The Madness That IS Climate Change

I feel the need to talk about this subject, particularly now as in the northern US, we are thawing-out from a second, brutal winter.  Many in the United States have a tendency to look at weather as a surface problem.  But weather - or Earth's circulatory system actually - is NOT just a surface issue, but a deeply layered issue where cause and effect have serious ramifications.
I will of course, preface this by saying - I AM NOT A CLIMATE SCIENTIST.  However, I have the ability to read; I have the ability to absorb the information that meteorologists convey to the public at large; and I have the ability to decipher and correlate the evidential information I receive and put it to practical use.  This is the ability of the evolved, human brain.  All of us with normal brain function can accomplish this task.
There are those in this country and world - in positions of power - who, while seemingly possessing similar brain power, either don't actually have it or are intentionally spewing calculated ignorance:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TIOy7MZRR0

So the point of SENATOR Inhofe's graphic display, is in a nutshell, to say that global warming and 2014 being the hottest year on record is a simple lie ... because it snowed.
This is like saying America has no poverty because, Bill Gates is rich.
In both instances, two conditions CAN still exist together and yet be true.
No one said that 2014 was so goddamn hot that snow will cease to exist - only that the global temperature AVERAGE for the YEAR was HIGHER than it ever has been in RECORDED history.

So - now the debate becomes whether or not this heat will ruin our world as geologic history shows us that Earth has experienced periods of much warmer climates and much colder climates - NATURALLY.
Of course this implies that the warming, (which IS happening and I will post several links at the bottom to responsible studies by actual scientists), is man-made or natural.

BUT - I am going to propose a NEW (well not really new, but mostly overlooked) angle on the whole issue!  Instead of arguing over who or what is to blame for the warming trend and the subsequent and very visual and measurable, world ice-melt ... why don't we instead start planning for the future?

There are two components that I feel are most relevant.
1) regardless of the melting power of fossil fuels - why not switch to clean energy for the reason that it tends to NOT POISON US and all other life on Earth?
2) enact plans to enable us to live in a world that contains a lot more surface water than we had previously planned. 

We can debate the "why's" and the "who's to blames" until we're all blue in the face.  Meanwhile - Florida will be under water. New York City, Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington, DC, Houston, New Orleans will be under water - IF we do nothing.
In fact, the only way - in the future - to salvage these cities will be by great feats of engineering and mastery of flood control.
Also - maybe we should consider more radical plans such as cities built underwater or on the water - floating cities even.

Going back to that whole brain thing - we DO have the ability to combat most of what nature can throw at us and come out on top - like cockroaches.  Though with them - it's just sheer numbers.

We can either sit around and deny and fight each other and weep when it's too late ... OR we can plan ahead, wisely like intelligent life forms should.

I'm going to tell you now - this government will not save you.  "God" will not save you.  Only we can save ourselves.  It's all we've ever done to survive - it's what we must do to continue.
And that brings up a point - this future won't be a big deal for those of us at the helm now.  This WILL be a problem for our kids' kids and beyond.  But our prodigy has every right to life that we have.  And if people can't see that - well they don't deserve what they have now.  Our founders didn't do all they did to create this nation just for them - they did it for us.  And we shouldn't just piss it away.

Elect leaders who make decisions based on facts.  Not on how much money it earns them.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/basics/

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJhbQIlu4mk

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/03/18/the-right-warms-up-to-climate-change.html

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2015/02/climate-change-economics/parker-text

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/mar/17/climate-change-demands-immense-economic-changes

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/mar/16/climate-change-in-the-arctic-is-messing-with-our-weather

https://www.climatecommunication.org/new/features/extreme-weather/overview/

Research it yourselves. Don't stick your head in the sand. This is not the end of our civilization. But we need to learn to adapt.
And if you refuse to believe the science because you don't trust scientists ... well I just can't help you there. Enjoy your new pool/living room.

On Media and Motive - The Chapel Hill Murders

      About 2 a.m., Wednesday February 11, 2015, three bodies were identified as the victims of a shooting in Chapel Hill, North Carolina.  The victims were college students, 23, 21, and 19 years of age - all shot in the head by a Craig Stephen Hicks, also a resident of Chapel Hill.
      This event quickly whipped our "crack" media infrastructure into a frenzy, where they expeditiously sought to assign motive to this horrible crime.  Oddly, the standard media angle - a mass murder by gun - was almost completely passed over in this instance in favor of a more inflammatory one - the murderer was an atheist and the victims were Muslim.
While I'm sure the Fox newsroom broke into spontaneous orgasms over this revelation, curiously all the mainstream media latched-on to that angle as well.
      Keep in mind - no motive had been released or even found yet by the police department handling the crime, with the exception of a known argument over parking.  Yet the media, having investigated Hicks' Facebook page let pure speculation run rampant despite the complete absence of correlation between the event that occurred and the information on the page.
      Fox News, The Silver Fox on CNN, The Today Show, The NY Times, even local affiliates began reporting the story as a "hate crime," and even before a motive had been established.  But was this a hate crime?  Those who know Hicks said no.  Now - one might expect friends and family to cover for someone they care for, but when you look at the Facebook page - the one of the alleged Muslim-hating, godless atheist who was fueled by his Muslim hate to commit murder, you don't actually see the motivation.
      His Facebook page confirmed he considered himself an atheist.  He was in favor of gay marriage.  He was in favor of abortion rights.  He re-posted a number of typical atheism-related memes.  He did question religion - most specifically, Christianity in his posts.  But very little was present that would suggest he so viciously hated Muslims, he felt the need to randomly go murder three in an apartment complex.
      It would seem that not only were these innocent people deprived of their lives by a man who clearly snapped, WE have once again, all been deprived of a reasonable and factual media.  It's as though it were a deliberate attempt to whip the American - and world public - up into a frenzy, probably to bolster sagging ratings.
      So now the pot has been stirred and a table is being turned on atheism.  Atheists, myself included, tend to regularly point out the correlation between religion and psychopathic and/or homicidal behavior in individuals and groups.  Naturally, this event is forging a backlash that puts atheists and atheism in the spotlight for similar transgressions.  However, the reasoning behind it is clearly unsound.
      First point - atheism is NOT and organized community.  There is no charter.  There is no book of laws and regulations.  There are no churches - aside from perhaps the internet and occasional groups who meet maybe once a month to drink beer and talk.  More importantly, there is no code within atheism that provides for hate crimes to be committed.  There is no sanctioning of violence or exclusion or immoral behavior.  Atheism is NOT a religion.
      By contrast:
           The God of the Bible also allows slavery, including selling your own daughter as a sex slave (Exodus 21:1-11), child abuse (Judges 11:29-40 and Isaiah 13:16), and bashing babies against rocks (Hosea 13:16 & Psalms 137:9). 
          In 2 Kings 10:18-27, God orders the murder of all the worshipers of a different god in their very own church.
          All tallied, the God (Yahweh), of the Bible kills 371,186 people directly and orders another 1,862,265 people murdered.
          The Holy Qur'an - The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule. Unlike nearly all of the Old Testament verses of violence, the verses of violence in the Quran are mostly open-ended, meaning that they are not restrained by the historical context of the surrounding text.  They are part of the eternal, unchanging word of Allah, and just as relevant or subjective as anything else in the Quran.

            Quran (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."

            Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them." 
            Now these are but a few verses and examples.  The books are literally LOADED with words allegedly from GOD or ALLAH, spewing hatred, jealousy, immorality and death.  And that doesn't even take into consideration the heinous acts done over the centuries by the Catholic Church, reform churches who burned "witches", Holy wars of both religions and the horrific things coming out in the name of Islam today.
      So religion is predestined to create environments where horrific things become justified - "in the name of God."  Two-thousand years of acts of homicide are supposed to be excused, but one atheist goes nuts and it's ALL our fault?
      My second point is this - despite one's upbringing, despite one's belief system, some people just lose their shit.  Some people are caught in madness and that's the way it is.  Some people are religious, some aren't.  Most people don't murder three innocent people on a Wednesday, but occasionally some do. Religious or not.
      This Chapel Hill homicide appears to be far less about religious hate and far more about internal madness.  And even if it is found that he hated the victims for some reason, because they were Muslim, atheism holds no triggering factor that would've promoted the action.
      Despite what our illustrious media machine may have to say about it.

ISIS - clear and present danger

First of all - Hi! I'm back. Haven't posted in a couple years, but I feel I need to take my rants off Facebook and channel them elsewhere, so this seems as good a place as any.

Today - my rant is ISIS. The Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, but it's far more than that. The opinion I'm about to express will contain some well-known facts about ISIS/ISIL that I encourage readers to research for themselves. And of course, I will espouse my opinion on the situation involving this uprising.

Let me state for the record, that I am NOT a racist. I hold nothing against any human being based upon their race - where one is born or what race one is, is no one's "fault" and in fact creates wonderful diversity for our planet.
I will however, reserve the right to critique the choices people make - as adults - with the full capacity to reason their own actions.

There is a tendency in the media, the political spin doctors, and at all levels of government to classify ISIS or ISIL as a terrorist organization. While terrorism IS part of their modus operandi, it should not be mistaken for the be-all, end-all of their existence.
There is also a tendency to disconnect the group with the Islamic religion, in favor of labeling the group simple "madmen." While I agree that their intentions are in fact "mad", it is wrong to ignore the influence of Islam - particularly the Qur'an and the words of the prophet Mohammed - with respect to the group's ambitions. For that matter, their very name bears the name of their religion.

What is ISIS/ISIL?

ISIS stands for The Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (Syria). ISIL stands for the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. There is much confusion over these terms, I've actually heard people criticize president Obama for using ISIL, prompting the ill-educated public to accuse him of "being so stupid, he doesn't even know the name of the group he's talking about."
TO BE CLEAR - ISIS and ISIL - are the SAME GROUP. There is NO difference aside from which faction happens to be referring to it.
ISIS (ISIL) is a jihadist, rebel group which controls territory in Iraq and Syria an also operates in North Africa, the Middle East, South Asia and Southeast Asia.
It has allegiance to Al-Queda and other Sunni insurgent groups.
It's leader is a man named, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and the group has grown considerably under his leadership. He was the key to the sudden strengthening of the group because he is believed to be a  prophesied caliph (leader) to bring a WORLDWIDE caliphate, (claims religious, political and military authority over all Muslims worldwide), to fruition.
The group actually controls vast areas of northern Iraq and eastern Syria at this time, despite meager military bombardments. They also control pockets all across the regions I previously described.
Their actual, stated intention is to, in five years, conquer the entire Middle East, Muslim Africa, Muslim Asia, and in fact - SPAIN.

While a 5-year plan may be a bit optimistic, they have conquered vast swaths of land very quickly. And their plan to achieve this is not unlike many conquering armies of the past.
They start with a village, conquer it, conscript more men and teen boys from that village, kill anyone who opposes them, and moves on to the next village. Repeat.
It's a simple and comprehensive plan.

But what of the religion? You say they sound like simple brigands and they are not of "God"? 
Wrong.
They have been very successful because they use the words "of God" available to them in the Qur'an. The Qur'an very explicitly dictates in many ways that a caliphate should exist and Sharia Law should be achieved via Jihad.
Essentially, anyone who is not on-board with this is guilted into being on-board with it using their own religion as an example. If that doesn't work - they die.  The use of their RELIGION is how they have been able to conquer so much so fast and how they are able to have so many cells in the region who will likely one day soon become an equal problem.

For the record - Christianity once did the same. Still does in more mild manners. But at one time, Christianity was as bloody a proposition as Islam.
Islam is about 600 years younger. Go back 600 years or so into Christianity's past. Think about the chaos. The Inquisition, the Crusades, burning "witches" - every bit as barbaric.
ISIS represents the "growing pains" of RELIGION. Period.

But we don't live in benign times. In 1400, no one was going to destroy entire countries via nuclear annihilation.
If ISIS continues to flourish and uprisings start occurring everywhere they are now and the world sits back and does nothing ... how long before they get hold of something that will really do some damage? And think of the millions of Muslims worldwide, embedded in other countries.  How much damage could even a small percentage do if they became seduced by their religion's dark side?

Bottom line - ISIS is the problem in the Middle East that we should've been waiting for. If ever a time was necessary to stop a growing army - this is it.
I am sorry we spent so much time fighting in the Middle East, plutocratic wars that were little more than profiteering for our elite. Because this day was bound to come. Now we're really being backed into a corner and most Americans don't even see it.

Yesterday this happened:
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-terror/obamas-isis-war-powers-request-heads-congress-n304316

Link it up - check it out.
Unfortunately - this one IS necessary.

But I can only hope our leaders realize that we've taken too much out of our economy and military to go this route ourselves. We need to organize a global response to the question of ISIS.  The security and stability of the world may lie in how we proceed.

The USA cannot be the designated "world police." We cannot sustain that title anymore. We need to acknowledge that we need help with this battle and we need to accept it.

A New Political/Economic System?

So I recently set out to define my personal, political belief system. What prompted this is kinda dumb ... Facebook. I sought to update and define my political views in the "About" section. The "religion" part, I got down pretty easily, but when it came to politics ... I find that I'm a bit more complex. My belief system falls into capitalism - but capitalism goes too far. It also falls into socialism - but socialism goes too far. Now many capitalist and socialist societies fall into a "mix" category. But my version of the mix is a little more complex and precise I guess. The Constitution of the United States of America does not (despite popular belief), define a form of economy. We developed into a capitalistic form over time that has come to be assumed as the law of the land. In fact, it is constantly being tweaked. And in recent years, has become open to more scrutiny and corruption than ever. I believe, we need to become pioneers once again. The world has changed. We need to open the doors to a new, sustainable, fair, and prosperous way of life. We need to eradicate poverty, excesses of greed, damage to our environment, and we need to restore some form of compassion for our fellow mankind. So what is it I believe? Well - I am not against (as some may believe), free enterprise. I think one of our greatest American freedoms has historically been the right to establish, own and operate our own businesses. This practice has built this country and by default helped to perpetuate the idea of democracy across the globe. However, what I fear from capitalism in its present form, is greed. Greed has been permitted to proliferate and damage the system we hold so dear. Our politicians, in general, have proven to be of poor character and are proving to be easily bought and swayed by corporate lobbyists. Now this is exactly what our founding fathers feared would happen. Now - how we end this is unclear. It is obvious that it can't continue but as more plutocratic control over this country's systems occurs, the more difficult it will be to break it. So something will have to give - and soon. I'm also a fan of some aspects of socialism. For example - one of the biggest controversies in this country is the idea of universal healthcare. I'm all for it. And yea, though most politicians in Congress will tell you it's the Devil's work - they of course benefit from ... anyone??? Ferris??? You got it - universal healthcare. Until the day they die. So while it's not OK for the common citizen to receive such benefits, it's OK for them? Hmmmm??? Curious. At any rate, socialism, while virtuous in many areas, establishes state control over production. So in many socialist countries, while private business do exist, the economies of those countries are interdependent upon the businesses within. This is a slippery slope. We can see the negative affects of such inter-mingling in Europe presently. Germany, with its social market economy has fared the best, but even that system has been criticized as placing money over people in the order of importance. So, we're finally coming to the meat of my blog - what I think should be established. Some of my beliefs DID actually exist in the U.S. until recently. As I list my thoughts, I'll be sure to point that out. First of all, I would like to see a mixed economic system, where free-enterprise and the market continue to exist ... BUT ... I believe the government (as in WE the PEOPLE), should retain control over all basic, human needs. In other words, I don't trust private enterprise to handle responsibly, those areas critical to the needs of our citizens. The areas I deem critical and therefore retaining the need for "social" responsibility include: - Public utilities (power, water, sewer, waste management(contractors OK here for pick-up) - incidentally, all of these used to be run by municipalities until the latter half of the 20th Century. - Phone/internet (communication has become paramount - I believe that the cell system should be dismantled and in its place a revolutionary satellite system involving ground-based repeaters be established. Perhaps we could combine forces with Canada to make it a North American effort.) This would still provide private enterprise for phone manufacturers and web-based companies but the people would control the open lines of communication. Laws would be established to ensure that the web remain free and not open to the cherry-picking of sites. - Prisons - I would see that it is made illegal for private industry to own and operate prisons. I believe every aspect of the incarceration of citizens should be handled by the government. It is in my opinion, one of humanity's most colossally dumb actions, to have opened prisons to be "for profit." The actual corruption occurring is already unfathomable, and that corruption is likely to increase the longer this practice is permitted. (Again - privatization was a late 20th Century change to our system) - Healthcare - universal. I think it is the RIGHT of every citizen to receive healthcare when sought. I think it is the RESPONSIBILITY of a free and human society to see that we take care of each other in times of need. By reducing the bloated military budget and the price-gouging that the government is subject to for goods and by no longer subsidizing industries who are turning RECORD PROFITS and by not subsidizing religious institutions - who don't pay taxes ... universal healthcare can be easily achieved. Period. It's NOT rocket science. Other areas of concern: - Food supply - I want to see the return of the family farm. Yes - this is private enterprise, and yes - this is how it USED TO BE DONE here in the USA. Family farms would produce, they could organize co-ops to help transport their goods to the food companies and markets which would of course remain privatized. This system worked. The size of our country and our exports of food is NOT a factor in the ownership of family farms. Corporations began establishing control of agriculture in the 1980's when Uncle Ronnie made it difficult for the local farmer - clearing the way for the Monsanto's and the Conagra's of the country to plutocracize the nations food supply. This needs to stop. No one is saying that Monsanto can't process food, but the unfair business practices - the virtual rape of the American farmer was and is wrong. I would like to see the family farmer make a comeback. The system used to work and food was safer and the agricultural system was more accountable. - Military - I mentioned earlier that we need to cut back on the budget. The reason I say that is NOT because I want to weaken the military. To the contrary - better focus on our resources will strengthen our security. We have military personnel on the ground in 148 countries on Earth (Politifact). We also have 662 bases in 38 countries worldwide (Politifact). Add to this - the fact that the United States military has technically been engaged in a constant state of war since World War II. This statement includes the Cold War, many various conflicts, cyber-war, and the current war on terrorism - which of course is an on-going battle. Our founders clearly intended our military to be a DEFENSE force. Instead the plutocratic powers that be, in the 20th Century and spanning to the present, have been in a constant state of imperialism. We are the current Great Britain, Spain, Rome, Greece, Mesopotamia - name your empire. We are it. And we control the strings of more people than any other empire previously. Our founders gave the world democracy. They showed the world a system of self-governance - not new, but not used at the time of our nation's birth. And now more countries than ever employ some form of that system. Negligence however, will make us fail. It is time to focus our military energy on technology rather than coverage. We could save so much money by cutting our worldwide presence and instead by building alliances around the world, create security. Meanwhile, we can continue to focus on innovation here and free money up for much needed use at home. - Regulation. The final viewpoint I'd like to see implemented in our country - in our political system is proper regulation. I believe our government does a piss-poor job of regulating business. While business is important to our economic prosperity - it should never come at the cost of the lives of the citizens who build those businesses. Again - this is a symptom of greed. Poor working conditions result when the few seek to profit at the EXPENSE of the many. Unions were created to combat this situation, but unions and the questionable tactics they employ and the corruption they can breed would be wholly unnecessary if the government would simply create rules and regulations that defend the people. Again - don't forget - the government of the U.S. IS the people. Or it's supposed to be anyway. Why don't we create regulatory laws that serve our best interests? It is simply illogical. In my perfect sociopolitical system, private enterprise would be encouraged but not at the expense of the well-being of the worker. Unions would need not exist because the government of the people would see to what is right! Less government is bullshit - unless you're a CEO or corporate owner. Yes, it could mean less of an overall profit, but if forced - it would also create an economy where those profits would become the norm - driving the price of inflation down to meet it. And it might mean a corporate owner makes a pitiful $20 million instead of $25 million a year. But gee - that's a price they might have to pay to do the right thing. So in conclusion, I don't really know what you would call this system. My political and economic viewpoints are diverse and hard to define. I suppose it's mostly a liberal viewpoint, but I think rather than looking at defining systems of government, maybe it's time we just start doing what's right.

The Millennial Story of the "Job Creators and tax cuts."

This election cycle, much is being written and verbalized in the media about tax breaks for the wealthy and job creation. The political pundits love to go back and forth over tax breaks for the wealthy - firing up supporters hugging each side of the issue. Beginning in 2001, with the "Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001" and then amplified with the "Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003", then-president George W. Bush lowered existing taxes for all Americans resulting in a real, yet menial yearly savings for most Americans, but a healthy cut for the wealthiest Americans. The Bush tax cuts had a provision built-in that would have them expire in 2010. However, in 2010, bowing to political pressure mostly from the right, but certainly by those in his own party, president Barack Obama signed a two-year extension called the "Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010." This bill extended the life of the "W" tax cuts for two years, but more importantly it began to stand as a precedent for a concept that was then and is today, being loudly touted by the political right-wing in Washington. A political ideology that states, "tax cuts are needed for the Job Creators (wealthy) so that they will create jobs." This is where the meat of my story really begins. So let's examine that assertion for a minute. The idea is that by ensuring the wealthiest Americans have significant tax shelters, they will in turn, use that money to create businesses to employ Americans, thereby helping to restore the economy. But the obvious elephant(no right-wing pun intended), in the room is that for the past eleven years, the wealthiest Americans have been receiving a reduction in taxes, allowing them to keep more of their capital for themselves and have yeilded a miserable record of creating jobs. In fact, during the recession beginning in 2008, they have done even less to create jobs. And that's actually somewhat understandable. When you look at it logically - it's a recession - bordering on a depression. Everyone has become more conservative with their spending whether they like it or not. But that's not the political take on it. The Republican Party is trying to sell the continunace of these cuts for at least another couple years and in reality - indefinitely. They are basing this sell on the idea that wealthy Americans create jobs for more Americans. But is that really true? Paris Hilton for example is wealthy beyond her wildest dreams but she pretty-much uses her money to whore around. Still many other wealthy Americans head corporations who have repeatedly outsorced jobs overseas and moved manufacturing plants to various third-world shitholes. And then there are the investment firms. No viable products whatsoever - just Americans making money hand-over-fist by buying and selling American interests and American jobs. The truth of the matter is that the wealthiest 1% - hell, even the wealthiest 20% aren't the primary job creators in the United States. The job creators are small business owners. Small businesses are the innovators - the wealth of new ideas that turn into game-changers globally. And by-and-large, small business owners are not considered by any means to be wealthy. They are you and I. The rank and file ... if I must use a cliche. The voters who continually allow ourselves to be duped by political agendas. The truth about what President Obama wants to do regarding the Bush tax cuts and in fact, his own extension of them, is to simply let them expire. This is NOT a RAISE in taxes for anyone - including the wealthy. It is simply restoring taxes to what they were before the Bush cuts. A necessary tool to help fix a runaway economy - that was partly due to the Bush tax cuts in the first place. Add to that wars on two fronts - one of which was completely unneccesary and the other which has been dragged-out far longer than it should have at great cost to our people and our economy. In exchange for these cuts, Obama has repeatedly said he would work with small business owners to encourage ACTUAL job creation. Meanwhile, every American pays a fair share in taxes and no longer would millionaires and billionaires pay lower tax rates than, for example, retail workers. And finally here's an interesting perspective in all this. Earlier in the 20th Century, when tax rates on the wealthy were sky-high, they managed to create jobs a plenty. Take a guess why. The reason was actually really simple. By paying such high tax rates for being wealthy, they were able to find great tax shelters in other ways. One of those primary ways was by ... BINGO! ... creating jobs and expanding business. So ... is it POSSIBLE that we actually have it all backwards on this issue? Just sayin ...

American Heritage???

It occurs to me that while I am American, I simply don't always agree with some of the fundamental thoughts of my fellow Americans. Anyone who knows me, knows I'm basically pretty liberal. As a "left-winged, pinko-commie liberal", I have a tendency to listen to NPR (National Public Radio to my conservative friends - not Fox anyway.)
So, I was listening to a conversation today (don't really know what the topic was), that got me thinking that perhaps there is a flaw in the way that we Americans think about our culture.
The discussion took a turn for what I can only refer to as, "self-righteous pity."
The guest was describing how "we" as Americans, came to this land through struggle. Our ancestors, whether white, black, Hispanic, what have you - all had to overcome such deep adversity to colonize the country we see today and have made us who we are as a society.
Now this is where I see the problem. I am sick to death of self-righteous sociologists pinning who "we" are on our ancestors! I think it is absolutely safe to say that our ancestors did in fact face many trials and tribulations - certainly some more than others. But to equate the struggle of colonizing the new world with the modern, American society is ludicrous and irresponsible!
The guest was basically implying that unlike our European counterparts, who often point to their "elitist, aristocratic" past, we come from far more humble beginnings and are better for it because we have overcome!
Now, on the surface, I can see how people may buy that. We have, over time stamped-out slavery, given (relative) equal rights to women, and come a long way with regard to race relations. We are by no means perfect - or even near perfect, but better. Still the timeline it took this "revolutionary, democratic, human rights-filled" country to do some of these things is pathetic! All of the western, free-world abolished slavery before we did and schools were still segregated within my lifetime in certain places.
But I digress.
The point I'm making here is that yes, our ANCESTORS did overcome great obstacles to form this nation, but to compare their struggle to today is unfathomable! We are NOT a damned-thing like our ancestors! We have know idea what it was like to come to a country with nothing, build a house in the wilderness, confront horrific and frequent diseases, battle with a domestic enemy who resented the robbing of their lands, being a slave - owned by another human being - made to work so that the owner can become wealthy. We don't know these things! We live a posh and spoiled life in general. We live in the lap of luxury - poor people today are goddamned kings and queens compared to the way most people lived in the 17th or 18th centuries.
So to say that our ancestors shaped who we are is more than slightly skewed.
This is not to say that we shouldn't be thankful for their courage. The men who established our constitution and laid a general fabric for our country are to be commended. However, as much as I personally honor them, they themselves were NOT omnipotent, omniscient beings that had the answers to everything. No human being can be that.
The lifestyle of people in the modern world compared to the lifestyle of people even 50 years ago is like a massive leap through time.
History is about learning from it - to avoid making similar mistakes. It is not an excuse for modern society.
For example, one of my favorite documentary film makers, Michael Moore (enough with the groans neo-cons), once suggested that perhaps we live in such a violent society because of our violent history. In essence, blaming the sins of today on the sins of the past. He later determined through further examination however that the past didn't have to do with it. Canada had and has gun ownership and they have a fraction of the violence we do. Australia was like the old west in the 1800's - and again a fraction of the violence today.
It's the culture of the here and now that makes the difference.
We as a society, must stop blaming the past for our modern condition. We cannot keep recycling the crutches of our ancestors on which to stand tall. We read history - we learn from it and we move on to make our own history. Our world is far, far different than it was in 1776.
Our founding fathers pointed us in the right direction, but ultimately it is our world now and whether we pass or fail is up to us and us alone.

Humanism

I haven't posted a thing on my blog in some time now. I don't know whether out of sheer laziness, writer's block, lack of interest ... whatever.
But I'm back - with a brand new edition. C Eagle's back, so you might as well listen!
Topic today - Humanism. So what is humanism? Those who consider themselves humanists, (like myself) often have different definitions. But to give it its most basic meaning, humanism is the philosophy that finds meaning through reason in our lives and universe. Humanism does not rely on religion, mysticism, or any other "faith-based" system to guide us through life.
However like most of the world's religions it does employ the "golden rule" in its most basic form - do unto others as you would have done to you. This basic mantra is found throughout the world's cultures and though to many, it is the rule that "God" or "gods" have bestowed upon humanity, it is really more a common sense approach to a bountiful life.
Humanists use reason and scientific analysis to formulate their outlook on life and where we may be going as a species. Humanists do not subscribe to belief systems that offer up no valid or verifiable evidence to substantiate themesleves.
Humanists by definition, cannot be members of any organized religion. For to be part of a religion, there is a requirement that the member is of the belief that there is, without question a specific god or gods that determine human destiny and usually that all human processes first take into consideration, the will of that particular deity.
Humanism doesn't work that way. Humanism places the responsibility for our collective destiny in the hands of what is known or knowable about the universe and ultimately at the mercy of human action or inaction.
Humanists are either agnostic (a belief that the notion of "God" is not impossible, but is not within the realm of discovery and therefore should not be the focus of the common, human discourse) or atheist (simply no belief in god, gods, or a higher power, and should not be the focus of the common, human discourse.)
So ultimately humanists must take full responsiblilty for how we treat our fellow man, our planet, the species that live here as well. We must be responsible for our social injustice our man-made destruction, our own sense of hatred, ignorance, and intolerance.
On the other hand, we must also take pride in our accomplishments, our ingenuity, our capacity for understanding and comradery and love. The latter traits unfortunately too seldom find their way into the daily realm of mankind. But humanists have far fewer constraints placed upon us to enable the world to become a better, more positive place. The reason for this is that we simply don't have the restrictive "rules" of an alleged omnipotent "god" or "gods." The world's major religions and tribal religions all seek to control mankind for the power of the few instead of the inalienable rights to freedom of the whole.
When we examine the founding of the United States, we find that most of our founding fathers believed in humanism more than they did religion. The democracy that we bestowed upon the world, though rooted in the words of persecuted individuals from their past, came to fruition under their tenure. And to this day, that democracy is threatened by organizations, mostly of religious nature, that seek to destroy that foundation.
In closing, after years of self-examination, my understanding of religion and the world around us has led me to humanism. I am not part of a cult or "new age" philosophy. There is no temple in which I aspire to worship mankind. There is only reason and scientific knowledge. The knowledge of how we got here, what we are doing with regard to our species, and the hope of where we might aspire to go with it.
We are all we truly have. If another world exists beyond this dimension, and we can somehow transcend our earthly bond, then that will be revealed upon our individual deaths. However until that time comes for each of us, we have only what's in front of us. And that time should not be wasted.

OK - I need some cheese with this whine.

I am tired of being sick. I have been battling a "cold" or "sinus infection" or whatever for a week now. It began just before my trip last week to Dallas to visit my beautiful girlfriend's brother and sis-in-law. The worst day seemed to be the day just prior to my flight. I was still sniffy in Texas, but I seemed to be improving. Perhaps it was the weather there - far warmer and drier than Cleveland. Or maybe the affliction was just running its course.
Wrong! Whatever "it" was, didn't last! As soon as I got back to this god-forsaken white hell, it all started going down-hill again. Now, it has been warmer this week in the great white northern Ohio, but not truly "warm."
Maybe it was going back to work and the fact that the air quality in the place was evaluated as "the worst air quality we've measured" according to an independent study conducted a few years ago by specialists. The brilliant minds at my company responded quickly by placing horrible smelling air filters in the operations center that lasted oh, maybe a year, and were then forgotten. So now we just accept that we're probably being slowly murdered with horrid air quality.
Maybe my immune system just sucks as I age. After all, this is at least the third respiratory issue I've had in the past year. Possibly the fourth - can't remember (another symptom of old age.)
Maybe it's my poor diet. Too much sugar intake for example, actually suppresses the immune system. Did you know that? I did, but it never seems to stop me. I take multivitamins daily. Doesn't seem to matter anymore.
Maybe it's the stress of the constant fear that I'll be laid-off. My company seems to be systematically laying people off as business goes down. I think it's engineered to be this way and we're all just working to close the place down gradually. At any rate, stress suppresses the immune system as well.
Maybe it's the stress of my impending divorce and the worry over my kids.
Maybe it's the unrest and boredom I feel from living in the snow belt.
Maybe it's the constant fear of being destitute once my divorce is final. I've been buying up things I need or want lately because I know I won't be able to do it later.
Maybe it's the fear of general economic collapse.
Maybe it's because I wasn't breast-fed as a baby.
Maybe it's my germophobia. Maybe my efforts to steer clear of germs have the exact, opposite effect. I fear it, so it hits me? I don't know - that's a stretch.
Maybe I'm just rambling incessantly because I need to place blame on something or someone.
At any rate, I'm home sick today and I had to cancel a dental appointment that I really need ... I broke a tooth the other day. Another sign of getting old.
I have high expectations for 2009, despite the potential for economic disaster.
It's kind of scary to me because the last time I took on a positive attitude toward a new year - it was 2007. The year my marriage broke up and I moved out.
So, I'm not gonna get all crazy about this year ... but I just want to feel better.
I'll stop whining now.

Bitter division on Inauguration Day

Today is Inauguration Day in the United States. Millions of people are expected on the Mall in Washington, D.C. for the historic event. The media has been obsessed with the afair for days now and today of course is the apex of that coverage. Radio and television has regaled us with patriotic and heartfelt tales from citizens of all ethnicities and creeds. Quotes have been flying from Dr. Martin Luther King and President Abraham Lincoln. Barack Obama's own speeches and writings have been broadcast over and over again to the delectation of millions of Americans. Many Americans truly believe that Obama is the president that will heal the diseased race relations in the U.S. and unite all Americans, no matter what political affiliation or religious ideology.
However, though I voted for the man and believe him to be the best hope to guide us out of the darkness of the last eight years, I'm still very concerned today.
I happened to hear an excerpt from one of his speeches on my drive into work this morning and it's gnawing at me. I'm not going to try to convey the exact quote, but it was to the effect that "there is not a liberal America and a conservative America ... there's only a United States of America." And while it's an inspring and somewhat utopian thought, I really don't find it to be true.
I work in the aviation business. My "office" is a rather large operations center staffed with people of all kinds, though atmittedly, mostly caucasian. I also find there to be a sharp divide of political ideology and I find that I'm overwhelmed by conservative dogma.
Now keep in mind - a good number of people in my company are ex-military, so it's understandable that there would be an unusually large number of conservatives. But it seems to permeate the general population as well.
For example, we have two, large televisions in the room to keep us informed as to events that may affect us. One television has 24-7 coverage of The Weather Channel and the other "graces" us with the always overly-dramatic and questionably accurate, Fox News Channel.
I guess what really bugs me is the audacity of the conservative element at work.
Technically, I'm independent, but I'm definitely liberal for the most part. Those of us here who are in the Obama camp, have been very gracious about this win and I certainly have restrained my enthusiasm out of respect for the opposition (i.e. - the losers), because even though they don't realize it, we're all winners with this election. And I'm simply not the sort to gloat over my win. That is the case for the vast majority of us "commie-liberals" here at work.
What really bothers me is that the conservatives are overtly cruel, dismissive, and bitter about Obama's win. They have no reservations whatsoever about complaining, making light of his presidency, and making off-color jokes - all very boisterously in mixed company. And this is all before he even takes the oath of office - which as I'm writing is now just one hour away.
I have found this sort of attitude to be fairly common in the conservative community at large, leading me to believe that Obama and many others are wrong in thinking that this country is not divided. My observations show me that it's still very bitterly divided.
I realize that Obama has said on several occasions that the change (some of us) seek will not come overnight. That is a blazingly true statement I believe. Hopefully, Obama will prove to be the uniter he claims he can be, because though his presidency definitely marks a change in this country and in worldwide opinion, here at home, there's a long way to go.

Spring anyone?

I'm ready for Spring! Or a warmer climate. The day following Christmas this year was warm for Northeast Ohio. Warm for anywhere north of Georgia for that matter.
I was sick the entire holiday weekend, but I was able to feel the warm and sunny, albeit breezy air that day. I believe we topped out in the low to mid-60's (around 17 degrees celsius for my international friends.)
It was a holiday weekend like I always hope for - snow on Christmas Day, and warmth thereafter! If only life really worked that way. But reality bites and alas ... that was a freak of nature up here.
It was the kind of experience that makes one long for the sweet touch of Spring - all the while knowing there's another 4 months of winter! At least!
So, I get to thinking - for a crazy minute ... about living in Florida. What's worse - I got the idea from what has to be the saddest goddamn movie I have ever seen. Marley and Me. Now - it was a great flick - don't get me wrong. Very realistic portrayal of life, funny at all the right times, but in the end - the saddest film known to mankind. I'm not even lying. I felt violated - I hadn't signed up for that and it pissed me off.
Anyway - so I start thinking about, "could I live in Florida?" The answer of course is probably no way in hell, but it got me to thinking about finding a warmer climate. So I'll be searching - probably in vain - for a more hospitable place to winter.
Good thing is - my girlfriend is kinda looking for the same change, so it works out well! We're both full of wanderlust.
Meanwhile, I'll suffer - like I do every year - through the harsh, killing cold of a Northeast Ohio winter - until orange barrel season comes around once again.
Cheers!

Global warming and local weathermen!

OK - I'll probably get some people fired up with this one, but I just had to say ... something. The front page of the Cleveland Plain Dealer today has a pic and a headline:" Global Warming - Did we cause this? (picture of polar bear stranded on a small strip of ice surrounded by water) These guys don't think so ..." Below - pictures of 5 local weathermen: Andre Bernier, Dick Goddard, Mark Johnson, Jon Loufman, and Mark Nolan. Now, it seems there's a raging debate between day-to-day meterologists, whose job it is to predict and report local weather conditions and climatologists, whose job it is to collect and study mountains of data from a span of thousands of years to predict the likelihood of weather conditions in our near and not-so-near future. Climatologists take a stance that the United Nations 1200 member Intergovernal Panel on Climate Change, the National Academy of Science, and the American Meteorlogical Society takes - the Earth's climate is warming and the human burning of fossil fuels in cars and industry is helping to accelerate that warming. The local weather guys say that these three groups - the latter, responsible for giving them certification - are wrong! Now my first instinct is to laugh. These guys can't even predict the weather here in Cleveland - I predict the weather better by expecting the exact opposite of what they have to say (and I'm right about 90% of the time.) By the way, the last guy I mentioned doesn't even do the weather anymore he's become Ron Burgundy. Anyway, the local guys blame the warming trend on events that they believe are cyclical. Now, the Earth does go through cycles. The sun does go through cycles as well.Channel 8 (Fox news) weathermen Bernier and Goddard, both believe that solar cycles are to blame. OK - good hypothesis - let's investigate. Solar cycles osscilate in a cycle that spans about 10 years. So every ten years, there's a peak and a dip. Starting in 1975, at the bottom, solar flare activity rose consistently until 1980, when it reached a peak. It then hit a low in 1985 and so on and so on. So, in 1990 there was a peak - in ' 95 a dip - in 2000 a peak - in '05 a dip and now we're on the upswing. Solar flares have been consistent. However, since 1960, there has been an unobstructed rise in CO2 levels - from 315 parts per million to 385 ppm as measured atop Mauna Loa, Hawaii. In addition, global temperatures (in a graph dating back to 1860) show cyclical highs and lows with some slow progress upward until about 1980 when they have moved far more upward and never looked back. The average global temp is now far higher than ever before found in recorded history and CO2 levels are astronomically higher than ever recorded in ice studies that date back thousands of years.So basically, the solar flare argument just won't flush. The data does not correspond. Perhaps our local guys haven't been keeping up on the data. The article then goes on to quote Jon Loufman as saying, "Climate records also show that long before civilization, the Vikings settled in Greenland because it was warm enough."OK - the Vikings settled in Greenland about 1000 years ago. At that time, the Earth was on the apex of a warming cycle - the same cycle these guys are touting. It then fell into a "lesser" ice age that bottomed out about the year 1600. AND - almost all of Greenland's Viking civilization was near the coast, which is even today, more hospitable than even a few miles inland. But while the argument he makes that Earth was in a warm cycle is valid ... there is the fact that the temperatures at that time were nowhere near as warm as they are spiking now. Finally, the argument sways to the idea that these guys looks at numbers all the time. They claim they're used to seeing weather extremes all the time. "Why should we think that anything's different today just because one day's hot and another day has heavy rain?" They see it as a natural variability. This is perhaps the most disturbing of the arguments. Ignorance is bliss. The local guys admit to not being privy to the massive amounts of data that climatologists compile. It is not their field. That would be like me, an air crew scheduler, talking to the press about how I feel a plane will respond to a coming storm. Wouldn't that be the pilot's place to say? I have some knowledge but I'm not the expert. I call this way of irresponsible thinking about global warming "Titanic Theory." "God himself cannot sink this ship."Well kiss my left nut - it's 23,000 feet under the sea isn't it?

I wish ...

So a week has past since the presidential election - Happy Veteran's Day by the way!) The day after the election there was an odd ... quiet among those who, just the previous day were rabidly supporting McCain. With his loss, they had little to say. Graciously, though I could have rubbed it in, I remained quiet about my win within earshot of these people - out of respect. Though I don't agree with their views on some things - they are still my fellow Americans and I don't wish to offend them by gloating.
However, over the course of the week since the election - "they" have begun the grumbling that I knew was coming. A grumbling not unlike that we heard throughout the 1990's, when Bill Clinton was president. Bill Maher touched on this on his HBO show recently and said that he didn't want to see a return to the 90's when the GOP chased after Clinton over made-up offenses ... he didn't want to see a return to the 90's except the part about peace and prosperity.
I agree with this. President-elect Obama has made it clear that he wants to work together, in a bi-partisan manner to fix the wrong in this country. If the GOP attacks him over every little misplaced word as they did (and still do) with the Clinton's - then they will only prove that they are the problem - not the solution.
If Obama gets into the White House and starts enacting similar bone-headed policies to W's - then hey - I'll be right there with them. But until that point in time - the GOP, Rush Limbaugh, Mike Drudge, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Glen Beck, Bill Kristol, and FOX news needs to shut the hell up. Report the news - explain their viewpoints - it's their right - but bashing a president who is trying to reunite this country, fix an economy, return us to our constitutional rights, bring back a progressive and prosperous America, and help us to heal the wounds of all bigotry will not illuminate them in a positive way and it will only hurt them in the end.
It always sucks to lose - I know - I've had 8 years of it. Even most of the people that voted for W now regret it. So I wish they'd just give the new guy a chance before they start bashing every thing he does.

A New Era

Today, I have reason to be happy. Not just because my choice for president won last night, but because the choice brings historical change to America. I am happy for the millions of African-Americans in this country who can finally realize that their children can grow up to be president. And it bodes well for the millions of minorities in this country whose children can also realize that dream.
But most importantly, the election of Barack Obama ushers-in the possibility of real change for this country - a country that has lost it's way over the last few decades and most specifically, over the last 8 years. Obama's election is not only a beacon of hope for black Americans, but it resonates hope for ALL Americans. My hope is that over the next decade, we won't even take race into consideration - that it won't be how whites voted, or how blacks voted, or Hispanic, or Asian - but simply how America voted.
Obama brings with him, eloquence, intelligence, dignity, perseverance, and strength. Our reputation around the world is tarnished. Obama has an opportunity to turn that around - and I for one think he will. His very election has garnered praise and support from our allies - allies alienated by the last eight years of W. What the Bush administration and Republicans at large, fail to see is that in order to secure our country, strong alliances around the world are a necessity!
There are a number of complicated issues that face the new president - security, the economy, the war in Iraq, health care, taxes, education, energy ... to name a few. It will not be easy to deal with these issues and it won't be easy to undo the damage done by the previous administration. However, I am confident that America has chosen the right individual to do it. Not only do I feel that Obama has the intelligence to make the crucial decisions, I am confident that he will surround himself with individuals who will best assist him.
Bottom line ... today, November 5, 2008 is day one of an era that can make a difference. There will be tests - it will not be easy, but at least we now have a chance.
Goodbye W - worst president in American history ... have a good time on the ranch. Eat your prunes - you'll stay regular.
Rot in hell Cheney.

My road to Angnosticism

I was born on Easter Sunday, April 6, 1969. My name, Christopher, is Hebrew in origin and literally means, "Christ Bearer."
I was born into a "mixed" family. My father is from a long line of protestants that settled the Shenandoah Valley region of Virginia. He was Episcopalian (a.k.a. - the Church of England in America.) My mother is from a long line of Roman Catholic Hungarians. (In the eyes of the Catholic Church, my parents were told that their marriage was a mixed marriage.)
I was baptised at about the ripe old age of six weeks. This was an unthinkable tragedy among my mother's family members. It was (and still is in many places), believed among Catholics that if a baby died prior to baptism, his or her "soul" would never achieve Heaven nor Hell, but instead float around forever in a state of "Limbo." So, finally to give my relatives an unfettered solace of mind, I was baptised by a priest in St. Stephen's of Hungary Catholic Church in Allentown, Pennsylvania sometime in the late Spring of 1969.
Growing up, I have only vague recollections of my time in Church. My parents would occasionally take me to the local Catholic Church in my home town of Manassas, Virginia and I think that at one point, we went semi-religiously. Other than that, I went to Church only when I visited my grandmother in Allentown or at Holidays (Christmas and Easter.) Church was always a big production for my grandmother. There was always a great deal of stress involved in preparation for the event. My father always pushed to attend Easter Sunrise service at the National Cathedral in nearby Washington, D.C. but my mother shunned the idea of driving into the city all but one time I believe.
At any rate, that's about all I remember from childhood on the subject. Yes, I learned the Lord's Prayer. Yes I learned the robotic drone of the Catholic Mass. Yes, I said my prayers at night and said Grace before dinner. I was a typical, semi-practicing Christian American, much like most everyone else.
The first event I remember that labeled religion as suspect in my mind was the Jonestown Massacre of 1978. Nine-hundred and nine Jonestown parishioners died of cyanide poisoning in what leader Jim Jones referred to as "revolutionary suicide." It was the largest mass suicide event in over 1900 years of history. Until the events of September 11, 2001, it was the single largest, non-natural loss of civilian life in American history. It forever ingrained a hatred of "cult" religion in my mind. This was the beginning for me.
Into my teen years, I experienced a mix of religious viewpoints. I still considered myself Catholic and a believer in God and the Bible. I had little experience with protestant churches at the time, though I had attended an Episcopal and Methodist service or two. I was in my mid to late teens when I first attended an Assembly of God service of one of my friend's. It did not have the desired effect on me that Assembly members generally hope to inflict. I saw people for the first time with their arms raised up, vocalizing at random, speaking in tongues, loud and boisterous music - not at all what I was used to. It struck me as a cult. (And I still believe it is.) Over the years, I have had the misfortune to attend a few more services at fundamental churches and I still don't have an opinion that differs any more than my original evaluation.
At any rate, when I was around 20 years old, I decided to investigate Catholicism seriously. I had floundered around with my own religion my whole life, so I wanted to give the Catholic Church an honest evaluation. My friend Dan (a devout Catholic to this day), and I began going to church together - usually on Saturday evening as we both liked to sleep in on Sunday morning. I spent at least a year attending mass regularly. However what I came to realize about the Catholic Church was that it stood for so many things that I did not. And the omnipresent drone-like chanting of the service began to seem like a cult to me as well. I didn't get much out of the sermons - it was more like preaching to an enemy than instilling me with confidence. I found a great deal of hypocrisy within the Catholic Church and I, myself began to feel hypocritical attending as I no longer believed in their ways. So I stopped attending and broke my bond with Catholicism forever.
Though my Catholic bond was broken, I still considered myself to be a religious being. After I got married in 1996, my ex-wife and I spoke of how we thought it was important for our children to have a rudimentary understanding of Christianity. So before they were even born, we began looking for a local church in Ashtabula, Ohio. (By this time we had moved from Virginia.) We decide to become members of the Second Congregational United Church of Christ in Ashtabula. this was a church that my ex had attended as a child (she was also Catholic by baptism but her mother's second husband was the son of this church's minister.)
So we began attending and at first, thought we had found a home. The services were tame and more traditional. The people were older, but friendly and desperately sought younger members. The minister was fairly inspiring with some of his sermons. He actually had opened a session of Congress while we were attending that church. (Something that even then, I was totally against because of the mix of church and state thing.)
However, as time went by, we began to notice things. The friendly parishioners were actually fairly petty, full of gossip, and in some cases they were a little back-stabbing. All in all - they weren't bad people, but it makes one realize that a little smoke and mirrors goes a long way. Our minister was the CEO of a local company during the weekdays. In his travels, it turns out he would engage in a practice called "churning." This refers to booking two non-refundable tickets, back-to-back and only using the outbound portion of each in order to receive a bigger discount. This practice was and still is "illegal" in the travel industry and airlines were handing out debit memos left and right to travel agencies when they found this practice in use. The reverend's wife was bragging one day about the fact that he was engaging in this practice. My ex and I both explained that it's a bogus practice and was actually one of the contributing financial factors that got me laid-off from my corporate travel agency job in 1999. She of course realized she had put her foot in her mouth and immediately tried to back-pedal, but she never really warmed up to us after that.
So once again, I found hypocrisy in organized religion. Now, you could argue it's human nature, but for an organization that claims to be aspiring to "God's greatness", it's really just hypocritical. I lost interest in that church soon after and my ex followed my lead after awhile.
In the years that followed, I began really researching religion. Religion of all kinds - seeking some kind of spiritual truth. But all I have found is that just about every religion has a dark side. And the big three (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam), have perhaps the darkest histories of all. People have been robbed, enslaved, prostituted, sacrificed, raped, murdered, tortured, imprisoned, ridiculed, and excommunicated all for simply questioning religion and in some cases, just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
War almost always has religion at its roots. Even if it's a social or ethnic war, there is generally always a religious dogma driving it.
I have found that religion is guilty of thousands of years of scientific retardation. The very progress forward of mankind has been inexcusably altered by these ancient superstitions. The Bible or the Koran hold about as much validity as Greek Mythology or Egyptian Sun God worship. Yes, some common sense life lessons may be present, but only at the expense of swallowing some gigantic lies - fables with no scientific evidence whatsoever.
Faith is fine when it has something substantial behind it - faith in friends or family. But blind faith in things that cannot be proven to exist is just, plain irresponsible.
The reason I am Agnostic is because I can't prove nor disprove the existence of anything beyond this, four dimensional universe. I don't believe in God per se - at least not the God or Gods of any human-born tale.
Mathematics has defined eleven dimensions of existence. Is it possible that we might one day find answers to the question of some kind of intelligent force, greater than us, that controls this universe and every other? Sure. It's possible. But not definite.
In order to achieve Agnosticism, I've had to grasp hold of and accept the fact that my death may truly be just that - death. I can accept that possibility. Like everyone else, I don't like that possibility, but I accept it nonetheless. Is it possible that there are other planes of existence I might transcend? I suppose so. But I can't define it anymore that you or anyone else on this planet. It's a possibility - not a fact. So when I hear this religion or that religion claiming to KNOW the mysteries of the universe, I can't take them seriously. Because a book says so without any relevant proof is not proof.
Einstein theorized that energy (which we are all made up of), cannot die - it simply transforms. That may be, but there's no evidence to suggest that intelligence goes with it. However, there's no evidence to say it doesn't. We will simply have to die to find out. Or perhaps one day, science will figure it out - if religion doesn't continue to hamper it.
What's truly important to humanity right now is not dwelling on the afterlife. That will come - we all die. We need to focus on the here and now so that there is a tomorrow.
Cheers.

Am I American???

I have found that a fundamental question keeps popping up this election season. Who is the REAL American? It's no secret that our presidential elections seem to be getting more bitter as the years go by and it seems that an inner struggle is the culprit. That struggle is between the 'right' and 'left' of course, but lately the 'right' (and believe me, I use that term loosely), has been labeling U.S. citizens as American or Un-American.


And I'm really a little tired of it.


Members of the Republican Party have embarked on a domestic smear campaign that tries to paint ANYONE who doesn't have their own interests at heart, as Un-American.


Some of those interests include: Undeniable belief in God - Christian God actually; homosexuals are societal deviants that are just confused about their own sexuality and indulge in their confusion rather than making attempts to correct their behavior to suit Biblical roles (aka - an abomination!); not believing in birth control protection for young adults - in favor of abstinence (yeah, which as we all know works sooooo well, right?); abhorring stem cell research to the detriment of mankind; abolishing a woman's right to choose - insisting that a "soul" resides in a two-celled organism (without ANY evidence of course that a soul actually exists); affordable health care for citizens is unacceptable; following leaders BLINDLY - no matter how stupid they may actually be; (and one of my personal favorites) America is a "Christian" nation - if you don't like it - leave.

All of these point are ridiculous. But a note on the last one - the founding fathers were Christian by Baptism and to some extent - practice, however they had aggressive views on the role of the Church in civil government. They were vehemently opposed to it. Which is why there is no consideration within the Constitution that defines the U.S. as anything other than a free and democratic country. In fact, the fabric of the Constitution prohibits the integration of religion and civil affairs. But it does prohibit the suppression of belief outside the fabric of government. So it gives people the right to believe whatever fantastical machinations they wish, but those beliefs cannot be present in affairs of the state. They were very clear on this matter.

At any rate, I am sick and tired of this move to define people with liberal viewpoints as Un-American. Liberal viewpoints have helped to make this country progressive and prosperous. Left to conservative thought, some of our greatest accomplishments may have never occurred. True innovation can only be achieved by people with open minds. Minds closed to technological advances such as stem cell research for example, retard our ability to progress as a species.
Liberal thought is more conducive to the "live and let live" mentality that should be emphasized in a free society. Conservative thought seeks to control people's actions often based on ancient dogma and/or greed. In addition, it tends to slow down forward progress - progress than can eradicate disease; quell hatred, violence, and war; slow world hunger; repair the environment; further our knowledge of the universe; or simply better our collective living conditions.
Above all, it's highly insulting to me that I be considered less American for my liberal thought than these purveyors of fear. Conservative thought revolves around fear. Fear of God, fear of terrorists, fear of homosexuals, fear of the diminished 'sanctity' of marriage, fear of big government, fear of taxes, fear of reasonable health care, fear of FRENCH FRIES and most of all - fear of those who don't do everything they say. Yet they scoff at the things we should be fearful of - global warming, disease, hunger, war, hatred, unchecked capitalism, corporate greed, spending deficits in the trillions, owing money to other countries, softening relationships with our allies.
In my humble opinion, it is far more un-American to label those with liberal thought or simply those that might question their conservative motives, as un-American.
Our founding fathers deliberately set up our system of government to insure that we are able to question our leaders. Our leaders are representatives of US - not the other way around. They must be able to provide us with answers when we question their motivation. The last 8 years has stripped that fundamental right away. And it must stop NOW - before it gets worse - and we're living an Orwellian existence.
Cheers.

Sarah Palin should take up acting

There is a saying ... "if you can't find something nice to say about someone, don't say anything at all." Well, I've said some ... horrible things about Sarah Palin lately. I don't apologize. But - I'm excited to say that I can say that I think she did a decent job on SNL last Saturday night. Frankly, she did a better job than Alec Baldwin who obviously hadn't rehearsed a thing and went in there and read directly from a teleprompter.
Perhaps, rather than political office, she should focus on a career in acting. Or even the media! Fox News, I'm sure would be happy to hire her. I can see it now - "The Maverick Report with Sarah Palin." And the best part about that - if she's on Fox News, I'll never have to hear her! It'd be a phenomenal career move for an ultra-right wing, religious-nut, maverick like Sarah P.
She could do interviews with intense world leaders like Vlad Putin, where she has common ground - (you know she can see Russia from her front porch right?)
So, in the end, unlike John McCain, when they lose this election, she will have a back-up. And I endorse that back-up of my own free accord.
There - I said something nice about her.
Cheers!

Last night - I had to yell at my mother

Last night, I had to yell at my own mother. I was talking to my dad in the ultra-conservative Shenandoah Valley of Virginia and he tells me that my mother is refusing to vote in this year's presidential election. So he puts her on the phone, and though I was losing my voice as a result of this flu/head cold I've had for almost two weeks now, I proceeded to urgently explain the need for her to vote. It seems that though she doesn't believe in McCain, she is unsure about Obama for president. She actually brought up a fear that he'd be assassinated in the first 6 months. She said, "you don't know - you didn't live through Kennedy's assassination - that was a horrible experience." I then explained that EVERY president runs that risk and security measures are far better today than they were in 1963. I continued to reason that if it were that easy, one of these dumb rednecks would've offed Bill Clinton by now - they STILL blame him for everything under the sun.
The thing that concerns me about this, "I'd never vote for McCain, but I don't know about Obama, so I'm not voting" phenomena is that I only ever hear this from non-Republicans. So essentially what this means is that the Republicans are gonna show up and vote - no problem, but what of these McCain-haters that won't show up and vote against him?! It concerns me because this could be a much closer race than it appears. And all the 'Pubs need is to have the election close enough so that they can implement the deceptive election-rigging program they've used for the last 8 years. And the election goes to the bitter, old guy who gave up his scruples to be the president ... and Tits McPalin - the void - who will probably take over in the near future after he drops dead.
If anyone reading this knows one of these McCain-hating, non-voters - please ... I beg of you - encourage them to vote!

Elitism and the presidency

I don't know exactly when it became fashionable for right-leaning politicians to promote the idea of elitism as a bad thing, but let's examine this oddity.

"Elite" - (noun) (often used with a plural verb) the choice or best of anything considered collectively, as of a group or class of persons.

I (and most everyone on the planet), have been raised to think of the word elite as meaning "the best." When one chooses a doctor, are they not looking for the best they can find? When one sees a winning sports team, are they not considered to be the most elite, or best in the sport? When we think of our military, do we not classify Green Berets, Navy Seals, Blue Angels, etc. as elite?
Why? Because they are considered to be the best.
So then, for the life of me, I cannot fathom the notion that for the office of President of the United States, we would want ANYTHING LESS than an elite individual in the Oval Office!
Elitism is NOT an "I think I'm better than you" thing. Elitism is the mindset of the truly intelligent and reasonable. You should absolutely expect nothing less than an elitist president! The person sitting in the executive chair of our nation should be the brightest apple of the bunch. The average, "simple-folk" American may lament the "folksiness" of a "W" or a Palin, but look - these people were obviously denied oxygen to their brains at some point during infancy.
At no point have I ever chosen a doctor because he or she seems like one of the common people, or because he likes country music, or because he's a good Christian. I choose a doctor because he/she exhibits intelligence! And I can see that. It may take an office visit or two to judge that intelligence, but that's why, for presidential elections, we have about two years to judge before we pull the voting levers.
Just a thought.
Cheers!