Saturday, September 15, 2007

Bush, you old fool

Earlier this week there was an article in Salon.com about how current Transportation secretary Mary Peters was on TV railing against how bike paths (among other things) unfairly take money away from the transportation infrastructure budget because "they are not really transportation".

OK, I'm not going to get all worked up and write a long thing because some conservative cunt said something I disagreed with on TV. I mean, I'd be here all day. To be honest, I didn't even finish reading the article.

This is all I want to say about it: why, WHY does it seem sometimes that the current administration is opposed to every single thing I value? I mean, when it started, I knew it wasn't going to be pretty. I know Bush's views on social programs, abortion, the environment, etc were opposed to mine. That's why I didn't vote for him. But, there are so many issues to take a stance on in the political universe. I would expect to find some level of common ground with just about any person I meet, and if they manage to get elected to be the president, their views must be at least within a stone's throw of sanity, and so it should be even more likely to find some point of mutual agreement.

But so far, nothing. Apparently, we can't even agree on the positivity and importance of people riding bikes. It's not an issue I spend a lot of time thinking about, but I have a pretty solid opinion on it. I just don't think of it as all that controversial. Apparently, it is. Good job, Bush Administration! I think you've managed to bat 0 for 1,536 in stances taken on issues over the last 7 years. Maybe you should have your secretary of Health or whatever issue a statement against kittens and orchids, just to make it a clean sweep.

Tuesday, September 11, 2007

angry.

The war in Iraq is terrible, of course. Today, it occurred to me there is yet another layer of the enormity of it all:

Bush used the attacks on September 11th to justify the war. He says he didn't, but I heard him say it myself about 5 times, so that's bullshit. He did. And without any logical facts to back up the connection.

I just can't think of anything - really, ANYTHING - more insulting to the people who died that day than harnessing the national grief and terror caused by their deaths to justify a corrupt, evil, unjustifiable and ill-conceived operation that has resulted in the further deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people.

Osama Bin Laden wanted to terrorize us to promote his fucked-up agenda. And George W. Bush just jumped right on that despicable bandwagon. Exploiting that tragedy for your own evil purposes is just plain demonic. Evildoers are amongst us. They reside in caves and in stately white houses alike.

Friday, August 24, 2007

The Original Ensign Benson

According to Wikipedia, there is an actual, historical Ensign Benson who was like, in the actual Navy. I don't have any further comments about him, but because I've been using his name on the Internet for oh, 15 years (seriously - it was my handle on my friend's dial-in BBS in 1993), I thought I would acknowledge him and pay my respects.

Admiral/Ensign Benson, I salute you!!!

Monday, August 20, 2007

A Plea for Love and Understanding

I was recently sent this article via email, and felt compelled to write a response that's like, 3 times as long. It took a lot of work, so I'm reposting it here so more than one person reads it.

Emailed article:
Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 14:30:20 -0500 SPANISH NEWSPAPER ARTICLE.
ALL EUROPEAN LIFE DIED IN AUSCHWITZ By Sebastian Vilar Rodrigez
I walked down the street in Barcelona, and suddenly discovered a terrible truth - Europe died in Auschwitz.
We killed six million Jews and replaced them with 20 million Muslims. In Auschwitz we burned a culture, thought, creativity, talent. We destroyed the chosen people, truly chosen, because they produced great and wonderful people who changed the world.

The contribution of this people is felt in all areas of life: science, art, international trade, and above all, as the conscience of the world. These are the people we burned.

And under the pretense of tolerance, and because we wanted to prove to ourselves that we were cured of the disease of racism, we opened our gates to 20 million Muslims, who brought us stupidity and ignorance, religious extremism and lack of tolerance, crime and poverty, due to an unwillingness to work and support their families with pride.

They have turned our beautiful Spanish cities into the third world, drowning in filth and crime.
Shut up in the apartments they receive free from the government, they plan the murder and destruction of their naive hosts.

And thus, in our misery, we have exchanged culture for fanatical hatred, creative skill for destructive skill, intelligence for backwardness and superstition.

We have exchanged the pursuit of peace of the Jews of Europe and their talent for hoping for a better future for their children, their determined clinging to life because life is holy, for those who pursue death, for people consumed by the desire for death for themselves and others, for our children and theirs.

What a terrible mistake was made by miserable Europe.

____________________________________________________

My response:

An interesting point, but don't you think it's unnecessarily inflammatory and hostile towards Muslim immigrants? I mean, I have no idea what the situation is like in Spain, but the statements that they are unwilling to work and do nothing but plot murder of Spaniards all day are absolutely unfair. They are certainly not all terrorists. Just like anywhere, if there are 20 million of them and there have been two attacks in Europe in the last 5 years, each requiring no more than a few participants, then it is clearly an extreme anomaly for a Muslim to engage in this behavior. It is safe to assume that most of them are normal human beings with normal decision making processes, who would not go through the trouble of immigrating to a country just so they destroy it (and themselves). This type of behavior is reserved for a special kind of statistical outlier - someone who is mentally ill or disturbed enough to make decisions against their own self preservation. There are such types in every demographic (violent criminals, suicidal people, etc.), the only difference with Muslims is that there are elements of the culture and religion that tend to encourage and focus this type of energy to achieve massive outward destruction. Logically, if it were true that a large percentage of these 20 million Muslim immigrants were really out to destroy Europe, then Europe would be gone by now. The fact that there have only been two recent attacks absolutely speaks to how rare this condition is, and hence how unfair it is to paint all the immigrants with one brush. We can't blame a group of 20 million people for the behavior of their most disturbed members. Would you like all Americans to be judged by the actions of the Columbine and Virginia Tech shooters?

The accusation that they refuse to work also strikes me as unfair. Once again, it is very much against the normal immigrant psychology to refuse to work. While there are plenty of lazy humans everywhere in the world, my experience with immigrants to America (as well as my common sense) shows that the ones who have it in their heads to move to a new country are the ones who are the most motivated to do whatever is necessary to raise the quality of life for themselves and their families. At least in America, the notion that immigrants are flooding the country in order to go on welfare is absolutely untrue, and not supported by a shred of evidence. Because on a large scale, human psychology is the same no matter where you go, it is safe to assume that the Muslim immigrants to Europe are generally of the same disposition. If I were to hear that the unemployment rate was particularly high among Muslim immigrants to Europe, the first things I would look at was a) the strength the local economy in general, particularly as it pertains to opportunities and pay for unskilled labor, b) the ambient level of racism against immigrants (from what I hear in Europe, shockingly high, even compared to the recent anti-immigrant fervor that has taken hold over the USA) which might both make it difficult for them to get jobs and also breed animosity that would lead to an erosion of the original good intentions they had upon arrival.

I don't dismiss the entirety of what this guy is saying. I think there is a 'problem' with Muslim immigration to Europe. The riots in France a few years ago proved that. I just think it is both unfair and counterproductive to simplify the problem into a simple 'Muslim scum ruining fine European cities' paradigm. This sort of categorical thinking always leads to hate and often to violence, and never solves anything. The fact is (always is) that the situation is very complex. Muslims aren't inherently evil or lazy, but there may be outside factors - many of them - causing both the real aspects this statement is based on as well as the perceptive ones. Instead of taking the easy route and simplifying problem, why not think about what those factors are, and how we can address them? Until people's first reaction to these types of issues is one of intellectual and rational analysis instead of emotional generalizations and simplifications, we remain in danger of another Holocaust. At the turn of the century, I remember pondering all that had happened in the 20th century, and hoping that the 21st century would be an opportunity for humans to move beyond this sort of thinking that had cost unprecedented levels of suffering. Seven years in, it's already not looking good. I think this article exemplifies how much work we have cut out for us.

Monday, July 16, 2007

The Founding Fathers and Christianity

If I hear one more time that the Founding Fathers were fundamentalist Christians, I'm going to vomit. These men were some of the most advanced thinkers of their time and they were in no way bogged down by such narrow-minded nonsense. I'm sure most of them attended church, and could fairly be described as Christians in a general way, but their beliefs ranged from a basic acceptance of the moral doctrine to full-on atheism. They all believed in science, tolerance and the importance of rational questioning of established beliefs. Here are some quotes that indicate their actual feelings towards Christianity:


JOHN ADAMS
"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"
--in a letter to Thomas Jefferson

JAMES MADISON
"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."

"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not."
--both quotes from his 'Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments'

THOMAS JEFFERSON
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god."
--letter to Peter Carr, 1787

"You say you are a Calvinist. I am not. I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know."
--letter to Ezra Stiles Ely, 1819

BENJAMIN FRANKLIN
"If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Romish church, but practiced it upon the Puritans. These found it wrong in the Bishops, but fell into the same practice themselves both here [England] and in New England."
--from his essay, "Toleration"

Also, a Dr. Priestley, an intimate friend of Franklin, wrote of him:
"It is much to be lamented that a man of Franklin's general good character and great influence should have been an unbeliever in Christianity, and also have done as much as he did to make others unbelievers"
--from Priestley's Autobiography

THOMAS PAINE
"Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifiying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory to itself than this thing called Christianity."

"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my church."
--from Paine's book, "The Age of Reason"

Saturday, July 7, 2007

This is just the kind of crackpot scheme that melts my heart. I have a world plan that's essentially the opposite of this one, but I think this one is worth a fair shake.


Check out the site

Friday, June 22, 2007

One of my favorite books is…

G.R.R. Martin’s, A song of Ice and Fire.
Mass doesn’t always equal excellence but the awesome heft George R.R. Martin’s A song of ice and fire (4 books with two more to come!) at least indicates a significant amount of time to be spent comfortably wasted indoors ignoring the sunshine. Set in a quasi-realistic medieval world including, but not restricted to, princes, dragons and knights, the heart of the action unfolds in a series of epic political upheavals spanning several generations and involving a generous cast of characters. In breadth The Song of Ice and Fire excels. The heroes in the seven kingdoms traverse huge distances and encounter vivid, detailed civilizations. Nomadic horsemen, seagoing reavers and undead zombies all present themselves, undaunted by the size of the narrative and content to inhabit their own specific sections. Long books often suffer from a glut of weak material on the periphery of the action. The song of ice and fire, against all odds, avoids this fate. Despite the sheer mass of his repertoire, Martin’s reach never encroaches on the vitality of his characters and his imaginative force rarely degenerates into clichéd or shallow characterization; all the components of his books are as captivating and as convincing as the center. So read it bitch.

Thursday, June 21, 2007

My whole theory is blown.

So, I'm an atheist through and through. I've tried at various times in my life to entertain the notion of a god or some other sort of aesthetic or conscious order to the universe, but it's never really stuck. I've recently decided to abandon all that and just go with the thing that's always felt true to me - my own consciousness is just the result of evolution, which is the result of all the forces of the universe being exerted consistently over time. I don't have a soul and there is no afterlife. There are answers to the questions of where the universe came from and stuff like that, but it makes sense that we don't and can't know the answer. Filling that void with some made up stuff that sounds nice doesn't do it for me.

But this brings me to the interesting part. But: there is one thing that blows my mind, and it is enough to make me doubt this entire whole world view. Why is it that when there is a total eclipse of the sun, that the moon and the sun appear in the sky to be the exact same size? I mean, there are many other incredible things about the way the universe is constructed, but the incredible thing about them is usually that life itself could not exist without them. (Example: that unlike nearly every substance, solid water [a.k.a. ice] is less dense than liquid water, and thus the top of a lake freezes and not the bottom). These things can be (somewhat paradoxically, but successfully) explained with the reasoning that if things were not that way, we would not be here to ask the question. This, however, is not an answer to the sun/moon question. If they did not match up, life would be here just the same. Could it be a coincidence? I'm just not comfortable writing off the significance of this beautiful and profound fact with the word 'coincidence'.

As Sherlock Holmes says, when one explanation has been eliminated, whatever else remains, no matter how improbable, must be the solution. So, as improbable as it sounds, I suppose there must be some sort of aesthetic order to the universe after all.

Credit to Webb Mealy for the sun/moon insight.

Thursday, May 17, 2007

In the news this week

Somehow, the two things that will make a local headline no matter where they happened in the world are anything involving strippers, and shark bites. What does this say about the human condition? I think this also precisely explains the popularity behind a show like Fear Factor: Playboy edition.

I know that pointing out a universal human fascination with sex and danger is not fairly new or interesting. I just thought it was funny to see its affect on a supposedly serious institution like a newspaper. Maybe we've all let let go of that illusion a long time ago.

Wednesday, May 9, 2007

American Idol Eliminations

This week: Lakisha

Next week: Blake (It will be a sad day, but it's also the right time for him. He can't compete with the other two)

Melinda vs. Jordin in the final, and the winner will be Jordin.

I found this interesting blog that seems to support my American Idol conspiracy theory, as well as my prediction that Jordin will be the winner. By the way, that prediction is based on both my feelings of who is the most popular (with thanks to Dialidol), who is the most marketable in the eyes of the show's producers, and who I think deserves to win. The fact that all three of those things have culminated means there can be no other result, in my opinion.

By the way, I had forgotten how incredibly compelling these reality shows where people get eliminated can be for me. I was into Survivor this much a few times, and basically feel like I could get sucked into any one of these things if I just make the mistake of watching it once. I can't explain the attraction, but I have it in the extreme. I suppose it's the same as watching sports, which people get into way more than I get into this stuff, which is actually possible, believe it or not. Anyway, I was just exploring the nature of this psychological attraction. I haven't come up with anything, but if I do, I'll be sure and post it here.

Tuesday, May 8, 2007

Words

Acquiescence.
Obsequious.
Cunt.
Fallow.
Spore.

Monday, April 30, 2007

The Seahorses

Larry King: Welcome to Larry King Live, we have a great show for you this evening, a pair of fantastically well-spoken and famous guests who are participating in the panel tonight in order to enlighten all of us as to the actual meaning of life! Wow! Like I said, quite a show, but back to the guests may I introduce Dr. Richard Dawkins, Charles Simonyi Professor of Public understanding of science at Oxford, author of "The GOD Delusion" and here to promote his new book "The Convection Principle: Darwin Unleashed." Welcome Dr. Dawkins.

Dr. Dawkins: Glad to be here Larry.

Larry King: And I would also like to welcome, coming to us from his cave in the Swiss mountains, Friedrich Nietzshe, renowned author of many incendiary and deep works such as Twilight of the Idols, Beyond Good and Evil and the evocatively titled The Gay Science. Welcome Dr. Nietzshe.

Nietzshe: Thanks for having me.

Larry King: So I throw it to you gentlemen: why are we here? It's a question that has vexed us for centuries, and will continue to do so well into future I believe. The largest minds in history have attempted to answer this question and been rebuffed and now, more than ever, with the Islamic fundamentalists blowing themselves up at every opportunity, we must confront this important question of human existence.

Dr. Dawkins: I'll take that one Larry, but first I was wondering ... Why is Nietzshe here? My Book is called the god delusion and wasn't he the one who told everyone that God was dead?

Nietzshe: You are correct, that was me. You know I actually enjoyed parts of your book. Religion really is insufferable.

Dr. Dawkins: Thanks! I knew that all I had to do was to explain my positions clearly and forcefully and the pure correctness of my argument would carry the day. How anyone could remain religious after reading my book is totally inconceivable, to say nothing of hugely improbable given my intelligence. I guess most everyone who goes to church must be akin to crazed lobotomized lemmings.

Nietzshe: Well, you won't get an argument from me on that point. But haven't I heard of an alternative concept you are involved with? It explains this sick charade called human existence doesn't it? What was it called again? You must forgive me, I don't get delivery of the New York Times up here in my cave.

Dr. Dawkins: Quite. We moderns call it evolution. It's the process by which different kinds of living organisms diversify and develop from earlier forms during the history of the earth. Darwin and his successors have shown how living creatures have evolved by slow gradual degrees from simple beginnings. We can now say that the illusion of design in living creatures is just that - an illusion. The data is incontrovertible. The probability of God existing is on the same order as the earth being rhombus shaped, and borne through the cosmos in the pincers of two enormous green lobsters named Esmerelda and Keith.

Nietzshe: Well that is really a fascinating concept, but I have one question. How can you be sure that your interpretation of the data is not just that- an interpretation? Couldn't another observer with totally different predilections and modes of interpretation observe the same phenomena and "laws" of nature and extract from those "laws" a completely different conclusion? Perhaps that the universe has a "necessary" and "calculable" course not because laws constrain it but because the laws are completely lacking? Maybe this hypothetical observer would conclude that every power and occurrence reaches it's own consequences in it's own actions that very moment? That there is no unifying theory - that in effect everything is random - Isn't this possible?

Dr Dawkins: Ugh. I see where this is going. Yes I concede that it is possible, in the widest possible definition of that word, but it is an EXTREMELY unlikely interpretation of observable phenomena which have much, much more logical explanations.

Nietzshe: But that is exactly my point; both your theory and mine are Interpretations of the "facts" which you observe.

Dr. Dawkins: That point of argument has always annoyed me. It is a red herring which always crops up when people with a smattering of philosophical learning put on their postmodernism caps and want to stir up the pot. Sure everything might be relative and maybe we scientists are guilty of arbitrarily choosing the definitions of the words "truth" and "facts" but in NO WAY does this have ANY bearing on the sick charade called human existence as you so charmingly put it. All of us believe in evidence, whatever we may profess with our amateur philosopher hats on. If you ask me if I really exist, if I am really talking right now or what my last name is, there is one answer which is correct and every other answer is incorrect. The assignments of the terms "truth" and "facts" are not up for grabs in any PERTINENT sense. You, I and everyone who has ever drawn breath on planet earth has defined these terms in this way, they can have no other relevant meaning. It is not, my dear fellow, simply a matter of "how you look at things."

Nietzshe: So you are underpinning your theory of evolution not with any absolute idea of truth, but rather with the kind of truth that is the most sensible for us humans; If you ask me that's not the strongest of foundations. Isn't one of our most ubiquitous observations the one that teaches us to ignore our senses? The sun doesn't revolve around the earth you know, despite appearances.

Dr Dawkins: No no you have missed the point, we know that the earth revolves around the sun not because we observe it to be so but because we REASON it to be so. There are countless examples of scientific phenomena which run counter to common sense but which are proven facts because they have been hypothetically tested and mathematically proven. Quantum mechanics makes brilliantly successful predictions about the real world but the assumptions that it needs to make in order to deliver on those predictions are often shockingly deadly to common sense. But that doesn't matter, the only thing that matters is that the mathematics work and the predictions are experimentally fulfilled. Every time you drink a glass of water, the odds are good that you will imbibe at least one molecule that passed through the bladder of Oliver Cromwell. It's just elementary probability theory. The number of molecules per glassful is hugely greater than the number of glassfuls in the world. And that's just one example. If you Ignore these reasoning concepts it is like denying that all inclosed three sided shapes are triangles just because you can't see all of them at one time. You might think so but you would be wrong in every conceivable definition of the word.

Nietzshe: Hmmm... let me get this straight, you are defining "truth" as an interpretation of rationally derived evidence. Did you choose this definition because it was the only one available or because it was the best one available?

Dr. Dawkins: Oh it's the best, If by opposite of best you mean totally inimitable to any form of meaningful life. First of all it is the best because it's beautiful. The natural world is a phenomenon which betters anyone who takes the time to step out of his front door and contemplate what meets his eye at that moment. Science and rationalism are the basis for man's contemplation of his world and his crowning achievement. What could be a better way of celebrating our world than really paying attention to it with the full breadth of our cognitive power? Science is not anti imagination- on the contrary- it just involves creating categories of "true" and "false" which don't refer to the imagination, which is static regardless of what we happen to believe or what we wish to believe and- paradoxically- serves to give vitality and organization to the imagination. Second of all, it's the best because it's useful. Civilizations have never gotten along healthily and cannot get along healthily without large quantities of reliable factual information. People need to know things about things in order to know what to eat and what not to eat, how to dress (climactically speaking) and where to live (volcanoes, elementary schools etc.) as well as how to do what they are paid to do, how to raise their children, what to think of the people they meet, what they are capable of achieving, what they would like to achieve and dozens of other mundane but pretty useful things.

Nietzshe: You know, every morning in my cave, as I am preparing my coffee and strudel, I look out upon the Alps and enjoy the view; the snow capped mountains, the winding, flashing rivers, the deep green of the trees are all very beautiful and inspiring. But as you said, without the capability for rational thought and scientific calculation, it would be difficult for me to procure coffee or even to know why I needed coffee in the first place! All this talk of utility reminds me of something. Once, as I was riding my donkey into town to get some batteries, I fell in behind two women, also on donkeys, who were gossiping and chatting. Both of them had loaded enormous bushels of vegetables and broken hi-fi equipment on their donkeys to try and sell at market and as they were completely blocking the path I had no choice but to follow on behind and listen in to their conversation. The gist of it went like this if I am remembering rightly:
"So what did your great uncle say again?"
"Well he started talking about when he was a U-boat pilot in WW2 and how there were some really strange stories circulating among the crew after they got back from their third deployment."
"What sort of stories?"
"Well, one went that if you were exactly 26 miles off the southwestern coast of the island of Shikoku, Japan and descended deep enough and long enough you would find the remains of an entire city, beautiful and perfectly preserved."
"Oh wow! I wonder what sort of people lived there?"
"You couldn't be sure that they were people at all. According to the story, the inhabitants of this ancient city might have been fish or even a type of very intelligent sea-horse because they left absolutely no images or monuments."
"Oh no way! How could a civilization not want to create anything lasting?"
"For one thing, this civilization lived entirely in the present. It was ahistorical. For these seahorses, nothing interesting had happened in the past and nothing interesting would happen in the future. For them, history wasn't a procession -each event attaching to another extending in a line- it was the continuous blooming and decay of the present moment. History didn't exist. Rationalism didn't exist. Life was viewed as inexplicable, alive and finite."
"So these seahorses had no goals? No plans or hopes for the future?"
"I guess not. They went about their lives placing no value on understanding or explaining things in any universal way, each moment held its own laws. Things simply were and arranged themselves according to their own inner characteristics - they couldn't be any other way. Food and shelter were needed and acquired according to natural promptings, art was created and forgotten, nothing was lasting because everything held the same value. The present moment was more compelling than any future goal. Every action and occurrence contained its own importance in its existence at that moment."
"Oh snap! Those seahorses sound fun! Never worrying about if you were 'getting anywhere' if you were 'doing anything' "
"Exactly. Everywhere the seahorse was was just where the seahorse wanted to be."
And that's how the conversation went until all of us reached a wider path and I was able to overtake and pass the ladies on my donkey.

Dr Dawkins: Hmm. Interesting. You know I do think that in some ways those seahorses had a point. However, an existence without goals and hopes would feel, to me at least, a lot like no existence at all. All sense of self comes from pushing up against limitations. Reality provides a perimeter within which I can discover my capabilities and my limitations. In short, define my entire identity. With no aspirations and no limitations, true individuation would be impossible and we would all be a big random static mass. I'm guessing that's what being an sea-horse must have felt like. I'll take my reality, thanks very much.

Nietzshe: I completely understand. If I were you I would want to stay being you too -you are a pretty cool guy. But that's my point, you are choosing this idea of reality because you think its the best one. If I showed you a concept of reality (maybe one that didn't involve seahorses) that was better suited to human existence than your concepts, you would be logically required to change your opinion about what was true and what was false. It's not so unlikely as you might think -those polar ice caps are melting pretty fast.

Dr. Dawkins: I guess you are right but believe me, I'm not holding my breath.

Nietzshe: Thats ok. Just stick to being a scientist, it really is a neat thing to be, and leave the philosophizing and polemicizing to people who are gifted with a greater capacity for stupidity and misstatement than you. The world needs more evangelical scientists like it needs a hole in the head. You are a single piece of the universal structure of life -not an irreplaceable foundation- just like our mutual friend Jesus Christ.

Dr. Dawkins: Ok.

Larry king: Well that was an interesting show, I'm not sure what the seahorses had to do with anything, but regardless it was captivating. Good night from New York, Anderson Cooper 360 is on next.

How to hear a joke

OK. All you crappy joke hearers out there, I need you to listen up. When someone tells you a joke that is in the format of call and response, i.e. "What do you call a ...?" "I don't know, what?" "you call it ****!" (laughter), you need to follow the rules.

What you need to do, if someone is telling you a joke like that, is be obedient. You need to just say "what?". DO NOT try to come up with your own punchline. DO NOT ask a smartass question of clarification. DO NOT do anything at all except for the simplest possible thing you can do to allow the person who is TELLING the joke to get to the punchline, uninterrupted.

You see, not only is it kind of annoying for you to usurp the opportunity of the joke teller to be funny, but it inevitably ruins the joke. Comedy is 75% timing. If the joke teller has to first deflect your guess as to what the punchline is before telling the actual (and I guarantee, funnier) punchline, then the momentum of the joke is lost. If you do this, and the joke is not funny, well... it might not actually be a funny joke, but.... you HELPED to kill it. There is comic blood on your hands. And by comic blood, I don't mean ketchup. I mean the blood of the joke you just murdered with your self centered, attention seeking, arrogant idea that you can improve a joke you haven't even finished hearing with your own peanut gallery style quips.

I'm telling you, when someone is telling you a joke, you need to be humble. You have to just say your one line and get off the stage. Don't try to steal the spotlight from the headliner. Nobody wins when that happens. And thousands of jokes die every day from people who think otherwise /RANT

Thursday, April 26, 2007

A new contributor to The Tally Ho

I'd like to introduce my partner in crime, JWVG. He's an old friend and has a similar predilection to long-winded, crackpot, highly opinionated writings on the particulars of reality and philosophy. He also, like me, is interested in some dumb things, like sports. Please enjoy his entries and perhaps even an occasional debate between the two of us.

Friday, April 20, 2007

American Idol and the Nature of Reality

So my predictions were almost spot on so far, except that I expected Phil to be a goner before the last three. I guess what happened with him is that he managed to get just a few more votes than each of the other sucky people have been kicked off, and then last week he was surprisingly good, which gave him a larger reprieve. Also, I think Phil must have some sort of appeal I just don't understand. I like him more after the country music show, because I see a facet of him that does show talent and charisma, but I doubt we'll be seeing that again. Anyway, if he sucks in every genre but one, doesn't that still make him pretty much a person who sucks? In any case, he can't win so he will be eliminated eventually, possibly next week. I would like to see him have some success in the country music scene following the show. I think he deserves it. In fact, all of the top 6 (except maybe Chris, who I also don't get at all) deserve some sort of success in the music industry.

I also have a more interesting observation: Ever since I began watching the show, I have been pondering the question of whether or not the voting actually guides the choice of who is eliminated. On one hand, it is a nice reality to believe in. The show's democratic nature is a large part of its appeal, and to believe that our votes do not actually count makes the show yet another piece of vapid, pointless television. I guess I would never argue that it's much more than that, but I would argue that were it not for the sense of audience participation, the show would not be successful. I know this doesn't make it true, but it makes me want to believe it's true. Because if I don't, then my enjoyment is diminished and my life is poorer as a result.

On the other hand, I have a compulsion to be intellectually honest with myself. This is why I'm not into organized religion. I can't make myself believe in some shit just because I want it to be true. My rational side is just too dominant. One of my favorite movies of all time the movie Quiz Show, which documents the unveiling of the scandals surrounding the shows "21" and "The $64,000 Question" in the late 50's. The trivia questions asked of the contestants were supposedly locked in a bank vault until just before airtime, and it seems like pretty much every one in America believed this. The shows were wildly popular in the common culture, much in the same was as American Idol is today.

It turns out of course, that the questions (and answers) were given to the contestants ahead of time. The whole thing was fiction, complete with fantastically dramatic failures of contestants who had been "winning" for long periods of time. The producers would analyze the ratings and public opinion each week, decide what the most compelling and dramatic thing to happen would be for the next week, and then make it happen.

Of course, when the little man behind the curtain was revealed, there was massive outrage among the public. There were congressional hearings, and lives (mostly of the contestants who had previously been seen as heroes) were ruined. The movie tries to cast these events as the begining of the loss of American innocence that seemed to take place between the 1950s and the 1960s. I don't know how true that really is, but I buy it as a factor at least. I don't think people were ever that trusting of television again.

Which brings me back to American Idol. Is it fixed? And does it matter? The argument that it is fixed lies mostly in sheer economics. A lot of money rides on the show. Would you, as an American Idol producer, with huge sums of other people's money riding on subtle ratings changes on the show, risk a less compelling outcome based on the whim of the public? I wouldn't want the outcome to be in control of anyone but myself. Especially if I was an expert in creating dramatic entertainment. And I really do think those guys know what they're doing.

My evidence to back this up is the story Sanjaya, who was eliminated this week. I remember hearing a while back that ratings for the show were down this season. I don't know if this continues to be the case, but I do know that Sanjaya has been the primary topic of Americna Idol discussion in nearly every medium. Even people who have never seen the show seem to know who he is. There is no way that his continued presence has driven up the ratings significantly. Also, he seems to have exited at precisely the right time. The joke was starting to get old, and it is perfect timing due to the fact that next week is the big charity show they've been promoting all season. The idea behind the charity show, I'm sure, is to increase the credibility of the show which pretty much everyone agrees is fluffy entertainment. Sanjyaya was making people talk, but the higher he climbed, the more he was undermining the little respect the show actually carried. Now, they can shed this old, stale joke that was weighing them down, and go forward with their very serious and very very important charity spectacular. His exit could not have been more perfectly timed.

Being a member of the post-quiz-show-scandal, post-loss-of-American-innocence generation, I cannot say I believe the show is genuine in its claim that the votes choose who goes home (although I am sure they factor into the decision the producers make - it's very helpful in determining public opinion). I do however, vote for Blake dutifully each week. Why do I do this? As stated earlier, I simply could not enjoy the show if I wasn't able to suspend my disbelief for at least a few hours each week.

As I get older, the more able I am to do this. I am increasingly comfortable with contradictions and a small amount of controlled, irrational behavior. I don't think this means I'll start going to Church and eating body of Christ crackers, but you never know. Maybe American Idol is the gateway drug to full born-again brainwashing! It's too late for me, but if your kids are rational beings like I once was, keep them away from this stuff or before you know it, they'll be proselytizing door to door and throwing rocks at pregnant teenagers.

Wednesday, April 4, 2007

Useless Opinion on a Useless Show

My prediction of the order in which contestants will be eliminated from American Idol:

1. Phil
2. Gina
3. Haley
4. Sanjaya
5. Chris

Remaining: Lakisha, Melinda, Jordin, and Blake. I think any of the could easily win and don't have enough information to predict what will happen in the final 4. I desperately hope it's Blake but passion, love and lust make me biased. I've thought at different times that each of those three women was definitely the best singer in the competition. Whatever happens, I hope that each of the four finds success in the music world. I kind of hope Sanjaya does too, because I'm sick. No! Because I actually like him despite his lack of talent. I know I'm not crazy, because I'm not voting for him and somebody sure as hell is.

Thursday, March 29, 2007

ode to primes

I spent a great deal of energy in college studying prime numbers. People have asked me many times what the purpose of such an endeavor is. I will say that for one, they are the only numbers really worth studying. If you look at all the numbers, and I know that you really can't... not all at once or in any finite period of time anyway, but if you look at the idea of integers on a number line, you can see that the primes make up sort of a fundamental backbone of the entire line. Every other number can be filled in or derived by adding combinations of the primes. I know this is obvious, but it's cool if you really try to visualize it. I remember playing the game in high school where you write all the numbers from 1 to 100 on the chalk board and for each prime (starting with 2, the first true prime number), you circle it and then cross out each of its subsequent factors. If you can play that game and still tell me that primes aren't cool, then you and I will never get each other.

The other reason it's important for every person, whether they like math or not, to learn their primes, is this: if you are ever captured by aliens and you feel they might not understand that you are a sentient being, your only hope is to repeatedly tap out the first 5 or 6 prime numbers on a wall or force field, whatever they've got you in. If it's slime, you have to stomp your feet or something. This way the aliens, who undoubtedly understand mathematics themselves or they wouldn't have made a spaceship that can fly, will automatically know you possess intelligence and might think twice before putting you in a zoo. Hey, I mean, they still might but what else can you do?

So today's lesson is: don't insult the primes. Not only are they the fundamental element to all whole numbers, and hence everything in the universe, but they could get you out of a jam. They are truly the universal language, more so than even music or Esperanto. So yes, I believe they are a worthwhile thing to study.

Tuesday, March 27, 2007

some thoughts

Following is a list of thoughts I had that I would like to share:

1. Jesus was a Jew in the same way that 1 is a prime number.

2. It's hard for me to say exactly what my religious beliefs are, but the fact that I believe beauty exists independently of human consciousness means I am definitely not an atheist.

3. When a cat eats a piece of string and then the poop hangs on the string all together out of its butt, that's the funniest thing that can ever happen.

Tuesday, February 13, 2007

So, despite the fact that my life is objectively fantastic, I've been having a bit of a hard time lately. Blame it on lack of stability, fear of the future, late-twenties angst (is there such a thing? I wasn't a particularly angstful teenager... maybe I'm just a late bloomer), or perhaps the weather. I'm actually about to make a powerful argument for the last one: the sun is out this morning (after 4 days of rain), and the sole tree in my backyard, which was pretty much the first tree around to drop its leaves last fall, is suddenly covered with tiny pink blossoms. And, despite the fact that I am under more stress today than I am emotionally capable of admitting, I feel much much better after a 2 minute gaze out the window.

I guess my main point is to marvel at how much human psychology is tied to nature's cycles. And also to express thanks that we're entering the fun part of the cycle. I remember when I lived on the east coast, Spring would come all at once with a dramatic showing of new leaves, sunshine and warm temperatures, and little baby plants emerging from the ground where the snow was nearly melted. Every single person would be high for one week straight, skipping everywhere, smiling and breathing deep for no reason at all, and being absolutely, genuinely good to each other. It's a brief experience in the context of a full year, but it alone makes 5 months of winter worthwhile.

I miss it, living out here, but today's sunshine alone is enough to get me through whatever problems my charmed life can throw at me. If I ever get any real problems, you can look for me in a cabin in Vermont, waiting patiently for nature to cure me.

Friday, February 9, 2007

With the recent election, there's been a lot of talk in the media about the role of Christianity in America's political spectrum. Actually, there's always a lot of talk about that, because the role Christianity plays in our politics cannot be understated. There is occasionally press on the minority Christian movement that chooses to follow liberal politics, placing the supreme Christian value of peace and not harming fellow humans at the forefront, as well as taking a more loving and tolerant view of those that follow a different path such as homosexuals or people who have premarital sex and abortions. There is also a growing Christianity-based environmental movement, arguing that it is a sin to abuse the beautiful land God has given us and we as the recipient of this gift have an absolute duty to maintain it.

It's really a shame that American Christians as a whole, a people who have as much of a common ideology as possible for such a large group, feel like they have to align themselves with either the Democrats or Republicans. The views, arguably, create the awkward and problematic relationship they currently enjoy with the Republicans (OK on same sex marriage and abortion, not so good on the issues of war, the death penalty, charity to the poor.) Alternatively, they could align themselves with the Democrats, who are perhaps better on the issue of peace and the environment but whose socially liberal streak makes many Christians too uncomfortable to commit. In reality, Christianity does not sit on the right or the left as they are understood in today's political spectrum. It embodies its own set of ideas of how the country should be run, a worldview that is coherent as a standalone perspective but is distorted when shoved into predetermined party politics.

So this is my point: there should be a third party in this country - a Christian party. This way, those who felt like religious teachings were the primary driving force behind their political beliefs would find direct and pure representation in our government. Similarly, those who belong to another religion (or no religion) or who are Christians but who derive their political beliefs from other sources, could align themselves with the left or the right, whichever one they chose. These parties too could now serve to more directly represent their constituents without having to bend to attract the religious vote, which may or may not align with them on any particular issue.

If we had three major parties in our Federal government, we could escape all the recent problems of one party rule we've so recently experienced. The argument against the two party system has been made before many times, and I don't care to rehash it. Suffice it to say, that if there is no clear ruling majority, but instead any group seeking change must look to the other parties for cooperation, we would have a more fair and representative government. "Reaching across the aisle" would go from being the subject of mandatory lip service to being an inherent necessity to anyone participating in the system.

The major failing of third party politics until now has been the difficulty in getting a new party off the ground. Of course, all of the established third parties have represented political extremes (except maybe the Reform Party??) and thus suffered from the immediate defect of few potential members. A Christian party, however, has millions and millions of potential members. If the leadership of the top 5 churches signed on to this idea, the membership requirements for establishment could be met in a matter of days. With such a built in base, this movement could completely transform our government in a months.

Of course, I must say that I'm no Christian myself and would not be joining this party. I am not suggesting this to further my own agenda but instead with the goal of a government that is more responsive to the will of the people. I personally don't like the idea of conservative Christian people having a say on the issue of same sex marriage, but they live here too so that's the way it has to be (besides, that's what the Supreme Court is for, not Congress). No individual issue is more important than a government that is truly representative of and accountable to its people. If Christians stopped waiting to be coddled by the powers that be, and instead took the initiative to become part of the structure of rule, our entire country, Christian and otherwise, would be far, far better off.