Category Archives: Uncategorized
I Was Wrong.
This is Gay Pride week on the campus of my alma mater and countless others. It should come as no surprise to those that know me that I am likely to support civil rights, including marriage equality until my dying breath. Now equality seems obvious. It is so fundamental to the values of a free society that they are said to be self-evident and inalienable–all humans should be equal in the rights and protections afforded by their government. That there are movements afoot to enshrine to enshrine the prohibition of a right for one group that is taken for granted by another is sad. That such movements are achieving success is frightening. Make no mistake, a century from now, the leaders of the National Organization for Marriage (which exists solely for the purpose of preventing marriage) and like-minded groups will be remembered no more kindly for the actions in the beginning of this century that those who fought against women’s suffrage in the beginning of the last.
Alas, truths that seem self-evident at one point seem unthinkable at another, even in one’s own lifetime. Sixteen years ago, I was on the wrong side of history. When the day came to show support (or at least a passive lack of contempt) bisexual, gay, and lesbian students by wearing blue jeans, I went out of my way to wear something else. I could have simply worn Dockers or slacks, but those may have been mistaken for work clothes. Here I was, coming off a year of indoctrination at a Fundamentalist Bible College, full of ignorance and pride, burning with a desire to nip this “pride” in the bud. I needed to show my classmates where I really stood What would happen if people did accept “them” as normal? People had to know the truth. Civilization depended on it. If they won, “good,” whatever that was, will have lost. So I chose to clothe myself in camouflage over a handmade “Sodomy is Sin” T-Shirt. That would show them. Surely all would see who had the plain, “loving” Truth on his side against those who “hated” society.
That stunt cost me some friends. It cost me respect. I’m lucky it didn’t cost me my relationship with the love of my life. I deserved derision, yet I was the one handing it out on people whose only goal was acceptance. It was quite possibly the worst, most hateful thing I have done.
So this week, I’m here to say to anyone who might have seen me that day, I was wrong. Not just for acting out, but for even considering that other students were somehow less deserving than I was because I like to look at women instead of men.
I was wrong. I will not pretend that I kind find some metaphysical solace through penance, prayer or forgiveness. That is not the way I want to be remembered. Yet, for some, it will be. I like to hope that those who did see me that day have simply forgotten by now. But I know they haven’t. They couldn’t? If I was not the worst thing that happened to them, I should have been.
I was not merely misguided. I was wrong. I cannot have that day back, but I can do my best to be an ally to those who want to love and share, and an example to those who would rather hate and hide. To my bisexual, gay and lesbian brothers and sisters, I hope that you will accept the companionship of one so undeserving as I.
To those who supported my actions that day sixteen years ago, if you still feel that way, please consider applying the Golden Role to this situation. Do you really want other people deciding whether or not you can get married and to whom? Do you want someone to find it “gross” for you to hold your spouse’s hand, or for their first thoughts when meeting you to involve your actions in the bedroom instead of the community? If the answer is “no” to any of these, then please, do what you know is right, not what you think might be. Future You will thank Present You for the peace of mind.
Reboot
Reboot.
It has been a year since my last post, so it seems that it may be better to simply start over than to attempt any semblance of continuity. Long time readers may remember when this site went by the title of Elwood’s Nerjal. I don’t go by Elwood much these days and my attempts to rid the world of the term “blog” (which still sounds like throwing up to me, ballooooogah!) and replace it with something fun like “Nerjal” have failed. I blame Canada. They could have used their powers to make Internet Journaling more pleasant, but they chose to beat us in hockey in the Olympics instead. And we are all worse off for it.
So for anybody who cares, let’s get a few questions out of the way:
Q: What’s with the name change and what does it mean?
A: Elwood is still my online handle in a number of places, but fewer and fewer know me as Elwood in real life so it is probably less confusing just to drop it. Since I am now “out” as an atheist, and we have such a hard time finding one another, I figure I might as well just put it in the title. The “token” portion comes from feeling like the only one in a sea of Christians so much of the time.
Q: Where have you been?
A: In school. I decided that I really needed to finish college but then found that doing so would require working full time at night while attending classes full time during the day year round, not to mention assignments, studying and, very occasionally, some sleep. Pretty much every form of recreation had to fall by the wayside under those circumstances, but I did graduate and was rewarded with a new job, and something resembling normalcy.
Q: Atheist? When, why and how did that happen?
A: I will get into that more in a later post.
Q: Will you be all preachy about it?
A: The depends on your definition of “preachy.” Atheism will no doubt inform my opinions on certain topics.
Q: What can I expect to read here?
A: Come back and find out! I write about what interests me. I enjoy humor, science, politics, travel, music, technology and, of course, my wonderful family.
So thanks for dropping by. I hope to have something more substantive in the very near future.
Three A.M. Thursday #2
Wherein Elwood shares his late night musings.
Business Idea: Shrodinger’s Veterinary Hospital & Pet Cemetery—Because You Never Know if Fluffy is Gone for Good
When cockroaches are dying, do they go toward the light?
Were there ever Samsing and Samsang televisions and cell phones?
Business Idea: Bottom’s Up—Fairmont’s first gay nightclub.
If they were all California girls, their maternity wards would be overrun.
Do rock stars daydream about having office jobs?
But why male models?
I wonder if the number of licks it takes to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop is prime.
Business Idea: Assault Brand Batteries—Guaranteed to Beat the Competition
My Dell is running slow. I wonder if there is a farmer in there.
Three A.M. Thursday, entry #1
Wherein Elwood shares his late night streams of consciousness with the world.
Would Miss Manners keep her name if she got married?
Which is more fun to say—pickle, or cucumber?
Why do power supplies have to be plugged in?
Product Idea: Calffeine—The Energy Veal!
Can food be refrigerated if it was never cold in the first place?
Shouldn’t Victoria’s secret have gotten out by now?
Do elementary particles grow up and become Universe-ities?
Did John Lee Hooker ever get the reds?
If six was nine, I’d have to take math again.
If I close my eyes forever, will it all remain unchanged?
Probably not. Ozzy should know better.
Have I driven a Ford? Lately?
Let me think, that rental car in AZ. . .no, it was a Chevy. Guess not. . .
Do good balls of fire get jealous toward great ones?
All the lonely people, where do they all come from?
I’m pretty sure there is a loneliness factory next to the controversy manufacturing plant.
Is that in New York?
Yep, 1211 Avenue of the Americas.
Which would I rather be—a tree, a rock, or a lake?
Does streak-free window cleaner still work if you are naked?
Are my filing cabinets self-aware? Do they like me?
I wonder what bumblebees taste like . . .
Bitter beer batter. Say It five times fast.
I like turtles. .
And sleep.
Boobs.
Zzzzzz. . . .
Ten Things I’m Unlikely to Say
- “You know, the birthers do have a point. . .”
- “This Macbook is definitely worth the extra dough.”
- “Hey kids, let’s take a trip to the Creation Museum!”
- “No need to see a mechanic, I can fix it!”
- “I think I’ll try the Atkins diet.”
- “Sorry, can’t make the WVU game. I’m going to see Carmen instead.”
- “More coleslaw, please!”
- “Man, learning to play the guitar is easy!”
- “I’ve had this same lawn mower for ten years and it still works great!”
- “Honey, put your top back on, I’m trying to watch Glenn Beck!”
Golf vs. Gulf
Though I have tried to swear the stuff off for good, I cannot help but to take the occasional swig of AM Talk Radio. And, like nicotine, I know it is actually a poison, not good for me or anyone else. Nonetheless, against my better judgment I tuned in for the Rush Limbaugh program on my way to class on Thursday. The show had a guest-host by the name of Mark Belling, who used his awesome psychic ability and insight into the lives of Al and Tipper Gore to let America know what really went wrong in the marriage. You see, Tipper knows the truth about Global Warming. Eventually, she could not hold it in and she finally told old Al what a crock his books, film and life’s work really are. Belling’s evidence? Tipper’s crusade against vulgar music lyrics! It should be plainly obvious operation to one supposedly liberal stronghold in the music industry should be expected to feed into another—that of environmental science and climatology. If only Sherlock Holmes had such powers of deduction!
After class, I decided to take a measured dose of Sean Hannity, figuring 15 minutes ought to do it. It turns out the show is mostly additives. Of the 15-mintue block, 6 minutes were the not the program, but the top of the hour local and national news, another 30 seconds or so was the theme song that contains the line “let the right be wrong” without a hint of irony, and 4 and another 4 and a half minutes was spent on commercials, two of which claimed to be able to reduce my credit card debt by half (bookended by pleads about personal responsibility by the host, also without irony). No phone calls were taken, so that leaves a five minute monologue. About half of that was spent on the Sestak controversy, in which the White House is accused of asking a potential senate candidate to consider dropping out of a race in order to avoid a costly primary. This controversy is somewhat legitimate, especially if Sestak was offered anything of value, but it strikes more me as a tempest in a teapot, as evidence of quid pro quo has been less than forthcoming. For the time being, the Administration maintains that Sestak was asked to participate in a voluntary advisory role rather than engage in what the DNC may consider a waste of party time and resources in a Primary. That seems more like the type of conversation that happens in every organization, everywhere, all the time, as a means of accomplishing anything or allocating scarce resources, so it hardly screams “SCANDAL,” but time will tell. When your only narrative is that the DNC=bad and you have three hours to fill, finding fault in such minutia is pretty much standard operating procedure.
It was Hannity’s other topic du jour that, judging on the number or the rehearsal and repletion of the lines accompanying passionate paralanguage, is where Hannity senses the biggest opening in Obama’s defenses. Namely, that “Obama says that he is worried about the Gulf, but he is playing more golf than Tiger Woods.” This gulf v. golf meme was repeated ad nauseam in an astonishingly short time span, as the one thing that really proves that Obama is aloof and unconcerned. It is not hard to point out that Obama has seen to it that 17,500 National Guard Troops assisting with the cleanup, not to mention 1900 ships from the Navy, Coast Guard and private industry, and top engineers from around the world consulting on the matter. But hey, why let facts get in the way? I cannot help but think that even Hannity fans have to wonder in amazement at the inherent contradiction of at once claiming that the government in general and Obama in particular is incompetent and that we would all be better off with as little intervention as possible while also castigating the president for failing to spend more time at the Gulf Coast? More time to do what, exactly? Obama’s background is in law, not engineering. His security, press and support entourage would certainly get in the way. If he goes and sets up camp in New Orleans, he will be criticized for engaging in a photo op instead of worrying about the economy and the wars.
Sure, the Gulf spill is a crisis, a big one at that, but it is not one that benefits from meddling by people who lack the expertise to solve it. Nor does it do much good for Obama or anybody else to stop living his life until the leak is stopped. If Hannity is like most of us, at some point in his life he has had a friend, family member or colleague who suffered from prolonged illness. Perhaps the person was slowly dying or required round the clock medical supervision, novel cures and experimental treatment. And no doubt Hannity did what any good friend would do, which is offer moral (and possibly financial) support while ensuring that the people with the sufficient skills and expertise were doing everything possible to relieve suffering and find a cure. He would be there physically at first and visit regularly, particularly if anything took a turn for the worse. What he or no one else would do is put life completely on hold for months on end, hanging around the hospital, hounding doctors and demanding impossible results. He did not stop going to work, spending time with his family or engaging in any leisure activity whatsoever. Such behavior would not be an indication of concern or empathy so much as obsession bordering on personality disorder.
Look, I know that Hannity and a lot of people are less than thrilled with Obama’s election. But disagreements over his policies should not translate to universal criticism of every single action or inaction. Like his predecessors, Obama is president 24×7. He is never off of the job. He is president on the golf course and in the oval office, at home in Chicago and abroad on an official visit. He is entitled to have guests, be they personal friends or sports teams, supporters or celebrities. I had a chance to spend a week with a CEO of a multinational firm, ostensibly for a week of leisure activities. I found that nobody with that level of responsibility is ever far from the job. The phone never stops ringing, and the problems never stop cropping up. If Hannity thinks someone should completely put life on hold to deal with the crisis, he should volunteer to try it himself. Take action, even if it is just something menial, like cleaning birds. Get off the air, refrain from all leisure and relationship and stay in Louisiana until the leak stops completely, likely in August. Don’t go home to your wife. Don’t go to a movie or visit a friend. Focus 100% of your waking energy on doing something, anything, to show that you really are concerned. Pester the Coast Guard and BP for answers if you like.
I think it goes without saying that Hannity knows this. He just can’t help himself. He knows damn well that Obama’s presence or absence 10 miles from the spill in LA does no more good than his presence 1100 miles away in DC. The problem is the equivalent of a cancerous growth 5000 feet under the ocean’s surface. It needs the equivalent of a doctor, not an executive. For a Christian, Hannity sure can’t follow the Golden Rule very well. I can’t imagine he would appreciate being criticized for every date with his wife, every game of golf, every dinner with a friend, or every day off work. So which is it, Sean? Do you want the government to intervene or not? Is Obama sufficiently competent that his action would be helpful or would it just be an empty gesture if he showed up? I know you want to have it both ways, but it is simply impossible for Obama to be wrong in every conceivable instance. There is nothing patriotic about outrage. There is nothing constructive in knee-jerk criticism. If you are confident that you know a better way to handle the spill, please, enlighten us. It’s not like you don’t have four hours a day to explain your plan. By my reckoning, Obama has never spent that much time giving press conferences and speeches in a week. If you have a plan, I will tune in anxiously to hear it. If not, try playing a round of golf or two. It might help you relax.
Memorial Day
When news broke that President Obama was planning to spend Memorial Day weekend in Chicago with his family rather than remain in Washington, DC and participate in the traditional wreath-laying ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery, I braced myself for the inevitable deluge of pot shots from pundits, bloggers and Facebook friends who would make Obama’s location into a statement about patriotism and support of the troops, past and present. Anticipating that many would falsely report that Obama is the first President to be elsewhere on Memorial Day, I at first pointed out that it is actually quite common for a president to be elsewhere. The most recent “misses” were G.W. Bush in 2002, G.H.W. Bush in 1992, 1991, 1990, and 1989 (all four years!) and before that, Reagan in 1988, 1987, 1983 and 1981. Since Clinton was present at Arlington for all eight years, 9 out of the last 10 so-called “misses” of the Arlington ceremony by presidents were under Republican watch, including a span of six consecutive years under Reagan and G.H.W. Bush. If presence at Arlington on Memorial Day is to be our measuring stick for patriotism, the Republicans are in deep trouble. Of course, this is hardly fair, as there are a number of reasons that a president may not be present. Reagan was still recuperating from having been shot in 1981, and was out of the country for others. While G.H.W. spent three of his Memorial Day weekends vacationing with family in Maine, where he celebrated the holiday at the local VFW, G.W. Bush spent his “missed” year at Normandy, a location with equally strong ties to the holiday as Arlington.
But is not just the point? None of these men missed the holiday. All of them participated in some way, seeing to it that a top administration official, usually either the Vice President or Secretary of Defense was present to participate in the traditional wreath laying at Arlington, while most presidents participated in a ceremony elsewhere. President Obama did not miss Arlington, he chose to honor those buried at Lincoln National Cemetery, while Vice President Biden likewise honored those at Arlington. It is not as if Arlington National Cemetery is the only national cemetery; it is not even the largest. It is its proximity to Washington, along with Tomb of the Unknowns, that gives Arlington its place of prominence. Nonetheless, there are 146 such national cemeteries in this country, each worthy of the any President’s attention. Do the pundits really intend to imply otherwise? Is Lincoln National Cemetery somehow less dignified than Arlington? I’m sure some families and descendents of those buried at Lincoln would take issue with the logical end to this line of reasoning. I for one would be honored if the president or any high-ranking official chose to participate in a ceremony at West Virginia National Cemetery, where my grandfather was buried. In fact, I propose a new tradition—perhaps instead of focusing solely on Arlington, more high-ranking administration officials should see to it that as many national cemeteries are so honored on Memorial Day and Veteran’s Day as is feasible. It would only take 18-19 officials, each covering a different cemetery on each Veteran’s Day or Memorial Day to cover all 150 locations each four year term. That seems to be keeping with the spirit of these holidays at least as much as a perpetual presence at one or a handful of places. I have little doubt, though, that even a gesture as noble as this one would be dismissed as political posturing and photo ops by certain pundits, especially if the first administration to implement the change were perceived to be liberal.
Which begs the question, do enough of us really take time to remember what Memorial Day is about? It is easy to lambast the pundits (who have made themselves the farthest thing from patriots in choosing to politicize a solemn ceremony and an ostensibly solemn holiday), but what of the rest of us? Is this a day of honor and remembrance, or a day of cookouts and an unofficial beginning of Summer? I have consumed my share of hot dogs on the last Monday in May, but not once have I visited a cemetery or been present for a ceremony of any kind. Veteran’s Day, likewise, is often a day to catch up on school work. I do generally make it to the Veteran’s Plaza in town then, but only because it is a good place to view the parade. I do not think that I am particularly lazy, irreverent or lacking in patriotism, but I do think that we in the United States have forgotten to how to mourn. December 7th is no longer a “date which will live in infamy.” Poll people at random about the significance December 7th and many will state that it is one of the last days to use Super Saver Shipping at Amazon for Christmas. The only reason we remember 9-11 is because the attacks are called by their date. If it were just the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks, people would be probably searching for the date already. Many churches celebrate Palm Sunday and Easter, skipping right over Maundy Thursday and Good Friday. Nobody seems to acknowledge the dark times anymore, even when they are quintessential elements of their Faith. Unlike Narnia, in the United States it is always Christmas and never Winter. I do not think it makes much complete people or a complete society. Maybe we should start the summer with fewer hotdogs and more tears. If we spend Monday in darkness, we may find that the sun shines all the more brightly on Tuesday.
Apple Busts a (Market) Cap in Microsoft’s Ass(ets)
Now valued at over $221 Billion (USD), Apple just overtook Microsoft in Market Capitalization. I do have to say that neither that business nor technology side of me can make any sense of this. I mean, kudos to Apple for making itself out to be some kind of anti-establishment upstart instead of the corporate giant that they are. They certainly create interest and demand. Think different? How? By doing what all of your friends are doing? They have the second largest market cap of any US company? They should apply for tax-exempt status as a religion! FSM knows Apple of more of a cult than a company. It tells is followers what they want, then said followers pretend that Apple read their mind. It’s like watching John Edward, but with a product name beginning was an “I” instead of something a relative who has passed away.
But looking at Apple’s business model, well, I just don’t get how they could possibly be worth more than Microsoft. Apple makes most of its profits in consumer products like i-Pods, for which the market has to be nearing saturation. After close to nine years, it seems as if everybody should have an i-Pod that wants one. It’s not as if anyone needs 7 of them, any more than they need 9 X-boxes. My pre-teen daughter saved up her money for a portable music player, looked at the i-Pod touch, shrugged her shoulders with a resounding “meh,” and proceeded to purchase a Zune HD. From this it is clear to me that not only is Apple is outgunned in terms of features on its flagship music player and phone, but it is also vulnerable on its image as a go-to brand among the next generation of consumers.
Meanwhile, Microsoft makes most of its money from its signature OS and Office Suite, which are not going anywhere and cannot reach saturation under current market conditions. As long as people are buying PC’s and most models of Netbooks, Microsoft will continue to rake in the cash. They could shut down consumer products completely and still do well. The demand for Windows and Office is constant at worst, and once developed, the supply costs next to nothing to provide. Corporations buy licenses by the tens of thousands. There is nothing significant to ship, just e-mail a product key. Even the installation disk sells for $20 and probably costs less than $2 to press, package and ship. It is like selling canned air, shipping a billion units costs little more than shipping a million! They simply cannot lose. Even if consumers start using phones instead of PC’s for most tasks, the corporate world is set to run on Microsoft Windows equipped PC’s for the foreseeable future. Unlike Apple, which is vulnerable to surplus in supply of hardware or potential price wars with its competitors, Microsoft is practically guaranteed to retain its market share. Few recessions are so deep as to keep corporations and governments from buying computers, at least not for any length of time. They are like petroleum products for a delivery company, the demand is, as they say in economics, inelastic. Apple products are luxury goods. Very few people actually need them to accomplish day to day tasks.
As a technician, I just don’t understand Apple’s appeal, nor do I know any techs that do. It’s not that I haven’t used Macs. My boss is a huge fan of Apple products. I kind of like the i-Pod Shuffle. It’s great for mowing the lawn or taking walks or jogs. I had an i-Mac as my primary machine at work for at least a year. I more or less learned my way around OS X. It was somewhat intuitive, but not by any stretch ground-breaking, and the all-in one design was sleek and pretty, but not as sharp or accurate in color as the HP Laptop I bought soon thereafter. Once the novelty wore off, I quickly concluded the system on my desk was overpriced. The system was just a PC with a different logo (which seems to be worth about $300). The OS appeared to be closed-source variant of BSD, which COULD work with our network, file server and printers, but not without time and effort spent on configuration that was not at all necessary with the Windows PC it replaced, at nearly five times the cost. Our Microsoft Office license was no good for Mac, forcing a further corporate expenditure. Security? OS X went down in a matter of seconds in Pwn to Own competition, in which hackers take away a computer if they can gain control of it with all current patches applied. Compared to even Vista and Internet Explorer, Apple’s Safari Browser and OS X were found to be full of easy-to-exploit flaws. Apple’s lead time to patch vulnerability has longer than Microsoft in many instances. The only thing protecting OS X is its small market share. Were the situation with Windows reversed, Macs would be crawling with malware of every stripe. Macbook Pro’s are notorious for running incredibly, unbearably hot, to the degree that they cannot rightly be called “laptops” without risk of personal injury. For reasons unknown to anyone outside of 1 Infinite Loop, i-Tunes cannot be patched incrementally, so users are supposed to download the entire 70MB file and go through the entire install process to keep up with the slightest update. The designs prevent consumers from replacing something as simple as a battery on a phone or music player. Apple’s next big thing, the i-Pad, doesn’t actually DO anything. And we are expected to thank Jobs for the privilege of buying a completely worthless device that we never knew we needed. It simply never seems to occur to anyone that the reason we didn’t know we needed one was because we didn’t need one.
When you want to know if a product or fashion is trendy, look at high school and college students, but if you want to know if it is useful, check out the business world. What you will find is that people that actually want to get work done are using Smartphones from Research in Motion (Blackery) or Palm. Their computers run Windows. Their servers run Exchange. Apple products may be easy on the eyes, but then again, so is Sarah Palin. That does not mean that they are actually necessary or even useful for the betterment of our lives or those outside of a small network of associates, family members and profiteers. Like the fruit, Apple has an aesthetic that makes me want to pick take a bushel-full off of the shelf, but when it really comes down to getting something done, I’d rather eat one than carry it around for any length of time. (Mmmmmm.. . . Megabytes. . .nom, nom, nom. . .)
Interest vs. Will
The contentious passage of the Health Care Reform bill late last night will certainly be debated and analyzed for some time to come. Polling nearly universally indicated that the majority of Americans opposed the bill’s passage, yet a majority of elected representatives in the House and Senate not only voted for passage, they employed some creative procedural maneuvering to ensure passage. This leads to a fundamental question, just what is the role of the legislative branch? Are the representatives tasked with representing the will of the people, or the interests of the people? If my car isn’t running well, it is my will that I pay as little as possible for repairs but it is in my interest that the car is repaired properly. With that in mind, what happens when people oppose a bill for the wrong reasons? Which is more fair, a bill that protects a minority against a clear wishes of a majority, such as with Civil Rights legislation or congress simply giving the people what they want, even if their will is based on bigotry, misinformation or some other form of bias?
In the case of the Health Care overhaul, it really appears that while the majority polled as being opposed to reform, it also appears that the majority are opposed to bill that does not exist. Some who are opposed are worried that the bill will negatively affect the elderly, yet the AARP has endorsed it the bill. Strangely, this has not allayed concerns. Nor has the AMA’s endorsement been sufficient to overcome doubts about the quality of care. There has been no convincing the Pro-Life contingent that the bill does not provide any funding for abortion, despite clear language within the bill and an executive order by the President stating making it a violation of Federal Law to cover abortions. The bill continues to be touting by the right as a “government takeover” of health care, yet the bill consists primarily of subsidies for purchasing private insurance. That is no more a takeover of health care than Pell Grants and student loans are a takeover of education.
With this kind of rampant and deliberate misinformation, what is a representative to do? What happens when you try to have a town hall meeting concerning fine points and instead get accused of setting up “death panels” to kill grandma? What happens when people are shouting such nonsense as “keep government out of Medicare?” When shouts of “you lie” during a presidential address is rewarded with increased campaign contributions? When a pro-life Democrat is met with a shout of “baby-killer” for casting a vote for legislation aimed at improving the quality of life for those most in need?
Have we, as a people really become this distrustful of any and all expertise? Few of us are capable of analyzing the probable long-term effects and cost of such a massive overhaul, but it seems as though the groups that are qualified to evaluate it are being ignored in favor of partisan rancor and talk-show talking heads who make a living saying outlandish things designed to draw in higher ratings. The mistrust of expertise is seems to be coming more widespread. Do media personalities really know more about climate change than professional climatologists? Do Bible scholars really know more about the world past, present and future than geologists, biologists, cosmologists, archaeologists or historians?
I understand rugged individualism. As a free-thinker, I certainly do not endorse accepting information from an authority figure on the basis of authority alone, but come on! Maybe, just maybe, the lawyers crafting laws know a little more about the actual intent and consequences of a bill than talk-show hosts. Maybe, just maybe, the AMA and AARP know a thing or two about the effect on medical practice and the elderly, respectively. Congress may not be the most trustworthy entity in the country, but surely some of these other non-profit advocacy groups are worth checking into? They have nothing to gain by getting it wrong.
So, is it “elitist” to pass legislation against the will of the American people? I would say that it probably is, especially for the House of Representatives. I tend to think that it is the role of the Senate to represent our interests and the House to represent our will. That is why senators have longer terms. They should not get carried away in ill-advised, populist support or opposition to what they believe in their heart is the right action. The House, though, have short terms for a reason. If they fail to follow the will of their constituents, they should and will be voted out of office. They should have worked to get the American people on their side before casting their votes. Unfortunately, a calm, reasoned explanation does not get the kind of attention that a shock-jock shouting in front of a chalkboard commands in prime time on a “news” outlet. Talking points over megaphones and microphones drown out any attempt to properly inform the populace. It is increasingly difficult to find the truth at all, much less to act on it.
The well has been so poisoned that no water is safe to drink. One cannot merely have a different strategy and opinion on how to reach the same goal, he must be deemed a socialist, communist, fascist, Marxist liberal—all at the same time! One cannot suggest that fair trials are the cornerstone of our democracy without being labeled a terrorist sympathizer. One cannot question the strategic value of a war without denigrating the troops. For all the pictures of Obama with a Hitler-esque mustache and cries of fascism, there sure appears to be a lot of mindless propaganda coming from the other side. If there is a takeover of the government by an authoritarian mob, I suspect it will come from somewhere right of center. We liberal hippies don’t fight for anything. Skeptics can scarcely agree on any course of action. It is all we can do to get one representative in congress or one meeting with the president. Like Mr. Beck, I love my country, and I fear for it. The difference is that my fear is based in history and reality. He and his followers appear to fear the country and government itself. I can’t help but think that genuine attempts to improve the lives of Americans are more patriotic than mindless opposition to any and all change. Hopefully, reason will rise above the din of all this noise. Hopefully, our interest and will be one, and we will no longer have to ask the question of which to endorse. Until then, I feel for our elected representatives. Their lives cannot be easy. They are governing the ungovernable.
You Call Yourself a Christian?
It has become an all too familiar question—How can you call yourself a Christian and x? X is usually something that has positively nothing to do with the Christian religion or with overt behavior could classically be defined as “sin.” No, the “x” is usually something like “and vote for Barack Obama,” or accept that Darwin’s Theory of Evolution has held up to immense scrutiny for a 150 years ,” or “propose that maybe removing well-trained, experienced soldiers from duty because they happen to be attracted to members of their own sex.” Of course, all of the above objections are inevitably tied to some conception of an absolute and perfect moral authority, presumably from God. However, this perfect and unchanging authority has proven to be remarkably pliable, not to mention contradictory. It has been used to justify slavery and inspire the abolitionist movement. It has been used to justify misogyny and to tear down racism, held tantamount to patriotism and as justification for civil (and not so civil) disobedience.
And that’s just in the last few centuries. Going back through history, the picture does not get any better. The Catholic Church has only been able to hold itself together by adopting new doctrine and practice every so often, calling into question the notion of a structure that is simultaneously infallible and in need of revision. The Protestants seem to have dispensed with even attempting to reconcile their doctrines, choosing instead to splinter at the slightest hint of disagreement, creating in excess of thirty thousand, yes, thirty thousand denominations, not counting all of the independent churches with no authority beyond their internal hierarchy. Christians with similar enough beliefs get along well enough at conferences, but it is clear that their respect for doctrines of other Christians, even Christians themselves is directly proportional to the level of agreement on certain points of doctrine, all the while disagreeing as to which doctrines are worth squabbling over–squabbling over squabbling, as it were.
The Hebrew Scriptures are revered as authoritative to the extent that a given passage reinforces a particular notion and ignored as “Old Covenant” when they do not serve the purpose, which, again, calls into question what absolute authority one is appealing to exactly when he claims that no Christian could possible think or say “x.” It only gets harder when one begins to search the doctrines of similar monotheistic religions to find wider disagreement still, despite all claiming to have access to the same universal.
All this has got me thinking, why does God’s opinion always to match up with the person claiming to speak for him? It seems like something that could be settled objectively, scientifically. If there really is a will of God, why doesn’t anybody seem to be able to demonstrate that they know what it is? Even if it were subjective, like, say the statement that pizza is yummy, shouldn’t most people agree on most issues? Were that politics were so easy! What should we do? What God wants. All in favor? Aye! It’s Unanimous. Let’s go out for pizza and celebrate! But alas, it is not easy.
Likewise, if God inspires superior morality, would not his followers demonstrate superior morality, as defined by their own standards or that of society? It is a hypothesis that has been subjected to rigorous study and polling by believers and secularists alike, and there is no demonstrable, statistical difference between those who attend church regularly and those who do not. Christians are every bit as likely to have been divorced at least once, been drunk or used drugs, to have purchased or viewed pornography, committed adultery—you name it—as anyone else.
No matter what the scripture or doctrine is, people have a nasty tendency to either write scripture that they themselves agree with or, if scripture already exists, to point out the parts that resonate with what they are already thinking. You see, the scriptures do not change people, people change scriptures, either overtly, by writing new ones, or quietly and gradually, but shifting emphasis and attention to whatever point is salient at the time. The reason Ultimate Morality appears to be so illusive is because it is a phantom, held up as some kind of heavenly trump card, “if you disagree with x, you disagree with God, who is right by definition, meaning you are wrong.” This effectively ends all questioning, all exploration and all discussion. But truth cannot be established by fiat. It can only be discovered, which is why universities place so much emphasis on research.
I can now say with absolute confidence and perfect peace of mind that no one needs to ask how I can call myself a Christian and. . .? Nor does anyone have to substitute any trendy new phrase, like “Christ-Follower,” as if changing the words changes the reality. You see, it so happens that I’m not a Christian. I’m not “spiritual.” I’m not a “Christ-Follower,” a “seeker” a “believer” a “theist” or even agnostic. I am also not a “Bright,” or a “None,” or a “Darwinist” (which don’t exist, but the way). I could really do without the labels, and I’m not particularly fond of negative labeling—defining people by what they are not instead of by what they are. Nonetheless, I shall dispense with the rhetorical games going forward.
You may notice that the “A” in the banner on my blog has changed in font, color and case. For me, that “Scarlet ‘A’” is a positive statement of my own identity, not an indictment of anyone else’s. I am not anti-religious, merely irreligious. I think church is sometimes interesting and sometimes fun, and that spiritual organizations have a big role to play in our society. I am not about to tear them down. My kids like church and they will continue to be a part of a faith community so long as that is their desire. Their mother and I are doing just fine as an inter-“faith” couple. I’m inclined to think Romans 14:16 is pretty good advice for people of all cultures, religions and philosophies. Nonetheless, I’m also tired of living in the closet, playing pretend, going through the motions when no part of me accepts the literal existence of any god, devil, angel, ghost, soul, afterlife or disembodied consciousness. I think the Universe is sufficiently wondrous all by itself and life is what we make of it. I also think religion has a place, at its symbols clearly resonate with people, the stories contained therein telling us as much about ourselves as we could hope to gain from psychology textbooks.
Skepticism, the notion that sometimes asking questions is the answer, has affected me in profoundly and positively, something akin, I’m sure, to the religious conversions others have gone through, when they have their own epiphany as to what ultimate truth is for them. I feel fantastic. I no longer have to wonder why I don’t fit it any church, why I feel the need to attend a new one every couple of years or why I have always been more comfortable with skeptics than believers. I no longer have to worry about a bad day being a punishment from God or an attack from the Devil. I have found joy and peace and hope and happiness. I just made it through the first winter without a major depressive episode in 19 years! I found the confidence to go back to college, something I have been unable to do for 14 years because of stress-related breakdowns. Perhaps my atheism is a phase, but if so, it’s a pretty long-lived one. I prefer to think of it as the destination after a very long and arduous journey. In my case, it is science that has brought about a more abundant life, and seeing as how it is the only one that I will ever have, I intend to live it to the full. If that means taking an unpopular path, so be it. At least I’ll sleep better, knowing I have the courage of my convictions. My private and public personas will be in agreement. I will continue to seek out ultimate truth, wherever it leads. I encourage everyone do to the same.
