Dr. Forbush Thinks

Will we go quietly into the deep dark night?

I am asking this question because it seems to me that America is on the verge of falling into the Dark Ages. I am sure that the Romans never felt like their empire would crumble, but it did. It took a while as the thinking and questioning of the Greek intellectuals was replaced by the non-questioning anti-intellectual religious that came to lead the Roman Empire into the Dark Middle Ages.

Yesterday, I was startled by a comment on my recent “Global Warming” post. The commenter, that I regard as quite thoughtful on many subjects, wrote, “it comes as no surprise there would be disagreement on such a politicized issue as global warming.” He went on to suggest that bureaucrats tended to be left leaning Democrats, therefore it would be natural that government scientists would promote the idea of Global Warming.

This sentiment should frighten us all.

First of all we should examine why we have government scientists at all. Is it because each issue needs to create a means to support its pre-determined agenda? If that is the case, then we should not have government scientists at all. Each political party should just pay additional science consultants to create their personal fiction to support their own ideas. Of course this is stupid from the point of view of an American citizen, but not the politician. No, Americans have government scientists for the same reason they have government intelligence agencies and government ambassadors. Government scientists among the many things that they do they look at the science and determine the risks of policy on our country, and based on those risks they offer suggestions for policy proposals and the risks of those policy proposals. If the scientists are influenced by the politics, then their assessment of the risks are as flaw as the CIA’s intelligence on the WMDs in Iraq.

The charter of government is to provide security, and if the risks are not studied in a fair non-political light the policy based on those assessments will certainly be flawed.

So, to think that government scientists are mainly left leaning Democrats flies in the face of the entire point of having government scientists at all.

But, it is easy to see how someone might come to this conclusion in a culture that is moving further away from science. When I was in college during one of those late night philosophical discussions that generally involve a bit of alcohol a friend told me that she had no idea how a TV worked. Well, I knew a bit about how a TV worked and I offered to explain it to her, but she told me that she didn’t care because she was happy to believe that it all worked by magic. And, I realized that I was in the minority and she was in the majority of the American people.

However, if we begin to fall back on the idea that we don’t care how things work and we can imagine them working by some mysterious magic called “science” we are not to far away from the dark ages. Because if we don’t think about how things work, we can easily begin to mix up the ideas of science and the fantasy ideas of magic that are removed by impossibility from the truth. And, if we allow our minds to intermingle these concepts based in reality and these concepts based in fiction our culture will be more susceptible to leaders who justify their actions with fiction and lies.

Perhaps that is the true reason we now find ourselves under the power of this regime, the extreme right wing coalition of neo-cons and fundamentalist Christians. These people have an agenda and they only need to search for the justification. They discredit science as a rule so that they can pick the things that they like, but then they can deny the rest as “only a theory” or “inconclusive.”

Aristotle was the main scientific philosopher of ancient Greece. His work was based on observation of the world around him and reasoning that allowed him to understand that the world was round long before Christopher Columbus. He estimated the circumference of the Earth by measuring the difference in the length of a shadow cast by the sun at noon on uniform sticks placed in two different locations across the Mediterranean Sea from each other. But, the works of Aristotle were lost in the burning of the libraries brought on by the religious leaders. If it weren’t for the Muslim clerics who found value in these writings we may have never heard of Aristotle today.

Similarly, if we lose the culture of scientific inquiry our people will be doomed to memorize texts and believe what they read without questioning. If these religious zealots that continue to plant seeds of doubt in the general public continue to grow in strength everything we know about the world will gradually be lost. If the value of science continues to be reduced our children will be pushed away from pure science.

In fact, I have heard arguments from the right claiming that only science with a known economic benefit should be pursued. But, if you know that it has economic benefit, then it isn’t science anymore, it is called engineering. Engineering uses what science has discovered and applies that to known problems. And, if we push our children away from pure science this “new” knowledge will not exist for the engineers who want to build “new” projects. Engineers will eventually be reduced to repeating old engineering ideas over and over again. Progress will only be made by accident, instead of by applying “new” science. And, slowly we will become a stagnant culture relying on other cultures to provide “new” things for us.

Even the fall into the Dark Ages wasn’t instantaneous. And, I wouldn’t expect America’s fall to be any different. Those scientists that are alive today will continue to use the science that they know and understand. They will continue to publish their work, but fewer young people will read their work. And over time these scientific reports and papers will have less influence on the American culture. Things on the fringe will be the first to be lost, but as time goes on fewer people will be able to understand more common things like Particle Physics, General Relativity, Physical Chemistry and Organic Chemistry. Some ideas about genetics will continue, because with the birth of every baby the parents look for the influence of genetics. But, the idea of evolution will certainly disappear from the main culture. Instead conversations will center on the idea that the different races must have descended from the different sons of Noah, or some other malarkey.

People will be happy to know that the wizards at Apple will continue to recite the incantations to create the same iPod that has existed for a hundred years, but it still plays the same 10,000 songs, because someone lost the recipe for downloading new ones.






-----------------------------------------------------





Don't forget what Stephen Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."


Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit



Politics, Science, Religion, History, Global Warming

I woke up early the other morning, went down the stairs and began to take care of some of my usual tasks. I feed the fish, feed the cats, pick up some of the junk lying around from the night before. My wife generally does pretty much the same types of things. I was putting some fish food into one of our aquariums, when I heard a scream from the other side of the room. My wife had discovered a large fish on the floor, lying next to the cat food bowl, nearly six feet away from his fish tank.

The fish in question is a Chinese Loach that my daughter selected at the pet store about eight months earlier. When we purchased the fish it was less than an inch long. It was a cute little scavenger that propped its head up on its fore-fins as it rested on the bottom of the tank. As one who believes in evolution, it is clear that this would be the type of fish species that could evolve lungs and wallow in the mud as a pond or stream gradually dried up. Obviously my particular fish didn’t have the ability to survive out of the water, but maybe a fish species like this one, if exposed to an environment where ponds dried up every year could by natural selection could allow some of its progeny to survive each year if they had something that would allow them to take oxygen out of the air directly. For example, wet gills could allow oxygen to be dissolved in the moisture and absorbed into the blood stream. As long as the fish didn’t dry out it could survive, or maybe not.

Well, I am not in the habit of taking my fish out of the fish tank to see how long they can live out of the water. But, if the fish chooses to do this on his own, I have no control over it.

This cute little fish had grown to over 9 inches long in just eight months. It was now nicknamed “the monster.” It began to eat the smaller fish in the community tank, so we had no choice but to put the fish in solitary confinement, in his own tank. His tank sat on a short table, and the top of the tank was less than three feet above the ground.

But, how did the fish get out of the water?

Our first guess had to do with the cats. We had already lost a large angel fish to the cats. The evidence was obvious, because of the cat scratches on the outside of the dead fish. But, as I bent down to pick up the fish, lying on the floor I didn’t see any scratches. The cat obviously couldn’t get the fish out of the water without using its claws in one way or another. This fish must have been suicidal.

The fish was lying on the floor perfectly still. I picked it up with a paper towel, with the intention of throwing it into the trash. It seemed a bit to big to flush down the toilet. I couldn’t imagine that my daughter would actually bury a fish, since we have been through so many over the years. Ten years ago each of our fish had had names, but now we just have a collection of fish.

I began to examine the fish, just to be sure that the cat had not clawed it, and I had just missed the marks. Then I thought that I saw it move. Surely it was my imagination. I told my wife that I thought that it might still be alive. “It won’t live long, if it is” she said. I didn’t know for sure, so I thought that I would put it back into the fish tank. Sure enough, when I put the fish back into its tank it moved around a little, but it rested in the floating plants at the top of the tank. This was certainly not ordinary behavior for a fish that spent most of his life sitting on the bottom of the tank. I didn’t hold out much hope for his survival.

I told my daughter about our discovery. I told her that the fish was still alive, but just barely.

When I came home from work in the evening I saw that the fish was still hiding in the weeds. He had now grown a thin white coating over his body. The coating seemed particularly thick around his head. He was just lying in the weeds barely moving. If I didn’t know that he was still alive I might have guessed that he was dead.

After about a week the fuzz came off his body and he felt healthy enough to sit around on the bottom of the tank again. And, now more than a month later he seems to be as good as new.

Apparently, the fish was tired of being in solitary confinement, and he just had to get out. He must have pushed himself against the lid on the top of the tank and push himself out of the tank. He then must have fallen to the tabletop, wiggled himself off the table and onto the floor. Then once on the floor he continued to wiggle his way in the direction of the door to the outside. We found him up against the door, so who knows how far he would have gone if he had been able to open the door.





-----------------------------------------------------





Don't forget what Stephen Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."


Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit



Fish, Aquarium,

Talking about Republican politics is not very easy in these days of Orwellian language that is meant to say one thing but mean another. Of course this isn’t new, but when we have self-proclaimed Christians inventing a language so that they can pass new laws legalizing torture while they appear to still remain Christians the world is surely coming to an end. At least that’s what these Christians are hoping for.

If there was any doubt before, then that doubt should be put to rest when we witness the leader of the free world proclaiming himself a Christian out of one side of his mouth and asking for new laws allowing the government to torture prisoners out of the other side of his mouth. The Native Americans used to call this type of speech, “speaking with a forked tongue.” And, what creatures have forked tongues? Why snakes of course. And, if you still haven’t caught on to this obvious Biblical symbolism, a snake is Satan, who tempted Eve at the apple tree. When we have a leader of these forked tongue speakers, he must obviously be the Anti-Christ.

Only the true Anti-Christ would seek War over Peace in the Middle East. Only the true Anti-Christ would need trickery and treachery to be elected to the office of President of the United States. And, now, only the true Anti-Christ would masquerade as a Christian while he sought to pass torture laws that are so clearly Anti-Christian.

When you think about it though, it is clear that this, so-called Christian would be the ideal Biblical Anti-Christ. First of all, he has a large number of followers that are convinced that he is something special. And, he has a large number of people would know that he isn’t special, but they dedicate themselves to making their leader appear to be special to those who believe him. The whole idea that a Christian would believe that by cheating the American public in an election would somehow be “God’s Will” is downright ridiculous.

So, if you are a God fearing Christian and you are now aware of the presence of the Anti-Christ here on Earth, what can be done? Well, if you are a fundamentalist that seeks the return of Christ, then I guess that there really isn’t much that you can do. The Anti-Christ is here and you just need to steer clear of him, so you don’t get caught up in his web of Evil. But, if you believe that we have free will, then we must continue to believe that we have a choice and we can do something to make the world a better place. Perhaps by spreading the word of whom the Anti-Christ is we will be able to delay the End of the Earth.

For those who are convinced that the hour is at hand and we have no choice, then I have to remind you that Jesus told us that no one knows when the hour is at hand. Only deception allows the Anti-Christ to have power. If we reveal his identity, then the Anti-Christ will loose power. His power will only come from those who are fooled into believing that he has a valid message to spread.

Some Christians might ask why we should try to prevent the inevitable. If God has a plan, then why should we prevent or delay the coming of the Christ? Well, if you think about this for a second the answer is obvious. God loves everyone. It doesn’t seem like this sentence needs to be repeated, but the implications of this sentence is overwhelming. It is overwhelming if you consider the implications of the End of the World. God would like as many of his people to be saved as possible, and by delaying the End of Time even by a few hours more people continue to be saved. God doesn’t want to control the unfolding of these events, he allows them to unfold and only the free will of the people will change the ultimate test of saving as many people as the free will of the people themselves allow.

If we don’t act now, then many souls may never have the chance to be saved. God will cry over every soul that is lost those born and those that will never be born because the “End” came too soon.

:-}



-----------------------------------------------------





Don't forget what Stephen Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."


Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit



Politics

What does it mean to win in Iraq?

This question is so important, but no one responsible for our presence in Iraq will answer this question honestly. We hear George W Bush tells us how we will step down when the Iraqis step up. But, this object is becoming further and further from a real possibility.

A simple look at the situation in Iraq continues to show that even if a trained Iraqi army were able to step up, they would not end the violence in Iraq. The Iraqi government continues to be controlled by the Shiite Arabs who are supported by Iran. The Kurds to the North have never been supportive of Iraq as a nation. Instead the Kurds only wish to have as much autonomy as they are allowed to have. In this vein it is clear that the Kurds prefer not to contribute to the “Iraqi” army. Instead they would rather contribute to the Kurdish army which has been allowed to protect its Kurdish territory. We are basically allowing the Kurds to become their own nation, if not in name then in practice. This leaves the Sunni minority in Iraq to be pushed around by the Shiite majority. And, of course this bullying is not conducive the growth of a new nation.

Of course, that is the reality of the situation in Iraq. You may have noticed that the above description does not even mention the terrorists in Iraq. This is because the al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq are only allowed to exist in Iraq because of the lack of stability in Iraq. Terrorist groups like al Qaeda are only allowed to operate freely in failed states like Somalia or Afghanistan, or in territories far away from the control of authorities. This is mainly because governments tend to like to maintain their own military to either protect its people or the government’s authority. The instability that we have created in Iraq has created a haven for these people to operate.

Of course I also never mentioned the criminal gangs that also operate freely in an unstable Iraq. These criminal gangs were created by the destruction of all security in Iraq when the US invaded and disbanded the Iraq military and police. In addition to this all Bathist bureaucrats were dismissed, severing any government infrastructure at all. The result of course was the expected anarchy when any government is destroyed. When the American occupation created their own government, the everyday needs of the Iraqi people were ignored and fleeting moment of hope vanished from the minds of the Iraqi people. All the Iraqi people could see was the once stable society controlled by Saddam Hussein vanished with the destruction of the government. Criminals then took what ever they could, and they rose to power by virtue of their wealth. Some of these crafty criminals were able to use their newly acquired personal wealth to finance elections of people that favored them.

So, what are we trying to do in Iraq? Oh, that’s right, we are trying to get the terrorists that aren’t there and prevent them from getting the nuclear weapons that Condi and George used to scared us with in 2003. And, they weren’t there either. But if not nuclear weapons we have learned that if you lump nuclear weapons with chemical and biological weapons and call them Weapons of Mass Destruction we can still scare people with the nuclear threat and prove the threat correct by finding the chemical or biological weapons that weren’t in Iraq either. (There were some expired chemical weapons shells left over from the Iran Iraq war that we helped Saddam fight against Iran. These were not found in substantial quantities, and wouldn’t even be potent seeing that they were expired.)

But, how can we win in Iraq? Of course we can win in Iraq if we stay the course! Which is? It is by stepping down when the Iraqi army steps up. And, what happens when the Iraqi army steps up and we step down? Well, of course Iran finally wins the Iraq Iran War. The Shiite majority has control of the government, and is totally backed by the Shiite rulers of Iran. We had supported Saddam Hussein in order to prevent Iran from becoming a power in the Middle East, but it looks like George W Bush’s course that we are staying is putting the fate of Iraq in the hands of Iran.

Obviously this makes absolutely no sense. And when something doesn’t make any sense, then it usually means that we don’t have all of the information. And when we don’t have all of the information we are forced to speculate as to what that information might be. Is George W Bush planning to provoke Iran in such a way that we are “forced” to respond. It sure does seem that the only way we can actually win in Iraq is by toppling yet another foreign government. We could also speculate that Iran is promising the US a deal on oil if we allow them to continue to have a hand in Iraqi politics after we stand down and the Iranian army steps up.

The question that Americans should be asking is: Was George W Bush a really smart guy working for Iran, or is he just a bungling idiot that has inadvertently helped Iran at almost every step of the way? After all, we can’t win in Iraq until Iran is willing to take over…






-----------------------------------------------------





Don't forget what Stephen Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."


Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit



Politics

I have been thinking about government quite a bit lately and I hope this will convey some additional insight into the purpose of government. Some of this is old, but it bears repeating for a foundation of some additional insight.

Government exists because the other option is anarchy. Anarchy might not sound like a bad thing until you realize that human beings are bound to act out of self interest and do whatever they need to do in order to survive. Government in general provides a structure in which people can live together and be protected from other people’s self interest. In other words, government offers security.

I hope that everyone can agree on this simple idea that government exists to provide security.

Now, how does government offer security, and who does it protect?

First of all, it is clear that government provides an infrastructure in which police, laws, and justice are used to protect people from other’s self interest. Laws are written in which at least a majority, and sometimes two thirds of the people agree on. At least that is in our Democracy. In other systems of government an individual or a group of leaders determine what the laws should be, and how they should be enforced. But, at least in the beginning the purpose of the laws was to provide security for the people.

Early on, it became quite clear that the basic protection provided by the government was to prevent the poor from stealing the wealth of the wealthy. The wealthy have no interest in stealing the debts of the common man, so the government naturally became biased to those that needed protection. It should be no surprise that the evolution of government tended to empower the wealthy to become leaders, such as kings, princes or even Roman senators. And, then it should continue to be no surprise that these leaders would use their power to write laws that not only protected the wealthy, but also enriched the wealthy even further. Greed is such a difficult emotion to control.

Over the thousands of years of government the wealthy sought justification for the power structure, while the poor struggled to survive under varying degrees of oppression and appeasement. All through out this history everyone continued to agree that government was preferred to anarchy. Slowly the common man made the point that government existed to provide security. When the government allowed the wealthy to exploit the common man the government failed to provide security to the common man. In this basic struggle the common man eventually acquired a voice in government, because the common man realized that they outnumbered the wealthy in power and could rise up and overthrow the power structure if they could manage to stick together.

From this point on the struggle became a struggle between those who had control of government and those who desired more control in government. Those who wished things to remain the same are called conservative, and those who wish to change the laws were called liberals.

Since the purpose of government is security those in power began to explore the security issues. An educated public is a more secure public, because the people are less prone to react to emotional rabble rousing. Therefore if the government provided education the people would be more secure. Also, a fully employed public is more secure than a public with a high unemployment rate. So, the government that improves the economy is providing security. In fact, the government can provide health care, safety regulation, infrastructure and environmental protection in an effort to provide security. The government can fund scientific investigation into potential threats and new weapons as another means of providing security. The government can pool resources to investigate out breaks of disease, or protection from dangerous weather. But, the role of government remains to provide security.

The problem with government, however, is that projects started to study risks and provide security can become outdated or inefficient. But, the nature of people is to continue to need a source of employment. In fact, the government provides a personal source of security to the people employed by the government. The growth of ineffective, inefficient or unneeded government becomes a waste of the public’s money. New projects are created to provide security, but old projects do not die because of another need for security.

Of course, the people who had controlled the government, the wealthy, see any project that does not protect their personal self-interest as a waste of their personal contribution to the government. They suggest, “Why should the wealthy pay for the lazy poor who can’t find a job?” It is difficult to see that unemployed poor people on the street are a threat to their personal security, because these are the people motivated to break into someone’s houses and steal things that can be easily hocked. “Shouldn’t the laws prevent the theft?” is echoing in the mind of those who want to preserve their personal wealth.

Obviously this is not the only view of government, but these points are certainly major contributing factors. The important questions continues to be “What security should the government provide, and what security should it ignore?” and “Should everyone be offered a certain level of security?” and “Should the protection of wealth and resources be the most important security provided?” and “Should health be considered a security issue?” The more I think of government in these terms the easier it is to see the problems with our government.

For example, if security is the purpose of government, why shouldn’t the creation of insecurity be considered a failure of government? When the disasters of hurricanes create insecurity, it should be considered a failure of government. But, also when a leader uses fear to promote an agenda that fear creates more insecurity throughout the nation. And, obviously the creation of that fear is a failure of government. Also, creating a war in the Middle East provokes terrorists that increase the risk of terrorism. This should also be considered a failure of government. There are more examples, but I’ll leave those as an exercise for the reader.






-----------------------------------------------------





Don't forget what Stephen Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."


Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit



Politics

Two thousand years ago the Pharisees were selectively enforcing the laws. Not much has changed between then and now, except who the enforcers are and what laws they choose to enforce.

In Matthew 15: 1-14 the Pharisees approach Jesus and ask him why his disciples don’t wash their hands before eating. You can read this yourself in any version of the Bible you choose. I am condensing the story instead of quoting a particular version because the story is clear and the details are immaterial. The Pharisees want Jesus to be hung by his own rope, so to speak. They want him to admit that he doesn’t follow the Bible literally. Of course he doesn’t, and instead of saying that he tells the Pharisees that they don’t follow the Bible literally themselves. He sights the example of Exodus 20:12 Deuteronomy 5:16 Exodus 21:17 and Leviticus 20:9 where the law clearly states that a child who does not honor their Mother or Father should be put to death. Obviously, God thought that this was quite important, because it is mentioned four times in the Bible instead of the single case of homosexuality alluded to in Leviticus.

The problem with the Pharisees isn’t that they didn’t know the Bible; they knew it quite well. The problem was that they selectively enforced the Bible with their own agenda in mind. They found the laws that suited their needs and the enforced them for their own needs. But they knew that if they had enforced the law regarding the capital punishment of children they not be quite so popular. In fact, the enforcement of this law could mean the end of Judaism as a religion, no matter what God wanted in the laws written down in the Bible.

The Pharisees of today also selectively enforce the Bible. They seek to twist the words of the Bible to fit their own needs. For example, they raise “foul language” to the level of sin. They do this when they know that there is a distinct difference between the reference to sexual activity or excretory function and using the name of God to curse someone. Somehow the culture has combined these two completely different things into the cultural taboo of “foul language.” These people then use religion as a sword to hold over the FCC and demand that they censor the airwaves.

But, the entire first ten chapters of Leviticus go into detail of how an animal sacrifice needs to be offered up to God. If the book of Leviticus were truly a sacred book of law, we would see the preachers on TV offering animal sacrifices every night and then eating the meat as God commanded it. But continued selected enforcement of these laws proves that these new Pharisees continue to hold to their own agenda and not God’s will.

Instead, when they look for a reason to go to war they find exception to Jesus’ teaching of love by quoting something like: “The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.” Exodus 15:3. Jesus spent some time explaining how one should turn the other cheek when provoked, but when the government these people support decides to wage an unnecessary War killing thousands of innocent people they continue to justify these actions by selective enforcement of the law. They literally decide what they want to do and justify it by finding the appropriate verse from the Bible.

The selective enforcement of the Bible is actually good for the most of us, it is only in the hypocrisy of the preachers who claim to take the Bible literally that there is any problem at all. These people can’t imagine that the two versions of the creation story shouldn’t be taken as literally true. But somehow they reconcile this passage from Exodus 31: 14-15, “Yes, keep the Sabbath day, for it is holy. Anyone who desecrates it must die; anyone who works on that day will be cut off from the community. Work six days only, but the seventh day must be a day of total rest. I repeat: Because the Lord considers it a holy day, anyone who works on the Sabbath must be put to death.” If God really meant that the creation happened exactly the way it was explained in the Bible, then why didn’t he mean that people who didn’t observe the Sabbath should be put to death?

Well, the modern day Pharisees of today continue to be blind leaders of the blind and they will both fall into the ditch as Jesus pointed out in Matthew 15:14.




-----------------------------------------------------





Don't forget what Stephen Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."


Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit



Politics, Religion, Christians

It is hard to believe, but some people really think that Iraq attacked us on 9/11/2001. I’ve heard people say in response to me, “If Iraq didn’t attack us, then why did we invade Iraq?” These people are completely serious and it makes me very frustrated that these people don’t at least read a newspaper occasionally.

But even if these people were to read the papers it doesn’t mean that they would know everything that there is to know about the Middle East. That is why we entrust our experts to give advice to our leaders. And experts on both sides of this decision continue to put their opinions forward. But officially, none of these experts believe that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11/2001. Only the conspiracy theorists maintain the ties between al Qaeda and Iraq and the latest Senate report on this question confirms that there was no link.

But, if you read some more of the newspapers you will find the interesting fact that Dick Cheney continues to insist that there was a link between Iraq and al Qaeda.

OK, so the experts have studied the evidence and written a report that tells us that there is no connection between Iraq, the country that we continue to put all of our money and resources into, and al Qaeda, the group that actually attacked us five years ago. Who are we to believe, the second in command of our executive branch of government, or the experts that actually know something about this?

Maybe we should consider what each person gains by their opinion, and that might help us to see the credibility of their argument. First of all, Dick Cheney was the major voice in favor of the invasion of Iraq. He went against all of the American rhetoric that called that America would only attack if America was attacked, or at worst case if a country was an immanent threat. Seeing that we know that Iraq had no Weapons of Mass Destruction, the initial reason for the invasion - immanent threat, we are left with proving that they must have attacked us for Cheney’s decision to be proved right. On the other hand the experts will loose the credibility that every expert needs to continue to warrant being paid to be an expert. Experts who come up wrong to often are put out to pasture to work as lobbyists or some other less respectful occupation. It seems like a slam dunk here, but if we didn’t attack Iraq because of 9/11, then why would we attack them?

It turns out that the Neo-conservatives, a group within the conservative movement with a large number of followers in the Bush administration believed that Democracy was a preferred political state. This means that by toppling a dictator, the people would rise up and celebrate their freedom and create a democracy for themselves. The neo-cons, believed that democracies wanted the same thing, religious freedom, economic freedom and political freedom. They believed that people who were given these freedoms would come to the same conclusions about running the country and the USA could become the major customer for Middle Eastern oil if the Middle East was made up of America loving Democracies. The neo-cons believed that they only needed a country to destroy so that they could prove their theory correct. Iraq seemed like the perfect opportunity.

Iraq had been weaken 10 years in operation Desert Storm earlier and chances were good that the invasion would be as easy as the Afghanistan invasion of 2002. The neo-cons thought that rebuilding a Middle Eastern country as a Western Democracy would set an example to the rest of the Middle East. To me it is unclear what the example was supposed to say. Was it, “Start allowing democracy to flourish or we will invade you too?” Or, was it, “Look at this mess we have created here in Iraq, so don’t give freedom to your people or they will do this as well?” Either way, it doesn’t look very good for Democracy in the Middle East any time soon.

All of our effort has been diverted to Iraq for the last three and a half years. It makes the Bush administration look stupid for wasting all of this time, energy, blood and money in Iraq when the true perpetrators, al Qaeda, continue to have sanctuary in our ally’s country, Pakistan. The Taliban is gaining strength in southern Afghanistan. We don’t have enough troops in Afghanistan to prevent the Taliban from ruling the country side in Afghanistan.

Iraq isn’t much better. We don’t have enough troops in Iraq to prevent civil war. Iraqi troops are not loyal to the government. Of course this is once again do to the fact that the government ignored the experts when they recommended that we need 500,000 troops in Iraq to prevent civil war. This administration ignored the experts and they continue to ignore the experts. Why should we expect anything different?

I think that everyone needs to go over to Huffington Post and listen to Paul Hipp sing his song.



-----------------------------------------------------





Don't forget what Stephen Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."


Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit



Politics

The best way to understand any issue is to ask questions. This might sound obvious, but in the case of 9/11/2001 this is not so. Questions were not the point, raw retaliatory reaction was the patriotic response, and nothing else could be considered “American.”

But, now five years later nothing has changed in the minds of those who had attacked us. This lack of change points toward the failure of raw emotional response. But, there are those who believe that this raw response just hasn’t been enough for a long enough period of time. However, very few of these people have considered the point of view of those who carried out these attacks. Very few of these people can even imagine that our raw emotional retaliation has only served to be evidence for our countries hatred toward Middle Easterners in general. The proof is in the careless violence against the people of Iraq who had nothing to do with that fateful day - 9/11/2001.

Perhaps at this late time we can still turn this situation around. Perhaps we can try to understand why a group of people can find enough anger in their hearts that they are willing to sacrifice their own lives for a noble cause. Christians for one should be able to understand this emotion, for they talk about martyrs who have given their lives for their faith. Christians don’t go around saying that these people were fools who wasted their lives. No, instead these people are admired and even sainted for what they did. The early Christian Martyrs we should remember were breaking the law at the time. The Roman Empire had outlawed Christianity, but the Martyrs broke the law because they believed what they were doing was right. How can Christians not understand the power of religion to manipulate people into taking actions that seem ridiculous to any outside observer?

Obviously, Christians who feel weakness in their faith fear that arguments like this might erode further their own faith. After all, the stories of the Christian Martyrs make Christians feel stronger in their own faith. Shouldn’t it then be that stories of non-Christian Martyrs should do the opposite? The weakest of Christians could so easily be swayed to follow another faith if the message was powerful enough, and the stories of non-Christian Martyrs could do that job. Immediately after 9/11/2001 Americans chose to ignore this powerful story of Martyrdom by sticking their fingers in their ears and repeatedly making nonsense noises.

Any religious person who begins to look at another faith must at some point begin to question his or her own faith. “Am I being manipulated in the same way that these people are obviously being manipulated?” is certainly the most obvious question. Of course the Christian who is strong in their faith can easily avoid these questions by keeping their fingers firmly in their ears. Or at least that is the attitude of some Christian groups.

The point is that many groups use stories of member’s dedication to the group’s purpose as a method to strengthen allegiance to the cause. This can be seen in the simple hazing in fraternity and sorority societies, where members put up with abuse in an effort to prove their dedication to the group. Similarly, criminal gangs use the same type of techniques with their members, by having them commit crimes to prove their loyalty. The members then realize that these crimes can be used as a Sword of Damocles hanging over the member’s head if they get out of line.

So, perhaps we can think of the terrorist groups like al Qaeda as an international gang, like the Italian Mafia. The goals of these two groups are different, but their operations are very similar. But this comparison doesn’t offer much hope, because the Italian Mafia has managed to survive over many years and they have continued to traffic in drugs, weapons and humans. They have managed to get away with murder time and time again. And, they manage to pull the strings of law to get themselves the maximum benefits with the least effect on their organization. If we can’t defeat these people, how will we manage to defeat a group that has many people willing to give their lives for the cause?

The answer isn’t in the ability to use force against them. Force will only harden their resolve. Force didn’t rid the Christians for the Romans, even though many people were put to gruesome deaths in front of audiences of Roman citizens. Using extreme force against a group proves to the group that they are important enough to get the attention of a “Super Power.” Even though the number of deaths caused by these groups is small and actually offers little “real” risk, the attention given to them is worth the energy expended. A group like this can not be defeated by force. This is because these groups use force like the martial artist uses the force of his opponent to defeat him. These people are able to redirect the American hatred for them into a grand recruiting tool. The American reaction of attacking Iraq has been used to turn the Middle East against the USA in large numbers.

The conclusion is that the only way to defeat these people is to learn why so many people are willing to sacrifice their lives for this horrible cause. I believe that many people know and understand this, but it seems to end there. This information needs to be used and turned against these evil extremists. It needs to become common knowledge in the Middle East that people join these groups because they are looking for fulfillment. It needs to become common knowledge that not all versions of a religion are equal. It needs to become common knowledge that religions that promote compassion over death and destruction are more acceptable. In other words, the “common good” of the world is important and that is what all major religions promote.

But, of course, freedom of religion in the United States would frown upon this type of government action. This is why the government can not be responsible for this change in attitude. Government can not force people to change their attitudes. And, since these extremists are only a small minority it would be like the government trying to stamp out smoking. It will never happen 100%, because a small minority will still smoke cigarettes, as well as joints. Only a widespread distribution of the message of compassionate religions by the major religious sects themselves will be able to battle the attitude of noble Martyrdom. This sad truth makes an end of Islamic extremists looks even more doubtful, but force will never change a public attitude. Even now after the Iraq Invasion changing this attitude is even more doubtful.

The sad message is that if we don’t try to understand what the terrorists truly want we will never be able to stop their attacks. Brute force energizes their recruitment, and their resolve to beat the evil Americans. If we actually spend some time to understand these people we will certainly learn enough to use their ideology against them. By pointing out the direct religious problems in their ideology as opposed to mainstream religion including moderate Islam moderates in the Middle East will be able to talk about a common understanding of compassion that goes against the teachings of these extremists. Extremist actions will gradually become less acceptable and the idea of noble Martyrdom will be considered more “lunatic” and less “noble.”

Unfortunately since this is the only way terrorists can be defeated, we have little hope of defeating these people while the hawks rule the roost.



-----------------------------------------------------





Don't forget what Stephen Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."


Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit



Politics, 9-11-2001, Terrorism, al Qeada

I am sitting here listening to President George W Bush once again invoking the terrorist attack of 9/11 in order to scare the American people once again. He certainly understands how this works, because the November elections are on the horizon and the Republicans look like they might loose the House of Representatives. These are perilous days for the GOP. The president certainly understands that if he can’t convince some moderates that these Republicans deserve to be reelected things will become tough for his party to control the government.

But, at this point many moderates understand that George W Bush and the Republicans have an extremist agenda. They don’t care about America, they care about retaining control of the Government so that they can make life easier for the wealthy and powerful.

The small group of wealthy power brokers have been planning how to take control of the government for a long time. Some believe that it started with tragic downfall of President Richard Nixon. At that time corporate executives used the Republican Party to further their personal objectives by acquiring tax breaks with descriptions so specific that only one company in the United States could qualify. During the 1950s, however, the rhetoric of government painted a picture of an organization that worked to make life better for all Americans. This illusion was subsequently shattered when the Civil Rights issue exploded upon the scene in the 1960s.

When people realized that governments throughout the American South routinely abrogated the Civil Rights of people. This truth came into direct conflict with what Northern Americans had been taught about the American way of life and so they acted in the way that they were taught that Americans should act; they went to the South to fix the problem. People in the South did not agree that this was a problem, and they saw the students from the North as being nosey and not minding their own business. In the end President Johnson signed the Civil Rights bill, not because he thought that it was the best policy, but because anything else would further shatter the illusion of American society created to maintain the wealthy power structure of American government. Johnson himself remarked that his signing of this bill could mean the downfall of the Democratic Party. And, history shows that he was right.

Slowly the Democrats became associated with civil rights and slowly the traditional Southern Democrat began to hate that fact. It shouldn’t be any surprise that the Southern Republican ranks gradually grew over the next thirty years until they took over congress with the Gingrich Revolution in 1994. The wealthy power brokers didn’t care where they got their support from as long as they were able to maintain enough power to bend the government to their will. Since the source of support didn’t matter Republican strategists were able to pull the Christian Fundamentalists to their cause. These Christians who had once cared little about politics became very interested when they were threatened with the prospect of taxation with the case of Dodge v. Salvation Army (1989). This case resulted in the formation of the Christian Coalition, and only after the formation of this group did abortion become their number one issue. The objective of this group has always been money from the start, which explains why they meshed so well with the wealthy Republican power brokers.

The point is that these people who seek power to maintain their wealth will use whatever means necessary to maintain control of government. And, like today we see that they are willing to raise the specter of fear in order to make political points and win elections, whether that fear is real or more likely meant to be perceived.

I only hope that Americans who have seen this play in the Republican playbook many times before will realize that today’s speech was not about move new prisoners to the far end of Cuba, but it is about reminding Americans that they should fear the terrorists. The sad thing is that the main goal of terrorists is to instill fear into the American people, and our very own government is doing the bidding of these terrorists.



-----------------------------------------------------





Don't forget what Stephen Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."


Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit



Politics

I came, I swam, I finished...

I don’t like to brag about my achievements. However, I’d like to tell people who are struggling that they can do it. They can turn their lives around and feel better and feel healthier. For those of you who don’t want to read another of my exercise/health posts I am sure you’ve already clicked on to something else. I just hope that some of you who are trying to become healthier will continue to read on.

Saturday I swam the legendary 1.25 miles from Alcatraz to San Francisco. It doesn’t sound like it’s very far, and really it isn’t very far. The cold water made a bigger impression on me than the distance that I actually swam. The swim was one of those things that I just convinced myself that I wanted to do after I started to become healthy after so many years of being a lethargic couch potato.

I’ve told my story of the last two or three years a few times now, so I’ll just mention the highlights for those who are new to my blog. Out of serendipity more than anything else I began to swim daily a little more than two years ago. I had no major goal in mind except that I’d like to exercise and feel better. I would have been happy to loose ten or maybe even twenty pounds. But, over the first 18 months I actually lost 50 pounds. And, even better than that I have continued to maintain my weight since Christmas. In fact, I am slowly building muscle while I continued to loose a couple of inches around my waist. My pants size is now 28, and it is a real pain trying to find size 28 pants. I have resorted to buying size 30 pants and wearing a belt so that they don’t fall off.

The problem is that body fat is a “good” thing when you try to swim in really cold water. Based on a body fat calculation I have less than 3% body fat.

So, when I jumped into San Francisco Bay on Saturday I thought that I might be in trouble. Surprisingly the cold water did not bother me at all while I was swimming. However, upon exiting the water I began to shiver uncontrollably for some time until I realized that the only way I was going to warm up was by moving around. After I began to jog in place for a few minutes the shivering subsided and I was only a bit cold instead.

The swim itself was quite an experience. They take the entire group of swimmers and a few guests out on a boat and stop just off shore of Alcatraz. The object is to jump off the boat and swim to the San Francisco Aquatic Park, which is east of Crissy Field, and west of Fisherman’s Warf. This sounds easy in principle, but if you wear glasses like myself the landmarks are not as distinct as I would have liked. The race coordinators were very nice and they instructed us how we should plan our swim, because of the tidal currents. The main issue is that a break wall surrounds the Aquatic Park with a very small opening between the bay and the protected area. The opening is certainly larger than 50 yards, but when you are swimming from a mile away the target seems to be very small. Everyone was also warned that if one were to swim directly toward the opening the current would push you to the west and chances of making it into the Aquatic Park would become very slim.

I decided that I would swim this event without a wetsuit. This was mainly because I didn’t own a wetsuit, and secondly it seemed like it defeated the point of swimming from Alcatraz. I mean, if I was a prisoner at Alcatraz I certainly doubt that I would have the possibility of finding a wetsuit so that I could escape. I was romanticizing the idea of escaping from a so-called impossible to escape from prison. The wetsuit idea just didn’t mesh well with the romantic notion. After all, swimming 1.25 miles is a walk in the park in a pool with 82 degree water.

So, there I stood on the deck of this tourist boat that was commandeered for the event. Three hundred and fifty swimmers and another 150 guests surrounded me waiting for the signal to jump into the water and begin the swim. The event was timed like a race, but your position in line greatly effected where one might place. I believe that I had to wait more than five minutes from the time the horn sounded until I actually jumped into the water. But, this was my first time, so I didn’t expect to be able to win it. If that were to be my goal, then I would certainly camp out next to a door next time.
We lined up like storm troopers waiting to jump from a plane. Three people at a time we jumped into the cool bay water and quickly swam away from the boat. The major question was, where should we swim. I knew the general direction of San Francisco, but I couldn’t make out the Jeremiah O’Brien, the Naval ship we were instructed to swim toward. Floating in the bay gives you an entirely different perspective, Golden Gate Bridge to the right, Bay Bridge to the left, and the city straight ahead. I just started swimming in that direction hoping that I would be swimming in the right direction, and if not a kayaker would signal to me which way to turn. There were several kayaks along the course intending to keep the swimmers on the straight and narrow.

I swam at least half the distance before I saw my first target, and in seeing it I picked up my pace. But, not long after this renewed gusto I was hit by a couple of choppy waves. I assume they must have been from a wake of a boat travelling nearby. These small waves were nothing compared to the six-foot waves I had swum in, in preparation for the race. I continued to push on, and I noticed that there were currents of different temperatures as I swam across the bay. The water was first cold, then warmer, then much colder and so on. Finally I saw the three masts of the schooner that was docked in the Aquatic Park, behind the break wall. When I saw it I turned and started swimming toward it, but soon I found myself swimming in a direction that would have taken me past the opening and I needed to correct course. In fact I found myself continually correcting course as I neared the opening. Without that line on the bottom to follow I found myself zigzagging a bit more than I would have liked. Each zigzag meant I would need to swim a bit further.

When I finally entered the Aquatic Park the water was noticeably warmer and I could finally see the finish line ahead. And, as I entered the Aquatic Park so did a few more swimmers that I hadn’t seen during the race. In fact I actually saw very few swimmers during the race, mainly because my eyes were only a few inches above the water whenever I looked around, which limited my view to only a few yards at most as I looked for other swimmers heads. But, the best part of all was when I heard the sound of my wife and kids yelling when I got out of the water. I didn’t know where they were, but I could make out their voices quite distinctly.

Well, I finished the race and I shivered as I wrote above, but I was simply amazed that people continued to finish the race for quite some time. I don’t know how long it took me to swim this event, because they haven’t posted the results yet. I don’t even know when the last person finished, because I lost my sense of time for a while as I recovered from my hypothermia. But, I don’t feel sore or even stiff from this event, as compared to some running races that I have completed.

As I take this moment to think about what I did and what I might do next I feel better than I ever have. I am certainly in better shape than I have been in for the last twenty or more years. And, my running is actually coming along just fine as well. In fact a week before the Alcatraz swim I ran 14 miles, which is slightly more than half a marathon. It took me two hours to run 14 miles, which isn’t very fast, but the point is that I have never run for two hours straight without stopping ever. I ran ten miles in one and a half-hour back in March. But I was excited that I could run 14 miles, which is now my personal record for the longest I have ever run in my entire life. When I was on my high school cross-country team we never ran that far. I may have run a 10K once, but most races were much shorter, three or four miles. So, when it comes to 14 miles I know that I have never run that far in my lifetime. But, at this rate I just may be able to do a marathon.

It is certainly hard for me to imagine three years ago that I would be swimming from Alcatraz, running 14 miles, or contemplating the possibility of running a marathon or competing in a triathlon.

Life certainly is a mystery.





-----------------------------------------------------





Don't forget what Stephen Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."


Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit



Exercise,
Health,
Fitness

These famous words are always uttered by the religious right when the question of homosexuality is brought up. But, These very same people call those of us who are opposed to the horrendous actions of that man some call president of the United States of America, George W Bush. I say, the man is flawed on so many levels that I feel sorry for him, but I do not hate him. I hate the sins that he has committed.

I could see how some people might think that George W Bush is a bumbling West Texan that hadn’t been out of the country more than a week or so before becoming president. That isn’t his fault, maybe he doesn’t like to travel. But, just because he hasn’t learned much about the outside world doesn’t mean that he is an awful man. No, he can certainly change his ways, if he chose to. It isn’t like he was born this way.

Well, actually we are all born with no knowledge of the world. But, God has given all of us certain gifts that we all use in one way or another. If we assume that George W Bush has been given the gift of “schmooze” he can choose to use it for “good” or for “evil.” Just because he chose to use it for evil does not mean that we should hate the man. We should hate the sin, not the sinner.

Jesus instructed us that we are all God’s children. We should love God above all, but we should also love each other as we love ourselves. I suppose that if you are like George W Bush and you hate yourself for whatever reason, then he is certainly entitled to hate the rest of us as well. But, if he does we should certainly listen to what Jesus said, and turn the other cheek.

But, even if George W Bush wishes to punish the poor for being poor, or punish our soldiers for being soldiers we should not hate George W Bush, we should hate his sin.

It really bothers me when I hear conservatives say that there are so many Bush Haters out there. I don’t think that many of us hate the president, we just hate what he does. If Dick Cheney or Karl Rove were calling the shots instead of George W Bush we would hate what they were doing just as much as we hate what George W Bush is doing now. These people have chosen to sin, but we all know that if they try real hard they can learn to love again and be “saved.” After all, people have until they die to be rescued from their evil ways. If we just hold on a little longer and continue to love these people they will begin to change. After all, with Jesus’ love nothing can be impossible. We just need to continue to love the sinner, while we continue to hate the sin.


Peace Out!



-----------------------------------------------------





Don't forget what Stephen Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."


Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit



Politics, Religion

How can we fix our national education problem? Of course we must first admit that there is a problem. With all of the proposals being floated around the politicians - testing, accountability, more taxes, more discipline, higher teacher’s salaries, school vouchers, and magnet schools for example - someone must think that there is a problem.

Unfortunately the reality of the situation is a decline in the public demand for quality education. This is a cultural issue that begins with the respect of education in general. If there was a universal respect for education, then parent would be working to ensure that there kids were doing their homework, and behaving in school. If there was a universal respect for education teachers would be making salaries in line with management wages and people would be bending over backward trying to donate time and services to all education oriented organizations in the community.

There are many reasons why education has lost respect. First there are people who don’t believe that education is more than acquiring workplace skills in order to make a bit more money. Education is more than that. It is a collection of knowledge that needs to be passed on to future generations so that it won’t be lost. It is also the skill of rational thought that allows people to discover how the politicians and advertisers distort the facts to get you to do what they want you to do. It is also a pool of common knowledge that allows people to discuss the world around them on a higher level of understanding. It is also the key to protecting the community from dangers, like diseases, poisons and other less obvious things.

Second there are cultural biases against education that have seeped into our country. Some subcultures regard education as dangerous, especially for women or minorities. Some subcultures place less emphasis on education, claiming it isn’t cool, or it doesn’t give us the “whole” truth. These subcultures set a dangerous precedent encouraging children to skip school, or disrupt classrooms.

Third, parents find keeping tabs on their children too tedious and taxing. Many families have both parents working out of economic necessity. Parents come home from work to tired to deal with the children and end up sitting them in front of a TV or video game. When young children have questions about homework or topics covered in school many parents are too tired to answer the questions, or they have adopted the attitude that the school is responsible for there child’s education and they tell their children to wait until the next day for them to ask the teacher. A child with a helpful parent will learn much quicker than one with a parent who doesn’t give a damn.

Schools are an important part of the equation, but they are not the only part. An overall respect for the education system as a whole would go a lot further in repairing the damage than any suggestion that I have heard. This is because an overall respect for the system would take away some of these projects with ulterior motives like school vouchers. Everyone should realize by now that school vouchers are a way proposed by the religious right to enable the siphoning of education dollars out of the public education system to support schools that already exist free of government money. Catholic schools have survived without this extra money, that would come from every student already enrolled. By virtue of supply and demand the same students would remain enrolled and the tuition would increase respectively until each student would be paying the same amount that they already pay. The net benefit would be the private schools with the surplus cash. The net losers would be the public schools that would lose this money. Obviously taxpayers would not be willing to raise taxes to pay for the newly supported private schools. If people had a healthy respect for education they would respect how private schools actually benefit the public schools by allowing their tax dollars to go further.

Unfortunately the only way to change a “disrespect” for education into a “respect” for education is a re-education of Americans that is so deep it effects the entire culture. This is an enormous task, and it isn’t clear that it can even be done. At this point everyone is way too cynical to respond to any type of education campaign. How would one even begin?

Well, I am just planting the seed here with a little thought - please respect education, it is the only thing we have to show for all the effort made by the generations of humans that have occupied this planet.




-----------------------------------------------------





Don't forget what Stephen Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."


Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit



Politics

What motivates us? Is it the law of the jungle, animal instinct or practical planning for the future? Think of the next thing that you are planning to do after you finish reading this post. Why are you going to do it? There are several motivating factors that I can think of: curiosity, love, or survival. From my experience almost anything that you are planning to do, or even don’t intend to do are the result of some form of fear.

This is a major realization on my part. But this revelation hit me while I was thinking of the founding of Alcoholics Anonymous. Susan Cheever, the author of the book, “My Name is Bill: Bill Wilson--His Life and the Creation of Alcoholics Anonymous” was being interviewed and she said that she believed that every addiction was based on fear. I hadn’t thought of addiction in this way before, but she went on to use the example of overeating. She said that personally she knows that she could easily go without eating, but at some point during the day she begins to think about something she would like to eat. Then, she puts it off, but the thought keeps coming back to her stronger and stronger each time. She begins to create a fear that she will never be able to eat whatever it is that she was considering earlier. Rationally this fear makes no sense at all, but to the addict the fear is very real and it won’t go away until it is acted upon.

So, I began to think a little more about fear. When we imagine fear, we often think of things popping out at us and surprising us. We think of sudden terror as we reach the summit of a roller coaster. But, there are other fears that are not so dominant. For example, the fear that you won’t make the rent payment, or the fear that you will be fired from your job. There is the fear of being beaten and robbed at gunpoint. There is the fear that someone you trust will do something against you because you trusted them. The list of fears goes on and on. In fact, if you think of something that you plan to do, it is most likely that you are going to do it out of the motivation of fear. People go to church, because they fear going to Hell. People follow traditional customs, because they fear that their family and relatives will look down on them if they don’t follow the traditions. People vote because they fear who will get in office if they don’t. People exercise because they fear death and sickness. People skip exercise because they fear that they will miss their favorite program on the TV or they fear the pain and exhaustion after the exercise.

The fears are not all equal, and that has a lot to do with how you deal with each fear. People who fear dark places will avoid dark places and plan what they do accordingly. People who fear crowds will do likewise. People who fear violence may carry a gun to protect themselves. But, one thing is certain; people do not deal with their fears rationally. This is because fear is an emotional response to the unknown. People can guess the future, but they can not know with certainty how the future will be. Nature has given us the ability to construct a scenario in our minds to predict the probability of something happening in the future, but this ability is often being challenged and the result continues to be unable to know the future.

Fear can make a person do strange things that they will be embarrassed about later. Fear can make you hold on to the car door handle with white knuckles when your daughter drives you down the street for the very first time. Fear can make you drink alcohol to relieve the fear. In understanding the global nature of fear it is obvious how alcohol, or drugs can become so addictive for some people. No matter what the fear is, enough alcohol will make you pass out and forget the fear. It also explains why drugs like LSD were never very addictive, your fears become supernatural under the influence of LSD.

What Susan Cheever also explained was why the spiritual aspect of Alcoholics Anonymous was the secret ingredient that helped members succeed where other methods did not. Spirituality brings into focus the big picture. You no longer feel that you need to control your fear. Instead, there is nothing to fear because there is something greater than your petty fear.

In fact, the point of religion in general tends to be a way to control fears by reminding us about God. Different religions do this in different ways. The authoritarian method is to tell us that God has a list of laws. If one follows God’s list of laws, then there is nothing to fear because God will take care of everything. The maternal loving method tells us that God created us and therefore he loves us as His son or daughter and we should feel comfortable in knowing that He is always there protecting us as a mother protects her children. Both methods aim to alleviate fear from our lives by telling us not to fear.

The authoritarian method ran into trouble even in Jesus’ time. The Jewish religion had many laws and they made life more difficult in some ways. People found themselves breaking the laws unavoidably from time to time and then they found themselves in fear again. So, the problem became if one breaks the law what will happen to them. Some people believed that they would be punished for breaking the laws in different ways. For example, the parents of the man born blind believed that their sin had caused the blindness of the man. Guilt and fear ran deep in the culture because following the list of laws proved nearly impossible and most people had broken them and they assumed that they could not be forgiven. Fear was back and religion was no longer the solution.


But, Jesus changed all that when he began to forgive the people. When the people began to feel forgiven their fears left them. Or, at least they lost the fear of being punished by God for breaking a law on the list. They could go back and begin to follow the laws once again with a clean slate. The power of forgiveness was able to overpower fear. Jesus brought salvation.

But, unfortunately there is an epilog to this story. Some of the followers of Jesus never really understood what Jesus had done. Some thought that He brought new or better laws, and if those laws were followed to the letter, then there would be no fear. But, these people did not learn the real lesson that Jesus had taught. A new list of laws would result in the same creation of fear over time as people continued to be human and make mistakes in their lives. Forgiveness is the salvation that Jesus brought, not new laws. The rationalization of fears by putting them in the proper order is what religion seeks, and realizing the power of God is the key to this reorganization. When one realizes this there is no longer a need to drink to forget ones fears. With proper fears put in proper order one can manage his or her life putting the emphasis on projects that will make a difference, instead of wasting time on fears that make little difference or may even be destructive to one’s life.

But, fear is powerful and leaders are always seeking power. Leaders should have the goal to lead the people for the common good, but given a little power these people sometimes demand more. Fear is one method in which leaders can guarantee more power. This is because people are mobilized by fear. Announcing a common threat will insure that the people will not only unite but also sacrifice personal liberty and material goods. Security is see as safety from an unknown threat. Leaders in quick response to a real threat can use this fear, but it is also used to consolidate power within the leadership. The truth is that this fear can be abused. But, fortunately people will gradually loose their fear and be able to respond to the leaders and take back their power. And it is time to do just that in November. Don’t forget to vote!




-----------------------------------------------------





Don't forget what Stephen Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."


Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit



Politics

After watching Richard Doerflinger last night on the News Hour with Jim Lehrer I wanted to commit some act of violence. Fortunately when the show was over I fell asleep and now I only feel some bitter hatred instead. Why do people find this need to distort facts to save the life of a ball of eight cells, but they don't care enough to help a live person with a family and a horrible disease?

Richard Doerflinger is certainly a pro-life extremist who can not see the forest for the trees. He was invited onto the News Hour to discuss a recent advance in stem cell research that will allow a single cell to be taken from an embryo without harming the embryo and then the single cell may be used to generate new stem cell lines that could be used in research. The hope is that if an embryo is not destroyed in the process of creating the stem cell lines, then there may be little opposition to the use of federal funds for this type of research. And, of course money is what every good research program needs to continue to learn about the wonders of creation and to be able to use that knowledge to make our lives better.

Mr. Doerflinger doesn’t see it this way. Instead of praising the effort of these scientists to create a work around an arbitrary law banning money for embryonic stem cell research he criticized the way the privately funded research was conducted. There are no laws preventing the use of embryos in this way. There are only limits by the federal government on the funding of this research. But, Mr. Doerflinger uses his opportunity to shame Robert Lanza claiming he had destroyed 16 embryos in his research to prove that this could be done.

Here is the Washington Post story on this research: link

The research question was a two part question. The first question was can a single cell be removed from an embryo without damaging it. To do this Robert Lanza’s group used eight of the 16 embryos to prove that this could be done. All eight, eight cell embryos matured just fine with the loss of one cell. It is amazing to me that people are concerned about these tiny eight cell clumps, but if this is what it takes, then so be it. So, Mr. Doerflinger was either misinformed, or chose to misrepresent the research done by Advanced Cell Technology (ACT).

The second question to be answered was, can a single cell be enticed to grow into a stem cell colony in a petri dish? Single cells don’t generally like to live by themselves, so this is the more complicated part of the experiment. Since this had never been done before it was expected that the failure rate would be high, until the technique could be established. So, the remaining eight embryos were destroyed in order to get as many cells as possible. The result was 91 stem cells, so obviously some of the eight cell embryos had multiplied. But, the point was that they were able to try this 91 times with 91 individual stems cells and the result was 2 stem cell lines.

Could the same experiment be done without destroying any embryos? Yes, 91 single cells could have been taken from 91 embryos. Did Advanced Cell Technology have 91 embryos? I don’t know, but they did have 16. The probability that they could have produced a stem cell line with only 16 cell would be about 30% based on 2 lines for 91 attempts. But, the knowledge is now known and stem cell line could now be created without harming an embryo.

But, Mr. Doerflinger was not happy about this triumph. Instead, Mr. Doerflinger launched into a tirade about how the new technique could be used for genetic screening and even more embryos will be thrown away as a result of the Advanced Cell Technology technique. Well, doesn’t Mr. Doerflinger sound like he would be fun at a party. He’s certainly always looking at the bright side of things - NOT!

This whole debate is filled with distortion in order to win a point from the public score keeper. But the reality is that there aren’t so many people that care enough about the details accept for the people who are doing the arguing. And these people just continue to listen so they can find one more point to justify how they already feel about the issue.

If pro-life people were really serious about life, then they would be figuring out how to make food from non-living things. This is because the level of life that is in that eight cell clump called an embryo is slightly more significant than a one-cell organism. And, it is slightly less significant than a roundworm. That is the truth in the reality-based world. Equally true is the fact that that clump of cells has the potential to become much more. But, in the reality based world we need to realize that not every conception results in the birth of a child. Nature itself determines the viability of an embryo before it even implants into the wall of the uterus and it continues to monitor its progress throughout the pregnancy. Spontaneous abortions or miscarriages happen all the time. If they happen in the first month of a pregnancy the woman may not even have known that she was pregnant.

However, people who have taken up the cause to fight stem cell research are the first to call an environmentalist a “tree hugger,” because they think these people are over the top. Have they forgotten that the tree is alive and deserves some respect? These same people wear fur, eat meat and maybe go hunting animals with rifles. Is any one of these activities respecting the life they take?

Obviously there is a major speed bump in our culture. We are not on the same page at all. There seem to be two distinct pages and maybe even a few pages in between. Obviously ethicists and philosophers have tackled the question of life before, but they don’t seem to be unified on the subject either. The problem is that in this circle of life we must all destroy life in order to live in one way or another. If society could ever come to terms with what the purpose of life is, then we could more easily come to a consensus on what we should do as a society to make it work. Seeing that this is never going to happen we need to resort to the old plan, every man for himself.






-----------------------------------------------------





Don't forget what Stephen Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."


Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit



Politics, Stem Cells, Ethics