Pagan emperor of the Byzantine Empire. Her review focuses on the religious issues raised in the novel, which are perennial.
Anyone interested in a good laugh at the expense of the lunatic Religious Right should read Ed's post here. The subject is the separation of church and state.
Chanson discusses the new atheist movement here. Her discussion raises the issue of the best way for today's atheists to make themselves known and respected. Should they adopt the allegedly aggressive tactics of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and others -- or should they take a more conciliatory approach?
Webs points out that "war has always been a part of our culture" and calls for a Department of Peace to balance the Department of Defense here. Whether such a department is feasible or not, his point is well made that more must be done to avoid wars.
Trinifar looks at the sources of US population growth here, and calls for publicly discussing the impact of immigration on a sustainable future.
Amuirin writes in three parts about her relationship with the extremely abusive father of her daughter beginning here. In trying to come to grips with the abuse, she combines excellent, often poetic, prose with extraordinary self-insight.
Eric discusses the evolution of menopause here, and provides compelling evidence that grandmothers, in traditional societies, have a decisive effect on the chances their grandchildren will survive to adulthood.
I am often amazed at how many people on the net possess superior photography talents and skills. Robin is one such person. On her blog she often combines an excellent photograph with a thought-provoking quote, as she does here.
Oemar has put up a very good selection of cartoons from Ajit Ninan here.
Enreal posts a very well crafted, thought-provoking and inspirational poem here.
Nita expertly analyzes the causes of malnutrition in India here.
Ass of Steel has put up a very thoughtful post on where morality comes from here.
"Judge me on the content of my character, not the underwear on my head."
- Bill in Portland, Maine.
"Every publicly-held company is dependent on the stock market for obtaining more capital. Its stock price reflects the present discounted value that investors place on its future profits and dividends. No matter how far-sighted a company claims it is being, it must watch its stock price; if that price falls too low, investors will either leave the company, causing the price to fall further, or some investors will take over the company. It's very important for progressives to understand that there is no moral company. Companies are not and cannot be socially responsible if that means sacrificing profits. To assume otherwise is to buy into corporate public relations, and to deflect attention away from the far more important job of pushing for new laws and regulations that force companies to act in the public interest and not solely in the interests of shareholders and consumers."
- Robert Reich
Steven Clemons at Salon does not believe President Bush will bomb Iran despite that Vice President Cheney is lobbying for war.
According to Clemons, Bush is siding with his military advisers, who oppose bombing Iran, and against the neocons led by Cheney, who are in favor of it. Clemons apparently has some impressive channels into the Administration, for he seems to know what's going on. The trouble is, he leaves me unconvinced the US will avoid war:
Despite holding out a military option, ratcheting up tensions with Iran about meddling in Iraq and Afghanistan, and deploying carrier strike-force groups in the Persian Gulf, the president is not planning to bomb Iran. But there are several not-unrelated scenarios under which it might happen, if the neocon wing of the party, led by Vice President Cheney, succeeds in reasserting itself, or if there is some kind of "accidental," perhaps contrived, confrontation.I'm inclined to believe one of those "several not-unrelated scenarios under which it might happen" is likely to happen. Among other scenarios, Clemons raises the possibility that Israel might strike Iran with cruise missiles, which he believes would lead to the US and Iran going to war. It's sad -- but realistic -- to think the actions of Israel could control whether the US bombs Iran. But in a way that's no worse than if Cheney and the neocons "reassert themselves", for neither Israel nor the neocons have the interests of the American people at heart.
During a recent high-powered Washington dinner party attended by 18 people, Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft squared off across the table over whether President Bush will bomb Iran.Folks inside the Beltway are notorious for their ignorance of American public opinion, but they are certainly tuned into what each other thinks. And it seems that most people inside the Beltway think war is coming.
Brzezinski, former national security advisor to President Carter, said he believed Bush's team had laid a track leading to a single course of action: a military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities. Scowcroft, who was NSA to Presidents Ford and the first Bush, held out hope that the current President Bush would hold fire and not make an already disastrous situation for the U.S. in the Middle East even worse.
The 18 people at the party, including former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, then voted with a show of hands for either Brzezinski's or Scowcroft's position. Scowcroft got only two votes, including his own. Everyone else at the table shared Brzezinski's fear that a U.S. strike against Iran is around the corner.
"In a certain sense, Zen is feeling life instead of feeling something about life."
- Alan Watts
When you put two arches side by side each other, you create a triangular space between them called a "spandrel" (see photo).
Now, a spandrel is not something intended, but is rather the side-effect of placing arches adjacent to each other. Whenever you place arches side by side each other, you get a spandrel -- whether you want one or not. That fact inspired the biologist Stephen J. Gould to borrow the term from architecture in order to describe any feature of an organism that did not itself evolve for an evolutionary reason, but was instead a side-effect of some other feature's evolution.
Suppose, for instance, that natural selection results in a wolf's snout getting longer and longer. Further suppose that, as a side-effect of the snout getting longer, the wolf's face just happens to get narrower (Maybe by accident the wolves with genes for long snouts also had genes for narrow faces). So, unlike the snout, the narrow face is not caused by natural selection. If that were to happen, the narrow face would be a spandrel.
Recently, Scott Atran and others have been arguing that human religiosity is at least to some extent a spandrel. Specifically, Atran has argued that belief in supernatural agents -- gods, demons, spirits, and so forth -- is a spandrel. (Belief in supernatural agents is not the sum of human religiosity, but it's a very large chunk of the sum.) So, if Atran is right, the fact every known culture and society has contained one belief or another in supernatural agents is merely an accident of human evolution. There was no natural selection for such beliefs. It merely happened as the by-product of selection for other things.
By product of natural selection or not, the belief in supernatural agents is now part of our genetic make-up. Thus, it is very unlikely we will eliminate religion so long as humans are human. And that is a radically different view than the notion religion will die out as science progresses. If anything, only the forms are likely to change. People might give up their belief in the Christian God, for instance, only to adopt a belief in other supernatural agents, such as seems to be happening in parts of Europe.
Yet, how does Atran explain the various expressions of religiosity that do not seem to involve any belief in supernatural agency? Atheistic Buddhism, for instance. From what I can gather, he doesn't have an explanation for those forms of human religiosity. That is, Atran does not argue that such things as the notion of enlightenment are spandrels in the way that such things as the notion of gods are spandrels.
I tend to think Atran is largely correct in saying the human tendency to ascribe supernatural agency to things is a by-product of the evolution of other human traits. On the other hand, I think some religious notions, such as the notion of enlightenment, have come about, not because we are genetically predisposed to create them, but as a result of experience. So, while I accept that Atran has gone far to explain the origins of some aspects of human religiosity, I don't think he has explained the origins of all aspects of human religiosity.
Reference:
Darwin's God
At the Emmy's last night, Sally Field won best actress in a drama series for her work as matriarch Nora Walker on "Brothers & Sisters." She remarked in her acceptance speech:
Surely this [award] belongs to all the mothers of the world. May they be seen, may their work be valued and raised. Especially to the mothers who stand with an open heart and wait. Wait for their children to come home from danger, from harm’s way, and from war. I am proud to be one of those women.At that point, she began her next sentence, "If mothers ruled the world, there would be no...”. But Fox cut off her sound and pointed the camera away from her, censoring the rest of her sentence, which ended, "...god-damned wars in the first place."
"Like everybody who is not in love, he thought one chose the person to be loved after endless deliberations and on the basis of particular qualities or advantages."
- Marcel Proust
A poll released today by O.R.B. -- a British polling company that has tracked Iraqi public opinion since 2005 -- places the number of Iraqis murdered since the 2003 invasion at over a million.
A representative sample of 1,461 adults, aged 18 years or older, answered the following question:
How many members of your household, if any, have died as a result of the conflict in Iraq since 2003 (i.e. as a result of violence rather than a natural death such as old age)? Please note that I mean those who were actually living under your roof.Seventy-eight percent of the respondents answered "none". Sixteen percent answered "one". Five percent answered "two". One percent answered "three". And a fraction of one percent answered more than three.
I read about 100 blogs a week nowadays. I don't expect everyone to share my passion for blogs, but I figure I'll point out some of the posts that impressed me within the last week or so, and then let you decide which to click on.
Amuirin has put up a moving, passionate piece of writing about a young woman deciding to keep her baby. You can read it here.
Mystic Wing wraps up an interesting discussion of the Four Noble Truths here, and invites anyone and everyone to debate his interpretation with him.
Last year on 9/11, Decrepit Old Fool offered some eminently level-headed advice here. Since nothing has really changed from last year to make his advice any less relevant or urgent, it's still worth careful consideration.
Nita has completely changed the look of her blog, and also put up a post on what Asians think of each other and America here. What they think of America, at least, is surprisingly favorable.
Mahendra has started a lively discussion of objectivity in journalism here. I think everyone should drop by his blog and claim with a straight face that the most objective source of news today is India's Communist Party.
Hume's Ghost writes on the Culture Wars here. His article is exceptionally long by blog standards but very much worth reading in whole or part.
A Whore in the Temple of Reason asks, "Will there be free will in Heaven?", and then shows how problematic that question can be. The article is very brief and to the point. Find it here.
Chanson writes about the psychology of oppressed peoples here, and includes some shrewd insights into human nature as it impacts on international conflict.
Jonathan writes passionately about the pernicious influence of some religious beliefs and doctrines on human sexuality here.
Daylight Atheism discusses the lack of consilience in Biblical stories here.
Ass of Steel has put up a funny FAQ and Surprise Announcement here.
Rambodoc has a witty and irreverent take on President Bush's recent speech here.
Loren, who I think has some of the best nature photography on the net, put up three magnificent photos from his trip to the Denver Zoo here.
If you are not reading Glenn Greenwald on a regular basis, you are missing out on some of the best, most honest, and hard hitting political commentary I've been able to find on the net. You can read his blog here.
Gary has put up a beautiful, almost haunting post on children's literature here.
Marxsny has a poignant post on the fortunes of life here.
Last, Zeno has a post about what has to be one of the most insufferable asses to ever hold a tenured position in academia. You can read it here.
That's about as much as I can remember at the moment. It occurs to me the blogosphere is a huge place and there's no way anyone can keep up with it, but I hope these brief blurbs about what's up on other blogs will help you find something you'll enjoy.
"In 31 states, it's still legal to fire someone because they're gay; in 39 states it is legal to fire someone for being transgender."
"Thousands of hardworking GLBT Americans have lost their livelihoods simply because of who they are."
"The Human Rights Campaign is leading the charge to end this bitter injustice by passing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), a federal bill that would make it illegal to fire, refuse to hire, or refuse to promote employees simply based on sexual orientation or gender identity."
"This historic legislation will be up for a vote in the U.S. House this month. But the radical right is flooding lawmakers with misinformation about ENDA."
If you wish to send your lawmaker a message, it's easy. Simply go here.
A tip 'o me hat to Jamie.
I have long regarded the death penalty as little more than state sponsored terrorism. It's purpose, at least in the United States, seems to be two-fold: To terrorize the American underclass, and to pander to people who want criminals punished as harshly as possible. If it actually serves any other purpose in America, I am unaware of it.
In absolute numbers, though, the capital of the death penalty is not the US, but China. As recently as 2006, the Chinese government conducted two thirds of the world's legal executions. In 2005, it executed an estimated 1,770 people, and sentenced 4,000 to death.
Yet, it has recently done two things to reduce the number of state sponsored murders: (1) In January it began requiring all death sentences to be approved by the Supreme People's Court; and (2), very recently the Supreme People's Court ordered all other courts to reserve the death penalty for "an extremely small number of serious offenders".
We'll have to see what those reforms mean in practical measures, but I think they are steps in the right direction. Governments are evil enough without giving them the right to take the lives of their people.
References:
China to Reduce Death Penalty Use
China Executions at "10 Year Low"
Facts and Statistics on the Death Penalty -- Amnesty International
I'm not a huge fan of tattoos, but the above photo is excellent. The tattoo actually works to set off the curves and grace of the model's pose, and the cropping and lighting are nearly perfect, so I just had to steal the photo for you.
Photo shamelessly stolen from A Whore in the Temple of Reason
Two thousand years ago, some folks told whoppers about Jesus being spotted after his death. Today, some folks tell whoppers about Elvis being spotted after his death.
I wonder what sort of people told those “Jesus sightings” stories 2,000 years ago? Were they the same sort of people as tell the “Elvis sightings” stories today?
I had a scoutmaster who liked to tell such stories. He told them back in the day when I was a gullible young kid. I can still remember how exciting it was to hear that the laws of nature had been suspended. To hear him tell his stories made life seem mysterious and intriguing; made anything seem possible.
There’s something all-too-human in the fact that the stories in a tabloid newspaper of today bear such striking resemblance to the miracle stories in the bible. I still recall the excitement I felt listening to my scoutmaster tell his urban legends. I could easily have become attached to that excitement, and if I had, I would today be a junkie for tabloids – perhaps even a junkie for the Gospel. There is something in human nature that wants the laws of nature suspended, wants anything to be possible, forever wants Elvis to come back from the dead.
Yeah, I bet the miracles of the bible began as stories like our urban legends.
I once read an estimate that there have been over 100,000 religions come and gone since the caves of France and Spain were painted during the Upper Paleolithic. The religious impulse seems to be a constant of human nature, albeit it has taken many forms over the ages. I do not expect religion itself to die out – ever. But new religions will replace old ones.
Thirty years ago, I took a course called "Images of Man" in which we studied and discussed some seven different models of human nature. That was a very exciting time of life when I was discovering all sorts of grand ideas.
I was discovering ideas that I had until then only heard rumors about -- such as what time was to a physicist, what the subconscious was to a psychologist, or what culture was to an anthropologist. It had not occurred to me before taking the "Images of Man" course that our notions of human nature were human inventions. Indeed, when I look back on my growing up, I am astounded at how many very obvious things I had to learn.
Naturally, there was a woman involved.
No one at 19 should be forced to learn about time, the subconscious, culture, or any of a hundred other grand ideas without being in love. That would just be cruel. Worse, it could lead one to become a neoconservative.
Until I fell in love with a woman in my "Images of Man" class, I was very confused about love -- I really didn't know the difference between simply loving and possessively yearning. So, to me, love was heartbreak, a miserable state, something to be avoided, and when impossible to avoid, to be cursed. Then, of course, I met Alison and discovered the extraordinary affirmation of life that naturally comes from loving without expectation of any reward.
One of the models of human nature we studied that term introduced me to the concept of enlightenment. Have you ever considered how close enlightenment is to love? I don't think I really grasped much of the concept of enlightenment from that one class, but I would have grasped far less of it had I not been in love.
When compared to the torturous confusion of mere yearning, love is simple, clear, non-possessive, and straight-forward. When compared to the torturous confusion of non-enlightenment, enlightenment is simple, clear, non-possessive, and straight-forward. Perhaps the two are even inextricably entwined.
It even seems to me now, thirty years later, that I learned more about certain aspects of human nature from loving Alison than I did from studying the various models of human nature presented in the class.
"Humor is not a mood but a way of looking at the world. So if it is correct to say that humor was stamped out in Nazi Germany, that does not mean that people were not in good spirits, or anything of that sort, but something much deeper and more important."
- Ludwig Wittgenstein
"The wit makes fun of other persons; the satirist makes fun of the world; the humorist makes fun of himself, but in so doing, he identifies himself with people—that is, people everywhere, not for the purpose of taking them apart, but simply revealing their true nature."
- James Thurber
The Administration today revealed to Fox News how it wishes to frame the debate over going to war with Iran. Instead of debating whether to go to war or not, the Administration wants to frame the debate as a question of whether to blockade Iran or bomb it into the stone age:
[A]ccording to a well-placed Bush administration source, "everyone in town" is now participating in a broad discussion about the costs and benefits of military action against Iran, with the likely timeframe for any such course of action being over the next eight to 10 months, after the presidential primaries have probably been decided, but well before the November 2008 elections.My guess is Fox News can be relied on to go along with the Administration by increasingly presenting the issue of war with Iran as not a matter of "whether" but of "how". If history is any guide, the rest of the mega-media will fall in line sooner or later -- including such purported bastions of liberal thinking as The New York Times and the major networks.The discussions are now focused on two basic options: less invasive scenarios under which the U.S. might blockade Iranian imports of gasoline or exports of oil, actions generally thought to exact too high a cost on the Iranian people but not enough on the regime in Tehran; and full-scale aerial bombardment.
When Kathy Griffin received a creative arts Emmy for her reality show last weekend, she is reported to have said, by way of an acceptance speech:
Can you believe this shit? I guess hell froze over. … a lot of people come up here and thank Jesus for this award. I want you to know that no one had less to do with this award than Jesus. So, all I can say is, ‘suck it, Jesus.’ This award is my god now.Which are not the most tactful remarks she could have found for the occasion, but tact is probably not what she was trying to convey. Instead, it looks very much like she was attempting to insult everyone who has ever thanked Jesus for an Emmy.
"The 9/10 crowd stubbornly refuses to connect the dots to see any connection at all between 9/11 and the Iraq war. But it is all of a piece, and the troops who joined the military after the terrorist attacks and volunteered to go back again and again see it clearly. ... “Kill them over there so they don’t kill us over here” isn’t just an empty slogan for them. They live and die for it. For their children and ours. In Iraq and around the world."
- Michelle Malkin
I certainly hope Michelle Malkin was educated abroad because, as poor as the US public schools can be, they still don't need the likes of her on their conscience. Can you imagine how demoralizing it must be to have been one of her teachers only to see her grow up to become a mercenary, lying Bimbo Talk Show Host?
The above quote is taken from Ms. Malkin's blog post in remembrance of 9/11. Obviously, she thinks it is appropriate to use the anniversary on which nearly three thousands died as no more than a platform for restating the Bush-Cheney lie that Iraq was somehow behind 9/11. Ms. Malkin is disconnected from any decent feelings and sentiments.
Even one of her fellow Bimbo Talk Show Hosts has nothing but contempt for her. Geraldo Rivera said in the September 1st Boston Globe, "Michelle Malkin is the most vile, hateful commentator I've ever met in my life."
The anniversary of 9/11 should be a time when we come together in recognition of -- not the things that divide us -- but the values that unite us. It need not be a time when unscrupulous people spread lies for political gain. We should speak out against anyone who attempts to make political capital out of the day, least they turn a day of remembrance into an obscenity.
It seems that no matter what tragedy strikes in Asia, only those topics which involve Western tourists ever reach the ears of Western media sources. This is one drop in a tidal wave against it, but these are human lives.
Flooding continues in India and Bangladesh, with Bangladesh taking the brunt of nature's fury. Over a 1500 are believed to be dead in Bangladesh, and somewhere around 300 in India from drowning, disease, and snake bites, after rivers continued to overflow.
Bombs rocked the South Indian city of Hyderabad on August 25 of this year, killing 40 people and injuring 50-80 people altogether. The city is a place of past Hindu-Muslim tension, but is also a place of unity for both religions.
11 were killed on an attack in the oldest Mosque in India during prayers, while another attack on a Mosque killed 7.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/25_August_2007_Hyderabad_bombingsDid you know that India has the most amount of deaths caused by terrorism than any other country with the exception of Iraq?
A lot of blame is to be put on Islamic extremists, who cause the brunt of these attacks within in India and in disputed Kashmir, but it says a lot about the rampant bureaucracy and corruption inherent in the current Indian political mindset.
I realize Sunstone enjoys criticizing the Bush administration, but let's face it. After 9/11, how many Americans on home soil have died from terrorist attacks? None.
South Asia bears the brunt of the attack on human life.
Forgive me for the Indocentric rant, but it needs to be said for the lives of those who have been lost as well as the families who have been hurt by it.
It seems the American media, however, could step up their game.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Indias_terror_death_toll_second_only_to_Iraq/articleshow/2312796.cms
Today is the anniversary of 9/11. I wondered for sometime what would be appropriate to post in tribute to the lives lost that day, but I could think of nothing adequate. Then this morning Mahendra posted an extensive quote from Carl Sagan that is far more appropriate than anything else I can think of. Please drop by An Unquiet Mind and read it here. It is as if Sagan spoke for the ages when he spoke the words you will find there. Thank you, Mahendra.
"I am sure no other civilization, not even the Romans, has showed such a vast proportion of ignominious and degraded nudity, and ugly, squalid dirty sex. Because no other civilization has driven sex into the underworld, and nudity to the W.C."
- D.H. Lawrence
Some political bloggers are having fun with a study published Sunday in the journal Nature Neuroscience.
The study finds evidence the brains of liberals and conservatives function differently. It appears liberals have brains that adapt to sudden changes a bit more readily than do the brains of conservatives. Naturally, liberal bloggers are spinning the study one way while conservatives are spinning it the other. Each side wants to show how the study "proves" folks on their side of the fence are superior thinkers. But neither the liberal nor the conservative bloggers that I read are discussing one of the most interesting implications of the study -- that humans may have evolved innate perspectives or prejudices.
The study was conducted by political scientist David Amodio and his colleagues at New York University. They recruited 43 subjects for the experiment and began by asking each subject to rank his or herself on a scale for political views. One end of the scale was "extremely liberal" while the other end was "extremely conservative".
After the recruits ranked themselves, they were directed to sit before a computer screen and press one of two buttons depending on whether they saw an "M" or a "W". Each time they saw a letter, they had only half a second in which to respond -- nothing like a little pressure to think fast.
Eighty percent of the time (400 out of 500 instances) they saw the same letter. This was to encourage them to expect that letter. "You keep seeing the same stimulus over and over, so when the opposite stimulus comes on it's always a surprise," said Amodio.
When the less common letter appeared on the screen, the people who identified themselves in the conservative half of the scale pressed the "usual" button 47% of the time instead of switching to the correct button. In comparison, the "liberals" achieved the slightly lower error rate of 37%.
Up until this point, nothing about the study was surprising: There have been dozens of studies showing a strong link between political persuasion and certain personality traits. "Conservatives tend to crave order and structure in their lives, and are more consistent in the way they make decisions. Liberals, by contrast, show a higher tolerance for ambiguity and complexity, and adapt more easily to unexpected circumstances (Source)." But Amodio's study is unique because he performed electroencephalogram (EEG) scans on the brains of his subjects while they were performing their task -- thus discovering significant differences in the way the brains of liberals and conservatives were operating.
Liberals had slightly over twice as much activity as conservatives in a region of the brain called the anterior cingulate cortex. Some scientists think that area of the brain acts as a mental brake by helping the mind recognize "no-go" situations where it must refrain from the usual course of action. They refer to that function of the anterior cingulate cortex as "conflict monitoring".
According to Amodio, "The neural mechanisms for conflict monitoring are formed early in childhood," and are probably rooted in part in our genetic heritage. "But even if genes may provide a blueprint for more liberal or conservative orientations, they are shaped substantially by one's environment over the course of development."
It seems to me Amodio's overall take on his experiment is in line with what most other scientists are saying these days: Genes may predispose us to certain thoughts and behaviors, but environment still plays a major role in how we think and act. But if genes predispose us to certain inclinations, then how and why did those genes evolve?
As luck would have it, Ed Yong has a post on the evolution of personality differences over at Not Exactly Rocket Science that sheds considerable light on the question of how and why personality differences (and by extension, political preferences) might have evolved in us. Basically, it turns out that certain personality traits most likely evolved as ways of answering the age-old question, "Should I have kids now or later?" At first blush, there might not seem to be much of a relationship between reproduction, personality differences, and political preferences, but do check out Ed's article for insight into how those things might be linked.
I think the important thing to realize here is that "liberal" and "conservative" tendencies evolved in us because both tendencies increase our biological fitness -- depending on the circumstances. If one or the other were inherently superior, then natural selection, working over millions of years, would have resulted in that one particular tendency being the only tendency humans have. Either we would all be "liberals" or we would all be "conservatives". But that didn't happen because both liberal and conservative personalities have advantages.
UPDATE: Cognitive Daily has an illuminating critique of the study here. I think it should be read in conjunction with Ed's article, however, because I don't think Cognitive Daily's critique of the "Left-wing/Right-wing" study amounts to an refutation of the notion there may be significant and inherent differences in the way liberal and conservative brains operate.
References:
Homo Politicus: Brain Function of Liberals, Conservatives Differ
Political Affiliation Could All be in the Brain (New Scientist)
Study Finds Left-Wing Brain, Right Wing Brain (L.A. Times)
A while back I mentioned in another post that Bill Atkinson's nature photos often illustrate the close relationship between abstract art and nature. This week, I'm returning to that theme with what I suppose is a very good illustration of it -- a photo of blue rock crystals.
Click on the image to see it full size.
The above illustration of two women visiting an art museum is taken from a German children's book. A couple of months ago, the children's book was about to be published in the United States when alert editors of the American publisher noticed the tiny stature had a tiny penis.
Naturally, the editors immediately realized that (1) the tiny penis would pose an overwhelming threat to the morals of America's children, and (2) the book simply could not be published without censoring the tiny penis out of existence.
The German author, Rotraut Susanne Berner, refused permission to censor the penis (unless the censorship was done in an obvious fashion), and, consequently, the book has not been published in the all-too-prudish United States.
To the morally insane there can be no compromise: Even an artist's mere suggestion of a penis is enough to elicit gasps of disbelief and outrage from them. Worse, one should never expose children to the fact they have genitals. Knowing they have genitals will only cause boys and girls to grow up to be hippies who lack the moral fiber to bomb other civilizations into the stone age and who most certainly engage in pre-marital sex.
It's enough to make you wonder why psychologists have been so slow to identify prudishness as an emotional disorder. We are not talking about extremes here. We are not talking about a children's book that provides kiddies with a how-to for deviant sex. We are only talking about an exceedingly mild and natural thing: simple nudity. Yet, that's more than enough to upset the morally insane among us. Upset them enough that a Children's publisher dare not publish a vague illustration of a tiny penis.
Which is why you must blog nude this Monday. Only by declaring your resolution to show the world that nudity is not morally corrupting can you and potentially millions of others like you take on the moral stupidity of people who would censor a tiny penis from a children's book on the grounds it somehow will hurt kids to view it.
Full story of the children's book here.
Related posts on the International Nude Blogging Movement here.
There is a report three carrier strike groups will be in the Persian Gulf region by the end of September. In itself that doesn't mean much, but combined with the drumbeat to attack Iran, which is reportedly being orchestrated by the Vice President's office, it could be part of a build up to war. Too early to tell yet.
The thought occurs to me that in a year or so this might be a really great blog -- provided I can manage to learn some things between now and then about blogging.
So, to help me learn, I'm asking for your constructive criticisms of my efforts. If it's not too much trouble, would you please take a moment to give me some feedback on how I'm doing, what I'm doing well, and what I need to improve?
I promise to carefully consider any advice you offer. If you do not want to post your critique here on the blog, simply email it to me at sunstone [dot] paul [at] gmail [dot] com
Thanks!
Sometime in the 1920's, a cousin of mine established world records in two sports. My mom, who earlier today told me his story, is 89 and cannot recall offhand which two sports he excelled in. I might ask her someday to look it up in the family genealogy -- she has the records -- but I didn't want to put her to that trouble this morning. At any rate, my cousin's prowess in those two sports earned him an invitation to participate in one of the Olympics.
Unfortunately, after the invitation was extended, it was withdrawn upon discovery that my cousin was not that well rounded. He was indeed a superb athlete for his day, but it seems he lacked in academic accomplishments. That's to say, if his shoelaces had required a working knowledge of algebra or history for him to tie them, he would not have been able to tie his own laces. So, the Olympic Committee took back it's invitation. To understand why, it might be useful here to quote from Wikipedia:
The English public schools of the second half of the 19th century had a major influence on many sports. The schools contributed to the rules and influenced the governing bodies of those sports out of all proportion to their size. They subscribed to the Ancient Greek and Roman belief that sport formed an important part of education, an attitude summed up in the saying: mens sana in corpore sano – a sound mind in a healthy body. In this ethos, taking part has more importance than winning, because society expected gentlemen to become all-rounders and not the best at everything. Class prejudice against "trade" reinforced this attitude. The house of the parents of a typical public schoolboy would have a tradesman's entrance, because tradesmen did not rank as the social equals of gentlemen. Apart from class considerations there was the typically English concept of "fairness," in which practicing or training was considered as tantamount to cheating; it meant that you considered it more important to win than to take part. Those who practiced a sport professionally were considered to have an unfair advantage over those who practiced it merely as a "hobby."Those were the good old days: When athletes were expected to be gentlemen and gentlemen were expected to be well rounded. My cousin might easily have beaten the other competitors at that Olympics -- his records show that -- but that would have missed the point back then.
It is just as absurd to claim god thinks, or makes decisions, or has a will, as it is to claim god is an old man with a white beard and long robes. In both cases, one is merely ascribing human characteristics to deity, and has no evidence for making such claims. Perhaps anthropomorphism permeates all discussions of god, but shouldn't we at least be able to get beyond such silliness as assuming that god thinks, or wills, or decides, or farts?
Unless you are trying to pass a class in metaphysics, whether god ontologically exists or not is trivial at best and more likely irrelevant. It's true that discussing the issue can, if done well, exercise the brain and sharpen one's thinking, but so can many other issues exercise the brain and sharpen one's thinking. Overall, wondering whether god exists or not is nearly pointless -- except perhaps as a way of distracting ourselves from dealing with more authentic challenges of living.
Underlying the mistaken notion that god's existence or non-existence is vitally important are the assumptions that god, merely by god's ontological existence, saves us from meaninglessness, makes sense of our suffering, preserves us from eternal death, is with us in times of need, and so on and so forth. Yet, not one of those things can be demonstrated -- not to you, not to me, not to anyone.
The mere ontological existence of god implies almost nothing about the nature of god or god's relationship to us. For instance, suppose that tomorrow someone finally proves the universe must necessarily have a creator, and therefore god must ontologically exist. Fine. But would it necessarily mean anything to us? Would it mean there was salvation from eternal death? Would it mean god in any way cares for us? Would it tell us a thing about whether god has a purpose for us or not? On what grounds could anyone answer "yes" to those questions?
Yet, it is crucial to point out here that some people experience god. To be precise, they have an experience of something they choose to name "god". Other people, having similar experiences, choose to say they experienced the Tao, the Buddha-Nature, the Great Spirit, the Void, the Ultimate Weirdness, or some other placeholder. It doesn't much matter what people call their experiences experiences of. That seems to be more determined by what society, religious tradition, or culture they come from than by anything else. What matters is those experiences are so often transformative.
They are transformative in ways the mere ontological existence of god is not. For instance, someone who has had such experiences might find they no longer fear dying. Not because they now believe in a life after death, nor because they now have a reassuring theology, but simply because they have changed, been transformed, into someone who doesn't fear death. Likewise, someone who has had such experiences might find they are now capable of much greater love. Again, not because they believe god ontologically exists and has commanded them to love, but simply because they have been transformed into someone who is more loving. While the ontological existence of god (or the Tao, or whatever) is at best trivial, the experience of god is often profoundly transformative.
The question of whether god exists or not is insignificant compared to the transformation that can occur when one experiences god. Moreover, that transformative experience does not come about from believing in god. You can believe in god to your heart's content, but all your hours of belief will do nothing to bring about a transformative experience of god. Why is that?
"God" is just a symbol -- no more, no less. To say you believe in god is quite the same -- and just as trivial -- as saying you believe in the star that represents Paris on a map of France. It is just as insignificant -- and just as trivial -- as saying you believe in your wife's name. Nor does it matter in the least how elaborate, sophisticated and complex your notion of god is. For does it matter whether you say you believe in the star that represents Paris on one map, or you say that you believe in the more detailed street map that represents Paris on a different map? In both cases, your mere belief will not be the same thing as an actual experience of Paris -- regardless of how passionately or fervently you believe.
For those reasons, belief in god is quite often mere escapism. It is like reading a map of Paris rather than visiting Paris. It can be no more than a longed for daydream.
At Andersonville during the American civil war, the Union soldiers who were held prisoner there by the Confederates lacked salt. When you go without salt, you begin to crave it, and the craving of some of those soldiers became so intense that they would cut the world "salt" from their Bibles and chew the word. It did nothing to preserve their lives -- they starved for salt anyway. But it had a psychological effect on some of those who ate the word. It comforted them.
For many people belief in god is just such a comfort. It does nothing to really nourish them spiritually, it is by no means as transformative as experiencing god, but it does give them a morale boost -- just as eating the word "salt" comforted some of the soldiers who did it at Andersonville. Perhaps ironically, I think most of us would prefer the comfort of believing in god to the experience of god. That might be why we place so much emphasis on whether we believe or not.
I've been tweaking the blog's color scheme and font sizes. Please let me know if there are any problems with the changes.
"Competition can be a very intense experience and a very rewarding one, or it can be enormously destructive. External pressure, whether it’s exerted by a coach, a school, a ski club, or a country, is what can make it a negative thing. When they use you to satisfy their need to succeed, when they impose their value system on you, then competition isn’t personally rewarding anymore.... You’re either a winner or a loser.... There’s no way in my mind that you can divide humanity into those two categories."
- Andrea Mead Lawrence (Olympic Gold Medalist)
"In tennis, at the end of the day you’re a winner or a loser. You know exactly where you stand.... I don’t need that anymore. I don’t need my happiness, my well-being, to be based on winning and losing."
- Chris Evert (Champion Tennis Player)
Without knowing Homer Snavely I can't tell whether he is actually fool enough to believe the nonsense he wrote to the editor of The Lebanon Daily News ("Lebanon", in this case, is the town of Lebanon, Pennsylvania). Perhaps he was just being playful -- or sarcastic. At any rate, I found it so funny I just had to share it with you. Here's an excerpt from Mr. Snavely's letter: The public needs enlightenment on the truth of intelligent design as increasing numbers of the world’s greatest scientists are yielding to the compelling and mounting evidence of this burgeoning movement. In recent years the erroneous teaching of Darwinism and life by random chance is becoming unraveled and exposing itself for what it really is: a bankrupt philosophy masquerading as a science with the aid of fake fossil mills loose in the world. I’m confident that in the not-to-distant future the information-revolution will sound the death knell for Darwinism. The hard evidence of technology will shake the pillars of evolutionary theory and toss them into the dustbin of history. When America restores true Bible science and accountability to our Creator God into our political and educational institutions, we’ll have taken a giant step toward healthier national character and the prevention of crime, life without purpose and the consequences of our condom culture. Those fossils are fake, Bible science is true, and it's time to turn in your condoms. What could be more sane?
"I look back on my life like a good day’s work, it was done and I am satisfied with it. "
- Grandma Moses
Yesterday, September 5th, D. James Kennedy died at the age of 76. Kennedy was not as well known as his allies, Pat Robertson and the late Jerry Falwell, but he did at least as much as they to create the peculiar form of Evangelicalism that currently dominates American religiosity.
According to John Green, of the Pew Forum for Religion and Public life: "He [Kennedy] was never in the front ranks of evangelical leaders that were also political leaders, but he was active at every stage of the Christian right."
Despite his preference for working behind the scenes when compared to Robertson or Falwell, Kennedy founded Coral Ridge Ministries, a radio and TV "outreach" organization that claimed a weekly audience of 3.5 million people for its broadcasts. His own personal show, "The Coral Ridge Hour", has been aired on more than 400 stations in 150 countries.
Ideologically, Kennedy was not a profound man. Although he denied it, it seems he was a dominionist. Dominionism is a simple-minded ideology that asserts America must take over the world through military and political means in order to pave the way for the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. It envisions American as a "Christian Nation" governed by Old Testament laws (including the stoning to death of adulterers, and other barbarisms).
In 2005, Kennedy promoted the Constitution Restoration Act: a bill that would have gutted the Constitution by authorizing Congress to impeach judges who fail to acknowledge "God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government" and by limiting the power of the federal judiciary to rule in religious liberty cases.
Perhaps his dominionism was motivated by a taste for power. In a 1996 interview with The Los Angeles Times, Kennedy said: "God should be in every sphere of life: economics, business, education, government, art and science."
In addition to his dominionist follies, Kennedy was a "Young Earth Creationist" who either could not admit, or could not understand, the weight of evidence for evolution.
He also showed further evidence of irrationality in his pronouncements on homosexuals, asserting, for instance, that gay marriage would lead to bestiality.
Essentially, Kennedy preached against the contemporary age and for a return to ignorance and barbarism.
For weeks and months, some of the most level headed and astute bloggers on the net, such as Glenn Greenwald, have warned us of a movement among neocons to attack Iran. This evening, Democracy Now stated in its Wednesday broadcast:
There are reports that Vice President Dick Cheney's office has issued instructions to conservative think tanks to start a drumbeat for attacking Iran. On Monday the American Enterprise Institute is hosting two events related to Iran. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is giving a speech on how the war on terrorism should be viewed as a "a world war that pits civilization against terrorists and their state sponsors who wish to impose a new dark age." Later in the day former CIA director Jim Woolsey and others will meet to discuss a new book by longtime Iran hawk Michael Leeden titled "The Iranian Time Bomb: The Mullah Zealots" Quest for Destruction." The Heritage Foundation recently hosted an interagency Bush administration war game attempting to anticipate Iranian responses to a U.S. bombing campaign.In conjunction with conservative institutions, the Administration seems to be putting out the story that an attack on Iran would only involve intense bombing. But the Administration's goal in attacking Iran is regime change: How they plan to bring about a regime more favorable to the West with air attacks alone seems "problematic". Of course, this Administration is unknown for strategic brilliance. Moreover, Iraq has shown that it is fully capable of creating and then acting on fantasy. So, maybe it is prepared to attack Iran, like it did Iraq, on some vague hope that all will work out well in the end.
"Yes. We're going to hit Iran, bigtime. Whatever political discussions that are going on is window dressing... I see what is going on below deck here in the hangers and weapons bays."If the officer is right, the Administration might not even be planning to get Congressional approval before attacking Iran.
"[A]ll the Air Operation Planning and Asset Tasking are finished."
"We are shipping in and assigning every damn Tomahawk we have in inventory. I think this is going to be massive and sudden, like thousands of targets. I believe that no American will know when it happens until after it happens."
There is no such thing as a Bimbo Talk Show Host who is paid less than his or her opinions are worth.
"What is the meaning of life?" The classic way to approach that question is to approach it intellectually. When approached in that manner, the most common answer almost suggests itself: Any secure meaning to life must be derived from something thought to be outside the self that is superior to the self. And what better fits that "something" than an ontologically existent god?
God is a convenient source of meaning. But let's briefly examine that here. Suppose, then, there were an ontologically existent god. And suppose that god was the creator of the universe. Further suppose that god created a heaven in order to offer us the option of spending eternity with Him in a paradise. Would any of that mean the meaning of our lives was to spend eternity with god? Not necessarily.
It could only become the meaning of our lives if we ourselves decided to make it the meaning of our lives. There's no logical reason why it would automatically become the meaning of our lives. The truth of that point can easily be seen: We are free to choose some other meaning for ourselves than spending eternity with deity. In other words, the source of meaning -- even if god exists and has created a heaven for us -- is ultimately ourselves.
(To the right: Intrepid American bloggers practice naked yoga in preparation for their upcoming trip to India as part of the recent milestone nude deal between the two nations.)
As many of you know, I was first alerted to the "recent nude deal between India and the US" by discovering that Café Philos ranks number one in the world for that very special search term -- an impressive accomplishment for any blog, let alone a blog less than seven months old.
Unfortunately, Café Philos seems to stand alone as the only reliable source on the internet for the truth about the "recent nude deal between India and the US". All the other hits for that vital search term turn out to be about the recent 123 Nuclear Agreement. Obviously, the international press is more concerned about the relatively minor and comparatively unimportant nuclear agreement between India and the US than it is about the far reaching and vital nude agreement between India and the US. Shame on them!
So, as the net's only reliable source on the recent nude deal between India and the US, I feel Café Philos has a moral obligation to openly discuss and fully support the recent deal, even though everyone else is involved in a vast conspiracy of silence about the deal.
Of course, some of you may object that the obvious reason for everyone else's silence about the nude deal between India and the US is the fact there actually is no nude deal between India and the US. But that fact is a mere minor technicality. In the larger picture -- the picture we at Café Philos are focused on -- the fact there is not yet a nude deal between India and the US is of no importance at all. After all, we live in the 21st Century: Was it important to Bush and Cheney that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction? Of course not! And, by the same token, it should not be of the least concern to you or anyone else that India and the US have yet to effect a nude deal.
That's why you should not be embarrassed in the least to write to your elected representatives demanding immediate ratification of the recent nude deal between India and the US. If enough people write their representatives demanding ratification of the deal, I'm sure the governments of our two great nations will, at the very least, commence negotiating a nude deal.
When you write to your representatives be sure to point out that:
(1) It is in the overriding interests of both nations to have a cultural exchange program with each other;
(2) A nude cultural exchange program is far, far more likely to get a lot of publicity than a clothed cultural exchange program;
(3) The best of all possible nude cultural exchange programs is obviously an exchange of nude bloggers; and therefore,
(4) You are strongly urging your representative to introduce legislation to immediately ratify the recent nude deal between India and the US in which adequate provision will be made for a mutually beneficial exchange of nude bloggers between our two great nations.
Just imagine what a boost you'll be giving the International Nude Blogging Movement!
Act Today!
Stumble It!
