Slowly rowing down the river of life

It's a modern day mystery how some people conservatively cling to notions of antiquity known as mythology.  Religious myths will eventually lead to the third world war.

As our minds erode into paranoid ideological pictures of good and evil, our religions alienate and divide us with purely fictional dogma.

Why bomb Libya but not Yemen or Syria or Rwanda?

Oil.  Libya hovers over about 46 billion barrels of oil reserves.  Yemen owns about 11 billion, Syria, 2.5 billion, Rwanda, 0 billion.  So don't let anyone con you into thinking the US is a Dudley-do-right nation.  We're in it for our own interests or should I say corporate interests.  We're bombing Libya for oil.  We (as in a group of white middle aged wealthy men who may be Americans but not necessarily, hold vast power over policy decisions, and can't tell the difference between Tyler Perry and any other black person) invaded Iraq not because Saddam was Satan but because they're sitting on over 110 billion barrels of oil reserves.  Case closed.  We, the people, are complicit because of our insatiable attachment to driving our own cars.  Trust me, I'd rather drive my car to work - it takes 15 minutes by car - than to take the MCTS - it takes an hour (by bike it'd take me at least 1.5 hrs).  Anyway, until we have a stronger commitment in this country to public transportation, we'll be dependent on oil.

 ========= 

Some folks were sad to see Herb Kohl resign.  I think they must have been republicans because Mr. Kohl hasn't been much of a democrat.  This past week he voted to continue provisions in the Patriot Act that allow the government to eavesdrop on any and all citizens.  That seems utterly mind-boggling.  He's also not been the loudest advocate for discontinuing the Bush tax cuts nor has he been vocal about cuts to Inheritance tax, or Capital Gains tax.  But it makes sense, he's a billionaire.  How long will it be before all of our senators are billionaires?   

============================

Still searching for the Higgs boson.  In the meantime, Stephen Hawking has decided there is no heaven.  Yet the universe keeps providing images that make it hard to accept:

Comet Between Fireworks and Lightning
Credit & Copyright: Antti Kemppainen Explanation: Sometimes the sky itself is the best show in town. In January 2007, people from Perth, Australia gathered on a local beach to watch a sky light up with delights near and far. Nearby, fireworks exploded as part of Australia Day celebrations. On the far right, lightning from a thunderstorm flashed in the distance. Near the image center, though, seen through clouds, was the most unusual sight of all: Comet McNaught. The photogenic comet was so bright that it even remained visible though the din of Earthly flashes. Comet McNaught has now returned to the outer Solar System and is now only visible with a large telescope. The above image is actually a three photograph panorama digitally processed to reduce red reflections from the exploding firework.

Is it possible to just get rid of organized religions without dismissing the notion of god?  It seems a little weird that Jesus who was quite a bit of a rebel - similarly with Mohammed and Abraham and Moses - would advocate organized religions that we have today battling over parishioners, vying for donations, and searching for more innocent children to convert through pedophilia.  Maybe there should be a lot more dancing, like Lionel Messi.    

Religion, terrorism, and name calling

Contradictions are interesting.  We all have them.  Perhaps you know someone who is anti-abortion but cheers when a missile strike destroys a convoy in Afghanistan carrying innocent people as well as a suspected terrorist.  Or someone who claims to be a Christian and yet lives a life of sheer excess.  Perhaps you know someone who lays claim to atheism yet won't step on a crack for fear of damaging his/her mother's back.

All of these instances are contradictory to the core belief system.  The mistake that is often made when contradictions such as these are observed is to label any of the people who practice them as hypocrites. Name calling is a convenience meant to eliminate any necessity to understand something in greater detail.  The easiest action to perform is to label something by naming it.  The act of naming something implies that there is understanding of that thing.  By calling the people who commit suicide bombing attacks "terrorists" and "evil" the government instills in the public opinion a certain level of understanding.  The public associates these groups as malevolent in reaction to the names themselves assigned to the entities.  The larger problem with this type of propaganda is that for many people there is no further investigation to uncover why or the underlying reasons for people to use themselves as weapons of destruction. 

What is an act of terrorism anyway?  If the US or one of its allies kills a thousand innocent civilians, is it an act of terrorism?  What is meant by the concept of evil?  Is invading a sovereign nation evil?  Is it evil to kill someone without cause?  These are nebulous terms and the meanings can shift from one person to the next or depending on which country is carrying out the action.  So understanding them is arbitrary.


God and the religious
One objection to the argument that a benevolent god exists is the presence of terrible unnecessary suffering of innocent life in the world, or what is commonly referred to as the problem of evil (here's that thorny concept yet again).  H.L. Mencken once said, "[y]ou can never underestimate a human being."  Imagine the most malicious action, crime, or offense someone could perform and you'll find thousands who have and thousands who have committed much worse crimes against humanity and/or against nature - many times in the name of religion. 

The religionist has no explanation for this.  What's surprising is how many Christian apologists use the same tactic to address the problem of unnecessary suffering.  They try to explain away the problem by describing god as having a motive for allowing innocents to suffer that's so utterly complicated we mortals cannot possibly understand.  It's an absolutely disastrous counterargument because the whole premise of Christianity, and Judaism and Islam, is to develop a "relationship" with the Lord.  It seems to be a daunting obstacle to not understand why an omnipotent, omnipresent, benevolent super-being would allow the hideous crimes of mass genocides, fraternicides, rape, child molestation, torture, senseless acts of brutality, the slow death of malnutrition, etc. when this omnipotent creature could blink and the level of pain reduced substantially without much impact on our relationships with it.

Just a slight reduction in the amount of pain that innocent people suffer through wouldn't create too much of a problem, would it?  People could still have an option to choose to love god or not.  But unfortunately this doesn't happen.  The only cases where pain and suffering have been diminished is when people intervene, many times religionists but not predominately so and definitely not exclusively.   

In this case the fact that so often the counterargument to the problem of unnecessary suffering is of the same nature from a variety of people is an indication that some very effective indoctrination is taking place.  Obviously philosophers and thinkers far more intelligent than the writer of this entry have thought about these issues and argued over these issues for hundred of years.  They came up with a pat answer that has been passed down form generation to generation without much question.   Through a sleight-of-hand naming trick religionists are playing the same game as politicians using the words "terrorist" and "evil". 

(The most interesting position that I have heard was from a Muslim who argued that allah is everything.  Allah is wicked and good.  But Allah never promises to be only benevolent.  Interestingly from that standpoint there may as well be no allah or god because a supernatural being becomes irrelevant.  On the other hand, if there is a god that creates suffering, there's no guarantee that the afterlife will be pleasurable.  It is just as likely that eternity will be filled with torment.)   

The answer to the problem of evil doesn't address the problem with any further level of understanding.  Using "god" and "evil" and the "nature of god" as concepts that have no pinned down definition causes inconsistencies that cannot be reconciled.  These concepts in the end exist as arbitrary notions without value and without meaning.  What god wants becomes devoid of any actual significance because god becomes an unknowable conceptual device.

This all begs the question: What's the problem with there being no god?  It might straighten out a lot of conflict in the world if people just accepted the idea that religion is myth.  Then we can get on with tackling the real problems that our children are going to inherit from us if they live that long. 

Let's stop arguing and fussing about this god or that god and this religion or that religion.  Let's be rid of the whole idea altogether.   Perhaps then we can address the tangible issues like the environmental devastation people are inflicting on the Earth, the inequality of wealth, education, justice, and health in the US and globally.  Afterall, a stitch in time saves nine.

Marx called religion the opiate of the masses.  It's time to get rid of one of civilization's sedatives, plenty others left.  Get rid of religion and go get involved in the real world.

So let's all get involved.  If you have any ideas on how to get more involved in addressing our global problems, please post them online.  Let's get the ball rolling by getting rid of one cause for so much division and war.

Some places to start: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/getinvolved/
http://www.kiva.org/about/microfinance
http://www.house-of-love.org/
http://www.bbbs.org/site/c.9iILI3NGKhK6F/b.5962335/k.BE16/Home.htm

==========================================

An Alternative to Competition

In a later blog entry, I will set out an argument for why competition is actually harming innovation and productivity.  But in today's entry, I'd just like to post a brief word about it.

There is a plausible alternative to competition in a classroom setting.  That is cooperation and collaboration.  Rather than calling on one person to answer a question, call on groups to answer questions.  A teacher ought to inspire a hunger for learning and a desire to solve problems by communicating with others.  It's a positive approach that can become effective with practice and will instill longer retention rates.  Teaching should revolve around authentic learning experiences not fabricated examinations. 

Gov. Walker fancies himself the next Reagan and why this should worry us

Back in February, Gov. Walker had a rather embarrassing and revealing phone conversation with Ian Murphy pretending to be multimillionaire David Koch.  As he carried on about his intentions with protesters and how to proceed with his plan to strip the collective bargaining rights of public employees, he compared himself to Ronald Reagan, "And I stood up and I pulled out a picture of Ronald Reagan, and I said, you know, this may seem a little melodramatic, but 30 years ago, Ronald Reagan, whose 100th birthday we just celebrated the day before, had one of the most defining moments of his political career, not just his presidency, when he fired the air-traffic controllers."

I have been waiting with bated breath for anyone to critically analyze Mr. Walker's aspirations and comparison.  Does he really see himself as the next Ronald Reagan? 

It has become an ubiquitous trend to revere Reagan as the winner of The Cold War, and the bastion of sound economic policy.  Unfortunately none of it is true.  A generous assessment of Reagan makes him an adequate to mediocre president.   A less generous assessment rates Reagan as one of the worst presidents. 

A brief look at Reagan's eight years reveals the following facts: 

• he was the first president to turn the US into a debtor nation 
• he was the first president to see unemployment rates hit 10%
• during his presidency, homelessness reached 2 million people
• he did little if anything to contribute to the fight against AIDS
• he supported the Apartheid government in South Africa
• he promoted covert operations throughout Latin America  

The Iran-Contra affair should be enough in itself to tarnish his presidency and was grounds for a criminal case in the International Court of Justice (IC]).  The World Court sanctioned the US.  In addition to his administration's support of the Contras in Nicaragua, Reagan invaded Grenada, illicitly supported the atrocities and slaughters in El Salvador, and funded paramilitary groups in Guatemala.  In short Reagan was no great president.  It reveals more about the person who acclaims Reagan than it should about Reagan.  Reagan's record is sealed.  The politicians who would love to promote the man as a true American hero have a very different agenda.

More relevant to Scott Walker's agenda - cutting taxes, cutting spending, balancing the budget, cutting programs for the needy - was Reagan's concerns, or lack of them, for the welfare of the people.  The rate of homelessness rose during the eighties to unprecedented numbers.  During the first years of his term, the US was thrust into a massive recession that eventually made Reagan raise taxes.  The other side effect of Reaganonmics was the largest growth of income disparity and national debt in the history of the US.  It continues to rise.  Additionally, under Reagan's harsh view of crime, incarceration rates rose exponentially for the first time in US history.  They continue to rise today.

Remarkably, the same tactics that were employed by Reagan are being instituted today as our saving grace.  The "new" republicans have only given rebirth to old policies, like "voodoo economics", that didn't work then and won't work now.

In the first few months of Scott Walker's administration, Gov. Walker, the Fitzgerald brothers and the rest of the lot have made it abundantly clear who they aim to target and whom they hold responsible for the State's problem.  They blame the poor, the indigent, the mentally ill, the handicapped, and the public employees.  They are propping up the corporations as our heroes and the only "people" who will rescue us through more jobs.  Even if new jobs are created, it must be said, poor folks won't be able to get to them because the administration is cutting public transit, just as he did as County Executive in Milwaukee County.  All the while, as the corporations are given a heroes welcome, they are making record breaking profits as working class people struggle to keep their homes.  Walker has religiously preached a hands-off policy with corporations that will lead to larger problems in the future.  (China's oppression of workers' rights comes to mind here.)

Another connection between Walker and Reagan is the effect Reagan had on the mental health system in California as Governor.  He decimated and dismantled the system.  Prior to his Gubernatorial election, Claifornia's mental health system was one of the best.  It slowly became one of the worst due to the huge cuts made by Reagan.  Gov. Walker has the same intentions in Wisconsin.  During a time when the country was thrust into a demoralizing Great Recession due to tax cuts and the costs of two wars, Wisconsin protected its unemployed by offering State health insurance to the underprivileged.  The Badger Care program was initiated by Tommy Thompson as a way to ensure that W2 recipients who were working were also receiving health coverage.  Walker's appointment, Dennis Smith, aims to make drastic cuts the Badger Care and Badger Care Plus programs.  The results of these cuts will be similar to the cuts that Reagan made.  Wisconsin won't experience growth.  Wisconsin will be thrust into greater poverty and more widespread disparity.  The inequality in income, education, and health will continue to rise.  The same misguided principles were promoted by Reagan; they failed California and they failed the nation.  

It seems quite true that Mr. Walker would love to run the State as Reagan ran California - picture Reagan munching on grapes on television while workers at vineyards were striking.  Just as Reagan did, Walker has further ambitions for higher office.  The only reason for his attacks on the public sector unions was additional fodder for his presidential resume. 
            ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++     

Read more about Reagan and AIDS: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/06/08/EDG777163F1.DTL
Read more about the dramatic ICJ case, Nicaragua v. United States: http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1426&context=iclr&sei-redir=1#search=%22world+court%22

____________________________

Also, too noteworthy to pass up, the god particle may have been found.  Nietzsche once declared, "God is dead." To which the religionist replied, "the result of a syphilitic with a pen."

Over the last few days, scientists have reported that they may have discovered the Higgs boson particle.  This may not be the final piece needed to prove that there is no god but it provides vindication and indications for what was prior to the Big Bang.    The Higgs boson is essentially the smoking gun.  Religionists of course will always find a way to believe, and that's all right.  There's always a possibility.  But could we at least start working on combining all of the world's religions into one.  Maybe it'd end much of the warfare.

Read more about the particle:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/higgs-boson-a-history-of-the-god-particle/2011/04/25/AFraQVjE_blog.html

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-exactly-is-the-higgs

http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/have-scientists-discovered-god-particle
Read about the link between faith and science:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/apr/28/higgs-boson-rumour-cern-lhc

In the event of an emergency, don't panic.

With the rise of the tea party, and politicians decrying spending, there has been a resounding call to look to the Constitution.  That's very interesting because there are not many details on how to deal with the types of problems we face today.  In fact, one of the main catalysts for writing the Constitution was the uprising known as Shays' Rebellion.  Much of the Constitution relates to property owners' rights and the demands of the wealthy and ensuring that another Shays' Rebellion could not happen again.

So as usual (SNAFU), we're being bamboozled, cuckolded, because the politicians who are directing us to the Constitution must not realize what the main job of the government is according to the Constitution: the federal government is to tax and spend.  As Bill Maher points out in New Rules, "Stop calling them tax and spend liberals.  It's the government. That's what they do."  

Sometimes myth is more potent than reality, imagination more vivid than fact.  It is in this simple understanding of our ability to perceive the world that our repeated poor decisions make sense.   Thus, Ronald Reagan becomes a hero.

Superficially, the power of myth transcending reality is manifested in the political race that was recently decided or the Wisconsin Supreme Court race that now seems to have been decided.  People vote based entirely on myth.

But our myths are stronger than that.  People believe in gods and are willing to die for their faith.  In America, we are all clinging to the fantasy that our politicians desire to help us.  And that by helping us, we too can improve our lot in life.  There is a reason this has been called a dream.  It is just that, a dream, a fantasy, a myth.  Humans hold their myths dear.  They covet them more than gold and silver.  And so the startling realization that most of the politicians are working for themselves will not change voting patterns.  The fact that a judge who calls the chief justice a bitch and threatens to destroy her can win a public election seals the deal.  People are happier in their myths than in reality.  And that seems uncanny since one of the most popular forms of television shows now is "reality TV." 

The only principle that seems to be at work in America in a plausible form is this: if you can look around and honestly affirm that you are not screwing someone over, then someone is most definitely screwing you over.