...a mind.....evolving...

Music review for LEO: Blue Giant

2010-08-02T10:39:00.001-05:00

Blue Giant's new album recently hit record stores and I wrote a review that appears on page 27 of this week's LEO. You can also read it on their website, or here.

Blue Giant
Blue Giant
(Vanguard Records)
{ sunshine }

This is what can happen when veteran musicians have fun while ignoring genre distinctions. Blue Giant's debut full-length (and follow-up to their acclaimed Target Heart EP) will meander, strut, whistle, and wail its way out of your speakers (or ear buds) and into permanent residence in your cortex (or soul). Brings: bluesy country licks and mournful piano melodies, paired with buzzy wandering solos and stomp-your-foot rhythms. Sunny with a chance of some dark clouds, the resultant soundscape is an unexpectedly pleasant dose of Dixie-fried rock that flirts perfectly with both freewheeling twang and 60's psychedelia. Kevin Robinson's voice is at once friendly and brash, which suits his vivid and frequently story-driven lyrics, coupling perfectly with co-writer Anita and even a guest appearance by Corin Tucker. Each cut stands on its own, and taken altogether the record adds up to just over 40 minutes of excellent reasons to spin it again.

You can check out their music at their website, they also have a Myspace, and you can stream the entire album here.

LEO review: KaiserCartel

2010-06-16T16:21:00.001-05:00

Last week, KaiserCartel released their completely fan-funded follow-up to March Forth. If you pick up LEO this week and flip to page 40, you'll find my review. You can also check it out on their website, or read it here.

Secret Transit
KaiserCartel
(Daniel Records)
{ super sequel }

Crafting a sophomore full-length, from genesis to final note, is a dicey proposition. Stick with what works but avoid stagnation, cover new ground while maintaining identity – not an easy balancing process. Courtney Kaiser and Benjamin Cartel have evidently achieved this equilibrium, and the result is Secret Transit.

The alterna-folk acoustic warmth and bouncy playfulness of their debut is here in full supply, as are sundry percussive elements (ranging from hand-claps to alarm clock bells). Further, the record shines bright with expanded horizons: the first and last tracks are perfectly spooky, and a few pick-it-up tunes add a just-right pinch of needed electricity. A great example comes in a cover of "Worn Out Nervous Condition," repurposed as a delightfully addicting folk-pop meditation on love in limbo. This is a band known for diverse instrumentation and textured, intimate live performances, all of which is expertly captured here. To listen to this fan-funded project is to be unable to keep it a secret.

You can listen to the entire album on their website, and they also have a Myspace.

LEO music review: High on Fire

2010-03-12T12:13:00.000-05:00

Mat Herron (LEO's music editor) recently asked me to write another music review, to run in the March 10th edition. Hopefully you saw it in print (on page 29) if you picked up a copy around town; you can also see it on their website; or you can read it here.

Snakes for the Divine
High on Fire
Koch Records
{ stoned conflict }

Expectations can erect hurdles only overcome by a willingness to engage in repeat listens. The sum of this album's noticeable dependence on recurrent musical themes and absurdly inaccessible vocals will likely be repellent to the uninitiated – however, after a few more spins, it generously rewards a patient preference for deliberative, psychedelic heavy metal. On their fifth studio recording, this band is again brandishing an impenetrable front line of heavy rhythmic chops punctuated by artillery blasts of precise solo strikes, unleashing a full-fledged assault of stoner guitar war. Yes, it's predictable, but in the era of the MP3-flavor-of-the-minute, consistency and tenacity are admirable. High on Fire are again confidently straddling the escarpment between sludge and speed, making Snakes for the Divine a stoic frigate of safe harbor for shred-heads.

High on Fire has a website, and you can listen to a few songs on their Myspace.

GI's "Top 200 Games Of All Time"

2010-02-10T15:41:00.001-05:00

In December, Game Informer put out their 200th issue. In it, they published a massive 35-page spread compiling their Top 200 Games Of All Time. If/when they finally put the entire article online, I'll edit this to include a link. For now, here's a bare-bones listing of all 200 entries.

Starting at #200 and working my way to #1, here are my thoughts and comments on several games that made (and a couple that didn't make) the list.

#200... Beyond Good and Evil (PS2/Xbox/GameCube, 2003)

This was one of those games that almost nobody purchased (I'm guilty) but that garnered consistent 5-star reviews from critics, magazines, and players. It's on my short list of GC games I still need to pick up.

#194... Marvel vs. Capcom 2 (Dreamcast, 2002)

I might've thought it more appropriate to include the progenitor of the series, X-men vs. Street Fighter. I've not personally played every entry in the series, and the time I have logged has always been in the arcade. Versus games are an insane mix of fun, blending old-style Street Fighter action with the amped-up exaggerated spectacle from X:Men - COTA.

Anyhow, if I were placing a Dreamcast fighter on the list, I'd go with Street Fighter Alpha 3 or Project Justice. Two superb games — if only I had a good fighting-game controller for my Dreamcast, and a willing opponent.

#192... Eternal Darkness: Sanity's Requiem (GameCube, 2002)

This GC game routinely lands on "best survival horror" lists, yet I've never played it. Anybody have any experience with the title? It's supposed to be quite chilling, and includes a sort of "sanity meter" that, when depleted, results in gameplay effects that include both audible and visual hallucinations, among other things.

#185... SMW2: Yoshi's Island (SNES, 1995)

When I hear people complain that a platformer like Mario 3 or Mario World or Donkey Kong Country is difficult, I think of this game. You've not played a truly difficult platformer until you try Yoshi's Island. This game is so hard it's frightening. In certain levels, we're talking Battletoads tough, folks. However, the genius of the game design can't be emphasized enough: you can play through almost the entire game without encountering more than mild challenge, but if you attempt perfect scores for each level, that's when you will begin to suffer. Balancing difficulty in video games is no small task, and games like this that can be played by the novice and the hardcore veteran alike (without some sort of easy-normal-hard difficulty option) are extremely rare.

#175... Dig Dug (Coin-op, 1982)

Seriously, Game Informer? Dig Dug? This game sucks.

#167... DOOM II (PC, 1994)
#139... Wolfenstein 3D (PC, 1992)
#6... DOOM (PC, 1993)

Admittedly, when it comes to the roots of the FPS genre, I've always been partial to Wolfenstein3D. I've played it more, and I'm still working on finishing a custom set of levels that I started about ten years ago. But even I have to admit that DOOM and DOOM II is where FPS became a viable long-term genre. A genre that today dominates the entire industry (that's not an entirely good thing, but still). Playing DOOM, especially on a modern source port, is still an exhilarating and frightful experience, and most importantly, it's really fun.

Had I written the Top 200, I would've just placed DOOM II in slot #6 and left slot #167 for another game. The sequel added the Super Shotgun and doubled the amount of demonic Deimos monsters you face, basically perfecting the gameplay.

#166... King's Quest VI (PC, 1992)

I can't believe they included a Sierra game in this list.

#156... Gauntlet (Coin-op, 1985)

I only ever played these games at home — usually Gauntlet 2 on the NES with a Four Score. The original games (and for that matter, their modern incarnation) are tedious and boring slogs through endless, pointless mazes and thousands of redundant enemies. They should be on a list of 200 games that were mysteriously played despite their stupidity.

Red Wizard is about to be murdered by his friends for getting stuck in the corner, again.

#148... Super Mario RPG (SNES, 1996)

Spectacular fun, with hilarious dialog and characters. Better than anybody ever could've expected, it spawned the Paper Mario series, which I've yet to play.

#136... Star Fox (SNES, 1993)

As one of the first 3D polygonal games ever made, this game was truly groundbreaking (it was in stores nearly two years before the PlayStation hit the shelves). As the first game in the series, it's also the last time a Star Fox game was released that wasn't hugely disappointing in some obvious way (for instance, the innovatively titled Star Fox 64 had great gameplay but fantastically obnoxious voice work and music). At 17 years old the game is still great fun to play, and other than its complete lack of textures, it has stood the test of time. It's an absolute shame that the completed Star Fox 2 was never released.

#133... Star Wars Jedi Knight: Dark Forces II (PC, 1997)

Excuse me? This entry should have been Star Wars Jedi Knight II: Jedi Outcast. And yes, the naming in that series got pretty screwy — that's what happens when you have spin-off sequels to spin-off sequels. Anyway, Jedi Outcast is one of the most kick-ass Star Wars games ever made.

#128... Metroid Fusion (GBA, 2002)
#85... Metroid Prime (GameCube, 2002)
#21... Super Metroid (SNES, 1994)
#7... Metroid (NES, 1986)

If you're like me, you may see these four entries and wonder why in hell they included Fusion. It's a solid game, sure, but Zero Mission is also portable while being better in every way I can think of. My other quibble is this: I would've put Super Metroid in slot #7 and left out the original game. They obviously included it because of its innovation and influence, but in this case I think the sequel is more deserving of the ranking. Yes, Metroid opened the door to non-linear platforming, but Super Metroid — from the atmospheric music to the rewarding exploration to the spot-on controls and combat — is quite literally a perfect video game.

#121... Lemmings (PC, 1991)

Definitely one of my past puzzle-gaming addictions. This game is a shining example of how creative design and composition (both in levels, puzzles, and music) can easily overcome hardware limitations.

#110... Halo 2 (Xbox, 2004)
#39... Halo: Combat Evolved (Xbox, 2001)

Judging by some of the reader responses that GI received, I'm not alone in disagreeing with these placements, though perhaps for differing reasons. I could see including Halo 3 (many fans griped about its exclusion), but the first game at #39? I've played Halo, and it was one of the worst console FPS experiences I ever had. Deathmatch was sluggish and, other than the vehicles, excessively plain, while the solo/co-op campaign struck me as relentless tedium. Yes, I realize that Bungie has vastly improved the series, and yes I understand that the original game was the killer app launch title for the Xbox. Thing is, considering the Xbox's launch lineup, that isn't saying much. From where I'm sitting, the list that Halo: Combat Evolved belongs on is the "Top 200 Overrated Games of all Time."

#106... Resident Evil (PS, 1996)
#41... Resident Evil 2 (PS, Dreamcast, PC, 1998)
#18... Resident Evil 4 (GameCube, 2005)

If you've played the series, you will probably agree with me: RE2 deserves every bit of its #41 placement, but the original game almost certainly should've been left off the list (with the caveat that REmake on GameCube was an absolutely spectacular game).

Now RE4 is another matter. First, my sole complaint: including the GC version rather than the Wii edition is insanity. The Wii version of the game has all of the bonus content from the PC and PS2 ports, plus vastly improved controls and a slick 16x9 presentation — it is far and away the best version of the game available. That said, RE4 is an excellent pick for the top 20. Easily one of the very best action games there is, it ushered in a new era of third-person gaming and mightily revitalized the Resident Evil franchise.

#84... Shadow of the Colossus (PS2, 2005)
#55... Ico (PS2, 2001)

Two of the only games that ever made me wish I had a PS2.

#81... Super Mario Bros. 2 (NES, 1988)
#51... Super Mario Galaxy (Wii, 2007)
#47... Super Mario World (SNES, 1991)
#13... Super Mario 64 (N64, 1996)
#9... Super Mario Bros. 3 (NES, 1990)
#2... Super Mario Bros. (NES, 1985)

Only one series has more spots in the Top 200 (see below). The only entry among these six games to bitch about is #81 — a port of Doki Doki Panic is simply not one of the best games ever. Otherwise, we've got five great selections for the list. The original game, of course, which single-handedly resurrected an industry that Atari had all but killed. Or Galaxy, a spectacular game and the first console Mario title since the NES days to get a direct sequel. Mario 64 ushered us into a new era of gaming 14 years ago, and still sets a 3D-platforming standard that a scant few games can measure up to. World was a similarly potent launch title for Nintendo's fondly remembered second-gen console, only ever over-shadowed (as in this list) by the global domination of its immediate predecessor, Super Mario Bros. 3 (we're talking 20 million copies sold at this point). The third Mario title is one of those games that's so good, it makes you wonder what it was like to be involved in the development process. Did they know they were about to produce and release a game so legendary that people would still be playing it 22+ years later?

#80... Final Fantasy II (SNES, 1991)

I'm only just now playing through this epic, and in the final revision of its original form (Final Fantasy IV is the correct numerical title). As I play through it, I'm starting to understand why it's had such staying-power in the minds of fans. What other video game can you think of that got a direct sequel 17 years after being released?

#74... Tomb Raider (PS, 1996)

My dad played the hell out of this game. No, I'm serious, he wore out two computers.

#68... Double Dragon (Coin-op, 1987)

Yes, the shitty game that introduced a generation of gamers to the ill-fated series, wherein you are forced to double your dragon (when your dragon is in dire need of being doubled) by repeatedly battling a muscle-headed hand-clapping freak of a mini-boss named Abobo. His pants are too small, he probably has a degenerative skin condition, and his legendary signature finishing move is fearfully referred to as "the working man's overthrow." They should've included River City Ransom instead.

#62... Star Wars: X-Wing (PC, 1993)

Polygonal 3D graphics...in DOS...in 1993. Yes, XvT and XWA are vastly superior engines, but it was the original game that first let us hop into the cockpit of an X-wing as an actual pilot. It wasn't some turret-gunner or top-down shooter, it was a realistic simulation that let us experience the fear of being vaporized by a Star Destroyer.

#38... Mega Man 2 (NES, 1988)

Yes, by all means yes. All the proof you will ever need that 8-bit isn't antonymous with tight controls and brilliant music. And by "brilliant," I mean that the music in MM2 is a timelessly epic triumph, and that the composers (Manami Matsumae and Yoshihiro Sakaguchi and Takashi Tateishi) are gods among men.

#32... GoldenEye 007 (N64, 1997)

Perhaps the first game to prove that a quality FPS could be done on a console. Excellent solo and deathmatch play, this title was so great that it paved the way for its spiritual successors in the TimeSplitters series, and was re-built from the ground up as a HL2 mod called GoldenEye: Source.

#31... Tecmo Super Bowl (NES, 1991)

There's football video games, and then there's Tecmo Super Bowl. Something like 90% of my knowledge about football comes exclusively from this game. Because of TSB, I firmly believe that you can routinely kick 55 yard field goals, extra point attempts are always successful, that Jerry Rice could catch an overthrown pass while diving headlong into triple coverage, and that being a lineman involves some sort of sumo arm grappling dance normally resulting in the loser being flung ten yards onto his head.

This game is legendary. People still play it in leagues today, including completely expanded and updated league and team rosters.

#25... Street Fighter II (Coin-op, 1991)

Shoryuken!

#22... Contra (NES, 1988)

Perhaps the quintessential run-and-gun. Many still know the code, few are tough enough to play and conquer without it.

#17... Chrono Trigger (SNES, 1995)

It should probably be considered a sin that I've not played this.

#16... Mike Tyson's Punch-Out!! (NES, 1987)

Notable for many reasons, not the least of which is its inclusion of one of the first known gay characters in a video game, Don Flamenco.

#3... Tetris (PC, 1984)

Alexey Pajitnov's creation, and one of the most-played video games ever made. Interestingly, Alexey didn't make a dime off the blockbuster success of his game until nearly 13 years after he created it. Truly fascinating is the study of a spectrum of behaviors and mental phenomenon (OCD-like habitual thinking about objects in the real world fitting together like tetrominos; hallucinations and hypnagogic imagery) associated with and named after the game: the Tetris effect.

#94... The Legend of Zelda: Wind Waker (GameCube, 2003)
#90... The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess (Wii, 2006)
#63... The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask (N64, 2000)
#61... The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening (GB, 1993)
#20... The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time (N64, 1998)
#12... The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past (SNES, 1992)
#1... The Legend of Zelda (NES, 1987)

Being the most-mentioned series, and taking the number one spot, Zelda is clearly the dominant franchise in GI's list (also, note that all seven games landed in the top 100).

Consider ALttP. If you wanted to quibble with the order of these seven placements, your best shot is to argue that the third game should've been further considered for the top spot. This game blew the doors off the adventure genre, and just when players thought they had explored most of Hyrule and were closing in on completing their mission, the world doubled in size and the game tripled in length. Or consider LA: a portable game, ginormous for its time, that proved the series was here to stay. Or, remember when you first played OoT. Recall that sheer sense of scope, and the perfect way the game incorporated the traditional Zelda aesthetic, compelling narrative, rich mythology, and rewarding freedom and exploration. Or think about WW and shun the non-believers: the 10th game in the series is a monumental achievement. Perhaps you're like me and Majora's Mask is your favorite — the world of Termina and their the-sky-is-literally-falling predicament coupled with the three-day cyclic timeline makes the 6th Zelda game emotionally rewarding to a surprising degree.

And last but obviously not least, winning the number one spot in GI's "Top 200 Games Of All Time" list, the original The Legend of Zelda. What can be said about this game that's not already been said repeatedly? It dropped players abruptly into an expansive world open for non-linear exploration and discovery, and challenged them not just to find secrets and dungeons and weapons but also to persevere against an array of enemies. The thought of walking into a room full of blue Darknuts can still cause an adult to break out in a cold sweat. If you've played this game, then you know exactly what I refer to when I mention the full-heart slash-zap "shhhh Bzzz-ink!" sound that meant Link was kicking ass with the Magical Sword. Shigeru Miyamoto left his first indelible mark on video games with this title.

Games Stupidly Left Out

GI received quite a bit of feedback after publishing their Top 200, and of the many games left out, there are at least two that frequently get mentioned that I agree should have been included.

Earthworm Jim (Genesis and SNES, 1994)

An incredibly challenging off-beat amalgam of run-and-gun and platforming, Earthworm Jim definitely should have been included in the Top 200.

Myst (Mac in 1993, PC in 1994)

How they managed to miss including this game is beyond me. Myst was a triumphant achievement both technically and in a gameplay sense. It completely recreated a genre and nearly single-handedly pushed the computer world into the CD-ROM age. It excited both gamers and rookies alike. It captivated players with a subtle soundtrack, simple and intuitive controls, and an interesting and slowly developing storyline, all while leaving players alone to explore a cohesive world that didn't punish them with dead-ends or game over screens. Lastly, it paved the way for an awesome, vast, beautiful and epic sequel called Riven (Mac/PC, 1997).

Conclusion

As the breadth and depth of GI's Top 200 suggests, video games are here to stay. They've outlived the "it's just a fad" response, and they'll outlive their absurd scapegoating detractors. As an industry, growth in gaming has exceeded growth in both the movie and music industries for years, and may have exceeded both (individually, not combined) in gross sales as early as 2008. As an art form, games have been developing, improving, and pushing boundaries for three decades, with no sign of stopping.

Game Informer's list of the "Top 200 Games Of All Time" may be imperfect, but it's a great look back at many of the brightest achievements and experiences in games over the past 30 years.

Tecmo Super Bowl: Colts versus Saints

2010-02-07T18:00:00.008-05:00

Tecmo Super Bowl, released in 1991 for the Nintendo Entertainment System, is perhaps the greatest football game ever made. On this day when many will watch the biggest NFL game of the year (due in no small part to commercialism and consumerism), I thought it appropriate to ask for some predictions from the only football authority that matters to me: Tecmo Super Bowl.

I ran three games, Saints versus Colts. In the first, I let the computer play against itself. Second, I played as the Colts against the computer Saints. Last, I played as the Saints against the computer-controlled Colts. All three games were played with the default rosters and each team's default playbook.

Game 1: Com vs. Com

1st quarter

The Saints win the toss, but are quickly forced to punt. The Colts wind the quarter down with a strong rushing game, scoring a TD with a QB-sneak.

Colts: 7
Saints: 0

2nd quarter

The Saints are again forced to punt, but the Colts later fumble. The Saints take advantage by immediately throwing a 45-yard TD pass. The Colts again screw up by throwing an interception, followed by a big 40-yard pass by the Saints, who then knock in a FG as the half expires.

Colts: 7
Saints: 10

3rd quarter

The Colts come out gunning, throwing a 60-yard pass, followed immediately by a 20-yard TD pass. The Saints answer with their own 60-yard TD pass. The Colts return to their turnovers with a fumble, and the Saints take advantage with a 25-yard flea-flicker TD pass.

Colts: 14
Saints: 24

4th quarter

Colts throw another interception, but then the Saints fumble. A 30-yard TD pass gets the Colts back in the game. With 1 minute left, they try an onside kick but fail, and the Saints then punish them with a 55-yard TD run, sealing the deal.

Final Score:
Colts: 21
Saints: 31
(note that both rushing totals are quite close to reality)

Game 2: Man vs. Com

1st quarter

I win the toss and as always, I elect to kickoff. The Saints are held and punt. I then fumble on the their 20 yard line. The Saints sting me on this by throwing a 60-yard pass, then score on a 30-yard run. I take possession and run down the quarter with a long drive, scoring with an 11-yard run.

Me: 7
Saints: 7

2nd quarter

The Saints bust me with a 50-yard TD run, but I answer with an 80-yard TD pass. I then make a big sack, forcing the Saints to punt. The half ends as I throw a huge 80-yard TD.

Me: 21
Saints: 14

3rd quarter

I have a disastrous fumble, which the Saints grab and run 35-yards for a TD. I respond by running a few and score a rushing TD. They drive, but I interrupt their flea-flicker to force a fumble, but they pick it up and punt.

Me: 28
Saints: 21

4th quarter

I open the quarter with a TD on a QB-sneak. The Saints are pissed and go all shotgun, scoring a quick TD. They try an onside kick but fail, and as time expires I attempt a FG, but it falls short.

Final:
Me: 35
Saints: 28
(note the Colts accurate rushing total and completion %)

Game 3: Com vs. Man

1st quarter

My Saints win the toss, I elect to kickoff. The Colts run consecutive 40+ rushes, scoring a quick TD. I respond with a few runs and a 50-yard TD pass. The Colts are then forced to punt.

Me: 7
Colts: 7

2nd quarter

I put in a 30-yard TD rush, and then hold the Colts to another punt. I throw a big interception, but the Colts then fail to capitalize and miss their FG attempt. I take advantage with a big 60-yard TD pass as the half expires.

Me: 21
Colts: 7

3rd quarter

I open up with a fumble, but pick it up and run 80 more yards for a TD. The Colts respond angrily by walking all over me and toss in a TD.

Me: 28
Colts: 14

4th quarter

This is where it gets ugly. I open the quarter with a 50-yard TD pass, and then stop the Colts on 4th down and gain possession on their 20, subsequently stuffing it in for my second TD in as many minutes. I again stop the Colts on 4th down and gain possession on their 12, then rush in another TD. Yet again, I stop the Colts on 4th down and gain possession on the 50. I try a flea-flicker and miss as the game ends.

Final:
Me: 49
Colts: 14

Conclusions

Tecmo Super Bowl seems to think it doesn't look too good for the Colts. Of course, in TSB the Colts are one of the two worst teams in the entire game, but the Saints aren't much better, only three or four slots above the bottom of the list. If I combine the scores from all three of my simulation games, I get the Colts with 70, and the Saints with 108. That's a rough analog to a 9-point spread (in a game where the winning team scores less than 30 points), in favor of the Saints.

Scoring the Predictions

Watching the game tonight, I'll keep track of a few things to see which simulation game scores best as a comparison to the real deal.

Toss-win coupled with a matching decision is worth five points.
Correct quarter predicted punts are worth five points.
A single quarter team score that matches is also worth five points.
Predicted TDs or FGs in the appropriate quarter will count for ten points.
If a predicted TD is scored in the manner predicted (either rush or pass), it will get twenty points.
If a predicted 50-yard+ TD is matched by an equally big play, it will count for thirty points.
Predicted turnovers in the correct quarter will count for twenty points.
A correct total score for a team at the end of a quarter will count for twenty points.
If both teams have the predicted total score at the end of a quarter, it will count for thirty points.
Special or unusual matches, such as fumbles returned for a TD or flea-flicker TDs, will count for thirty points, unless they take place in the correct quarter, in which case they count for forty points.
A game that correctly predicts the winner is worth ten points, twenty points if the score is right, and forty points if both scores match.

Everything below this point will be edited in and added later, after the real Super Bowl is over. I'll compare reality with my three simulations and tabulate the results.

Prediction Matching Tabulation

First, I'd like to note that part of my inspiration for this was the Super Bowl 44 prediction that Knobbe.org's Tecmo Repository came up with in their simulation(s), using the original Tecmo Super Bowl but with updated rosters and stats. They too correctly predicted the winner, but one of my games is a much closer match (see below).

Game 3 totals: my game as the Saints matched up with a Colts TD in the first quarter, a Colts punt in the second quarter, a Saints TD in the third quarter, a Colts TD in the third quarter, a Saints passing TD in the fourth quarter, and a Saints victory. That totals up as 65 points.

Game 2 totals: my game as the Colts matched up with a Saints punt in the first quarter, a Colts TD in the first quarter, a Colts rushing TD in the third, a 7-point third quarter total for the Colts, and a Saints passing TD in the final quarter. That adds up to an ever-so-slightly more accurate 70 points.

Game 1 totals: the Com vs. Com game turned out to be the most accurate prediction. I matched with the Saints toss win, their first quarter punt, a Colts TD in the first, a Saints FG in the second quarter, a Saints passing TD in the third, a Colts TD in the third, a 7-point third quarter total for the Saints, the Colts threw an interception in the fourth quarter, a Colts 0-point fourth quarter match, a Saints TD in the fourth, a Saints victory, and lastly an impressive match on the Saints final 31-point total score. This all adds up to 120 points on my rubric.

Outro

My friend Doug told me that most of the betting sites had the game at between 4 and 6 points in the Colts favor, while my averaged prediction favored the Saints by 9, so Tecmo Super Bowl definitely did a better job with pre-game projection. Specifically, the computer vs. computer game was surprisingly accurate, with multiple hits in every quarter but the second, including the Saints victory score of 31 points.

This was a really fun way for me to enjoy the game this year, and the folks at the watching party I attended actually got a kick out of it, as well. I hope you enjoyed reading it.

My Top Five for 2009

2010-01-06T00:01:00.001-05:00

On December 30th, LEO's year-ending issue was circulated. It contains the 6th annual "Not Good For Nothing Quiz," and also two big Top Fives of 2009 spreads — one for Music, one for Film. I had the fortunate opportunity to contribute my own list of five to the Music feature.

Check page 16 of the print copy for the feature (page 18 for my list), or click here to see the online version.

Below, you will find my un-edited Top Five (listed alphabetically by band name), plus a bit of a bonus: two Dishonorable Mentions and two Honorable Mentions.

My Top Five

Target Heart EP
Blue Giant
(Amore!Phonics)

A Viva Voce side-project and Portland's own supergroup (including Chris Funk, Evan Railton, and Seth Lorinczi). Amalgamations like this often amount to less than the sum of their parts, but that's absolutely not the case here — the record is more exciting than this year's Viva Voce release. A southern, dare-I-say-it country vibe is added in just the right amount to a sun-drenched psych-rock aesthetic that this collaboration pulls off perfectly. Lyrically clever, musically brilliant and fun, get it on vinyl (the 12" has two bonus tracks, pushing it into LP territory) with a free MP3 download.

To have a listen, click through to their website.

Blood
OSI
(InsideOut)

Kevin Moore and Jim Matheos may be an unlikely pairing, but the music born of their union is astonishing. Their third outing finds them trending a touch heavier than before, while maintaining the characteristically nuanced layering and completely relaxed vocal approach the band is known for. Available in a two-disc special edition; the savant electronic touch intertwined with metal riffs makes for unexpected, intricate compositions that demand a generous twist of the volume knob.

They have samples on their website and full songs on their Myspace.

The Incident
Porcupine Tree
(Roadrunner Records)

Five songs over two discs (the title cut is 55 minutes long), Porcupine Tree has made a definitive statement of progressive rock genius. Impressive in both breadth and depth, the album covers more sonic territory than many bands will cover over an entire career. Steve Wilson and company are undeniably fantastic musicians, at their best when they channel their abilities in service of compelling song-writing. This is exactly what they've accomplished on The Incident: intelligent music where grandiose aspirations do not preclude chop-heavy rocking, but rather incorporates both with deft mastery. Must be heard in its entirety to be believed.

For some audio taste-testing, check out the awesome player on their homepage.

11:11
Rodrigo y Gabriela
(Rubyworks)

Wielding just two acoustic guitars (sans vocals and drums), this Mexican duo has laid down 11 tracks of blistering magnificence. Perhaps you're wondering if it's possible to absolutely slay with nylon strings — Rodrigo proves it can be done. Perhaps you're wondering if fingertips like polished granite and a rhythm guitar could result in a percussive juggernaut — Gabriela proves it can be done. This album finds the couple paying tribute to one favorite influence per song (from Hendrix to Dimebag Darrell to Pink Floyd) and the results are beautiful and phenomenal.

Take a listen by checking out their website.

Cosmic Egg
Wolfmother
(Modular/Interscope)

Periodically, rock and roll finds itself in need of a savior incarnate. Depending on your perspective, now could be one of those times, and Andrew Stockdale might have the goods. New band members backing him up, he's taken the strut and wail of Wolfmother and cranked it up a notch. This album gets a nice helping of inspiration from the 70's but doesn't sound dated, and is absolutely packed with rattling riffs and rock-til-you-drop energy. Available in multiple formats, including a double-album vinyl LP with an included free download of the entire 16-track triumph on MP3. Do not miss this.

For their website go here and for their Myspace go there.

Dishonorable Mentions

Horehound
The Dead Weather

I had initially thought Horehound a candidate for my list. I heard a single on the radio, and watched them perform a song live on late night television, and was enthralled. Where had this kind of rock been hiding? But then I purchased the CD and gave it several listens. I was repeatedly surprised by the spacious production and buzzy rock and roll, only to be dismayed that something like 75% of the disc is literally drowning in some of the most obnoxiously annoying vocal tracks to dishonor a rock record since the glory days of grunge. I'm not kidding — it ruins the album.

You might be able to listen if you can get their shitty media player to work.

Black Clouds and Silver Linings
Dream Theater

It's no secret that DT has been doing a spectacular job of disappointing their long-time fans over the last couple releases. I used to buy their albums day-of-release without audition, but BC&SL was on shelves for months before I talked myself into giving it a try. For the first 11 minutes and 15-odd seconds, I was sorry I'd waited and began to believe the band had snapped out of their slump. Then, Mike Portnoy delivers his first chest-thumping vocal contribution to the album, and you begin to realize that all hope may indeed be lost. Yes, in a band with James LaBrie on lead vocals, I'm complaining about when somebody else is doing the singing. Portnoy is so damned obnoxious that he almost single-handedly ruins each track. Imagine the following ridiculous lyrics delivered seriously and in a middle-aged frat-boy shout: "A bearded gentleman! Historian! Sucking on his pipe! Distinguished accent! Making me uptight, no accident!" You can't make this stuff up. It's fucking embarrassing.

There are a few tracks for you to check out on their Myspace.

Honorable Mentions

Towards the Sun
Alexi Murdoch

Mr. Murdoch's acoustic singer/songwriter approach is often quite beautiful. This album isn't technically "out" yet — you can order from his limited indie pressing, but it won't be published and distributed until next year. The collection herein might not be as strong as his material gathered on the Away We Go soundtrack, but it's still lovely, heartfelt, and compelling.

You'll see what I mean if you check out his website.

Varia Suite
Metroid Metal

Whether you've loved one or all of the Metroid games, if you've not heard the Metroid Metal take on their soundtracks, you simply must. Stemage and company have the chops to pull of a metal tribute, but they also have the finesse to unfailingly come up with arrangements that are imaginative while still translating the original tunes with honorable fidelity. There isn't an accurate measurement for how much ass this music kicks, and considering that the entire back catalog of songs is available for free/donation, you have nothing to lose. Varia Suite is a granite slab of instrumental metal, executed with precision and passion.

Go here, and go now.

Conclusion

My list of five this year is interesting to me because of its obvious lack of brutality. "No heavy metal?" you might ask. Well, here's hoping that 2010 sees a new Opeth release. Furthermore, the long-anticipated third album from Necrophagist is due soon, and should melt faces with more ferocity than the climax of an Indiana Jones movie. I should also add that, much to my dismay, I missed the release date for the newest masterpiece from Nile, Those Whom the Gods Detest. Had I obtained a copy before LEO's submission deadline for their Top Fives feature, you can be sure I would've included it. If the sample tracks I've heard are any indication, the record is a hulking Star Destroyer of death metal.

Thanks for reading, and happy listening in the New Year.

Boris review printed in LEO

2009-12-03T21:53:00.001-05:00

Doing this review was a bit different than my previous ones. Since the release is actually a series of three singles on vinyl, the promotional company has a secret streaming website for reviewers to listen to the six songs. I nabbed the MP3 files, of course, so I wouldn't have to be tethered to a computer while listening through the tracks a few times before formulating my review.

You can see my review in print on page 28 of the December 2nd issue of LEO. A reproduction of the print copy is also available on their website. Below you will find my original text (I don't quite get the edits they applied to this one) and a few links for the band.

Japanese Heavy Rock Hits
Boris
(Southern Lord Records)
{ power trio }

This constantly experimenting Japanese heavy rock outfit has logged over 20 releases since 1996, gaining attention after 2001 due to a series of reissues by Southern Lord. Presently, their kick-ass image (an Asian take on goth-meets-metal, the threesome triumphantly posing with huge double-necked guitars) is actually heavier than the music. That's not a complaint: their sound is alien yet familiar and covers diverse territory, from danceable metal hooks to chill meandering to intense, angsty shredding. This release consists of a series of three 7" vinyls with two songs per. The six sides spun are nothing if not constantly interesting; the first track will startle you out of your seat at about 1:35, and you'll not often hear a song like "Heavy Metal Addict," complete with industrial processing, wailing guitar solos, and a good dose of hand-clapping. Not to be missed, especially if you're into collecting eccentric music on 45rpm wax.

Click here to check out the official Boris website, or listen to some music on their Myspace. LEO will be printing "Top 5 of 2009" lists soon, and I'll be posting mine here as well, along with honorable (and dishonorable) mentions.

Black Cobra "Chronomega" review in LEO

2009-11-27T15:20:00.002-05:00

I was asked to write another review several weeks ago, and they published it last week. You can see it in print on page 43 of the November 18th issue of LEO, you can read it on their website by clicking here, and the full text of my review is reproduced below, followed by a link to some of the band's music.

Chronomega
Black Cobra
Southern Lord Records
{ hoarse chords }

If the rusty patina of bulky abandoned industrial-era equipment had a sound, it would be something like the heavily distorted guitars of Black Cobra. The tone is so thoroughly textured that you may wonder if your speakers have suddenly developed a distortion problem, but the clear drums and shouty (at times shrill) vocals will reassure you. Lyrically bleak, Chronomega is pregnant with rhythmic reiteration; even the shorter tracks repeat their oxidized riff-centric themes with conviction and patience.

It's arguably better not to know what the genre tags (doom and sludge metal) are supposed to signify about Black Cobra. This, their first album on an established label, is best approached on its own terms: absorb the plodding crunch of the nigh-epic tracks, dig the sinewy dread of the chord progressions, wince at the thrash-like vocals, discern some heavily cloaked incognito punk riffs. Imagine that your ears could understand the sensation of touching the gnarled bark of a 200 year old tree. Now hope with me that the band can accomplish this coarseness on stage – it would be a brutally intoxicating live show.

You can check out the band's homepage, and listen to a few tracks on their Myspace. I'm hoping to have another review (ever heard of Boris?) printed soon, and LEO is also planning a collection of "Top 5 of 2009" lists that should hit the newsstand in December.

A few people died yesterday

2009-06-26T01:09:00.002-05:00

As you probably could not avoid learning, two widely known people died yesterday. One from cardiac arrest, the other after a long fight with cancer. To my mind, an appropriate response includes concern for their families and loved ones, who are certainly hurting during such a time.

However, as the corporate media has surely not mentioned, more than just two people died on June 25, 2009.

At an average of 105 deaths per month in 2009 alone, between three and four Darfuries died yesterday. This, after most of the rest of the world has watched for more than five years and done almost nothing.

Almost 200 women died yesterday because they did not have access to legal and safe abortion.

Around 1,500 people died in the Congo, even though the war "ended" five years ago.

More than 4,000 died in Africa because of AIDS, in large part due to Vatican and Republican Party opposition to the distribution of, and education regarding, condoms.

Across the globe, more than 5,000 people died yesterday simply because they do not have access to clean water, while an estimated 16,000 children died because they do not have enough food. When was the last time you heard anybody in the corporate media talk about food or water shortages, in the context of global over-population?

When was the last time you heard a politician that you support speak to this issue, or any of the above issues?

It goes without saying that we could expand this list almost indefinitely. The point is that people are dying completely preventable deaths, every hour of every day, while most news outlets in the United States seem content to tell us all about the latest starlet fashion faux pas, who is getting paid too much to play sports, which American car company has a shitty plan to improve their sales figures, the summer fashion choices of a host of celebrities, and the latest manufactured reality-TV scandal. Oh, and if somebody died and they were famous, they will probably tell us all about that, too. But preventable (or U.S. foreign policy caused) deaths around the globe? There is little time to cover that.

A few not-so-hypothetical questions

2009-06-16T08:16:00.003-05:00

Introduction

The following consists of three described scenarios, each with one or more related questions. I pose the questions out of serious curiosity as to how certain mindsets think about certain situations. If you do not find yourself in the named audience for a particular question, feel free to skip it or answer in some other way (for example, if I were to pose a question to a Libertarian and you aren't one, you might say "well, my friend is a Libertarian and I think he would say...").

Scenario 1

A man named Scott is accused of assassinating a civilian, for both political and religious reasons. While in custody, he claims that many similar acts are imminent around the country.

This question is most specifically for those who believe that the U.S. is justified and morally faultless when it subjects unrepresented and never-proven-guilty prisoners to "harsh interrogation techniques" (in seeming agreement with the likes of Dick Cheney and Jack Bauer).

If Scott is unwilling to give the police any and all information he has regarding other assassination plots, should he be tortured?

Scenario 2

Two men (both U.S.-born citizens), who do not know each other and are unrelated in any way, are each accused of committing a murder, coincidentally within 48 hours of each other. Both men have different (but equally fervent and extremist) religious and political beliefs. Both seem to have committed the alleged acts of murder for revenge against perceived wrongs and to frighten their perceived enemies into changing their behavior.

First question:

Based on just the above information, would you call either man a terrorist?

Additional information:

The first man, named Scott, is known to have been a member of anti-government and anti-taxation groups, one which has been involved in an armed confrontation with the FBI, and another group which denies the authority of the federal government. He has furthermore been convicted of possessing explosives (which his ex-wife says were intended to be used for similar goals as the murder he is now accused of). The site of his alleged act of murder was a church.

The second man, formerly named Carlos, has no criminal record and has not yet been proven to be associated with any extremist groups (religious, political, or otherwise). When apprehended, he was found to be in possession of three guns and approximately 175 rounds of ammunition. Some evidence suggests that he may have considered attacking religious institutions.

Now would you call either man a terrorist?

Here's even more information:

Scott has been charged with first-degree murder and two counts of aggravated assault.

Carlos has been charged with capital murder and fifteen counts of terrorist acts.

Oh, and Scott is a white Christian, while Carlos is a black Muslim.

Now would you call either a terrorist? And, given the above information, do the charges seem fair to you?

Scenario 3

Consider a man named William who lives in Indiana, where the age of consent is 16. Suppose that he somehow knows with some certainty that Mr. Taper, a 25 year old man living in his neighborhood, has been having completely consensual sex with different girlfriends, all of whom are 17 or 18 years old. Never mind that it's none of William's business, nor that it is none of the business of the rest of his neighborhood. Now, imagine that William is morally outraged. He gossips to his friends and neighbors, and posts fliers around town, accusing Mr. Taper of raping children, calling him "Taper the child raper!" Now, suppose some particularly emotional and volatile person(s) in the neighborhood assault Mr. Taper in a parking lot, landing him in critical condition at the hospital.

Thus, the following questions are for all, but are especially directed at viewers/readers/fans of such media personalities as O'Reilly, Hannity, Goldberg, Coulter, Limbaugh, et cetera.

Relative to the above situation, is William a liar?
Is he guilty of slander and libel?
Should he be considered, at the very least, somewhat responsible for his rhetoric?
Is it reasonable to expect William to at least consider the possibility that his dishonest claims might have had something to do with landing Mr. Taper in the hospital?

Obviously, my proposed scenarios and questions bare quite a bit of relation to the facts surrounding the assassination of Dr. George Tiller. I've purposefully tried to avoid the potentially incendiary topic of abortion. Perhaps a topic for another day.

Blood review printed in LEO

2009-06-04T19:33:00.002-05:00

LEO recently gave me the opportunity to write another music review, and it was published this week. I also decided to try making an audio version of the review, which you can listen to by clicking the play button below.

Here's the original text of my review, followed by a link to the review on LEO's website, and a scan of the slightly edited version that appeared in print.

Blood
OSI
(InsideOut)
<heavy repose>

For the third time, Jim Matheos and Kevin Moore have combined progressive metal and almost ambient electronica, producing an intriguing genre-bending album. This release welcomes Gavin Harrison on drums, with guest vocals on one track by Mikael Åkerfeldt.

The paradox of capacious atmospheres against thick riffing, over Moore's almost terminally laid-back vocals, seems designed to demand repeated listens for full appreciation. Heaviness is present but restrained, with the meticulous groove of the drums and the exacting guitar chops employed in direct service of the overall compositions, or not at all. Albums with this much programming often sound completely artificial, a problem Blood deftly avoids – the production is perfect, but also alive and breathing, almost leaping from the stereo to reward the careful listener.

OSI's newest is one of those uncommon, diverse and nuanced records that you both love getting lost in, and playing – loud, on real speakers – for anybody who is willing to listen.

To see the online copy of the review and check out LEO's website, please click here.

Also worth mentioning is that if you spend the extra two or three dollars to get the two-disc version of the album, you get the deliciously heavy "No Celebrations" with Tim Bowness guesting on vocals, plus a cover of the Elliott Smith song "Christian Brothers," and an extended version of the second track from the album. To view the official website for OSI, click here.

Looking back at 2008

2009-01-06T13:45:00.000-05:00

Tom Tomorrow rings in the new year with a look back at 2008.

To see the full Part 1 strip, click here. To see the full Part 2 strip, click here.

Happy New Year!

The Darjeeling Limited

2008-12-08T11:30:00.002-05:00

I made a trailer for one of my two favorite movies, The Darjeeling Limited, directed by Wes Anderson. I hope you enjoy it, and are encouraged to check out the movie, if you've not yet seen it.

And here I should write a little essay about why I love this movie, and the previous four, as well. Perhaps later.

True or False?

2008-09-14T01:22:00.002-05:00

On my favorite hospital drama television show, a patient is informed that she has a small but quite operable brain tumor. She's reassured by her doctor that the procedure will be performed by a certain Dr. Derek Shepherd: "Don't worry ma'am. Doctor Shepherd is one of the best neurosurgeons on the West Coast. He's the best. Elite, even." The patient responds, "He's elite? Oh, no..." and begins to cry.

A man finds himself in fairly serious need of a root canal. After getting a list of the local dentists and oral surgeons covered by his company's medical insurance, he asks around the office for recommendations (being new to the area). One co-worker informs him: "You should go see Schuffler. She was excellent when I had some troubles, and she graduated near the top of her class from one of the most elite dental colleges in the country." The man considers this and responds, "Elite, you say? I dunno – I'm more comfortable with a dentist I can relate to. Someone who generally disbelieves or is ignorant of sound science would be more to my liking."

Having grown up enjoying playing a few different sports (sandlot baseball as a kid, intramurals in college, pick-up games at the gym as an adult), Peter is attempting to explain to a buddy why he doesn't enjoy watching the NBA Finals. "What's up with all these elite players? They're all, like, at least six feet tall. I can't dunk a basketball – I'd rather watch normal guys play, not these lanky, well-trained snobs."

Obviously (hopefully), all three of these examples are false. Or anyway, they're intended to be (I just made them up – no similarity to actual persons, living or dead, is intended). I thought all this up after reading something that Sam Harris wrote:

"Americans have an unhealthy desire to see average people promoted to positions of great authority. No one wants an average neurosurgeon or even an average carpenter, but when it comes time to vest a man or woman with more power and responsibility than any person has held in human history, Americans say they want a regular guy, someone just like themselves...

This is one of the many points at which narcissism becomes indistinguishable from masochism. Let me put it plainly: If you want someone just like you to be president of the United States, or even vice president, you deserve whatever dysfunctional society you get. You deserve to be poor, to see the environment despoiled, to watch your children receive a fourth-rate education and to suffer as this country wages—and loses—both necessary and unnecessary wars."

It's odd to me that folks (including me, both four and eight years ago) will actively vote against their own self-interest (and for that matter against the well-being of others, especially if they're a marginalized, demonized, or otherwise unfamiliar minority) based on, among other things, measures like "relatability" and glossy biographical summaries. This is a big problem for democracy, quite apart from our willingness to believe outright lies, or to not notice or care that the Corporate Media seems blissfully content to regularly avoid pushing for facts and honesty from politicians and pundits.

SOB

2008-08-15T13:20:00.000-05:00

A few weeks ago, LEO asked me to write another music review. I ended up with a pre-release copy of the debut from Scars on Broadway. The album came out maybe two weeks ago, but my review wasn't printed until this week.

You can hear a track or two on the band's website, or you can check out two of the songs mentioned in my review at their Myspace page. For some reason my review was edited, and in a way that doesn't make much sense to me. One sentence was cut in half, and one sentence was actually lengthened to include a dig at SOAD. Plus, if you consider the wasted spacing higher on the page in the printed issue, there's no reason to have shortened my review for space constraints.

Anyway, the online version is here, and my original text is here:

Scars on Broadway
Scars on Broadway
(INTERSCOPE)
{incongruous}

With SOAD on hiatus, lead guitarist Malakian and drummer Dolmayan have formed a new band called Scars on Broadway. A more straight-forward rock direction is attempted, but the music ultimately fails to live up to the hype.

Most of the songs sound like two or three minute ideas that rely on a single hook, frantic delivery, and little else. The record’s cohesion is questionable – is this minimized formula rock? A studio-slick amalgam of punk, dance, and disjointed screaming passages? Did he really just shout “supercalifragalisticexpealidocious”? Lyrics range from political commentary to frivolous nonsense, and Malakian's descending hollering during the verses of "Chemicals" is laughably obnoxious.

These disparate elements do work together on a couple produced-to-sound-heavy pop songs: not completely on the single “They Say,” but tracks like "Kill Each Other / Live Forever" and "Babylon" are better. To compliment this debut, I could characterize it as diverse and driving, but it's more honest to just note its lack of development and direction. Scars on Broadway is an odd attempt at over-produced frat-rock that does not compare favorably with the band members' previous work.

YouTube

2008-08-11T11:41:00.001-05:00

Decided to try my hand at YouTube, recently.

Several of my uploads are of Introvert performing live, and I experimented with annotations on this one.

One of my first videos was a coincidental juxtaposition of bluegrass with The Terminator.

Later, I tried my hand at combining video with audio, once with a waterfall and another time with burning Christmas trees.

Then I edited a 5-minute MST3K clip from one of my favorites, "Deathstalker and the Warriors from Hell."

More recently, I spliced some Joshua Jesty with some Star Wars Cantina dialog, and shot some video of a train going through my neighborhood and added some Kate Tucker music to it.

If you like what you see, please subscribe to and/or friend my channel.

Published in LEO

2008-07-11T02:25:00.005-05:00

I've had some letters published in LEO a few times over the past year or so, but this week they published a music review that I wrote! Below are two songs that you can listen to (make sure to listen past the 3:20 mark on the second one), a scan of the review, and the full text.

Click here to listen to "Coil."

Click here to listen to "Porcelain Heart."

Watershed
Opeth
(ROADRUNNER)
{beautiful agony}

After waiting for three years, with only the live double-album The Roundhouse Tapes to tide us over last year, fans will be eager to finally have their appetite for Opeth's mixture of '70s prog rock and Swedish death metal satisfied (if only temporarily).

Those unfamiliar with Opeth will do well not to let "progressive death metal" fool them into missing this album. Its three-minute opener might be the band's most beautifully gentle acoustic song yet, and Åkerfeldt employs his powerful growling voice for less than half of the vocals on Watershed. But make no mistake — the band's reputation for complex arrangements, stunning musicianship and thundering heaviness is skillfully reinforced.

Death metal at its best can be epically brilliant, as made clear on tracks like "Heir Apparent" and "The Lotus Eater." And at 11-plus minutes, "Hessian Peel" is like a negative photograph of Opeth's continual journey into new territory: Long and gorgeous progressive melodies are only sparsely interrupted by brutal genius for a minute or so, reminding us that music can still be exciting.

Ear Candles

2008-07-08T11:10:00.000-05:00

Have you ever heard of ear candles? I have, and I've even used them (ear candling is sometimes referred to as thermal-auricular therapy or auricular coning). You yourself may have used ear candles or been told how great they are, and may even have been convinced by your experience that they do indeed work. In fact, sometime during the past 18 months, Amy and I bought a pair at a local natural/organic food store, intending to use them in my ears (don't miss the end of this post, where I describe and show pictures of an experiment I performed).

More recently, maybe two months ago, I stumbled across a seemingly random reference to them (if memory serves, in a SWIFT bulletin from the James Randi Educational Foundation). In any case, I began to do some reading and some light Google-assisted research.

One of the first articles I found was this one. It gives a brief description and overview of ear candling and lists different benefits that are claimed by the products or their proponents, and summarizes normally suggested procedures and techniques. Then it describes, at some length, the actual research that's been done to test the efficacy of ear candles. In every test or experiment described, ear candling has been repeatedly proven to be completely ineffective.

It turns out that the claim that an ear candle can produce enough negative vacuum to literally suck wax and other material out of the ear canal is preposterous on its face. According to Doctor Roazen, a vacuum powerful enough to actually suck wax out of the ear canal would be powerful enough to rupture the eardrum! Second, the medical research indicates that ear candling is actually dangerous. Patients and doctors have reported not only external burns caused by the candles (whose flames are actually quite large), but also candle wax burns in the ear canal and damaged (sometimes perforated!) eardrums.

The research described in this article is even worse. Experimentation demonstrated no negative pressure was created by ear candles, and furthermore that a powdery substance was actually deposited into the ear canal during candling! Before and after photographs were taken of waxy ear canals, showing no change whatsoever after candling was performed.

The FDA has issued an alert, warning that ear candles are often labeled or advertized in a misleading way and that there is no scientific evidence proving their usefulness, and they are evidently illegal in Canada.

A detailed description of this experiment (including pictures) demonstrates the above summarized findings. But, I decided to run my own experiment and to take my own pictures, hoping that I might convince anybody who reads this to avoid ear candles and never ever use them. All pictures can be clicked to view them in a larger size.

For my experiment, I used a set of "Wally's Natural Plain Paraffin Ear Candles." For candle #1, I chose the vertical method that I've always seen done (where the person would lie down on their side). I used the funnel because the hole was small enough that the candle tip fit snugly, but big enough that it didn't actually seal tightly, which is exactly how the instructions say the candle should be used in an actual ear.

Note the two-to-three inch flame. I was almost immediately surprised by an incredible amount of smoke coming out of the bottom of the funnel! Contrary to the claims of negative pressure and an upward vacuum, the candle was actually sending air (and smoke) downward. Following the directions, I used scissors to remove the ashen tip of the candle any time it exceeded one inch in length, waiting for the candle to burn down to its final four inches.

Upon completion, I found that an incredible amount of smokey residue had been deposited on my plate. Imagine all of that in your ear canal! I proceeded to cut open the last bit of the candle, as is normally done to show people how "well" they work, and even though I had used the candle without a waxy ear canal, a whole bunch of material was found inside the candle.

As you look at the above picture (and note the clever corporate logo placement), consider that the average human ear canal is less than 8.5 cubic centimeters in volume.

To be thorough, I used candle #2 to test the angle method (where the person sits up and holds the candle up at a modest angle). The four pictures below show my setup, the even larger flame produced by this method, the waterfall of smoke pouring out of the bottom of the candle, and that I once again trimmed the candle as it burned down, as per instructions.

My results were very similar. Lots of smokey residue was left on the plate, and plenty of yucky-looking wax (that didn't come from anybody's ear) was discovered inside the magic candle.

My experiment corroborates the other experiments I've read about, and matches up with all of the medical research I've been able to find. The wax and debris found inside of ear candles post-candling is created by the candle itself and does not come from the ear canal. Ear candles, rather than creating a negative vacuum or any kind of suction, actually create downward airflow which deposits a dusty residue into whatever unlucky thing is placed beneath the candle.

My conclusion? Ear candles are a dangerous fraud. They have been proven to be not only completely ineffective, but harmful. Please forward this article to anybody you know who uses or has used ear candles. A person's ear canal, and hearing, is put at risk any time these fraudulent devices are used. If you have some ear candles sitting in a drawer, throw them away or perform your own experiment to confirm the above, but whatever you do, please do not stick them in your ears.

Get Me A Rope

2008-06-25T11:08:00.000-05:00

So I made the mistake today of reading through the comments section of this article on ABCnews.com about the SCOTUS decision regarding the execution of child rapists.

What I read was...disturbing, to say the least. Please heed this warning: you might not want to read the comments on the article if you have a weak stomach or a fully-functioning empathy gland. I would think that even a person with an iron stomach would be nauseated by such a display of blind hatred, mob-mentality, and double-think.

Fully 90% of the responses included at least one of the following arguments (and I use the word "arguments" very, very loosely here), summarized and only mildly characterized for your convenience:

Criminal child rapists, and people who enjoy bestiality, are similar (if not identical) to law-abiding homosexuals.
All inmates are career criminals bent on being even worse when they are paroled.
Sexual violence is terrible, sick, and wrong; therefore, those who commit it should be repeatedly subjected to brutal sexual violence.
Victim's rights are protected only if the state engages in the barbaric practice of execution.
Some people are sick and disgusting and inhuman; however those of us who are clamoring like a lynch-mob for punitive sexual mutilation and state-sanctioned murder are life-loving, kind, humane people.
If it happened to somebody in your family, you too would lose your mind, forget ideas like the rule of law and the Constitution, and yell and scream just like us about how life and justice are best respected by descending into the insane barbaric behavior of the dark ages. After all, everybody who knows someone who has been sexually abused is in favor of slaughtering the offenders.
God (which god is being spoken for is not made clear) can be counted on to console the victims and eternally torture the perpetrators, but cannot be expected to prevent such things from happening in the first place.
Even though it costs more tax payer dollars to execute somebody, let's complain like blinkered idiots about how much money it costs to send them to prison for life instead.
Life is sacred and violence is wrong, therefore I would subject such perpetrators to the following list of brutalities... [I'll not repeat the insanely disgusting things I read here or in any other forum.]
The SCOTUS is wrong any time they hand down a decision that's "out of touch with majority public opinion," such as when they ruled against racism and sexism in the 50's and 60's, because the majority is always right -- Constitutionality, morality, and humanity be damned.
Superstitious beliefs about "souls" and the ability of god (again, which one?) to console and care for us in the afterlife should dictate our secular, civil laws.
Eye-for-an-eye! What was good enough in 1,000 B.C. is good enough for me.
The US would do well to "get back to the basics" and "the good old days." You know, back when racism was even more rampant within the justice system, and when even more innocent people were executed because of emotional hysteria and fear-mongering.

It's stuff like this that makes me terribly worried for our country. It would be one thing if I'd read these things on a fringe website like FreeRepublic, or in the comments section of some extremist's blog, but this is an ABCnews article linked from the main Google News page. Hundreds and hundreds of comments literally foaming at the mouth with so much blood-lust and unreason, it makes me wonder how the people typing such things are able to avoid suffering strokes induced by cognitive dissonance.

Prejudice; Community

2008-06-17T10:46:00.000-05:00

"...sets us free again in the wilderness, and we exult."

I've been reading a book that a favorite friend gave to me. So far,

I liked a part that included this:

Mr. Abbey writes as a man who has taken a stand. He is an interested writer. This exposes him to the charge of being prejudiced, and prejudiced he certainly is. He is prejudiced against tyranny over both humanity and nature. He is prejudiced against sacred cows, the favorite pets of tyrants. He is prejudiced in favor of democracy and freedom. He is prejudiced in favor of an equitable and settled domestic life. He is prejudiced in favor of the wild creatures and their wild habitats. He is prejudiced in favor of charitable relations between humanity and nature. He has other prejudices too, but I believe that those are the main ones. All of his prejudices, major and minor, identify him as he is, not as any reader would have him be. Because he speaks as himself, he does not represent any group, but he stands for all of us.

And a different part that included this:

The community here is that of "recorded human experience". . .It is bewildering both in its amplitude and in the eminence of some of its members. A teacher leading his students to the entrance to that community, as would-be contributors to it, must know that both he and they are coming into the possibility of error. The teacher may make mistakes about the students; the students may make much more serious ones about themselves. He is leading them, moreover, to a community, not to some singular stump or rostrum from which he will declare the Truth.

Republicans - Fiscally Conservative?

2008-05-23T13:18:00.004-05:00

A little over a month ago, Garry Trudeau penned this spectacular strip for his Sunday Doonesbury comic.

To summarize: of our over $9 trillion dollars of national debt, 70% was accumulated under just three presidents (Reagan, Bush, Bush). Of 19 proposed budgets, only 2 were balanced.

Thus, the strip posed an important question: what's up with the myth of Republican fiscal responsibility?

Intrigued by this, I did some more reading. I found an article by Michael Kinsley (whose last name is pronounced like idiots think mine is) summarizing the 2005 Economic Report Of The President. His findings? On average, yearly Big Government spending increases at least 37% more under Republican administrations than Democratic ones. Since 1960, the average yearly federal deficit is $131 billion, but that number under Democratic presidents is only $30 billion. In an average Republican year, the deficit grows by $36 billion, while it shrinks $25 billion in an average Democratic year. National debt under Republican administrations goes up more than double the amount of increase under Democratic administrations.

I also found this report by Steve McGourty (links seems broken, so check here instead). He explains that since 1946, Democratic administrations have been responsible for increasing the national debt an average of 3.2% per year, while Republican administrations are responsible for an average increase of 9.7% (that's a three-to-one ratio). Since 1945, during any given year when Republicans have been in charge of both the Executive branch and the Congress, spending has never been reduced. He also notes that Reagan campaigned and got elected while calling for a balanced budget amendment, only to never submit a single balanced budget himself. Furthermore, under Reagan the national debt increased by more than 200%, the only beneficiary being the rich people whose taxes were cut. And if you find any of this surprising, you simply must read his summary/conclusions.*

I found several reports (check out this one, or this one) on zFacts that give more details regarding the brief summary in Trudeau's comic. Also, you can check out this graph, or follow this running total. The numbers and facts are truly stunning.

Moral of the story? Most people who name fiscal conservativism as a primary reason they vote for Republicans have been sadly, badly, terribly deceived.

Haiku?

2008-05-21T11:23:00.004-05:00

For one of my final assignments in an Education course I took during the Spring semester, I tried to write two haiku. This may have ended up having something to do with what happened a few weekends ago, when Amy and I drove out to Bagdad Kentucky to visit the campground I used to work at. While reading poetry late on Friday night, some unremembered turn of our conversation resulted in my decision to spontaneously utter a poem about my favorite Christmas movie, Home Alone.

My parents are gone,
The burglars are coming and
I will kick their ass

After making it up, I realized that if I added that "and" to the second line, it would fit the 5-7-5 pattern often prevalent in modern Western haiku. Other than its lack of a season word, or kigo, I'm pretty happy with it.

SOP

2008-04-25T16:21:00.000-05:00

You may be aware that there's an internet "comic" called Married To The Sea. It's created by the husband-and-wife tag team who independently author Toothpaste for Dinner and NatalieDee, respectively. It's hilarious, so you should read it. Here's a recent piece:

A couple days ago, a show I like on NPR interviewed Errol Morris about his new documentary, Standard Operating Procedure, opening today in New York City and around the country over the next few weeks. It's about an 8 minute interview, and you can listen to it here. You can also listen to David Edelstein's short review of the film here.

Morris' film is about the Abu Ghraib prison torture incident and scandal from 2003, specifically the many photographs that document the events. The film is an attempt to look behind the pictures, to present their context and background, to delve into the standard operating procedures already in place before the photos were taken. Morris wants to point out that the pictures by themselves can leave us with the impression that only a few people committed a few unusual acts, but that in truth the photographs depict soldiers at the bottom of an entire chain of command, enacting abuses that were part of the standard operating procedure. You can view an official trailer for the film here.

There are a few things in the radio interview that troubled me. First, hearing Lynndie England speak in defense of her actions was surprising. Second, I was sickened by the all-too-familiar attempt to excuse torture by characterizing it as the use of mere "stress positions." Third, the information about Sabrina Harman (the army reservist who took many of the photos at Abu Ghraib) and Manadel al-Jamadi (one of the people who was murdered in the prison) was startling.

I'll quote the director, Errol Morris:

"But let me give you one example - I would prefer that the audience thinks about it themselves rather than allow me to tell them what to think. There's one photograph, [where] Sabrina Harman is smiling with her thumb up over the corpse of a man named al-Jamadi. People saw the photograph and were appauled, and I might add, myself included. Well guess what? She had nothing whatsoever to do with this man's death. The top eschelons of the chain of command were involved in trying to cover up the murder. The commanding office had told her, "This is a heart attack victim." Without Sabrina Harman's photographs, we would never know about this crime. A crime which she herself was in no way, in no way involved with. Under another set of circumstances she would get a Pulitzer Prize in photography. And yet this is how it went down: the people involved with the crime and the people involved with the cover-up have never ever been punished. The only person threatened with punishment over al-Jamadi's death was Sabrina Harman for taking a picture. And you have to ask yourself, what is the crime? Is the crime photography? Is the crime embarassing the administration, embarassing the military, embarassing America? Or is the crime murder?"

Bush

2008-02-22T17:10:00.000-05:00

Evidently, President George Walker Bush has not only a masterful command and understanding of history, but also of irony.

See him display his competence for yourself.

Perhaps, now that his approval rating has indeed dropped below 20%, he's actually trying to make it lower. You know, so he will be all the more vindicated by history..

Troubling Tricephaly

2008-02-12T12:32:00.001-05:00

Doc Philbert, I thought you'd forgotten "bigotry against
homosexuals" and "revoke reproductive freedom," but then
I figured that was all rolled into the head on the left.

Happy New Year

2008-01-04T14:45:00.000-05:00

T.T. provided New Year thoughts.

A Christmas Fable

2007-12-25T15:41:00.001-05:00

(To be clear from the outset, I didn't write this. Robert M. Price did, in the 7th chapter of his first book.)

Once upon a Christmas Eve long ago, three precocious children were sitting around the fireplace. They were waiting for cobwebs to fill their little heads so they could retire to dreamland until the morning, when Santa would have made his rounds. The three boys were named Rudy Bultmann, Johnny Montgomery, and Franky Schaeffer. Having exhausted the conversational potential of baseball, tricycles and cowboys, their minds turned to theology. One of them looked at Rudy and said, "Rudolf with your nose so bright, won't you open our discussion tonight?"

Rudy began, "Friends, as you know, I have been asked to speak on the subject of Santa Claus. My response is 'Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus,' but only in "Geschichte", not in "Historie", of course. There are many elements of the traditional Christmas story which are clearly mythological, and therefore unacceptable to the modern child. After all, can we really believe that anyone today would wear a red suit? And flying reindeer -- modern zoology and aerodynamics assure us that this is impossible! And where would Santa get all those toys? Surely, if he makes them in some North Pole workshop, he must be infringing on all kinds of patents! No child who has to go to a toy store and pay for a doll over the counter can possibly believe in a miraculous appearance of toys beneath the Christmas tree!

"Indeed, there may well have been a historical 'Saint Nicholas of Myra,' and he may even have been a charitable fellow. But all this about a 'Santa Claus' who magically flies around the world giving presents...! Surely this is primitive mythology! All the historian can document is the Christmas Morning Faith of the original elves. And, of course, what really matters is that Santa flies around in my heart!"

Johnny quickly became agitated, as he frequently did, and replied, "The trouble with you, Rudy, is that you don't give enough credit to the hard, historical facts! Look at the sources for our knowledge of Santa! They're just as good as the documentation for any other historical figure, maybe better! For example, take 'The Night Before Christmas.' It describes Santa's 'belly, which shook when he laughed like a bowl full of jelly.' Obviously, this kind of vivid detail is an internal confirmation of the poem's claim to have been penned by an eyewitness!

"Another thing, Rudy. You operate with an obsolete picture of the universe as a closed system of cause-and-effect. You assume reindeer can't fly just because you've never seen them fly. Why, you've probably never seen any reindeer period!

"And how do you explain the empty plate? We all know that kids put out a plate of cookies for Santa, and the next morning the cookies are gone! And don't give me that old argument that it was really the parents who ate them! Unless it was Santa himself, the historian can't explain the tremendous change in the Christmas tree! How else could all those presents have gotten there? It would be psychologically impossible for the parents to put them there. Why should they spend hundreds of dollars on those gifts just to perpetuate a myth? If Santa didn't really come it would be much cheaper to expose the deception!"

Franky chimed in, "Well said, Johnny! I can see that Rudy is making an upper-chimney leap. He thinks he'll end up on the roof, but really he'll find himself back down in the fire! All he's gonna get in his stocking is coal! Of course, the decisive argument against Rudy's position is that he can't really live on the basis of it. He inevitably finds himself acting as if Santa does come in space-time history. He wouldn't get up tomorrow morning and go look under the tree if he was consistent with his presuppositions. And besides, if Santa wasn't coming to town, Rudy would have no metaphysical standard to tell him he'd better not pout or cry! Actually, there's a dangerous cultural shift in this very direction. I can prove it by showing the gradual replacement of Santa by other motifs on recent Christmas cards!"

They decided to settle the question by staying up till Santa did or didn't come. So they all found good hiding places and settled down to wait. But, alas, the little fellows soon fell asleep. And the next morning, sure enough, the plate was empty and they all had presents.

Walla Walla Bing Bang

2007-12-12T01:08:00.000-05:00

In the 47-page essay that makes up the first third of her short book For The New Intellectual, Ayn Rand makes much use of two archetypal terms coined by Nathaniel Branden. Two kinds of human, one a figure of force and the other a figure of faith.

For a completely slanted (and often vitriolic) summary of the history of philosophy, FTNI is an interesting read. It was with good reason that a friend of mine once remarked, "Miss Rand should always be read with one eyebrow permanently raised." But even if it's not much good for anything else, the essay makes great use of the two archetypes played against each other, and against mankind. The rubric used lends a compelling perspective to certain cultural trends, both throughout history and in the present.

So, the archetypes. The first is called Atilla. This is the psychological symbol of blunt might, of violence as the solution to all problems, of destruction of one's enemies as an ideal. The second is called the Witch Doctor. This is the human who eschews reality, who retreats "into his emotions, into visions of some mystic realm where his wishes enjoy a supernatural power unlimited by the absolute of nature." They might seem like polar opposites, but Rand plays them as two sides of the same coin. Both are interested in forcing reality to conform to their desires; and while Atilla strives for physical conquest, the Witch Doctor seeks to rule the soul. The muscle of Atilla can take purpose from the values of the Witch Doctor, and in turn the Witch Doctor gains protection from and power over "any recalcitrant who may choose to challenge his authority." Rand plays both as the enemies of reason, and as proponents of the precept that wishes are superior to reality.

From page 17:

Since the clash [between reality and wishes] is constant, the Witch Doctor's solution is to believe that what he perceives is another, "higher" reality―where his wishes are omnipotent, where contradictions are possible and A is non-A, where his assertions, which are false on earth, become true and aquire the status of a "superior" truth which he perceived by means of a special faculty denied to other, "inferior," beings. The only validation of his consciousness he can obtain on earth is the belief and the obedience of others, when they accept his "truth" as superior to their own perception of reality. While Atilla extorts their obedience by means of a club, the Witch Doctor obtains it by means of a much more powerful weapon: he pre-empts the field of morality.

There is no way to turn morality into a weapon of enslavement except by divorcing it from man's reason and from the goals of his own existence. There is no way to degrade man's life on earth except by the lethal opposition of the moral and the practical. Morality is a code of values to guide man's choices and actions; when it is set to oppose his own life and mind, it makes him turn against himself and blindly act as the tool of his own destruction. There is no way to make a human being accept the role of a sacrificial animal except by destroying his self-esteem. There is no way to destroy his self-esteem except by making him reject his own consciousness. There is no way to make him reject his own consciousness except by convincing him of its impotence.

The damnation of this earth as a realm where nothing is possible to man but pain, disaster and defeat, a realm inferior to another, "higher," reality; the damnation of all values, enjoyment, achievement and success on earth as a proof of depravity; the damnation of man's mind as a source of pride, and the damnation of reason as a "limited," deceptive, unreliable, impotent faculty, incapable of perceiving the "real" reality and the "true" truth; the split of man in two, setting his consciousness (his soul) against his body, and his moral values against his own interest; the damnation of man's nature, body and self as evil; the commandment of self-sacrifice, renunciation, suffering, obedience, humility and faith, as the good; the damnation of life and the worship of death, with the promise of rewards beyond the grave―these are the necessary tenets of the Witch Doctor's view of existence, as they have been in every variant of Witch Doctor philosophy throughout the course of mankind's history.

The secret of the Witch Doctor's power lies in the fact that man needs an integrated view of life, a philosophy, whether he is aware of his need or not―and whenever, through ignorance, cowardice, or mental sloth, men choose not to be aware of it, their chronic sense of guilt, uncertainty and terror makes them feel that the Witch Doctor's philosophy is true.

In contemplating such forceful rhetoric, I think of our culture and the tag-team of the Religious Right and the Republican party over the past couple decades. It isn't a perfect match for Rand's perspective in the early 1960's, but in some ways it fits remarkably well. Perhaps where I differ from Rand's formulation is in my questioning of whether the two archetypical characters must necessarily be joined as a team. To wit: what happens if Atilla and the Witch Doctor are no longer able to get along?

My current hypothesis is that, should the tag-team continue to be stressed by Giuliani's leading in most polls, and should the stress be maximized if/when Giuliani wins the nomination, and if that were to result in the evangelical/fundamentalist "base" of the conservative party actually refusing to vote for Giuliani because of their myopic view of a few social issues, we will see two things happen. One, the Democratic candidate will win the White House; and two, the tag-team of religious conservatives and the Republican party will be (permanently?) damaged, perhaps dissolved. If our culture and our discourse and our politics can all three step together into the 21st Century to join the rest of Western civilization, the modern Republican party might only remain relevant to the extent that it marginalizes the evangelical/fundamentalist block that it has so long courted. We may very well be staring at the cusp of a political and cultural shift as it is about to happen, with the result being that we finally escape some of the ancient social taboos that we've so long been shackled to.

New Glasses

2007-12-02T15:02:00.000-05:00

Photografieren

2007-11-19T11:00:00.000-05:00

For those not on Facebook, here are some recent pictures of Amy and I, having fun in Louisville.

Go and Vote

2007-11-05T11:13:00.000-05:00

Here in Louisville, November 6th is an important day. In case you're not sure where to cast your ballot, you can find out here. For a listing of all the candidates, look here.

But Derek, you may be thinking, I know where to vote and which candidates are running, but I'm not sure who I should actually vote for. Well, I'll take a shot at giving you a hand.

The highest office on the ballot is the Governor/Lieutenant Governor spot. On the Republican ticket, we've got incumbent Governor Ernie Fletcher (along with non-incumbent Rudolph). Click here to view Fletcher's NPAT report. This is the guy who initially ran on a "values and accountability" platform, and has since issued blanket criminal pardons for his administration staff, plead the 5th to keep from incriminating himself, been indicted by the grand jury (only to hide behind "executive immunity"), and been sued for violating state law regarding state university appointments. His campaigns and political strategies have made frequent use of homophobic bigotry, religious rhetoric, and fear tactics.

Opposing Fletcher, on the Democratic ticket is Steve Beshear (along with Mongiardo). Beshear is (big surprise here) yet another older white guy who seems to be in love with Big Oil, idiotic drug policy, and Neo-Con terrorism policy (basically, he's like a Republican). Click here to view his NPAT report. Considering the alternative, I think I know who I'll vote for, and with polls all year consistently favoring Beshear over Fletcher by a 20-25% margin, it would appear that we'll finally be kicking the crook out of the Governor's mansion.

You can look here to see the Fletcher/Rudolph campaign website, and here to see the Beshear/Mongiardo campaign website.

Easily the next-most important office (the state's second-most important job?) on the ballot this Tuesday is that of Attorney General. Democratic nominee Jack Conway is running against Republican nominee Stan Lee (no, not the cool one). Conway's an intelligent and competent candidate who has progressive and forward-looking ideas for the Attorney's office. Lee is, to quote Jim Welp, "Part creationist zealot, part sexist perv, [and] every time he opens his mouth, the 17th century comes spilling out." Evidently, Lee has repeatedly made use of comments and jokes on the campaign trail that insinuate his superiority as a candidate based on (you'll never guess) his facial hair. The choice here is a no-brainer. For a good overview of this race, see the article I linked at the beginning of this paragraph, or this recent CJ comparison.

You can look here to see Conway's campaign website, and here to see Lee's.

Other than the other offices up for election this year, the obvious choice for next most important thing to vote for must be the Library Referendum. You can view the official pro-Library site here, and the best opposition site appears to be this one. The best article I've read, investigating the pros and cons and trying to fairly represent both sides of the issue, was this one by Stemle/Redding of LEO. My take? Dude, it's the Library. Seriously, vote yes.* To quote Jim Welp again, the library is an "institution that is known to cut stupidity and generate intelligence, which evolutionary economists have conclusively shown reduces the ignoramus rate."

* Despite odd, anonymous calls to Bellarmine University, warning that "Libraries are anti-Christian!"

Another job on the ballot this Tuesday is that of Agricultural Commissioner. We've got Republican incumbent Richie Farmer, who's reportedly done a fine job since recovering from a rocky start. He's being challenged by Democratic candidate David Lynn Williams, who isn't supported by his own party and who was quoted saying "I don't ever write nothing down. I carry it in my head and then when I lose my head then I ain't no good." Oh, and he's set for trial in January on charges of menacing, disorderly conduct, and harassment. Hard call here: I think we should probably stick with Farmer.

Lastly, I'd vote Hollenbach over Wheeler for State Treasurer; neither Hendrickson nor Grayson for Secretary of State (they're both horrible and I refuse to vote for either one of them); and Eckerle for Circuit Court Judge.

Have fun at the polls tomorrow, wear your "I voted!" sticker proudly, and be sure to thank the kind folks who volunteer to run the polls year after year, allowing you to exercise your right to vote.

Insulation

2007-10-12T10:26:00.000-05:00

Milgrim had at least one more speech in him, before the end of the novel. And this one he even managed to speak aloud...

"A nation consists of its laws. A nation does not consist of its situation at a given time. If an individual's morals are situational, that individual is without morals. If a nation's laws are situational, that nation has no laws, and soon isn't a nation.
"Are you really so scared of terrorists that you'll dismantle the structures that made America what it is?
"If you are, you let the terrorist win. Because that is exactly, specifically, his goal, his only goal: to frighten you into surrendering the rule of law. That's why they call him 'terrorist.' He uses terrifying threats to induce you to degrade your own society.
"It's based on the same glitch in human psychology that allows people to believe they can win the lottery. Statistically, almost nobody ever wins the lottery. Statistically, terrorist attacks almost never happen."

I thought of this particular exchange today during my class on education and child development, though I can't say I'm absolutely sure why. A classmate was commenting on previous courses she had taken, and a peculiar confluence she had experienced when three different classes were all covering the same certain revolutionary political philosopher. I don't know enough about what she had learned to have commented in any interesting way, so I didn't, but then she remarked that "he ignored entire aspects of humanity." Suddenly, I heard myself saying, "Well sure. Propounding your ideology is often so much easier when you flat out ignore certain parts of humanity. It's the kind of thinking that seems to get people elected to high offices of government."

Spook Country

2007-09-16T17:40:00.000-05:00

"The sky above the port was the color of television, tuned to a dead channel."

Thus Gibson began his first novel, twenty-three years ago. About 2,173 pages later, he gives us the following...

Milgrim had never been one for metaphysics, but. . . .this text was starting to reveal the pleasure to be had from metaphysical contemplation. Particularly if you were contemplating these Free Spirit guys, who seemed to have been a combination of Charlie Manson and Hannibal Lecter.
And insofar as everything was equally of God, they taught, those who were most in touch with the Godness in every last thing would make it a point to do anything at all, particularly anything still forbidden by those who hadn't yet gotten the Free Spirit message. To which end they went around having sex with anybody they could get to hold still for it, or not, as the case might be—rape being viewed as particularly righteous, and murder equally so. It was like a secret religion of mutually empowered sociopaths, and Milgrim thought it was probably the gnarliest single example of human behavior he'd ever heard of. Someone like Manson, for instance, simply wouldn't have been able to get any traction, had he landed among the brothers and sisters of the Free Spirit. Probably, Milgrim guessed, Manson would've hated it. What good would it be to be Charlie Manson in a whole society of serial killers and rapists, each one convinced that he or she was directly manifesting the Holy Spirit?
But the other aspect of the Free Spirit that fascinated him, and this applied to the whole text, was how these heresies would get started, often spontaneously generating around some single medieval equivalent of your more outspoken homeless mumbler. Organized religion, he saw, back in the day, had been purely a signal-to-noise proposition, at once the medium and the message, a one-channel universe. For Europe, that channel was Christian, and broadcasting from Rome, but nothing could be broadcast faster than a man could travel on horseback. There was a hierarchy in place, and a highly organized methodology of top-down signal dissemination, but the time lag enforced by tech-lack imposed a near-disastrous ratio, the noise of heresy constantly threatening to overwhelm the signal.

It surprised me, as I progressed through the novel, that Milgrim ended up being one of the main vehicles of step-by-step commentary on interesting subjects not intrinsically tied to the plot of the book. I didn't guess him for that type of character, early on in the story.

The Recognition of Patterns

2007-08-11T10:25:00.001-05:00

Cayce thought: "However odd things seem, mustn't it be to exactly that extent of oddness that a life is one's own, and no one else's?"

I just finished re-reading Pattern Recognition, by William Gibson. One of the side-plots revolves around one character's missing father, Wingrove. Though absent, his presence pops up throughout the book in memories of his actions or thoughts.

"That had always been Win's first line of defense, within himself: to recognize that he was only a part of something larger. Paranoia, he said, was fundamentally egocentric, and every conspiracy theory served in some way to aggrandize the believer."

Another one of Win's ideas had been that a person must allow room for coincidence. Look too closely for meaning in unrelated things, and you end up in the realm of apophenia.

Responding to the cliché "I know in my heart," another character, named Hubertus Bigend, corrects by way of the following paragraph.

"The heart is a muscle. You 'know' in your limbic brain. The seat of instinct. The mammalian brain. Deeper, wider, beyond logic. That is where advertising works, not in the upstart cortex. What we think of as 'mind' is only a sort of jumped-up gland, piggybacking on the reptilian brainstem and the older, mammalian mind, but our culture tricks us into recognizing it as all of consciousness. The mammalian spreads continent-wide beneath it, mute and muscular, attending its ancient agenda. And makes us buy things."

Gibson's gift of effortless description is poetic in a way rarely found in sci-fi, and his method of creating characters of depth and insight is remarkable. Sometimes he shows us a distant future, and recently he paints us a picture of the future that is tomorrow. Twenty-three years after winning the triple-crown of literature awards for science fiction, it is abundantly clear that he deserved it.

BAT - A Third Swing

2007-08-03T09:58:00.000-05:00

I posted a sequel to my original Blog Against Theocracy post, to better describe my view and to make good use of some of my writing from the comments section. This final post is again an edited formulation of some of my responses from that original discussion.

Concerning the marketplace of ideas, or the table of reasoned discussion and rational discourse where the comparison of different ideas occurs, here is an analogy that should shed light on my thinking. If two ideas about a subject are competing, one supported solely by religious faith, and the other not, it won't always be necessarily true that the non-religious idea should win. Suppose the subject is environmental responsibility, and the religious person believes that the Spirit Of The Earth would have us take care of the planet, while the non-religious person thinks we should pillage and consume simply because his mother says so. If we investigated both sets of reasoning, we may in the end find that both are irrational, but in such a case the religious person's reasoning will still come as superior to the non-religious person's, if only because it is more developed and actually results in empirical positive benefit to the world at large.

The bad news for both individuals would be if a third person showed up whose reasoning had its basis in empirical observations and claims backed by facts, without any commitment to unreasonable and untestable dogma or superstition. This third person's conclusions may work well with those of the devout Spirit Of The Earth follower, but anybody with a concern for beliefs being reflective of reality will of course see that the third person's reasoning is superior, and perhaps more importantly a better tool for convincing others to also protect the environment.

In my view, the situation isn't really reason vs. "non-reason" or something like that. It's that many views may show up at the table, all bearing reasons. Some of the reasoning will be good, some of it completely ridiculous, and shades in between. It is this comparison, this critical evaluation of the proffered reasoning, that civilization as we know it has been involved in, to varying degrees of success, for several thousand years.

So, if a hypothetical theocrat were to ask, "what is the difference between your thinking and reasoning, and mine?" ...Well, I might answer like so: my thinking and reasoning is based on empirical investigation of the facts, and a concern for the well-being and happiness of all people. So, if the hypothetical theocratic supporter is arguing with me over his belief that women should be marginalized and treated as lesser, or even as property, with his foundation for such being his blind adherence to his holy book....what will we find? Will it truly be a mystery how my thinking and reasoning differs from his? First, we'll find that even a skin-deep survey of science will support me while damaging him, while a more extensive investigation of reality will only further help my case while hindering his. Second, we'll find that it's almost absurdly obvious whose view and reasoning actually furthers the happiness and rights and freedom of all people.

The hypothetical theocrat might still continue to ask: "What’s the difference? Is it because I have a god and you don’t?" And they may even make a wild claim: "You have a god, and you serve it, promote it, and elevate it. Your god is ‘reason’."

But despite the questioning, the difference isn't in the god, and reason is not a god. Reason is not served ― it is used. Promotion and elevation of something does not a god make.

Almost everybody agrees that Christians would not want to be told how to live their life based on the faith-based precepts of a different religion. In practice, this obviously holds true. Christians don't even consider allowing other denominations or sects of Christianity to dictate to them how to live their life, let alone a whole other monotheism. But tell them the same thing ― that their faith has no business telling you what to do ― and some will loudly question why it is acceptable to tell them that their religious definition of right and wrong is invalid. But that's not what we're declaring invalid ― they can believe just about whatever they want. What is acceptable is telling a religious person that their spiritual beliefs are not valid means of defining right and wrong and forcing such faith-based beliefs on others. So, if a Christian (or any other religious person) wants to use their preferred holy book to tell them what is right and wrong about some specific moral issue, my personal opposition to theocracy and my support for SoC&S actually comes as defending that religious person's right to such belief. But it should also be obviously acceptable to disagree strongly with that same religious person when they move to force their holy book-based faith belief on others who do not share the same religious outlook.

So in the real world, if a Christian wants to use faith in their interpretation of the Bible to decide that drinking alcohol is sinful and wrong, they are free to. They are even free to not only believe such a thing, but to act on it, and thus refrain from drinking beer or wine. But what they cannot reasonably do is expect all others to be forced to act as if alcohol is sinful. First, others may understand the Bible differently (imagine that!), or perhaps certain others have a different holy book that is not understood to prohibit alcohol, or perhaps others do not make their decision about beer based on religious reasoning at all.

Lastly, the response I received on this point didn't actually deal with my main thrust. Namely, that Christians would not enjoy it if the dictates of a different religion told them how to live their life. It is confusing in the extreme that a person could agree with this, and then proceed to argue that they, as a Christian, should still be allowed to tell others, based solely on a faith that is not shared, how to live their life.

In my OP, I wrote that "…one of the great things about our country is that just because you have a religious belief about a certain subject, that doesn't mean that I have to believe it too." Why any reasonable person would object to this, I do not know. The response I received came in the form of three questions. 1) Doesn't my view force all religious people in the country to believe what I believe about the brain? 2) Am I calling for an abolishment of religious legislation, thus forcing others to believe as I do? 3) Even if others believe differently than I, won't they be "affected" or perhaps "oppressed" by my stance?

However, my answer to all three of these questions is: no.

First, people are free (within certain limits) to believe that they don't, or shouldn't, make decisions with the aid of their brain. But it would be entertaining to hear such a person try to explain how they believe such a thing, and the reasons for such belief, without making use of their reasoning mind.

Second, what I'm calling for is the abolition of religious bigotry and theocratic legislation. Religious people are of course still involved in the whole process of law and legislation, and if their faith inspires them to argue persuasively (and with good reasons) in favor of a new piece of legislation that helps people and does not of necessity revoke the rights and freedoms of others, that's great!

So, third, no, not everyone has to believe as I believe. To use an earlier example, a Christian is free to believe that beer is sinful, even though I believe otherwise. So long as I do not force them to drink, and they do not force me to abstain, neither one of us is compelled against our will to believe or act as the other does.

With these three things clearly in view, we of course find that there is no oppression. The position I outlined in my OP is an argument in direct support of the historic Foundations of our country, and is specifically designed to avoid oppression.

The objection was made that while my anti-theocratic stance didn't bear a "religious title," it somehow still managed to be "religious." It was claimed that if one is devoted to a view and seeks to uphold it, defend it, and live by it, then such a view is "religious." Of course, I don't think I can take this objection too seriously. Just because you label something "religious" doesn't make it so. Having a view that you defend and live by can be done without religion or religiosity. For example, I elevate Nintendo as my preferred brand of video game console, I do so to the exclusion of others (with the exception of my sinful love affair with Sega Dreamcast), my discourse about video games is such that I tell others of my preference and I seek to uphold my view that Nintendo is better,and my real-life decisions about what video games I play are greatly affected by my choice of allegiance to Nintendo. On top of that, there are thousands and thousands of people just like me. But I think in all seriousness we all know that such is not the makings of religion.

As to how a person might determine why religious reasons aren't valid while non-religious ones are, I say pick a topic. Say a person has religious reasons for opposing garden fertilizer. They are committed to their faith belief in garden fairies that exist invisibly beneath the dirt, and who if revered properly will bless the garden and grow healthy plants. Now imagine that you disagree with that person, and you make recourse to science, specifically the branch of biology called botany. Your empirical view of gardening is not religious, and here in reality land will actually result in testable garden success that will prove you correct, and the garden fairy view wrong. Is it surprising that we can clearly see which reasons work as valid? Should we be confused that the devout fairy gardener will find it impossible to get laws passed that outlaw garden fertilizer?

The situation seems to only get worse for the man of religiosity when he makes the additional claim that his reasons are based on a "holy book." Not only are his claims then completely subject to the wide-reaching scrutiny of literary criticism, history, and science, but it is also almost certain that the non-holy book reasons will be verifiable, based on reality, and pragmatically more effective. Take my above example about invisible fairies who live beneath the garden. Even if such gardening philosophy is based on a holy book that teaches all about the wonderful holiness of invisible garden fairies, we will almost certainly find that your non-religious preference for fertilizer and proper botanical practice wins out when both ideas are compared. Not only will you have better (and testable) reasons for your stance, but the reasoning you employ to make use of your reasons will be superior.

"Every sect, as far as reason will help them, make use
of it gladly; and where it fails them, they cry out, 'It is
a matter of faith, and above reason.'" - John Locke

BAT - A Second Swing

2007-07-27T10:15:00.000-05:00

Some questions in the comments section of my Blog Against Theocracy post prompted me to respond at some length, expanding and clarifying my intended meaning. I ended up feeling that some of the responses I wrote were at least as good as, if not better than, the material contained in my original essay. Here, I'll reproduce a somewhat heavily edited and expanded version of some of the comments I wrote during that discussion (with most of it from rebuttal #11), streamlining them to read more like an essay. I'll finish up in a third post.

Sometimes, and perhaps often, when discussing ethical behavior or social norms or the rule of law with a particularly conservative Christian, you may find that suddenly something magical happens. It is as if the common ground of rational thought and mutual, consistently self-validating uniform experience....disappears. Poof, and all of the rigors of a decent public high school education seemingly vanish. You may state your observation that just as we've "figured out" sound principles of structural engineering, so have we as a society "figured out" what we do and don't want people to be doing, only to be responded to with an incredulous "how?!?"

Now, it's normally true that regular conversation, and a Xanga blog post devoted to describing the shortcomings of the theocratic mindset of a disturbingly large part of our country's voters, probably isn't the appropriate place to delve into the long history of law. But a quick answer might be: just like we've figured other stuff out. There's a lot of trial and error involved, and lots of investigating, experimenting, and discussion. You know, the normal ways of figuring stuff out. "We" (in the collective sense) figure it out, as well as "we" in an individual sense. We each figure out as children that we enjoy the benefits of sharing, and we wail and thrash in response to theft. We figure out, rather handily, that we enjoy being treated kindly while we dislike being punched by our red-faced toddler cohorts.

As to why things are wrong, in the context of my original essay this has to do with an individual's right to pursue freedom and happiness (right up to where such would infringe or eliminate the same right in another individual). A read through all of the Founding Documents would demonstrate similar reasoning. It also makes good plain common sense: if two (or more) people can agree that they each want to be free to pursue their desires, they can only truly agree insofar as they also agree to not exercise their own pursuit of freedom at the expense of the other(s). Or to rephrase, I can't agree with you that we both have the right to exercise our freedom, only to turn around and then suppress (or completely destroy) your freedom. In doing so I would actively demonstrate that I actually disagree with the proposition of our individual rights and freedoms. Furthermore, were I to proclaim a right to both my freedom and to the removal of yours, I would become an irrational hypocrite the second I complained about you suppressing or destroying my freedom.

Not only is such reasoning reflected in such documents as the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, but a survey of the history of civilization yields even more clarity.

One may be challenged as to how one would explain that stealing is wrong to a hypothetical jungle tribesman whose society "values" stealing as a means of survival, strength, and honor (or further, why one thinks right and wrong exist). But for my part, I'm pretty skeptical that such a tribesman exists. Second, even if one did, while it may be quite important to explain to him why stealing is wrong (at least in our society and culture), it will not be nearly as imperative to outline to him why right and wrong exist. If I can't get past the first task of discussion ? explaining to him that he cannot steal here ? he will end up arrested and jailed or deported, almost immediately.

However, the question to ask such a tribesman would be this: "What do you do when someone tries to steal from you?" It would prove impossible to remain consistent with his claim that stealing is a valued behavior and also tell me that he defends his belongings. His behavior ? defending belongings from theft ? would actually speak loudly about whether or not he really thinks stealing is wrong. It would also show his moral precept "stealing is good" to be irrational.

You may find that during conversations along these lines, the conservative or theocratic-sympathizer may react to your stance against religious legislating and bigoted political moralizing by demanding that you explain how right and wrong exist from a non-religious viewpoint. They might even be ready to toss out dozens of examples that they think you must grapple with.

But again, normal (i.e. somewhat short) conversation and blog discussions aren't always the best place to get into an interminably long discussion about ethics (or big long hypothetical lists of the situational application thereof). Suffice it to say that there are many ways to argue towards a system of right and wrong, and even moral absolutism if you so desire, both with and without recourse to religion.

During the comments discussion of my OP, questions were raised as to the applicability of my position, with cigarette smoking standing in as a test case of sorts. Using cigarettes as an example is salient, in that we see such discussions going on in public life today, in several places in the country (right here in Louisville, even). As such, it seems that answers aren't very difficult to determine (even if good application isn't always the case in different locations).

The "anti" group (in the example, a religious anti-smoking group) will almost certainly fail to outlaw smoking. But they will almost certainly succeed in limiting smoking in such ways as to end up with smokers keeping their own rights, and non-smokers keeping their right to breathe clean air. And, lucky enough, here in reality land we find this to be most often true. Virtually all public buildings in the country, including most private business buildings, are smoke-free. A large percentage of restaurants in the country are also smoke-free, with some cities banning almost all indoor smoking, except for individual's homes. We also find that under-age smoking is illegal, and that it is also illegal to sell (and to a certain extent, advertise) cigarettes to minors. Thus, we've preserved the freedom of both the smokers and the anti-smokers, and nobody is oppressed.

Perhaps a tad more interesting, it was then asked, "...So let's take the same religious group and have them say, "Our holy book says that inhaling smoke is wrong, it is a sin." They are being forced to "sin" by any smokers that walk by or light up in the same building as them..."

They might be forced to "sin" if somebody walks by them outside somewhere with a cigarette, but such will be the consequences of such a completely ridiculous holy book-based belief. They would also be "sinning" any time they were in the presence of running automobiles, campfires, incense, or bee keepers. Such an irrational belief will render it their responsibility to avoid such things.

We may imagine that such a religious person might claim to feel "oppressed" any time they find themselves out in public where smokers may be. We may further imagine that they would ask whose freedom is "more important," and who gets to make such a decision. However, I don't think they'd be being oppressed at all. So long as nobody forces them to enter a bar that allows smoking, or strong-arms them into standing right next to the public ash tray outside of the mall, no oppression is occurring. Their religious freedom is no more violated than a person who religiously disapproves of beverage alcohol has his faith violated by a liquor store. If he does not go into the store and he avoids imbibing, his religious belief is not oppressed.

You see, in these cases there is no problem of "whose freedom is more important." The freedom of both is important, and in both cases can be reasonably preserved by rational means.

It can be observed that "different groups of people...reason what is right and wrong based on different things. Things they observe, things they believe, things they read, or things they just "feel"." To this I say: Yes! This is why people are expected to give their reasoning. One group of people, based on observation, belief, literature, faith, or any combination of the four, may somehow "reason" that it is not wrong to rape. But is it really a matter of mystery that their reasons for approving of rape will be failures? Historically, our country has been occupied by startling amounts of people who agreed that slavery was okay and that women should not have been allowed to vote. There are probably still a surprising number of people who feel this way. When such ideas were met with other people with different ideas, we can easily see which side had the better reasons.

If you argue as I have here, you may be accused (as I was) of elevating reason as the means of determining what is right and wrong, or legal and illegal. My response then was that, yes, I have. Would a person really suggest that I use something other than my brain to make decisions, moral or otherwise? Certainly, it is correct to suggest that our ability to reason is influenced by outside factors, such as what we read or are entertained by. However, none of that changes that a person (regardless of whatever their influences are) must think in order to make a decision. If you don't bring reason to bear on a choice in front of you, then you won't be making a decision.

In the comments of the OP, I was challenged on my stance regarding the validity of certain theocratic ways of thinking and the resultant legislative efforts. To clarify, what I dismissed as worthless, or what became invalid, were the proposed theocratic rules themselves. The potential law, absent any good reasons behind it and which would openly discriminate based on religiosity alone, was what I dismissed.

So my question for the conservative Christian and straight-ticket Republican voter would be: do you think theocratic laws supported by religious adherence to certain exclusionary holy books would be a good idea in our society? When such proposed rules necessarily reflect a view of the world not shared by all religious people, let alone all people, in the country?

Because, after all, if one agrees with me that theocracy is a bad idea, yet finds fault with the reasons I've given for my opposition to it, that would tend to make me curious as to their reasons for opposing theocracy.

My OP was inaccurately characterized as having reasoned that reason is supreme because I said so. However, what I talked about was the insufficiency of solely religious reasons for proposing laws, the imperative to find good reasons for our laws, and I touched on religious discrimination being a (sometimes? often?) particularly nasty expression of certain beliefs. But I never said anything like "reason is supreme, because I say so!"

Though, it is instructive to note that one would be hard pressed to disagree that sound reasoning is the tool to use in making decisions, without recourse to one's own ability to reason and give reasons for such a stance. In other words, to use one's ability to reason to try and declare reason as insufficient or invalid would be clearly self-defeating.

"To argue with a man who has renounced the use
and authority of reason, is like administering
medicine to the dead." - Thomas Paine

Letter to the Editor

2007-05-19T22:16:00.000-05:00

I had a letter to the editor get published in LEO (the local independent paper) about two weeks ago. It's the final letter in the Erosia section of the Derby week edition, published on 05/02/07.

The background leading up to my letter includes certain statements made by Al Mohler first being mentioned in Brown's column on March 20th, and Ray Rieck's letter a week later defending Mohler, appearing in the same edition as George's full article on the topic. Both Brown's column and George's article are worth reading. Two weeks later, on April 10th, a letter to the editor critical of Mohler and Rieck appeared, written by Michael Lenhart, and a week after that two more critical letters appeared, written by Bryan Hurst and Richard Hodge. Two weeks after that, on May 2nd, they printed my letter, which I'll reproduce below.

With that context in view, and keeping in mind that the Erosia section of LEO has a pretty small word limit, I offer the letter I wrote as my blog entry for today. The only editing I've applied to it has been to restore my original spacing and instances of emphasis (which were correctly reproduced in the print edition but not the online version), and to add links for clarification and convenience.

I can already see the fundamentalist retorts to last week's letters from Hurst and Hodge. In defending Rieck and Mohler, we'll get the standard party line: "Oh, that's the Old Testament, but we now live under the 'new covenant'!" Or, they'll turn to their misogynist hero Paul, and say "The NT condemns homosexuality too, it's right there in 1Corinthians6:9 and 1Timothy1:10!"

They'll forget, of course, that those verses don't say anything about lesbians. They'll ignore, in a stunning feat of cognitive insouciance, that the Old Testament makes up nearly 80% of their Holy Bible, and contains a couple versions of their beloved "10 Commandments" and that neat fairy tale about Noah living within walking distance of all the animals on the planet. While rushing to force their particular literal interpretation on everybody, they will continue to hypocritically ignore the parts that they don't really like as much. Oppressing gay people is easy, but it's hard to run a communist church (Acts2:44-46, 4:32-37). Biblical homophobia fits right in with their modern fundamentalism, but most happily ignore the commands for women to be absolutely silent in church and only submissively ask questions of their husbands at home (1Corinthians14:33b-35). It is instinct to defend Mohler or to argue for outright discrimination against homosexuals everywhere, but it's easy to forget The Rules when it comes to men never having long hair and women always having both long hair and prayer hats (1Corinthians11:2-16).

Which is more astonishing? That such people want to force others to live by 2,000-year-old bigoted social taboos, or that they so obviously pick-and-choose which parts to pontificate about, conveniently ignoring the parts that don't serve their hatred?

The Louisville Eccentric Observer (LEO) has been in publication for 17 years and is distributed every Wednesday. It is available for free at over 900 locations in Louisville and Southern Indiana, and also online.

Blog Against Theocracy

2007-04-07T10:32:00.000-05:00

So the next couple days are Blog Against Theocracy weekend. There's a neat website called First Freedom First (which has lots of interesting information, a great petition you can sign in seconds, and some pretty neat t-shirts), which is how I found out about the blogswarm.

I've touched on a few subjects related to this in some past posts. I mentioned neo-Fundamentalism and religiously-based discrimination back in October, and religious bigotry's presence in the voting booth back in November. And last August on my other blog, I wrote about separation of church and state in the public school system.

But in celebration of Blog Against Theocracy weekend, I thought I'd take a different approach. It seems to me that the general issue here (theocracy = bad; separation of church and state = good) is pretty obvious, and should be almost automatically agreed upon by all reasonable people. I mean, you don't hear almost any Americans, Christian or not, Republican or not, defending the wonderfulness of concepts like militant Islam or Sharia law. When we, as a culture, look out on the world and see laws or cultural rules that have no basis at all outside of faith-based religious commitment, we don't think twice about the inherent idiocy and intrinsic unfairness of such systems. For example, we do not hesitate to question and criticize the severe oppression of women, up to and including rigid (and often violently enforced) dress codes (such as Taliban-mandated Burqas) and barbaric punishment, reminiscent of the Old Testament and the Inquisitions, for breaking the rules.

When it comes right down to it, in our culture 100% of us seem to agree that religious discrimination is wrong, while a full half of us then turn around and embrace it fully when it agrees with our own religiosity. How does this, in so many of our minds, not trip the breaker of intellectual consistency? How can so many in our nation affirm that theocratic public policy is wrong in other cultures and religions, while gladly (and hypocritically) embracing it in their own?

One of the great things about our country is that people are free, within certain constraints of course, to believe what they want. So if a person wants to have a view of certain topics (such as politics in general, or homosexuality in particular) that is decided solely by their religious faith, they can. But another one of the great things about our country is that just because you have a religious belief about a certain subject, that doesn't mean that I have to believe it too. And it is this, precisely, that seems to be the trouble lately. An astonishing number of people in our country seem to have come to believe that their religious faith is, all by itself, a good enough reason to make rules and laws that discriminate against and deny the rights of others. Somehow the idea that a religious opinion only shared by some should then be forced on all others (others that perhaps prefer to have opinions that are informed by more than faith-based commitment to ancient religion) has avoided the criticism it so richly deserves, in a startling amount of our population.

So the question becomes, why? If we as a culture want to make laws that declare something wrong and illegal, like rape or fraud, for example, we should be able to give many sound reasons why. Not surprisingly, we find that this is exactly what we have done. Grand theft auto is not illegal because a minority religious viewpoint desires it to be. It's illegal because we, as a society, have used our reasoning minds to figure out what things we don't want people to be doing, with the general principle of freedom in mind to constrain us. We allow individuals to pursue their individual freedom and happiness, up to the point where such pursuit would infringe on the rights of other individuals. What this means is that if a group of religious people, small or large, wants there to be a certain law, they must be expected to give sound reasons why. In the absence of good reasons and in the presence of statements like "I just believe" or "my holy book says," it should be exquisitely clear that theocratic rules that discriminate against others based on nothing but religious conviction should be dismissed as worthless. No Christian would want to be told how to live their life based on the faith of a different religion. It is high time that our society leaves theocracy and religious bigotry behind us, back in the dark ages where it belongs.

(If you would also like to participate in Blog Against Theocracy weekend, click on over to the home page to find out what to do and how to let them know you're involved in the blogswarm.)

Coalesce

2007-02-10T22:00:00.000-05:00

He sat alone in a quiet, open room. In front of him, on the far corner of the table, lay a small jumble of unsorted papers, next to which burned a small candle. The space was not bright, but not quite so dim as if the candle had been the only source of light, for a bulb or two had been left on in the next room. Behind him and against the wall were some shelves, filled mostly with books. Some were on their sides, others lined up neatly and in order, and a few were propped on the top shelf between two bookends. People always noticed the bookends. They were crafted such that one could almost believe they were not two objects with thousands of pages between them, but instead were really one wide piece, one long bridge spanning the entire distance, that removing a few books would reveal the structure joining either end... But no, they really were just two bookends, squeezing the various philosophy and science fiction books in the space between them.

He was very still. He hadn't moved, except to blink, for many minutes. However, the calm of his exterior belied the rushing activity of his mind. As was common, there was music bouncing around his temporal lobe, but this evening it was not the heavy and progressive compositions that he usually listened to. No, on this day the melody that ghosted in his mental hearing was buzzy rock, a favorite from his late teenage years. Sounds and lyrics that had once been new and exciting, burning permanent synaptic pathways in his brain as he reveled in the anxiety and frustration, had over time become familiar and comforting, like a well worn pair of sneakers (but without all the dirt). Had it really been a decade since he was that confused young man, the one he still sometimes half expected to return his gaze in the mirror?

And still he had not moved. But his thoughts continued to hurtle forwards. He often thought that the memories life was made up of, and the act of thinking back on them, made him feel as if he were stuck on a fixed point careening down the river of time, frequently straining to reach back and grab something he'd dropped in the water. But no matter how far he extended his arm, he could not fight the forward momentum of the river, and even though the dropped objects eternally bobbed up and down in the exact spot on the timeline he had dropped them, they still appeared to be just barely out of his reach. Imagination told him that if he could close that short, infinite gap and grasp one of those dropped moments, just once, that singular success would allow him to freeze time. This was how some of his thoughts felt tonight.

Abruptly his mind's eye cleared and, like a curtain had been pulled back, his eyes took in his present surroundings. He remained motionless, though his gaze wandered around the view before him, his eyes coming to rest their attention on an ordinary coffee mug perched atop a small coaster, over on the other side of the room. He tried to remember what church it was that had given it to him. It occurred to him that he had been drinking coffee out of that mug for years now, without ever thinking of where he'd gotten it from. Countless trips through the dishwasher had so worn the outside that the design and lettering once proudly declaring the cup's allegiance were now reduced to a few random flecks of color spread across the otherwise blank, smooth surface. He pondered the juxtaposition of a coffee mug obtained from a church sometime during his second decade, and the beliefs obtained from a church sometime during his first. Now in his third, he contemplated the many dissimilar coffee cups owned by innumerable people in the world. He'd never considered his particular mug to be perfect: it probably did not have the ideally shaped handle, it was not the perfect size, it was not his favorite color. He liked it and enjoyed using it, but the compulsion to convince others that his inherited coffee mug was superior to theirs―that they should discard their mug and get one just like his own―was of course unknown to him. His reasoning mind could envision a more aesthetically pleasing shape for a mug to have, a larger and more comfortable handle, a thicker material for more efficient insulation. What had happened in his brain to make him see that the beliefs he'd been given were more accordant with the mug than his younger self had thought possible?

Without stirring, he knew that the what of scrutiny and reasoned inquiry was easier to pinpoint than the when of it all. The common impulse seemed to be to assign changes to specific moments, precise instants when a choice is made and "before" and "after" are created. He felt this urge, yet knew that the truth was closer to a slow process, a gradual paradigm shift of the mind with causes stretching back into the twisting path of his life, a confluence of ideas and situations and inputs all simultaneously arriving at the present. It seemed mysterious, but it was true, and for now he'd spent enough time ruminating about it. A sudden intake of breath, an imperceptible shrug of the shoulders, then he rose from his seat and walked out the door.

The Fountainhead

2007-01-09T01:20:00.000-05:00

"...he wondered whether the peculiar solemnity of looking at the sky comes, not from what one contemplates, but from that uplift of one's head..."

I just finished reading an excellent novel. At the risk of sounding petulant: I realize that it is much easier to read a short blog that simply says something about its author having gone to the mall recently or having seen a good movie over the weekend, and that when the choice is made not to talk about such supremely important matters, most people give up after reading the first paragraph or two. You might realize this as well, so perhaps that will make it easier to fight against.

Gail Wynand: "We have never made an effort to understand what is greatness in man and how to recognize it. We have come to hold, in a kind of mawkish stupor, that greatness is to be gauged by self-sacrifice. Self-sacrifice, we drool, is the ultimate virtue. Let's stop and think for a moment. Is sacrifice a virtue? Can a man sacrifice his integrity? His honor? His freedom? His ideal? His convictions? The honesty of his feeling? The independence of his thought? But these are a man's supreme possessions. Anything he gives up for them is not a sacrifice but an easy bargain. They, however, are above sacrificing to any cause or consideration whatsoever. Should we not, then, stop preaching dangerous and vicious nonsense? Self-sacrifice? But it is precisely the self that cannot and must not be sacrificed. It is the unsacrificed self that we must respect in man above all."

Ellsworth M. Toohey: "Do you see? Men have a weapon against you. Reason. So you must be very sure to take it away from them. Cut the props from under it. But be careful. Don't deny outright. Never deny anything outright, you give your hand away. Don't say reason is evil―though some have gone that far and with astonishing success. Just say that reason is limited. That there's something above it. What? You don't have to be too clear about it either. The field's inexhaustible.
'Instinct'―'Feeling'―'Revelation'―'Divine Intuition'―'Dialectical Materialism.' If you get caught at some crucial point and somebody tells you that your doctrine doesn't make sense―you're ready for him. You tell him that there's something above sense. That here he must not try to think, he must feel. He must believe. Suspend reason and you play it deuces wild. Anything goes in any manner you wish whenever you need it. You've got him. Can you rule a thinking man? We don't want any thinking men."

Howard Roark: "Man cannot survive except through his mind. He comes on earth unarmed. His brain is his only weapon. Animals obtain food by force. Man has no claws, no fangs, no horns, no great strength of muscle. He must plant his food or hunt it. To plant, he needs a process of thought. To hunt, he needs weapons, and to make weapons―a process of thought. From this simplest necessity to the highest religious abstraction, from the wheel to the skyscraper, everything we are and everything we have comes from a single attribute of man―the function of his reasoning mind."

Sam Harris on the radio

2006-12-30T12:30:00.000-05:00

A certain Sam Harris wrote a small book recently, a sequel of sorts to a larger one from two years before.

A radio show that I like then proceeded to have Mr. Harris on for the first half of a two-part series on religion and public policy. During his interview, Harris explains his position and reasoning regarding politics and religion. In the second half, two clergymen are interviewed in order to represent an opposing perspective. (Note: radio-haters or YouTube addicts may prefer the other Sam Harris links at the bottom of this entry.)

You can listen to the first half, with Sam Harris, by going here.

You can then listen to the second half, with Pastor Russell Johnson and Reverend Timothy McDonald, by going here.

Read no further if you want to have the opportunity to listen to the series without the influence of my opinion. After listening to both sides for yourself and considering them thoughtfully (hopefully without my comments introducing bias), you can then read the following for my take......

First, some comments on the second half of the series.

Pastor Johnson was incredibly frustrating to listen to. For instance, the host has a very hard time getting him to actually answer questions as they are asked. So much so that she actually re-asks one or two questions at least three different times, which still results in Johnson refusing to give a direct and honest answer. He uses the word "candidly" so many times it becomes humorous. Then he uses it even more and it becomes insane (and makes him sound just plain dumb).

Pastor Johnson displays a constant misunderstanding of the issues Sam Harris has raised: he consistently gives misdirected answers, and relies almost exclusively on the same fundamentalist rhetoric that Harris is trying to criticize. Somebody even chuckles at him around the 22:08 mark.

Pastor McDonald is a bit more sensible. He criticizes rigid literalism and the extreme religious right, pointing out that such a position has always resulted in harm in the past. He is also critical of the present problem of religious belief that tries to impose laws that discriminate against the freedom of individual people.

But McDonald's responses have their own set of problems. He too is unable to actually respond directly to several questions raised by Sam Harris. One defense he offers is that moderate Christians can act as a check-and-balance against fundamentalist Christians. But this defense doesn't seem an adequate answer, in light of the actual issues raised by Harris concerning moderates actually helping foster the problem of fundamentalist religion. McDonald also claims, boldly but ignorantly, that atheism is a religion. He is also quite wrong in his attempt to make the defenders of religious liberty (and the separation of church and state) seem identical to Christians who want to legislate their "morality" across the board, forcing those who do not share their belief to obey their edicts. The two positions are distinctly different (diametrically opposed, even), and both he and Johnson are apparently blind to the difference.

The few people who call into the show during the second interview are, well... Their contribution to the discussion speaks for itself.

Now, to quickly comment on the first half.

Harris' comments, introducing the thrust of his books and summarizing a few points from them, are succinct and cogent. He's clearly prepared to give short and understandable explanations that both answer the question(s) raised and invite the listener to read his book to view the entire argument. He even deals well with Mrs. Martin's somewhat sloppy interview.

For a shorter chat with Harris that aired a few days earlier and on a different NPR program, click here; for yet another program's short report from a few weeks later, click here (both are handled more professionally than the interview by Mrs. Martin). However, if you're interested in a longer and more sustained presentation (or if you're just more visually inclined), you can click here to watch Harris talking at ideaCity for about 19 minutes, or you can watch his lecture at the NYSEC (click right here for part 1 of 4).

What do you think:
After having listened to the two-part radio series, what are your thoughts? What are your reactions to the issues Harris raises? Are you satisfied with the answers given during part two? Or, if you watched the videos instead (or listened to a different radio clip), what is your response? If you choose to be generous enough to take the time to respond, please specify which radio/video clip you're talking about..

The Autumn Reading Summary (part 2)

2006-11-30T22:40:00.000-05:00

Vivekananda said: "We put our hands over our eyes and weep that it is dark."

Here are a few more snippets from what I've been reading lately. I promise that my next "Reading Summary" installment will be more focused, with longer passages of text and probably a single author. Until then, peruse the following...

First, I've been reading through the intellectual journaling of an online author named Daniel (starting with the oldest entries and working forward from there). Here's a few excerpts, each with a link to its origin, for context.

"...From there I realized that the more fundamentalist the basis for a person's stance on certain issues, the less interested he is in being objective to reality..." click

"When I was a Christian I read Christian books to find out the Christian views on all things non-Christian. How quickly my knowledge turned on me once I decided to learn of issues for what they are, as opposed to what all Christians want them to be." click

"The most serious demand for unquestioned belief is, of course, the atonement..." click

"...The more desperate one becomes for the very voice of God, the literal words from His heart and mind [that would best answer] our unique questions, the louder that silence becomes..." click

"Either God elects or he does not, but the surest way to reveal that he doesn't is for Christians to acquire their flock by indoctrination." click

Also, here's a quote that Amy and I both liked: "Skeptic does not mean him who doubts, but him who investigates or researches, as opposed to him who asserts and thinks that he has found."
–Miguel de Unamuno

She and I also just read through a novel by Hermann Hesse, called Demian. First, two quotes from the pen of the main character, and then two quotes from the mouth of his mysterious friend, whom the novel is named after.

Emil Sinclair wrote, "All I really wanted was to try and live the life that was spontaneously welling up within me. Why was that so very difficult?"

And later, he wrote, "And very many are hung up for good on this reef and for the rest of their life cling painfully to the irretrievable past, to the dream of the lost paradise, which is the worst and most murderous of all dreams."

Once, Max Demian said to Emil, "They cling to ideals that no longer count, and they cast stones at everyone who proclaims a new one."

At a different time, Max also told him, "Only the thoughts that we live out have any value. You knew that your 'permissable world' was only half the world, and you tried to hide away the second half from yourself, the way clergymen and teachers do. You won't succeed! No one can do that when he has once begun to think."

If these brief glimpses (from a story about a two-world dichotomy, and a journey of individuation and finding one's self) spike your interest, Demian is a pretty short novel that can be obtained on the cheap, or for free at your local library. Or, because Project Gutenberg is so wonderful, you could read Siddhartha, which is probably Hesse's best-known work.

What Upsets Me About The Recent Election

2006-11-11T16:39:00.000-05:00

While I was quite happy to attend John Yarmuth's election (and victory) party on Tuesday evening, and while it is encouraging to see such local progress reflected in the nationwide tide of Democratic victories, there are still a few things about this week's election results that are troubling to me.

For instance, Bob Corker defeated the Democratic candidate Harold Ford, Jr. in the Tennessee Senate race. Shame on the non (or disgruntled) Republicans in that state who didn't turn out to vote for Ford. But what is more upsetting is that so many people would vote for Corker, considering that he is known to have been involved in shady land deals where protected wetlands were sold to Wal*Mart. Yes, Wal*Mart. How anybody could vote for somebody who would sell such an important natural resource, to Wal*Mart, is beyond me. Furthermore, Corker is known to be willfully ignorant in the face of the scientific evidence regarding global warming. That such a candidate didn't result in an additional victory for Democrats is astonishing.

Also, it is startling that John Shimkus so easily defeated the Democratic candidate Dan Stover in the Illinois Congress race. Again, any Democrat voters who stayed at home on Tuesday should be ashamed. But it is surprising that Shimkus won by such a wide margin, when it is known that he kept his fellow Page Board members in the dark concerning his knowledge of Foley's impropriety, back in late 2005. At best, such behavior is extremely suspicious, and I wouldn't have anticipated so many people voting for Shimkus in spite of it.

I find both of these instances troubling, but it's obvious that we are blind to the local circumstances, issues, and campaign advertising (except for that smutty, racist anti-Harold Ford attack ad), and their effects on the outcome.

However, the import of both of these examples is exceeded by other voting results, not for candidates, but for initiatives. In seven out of the eight states where such an issue was on the ballot, people voted to ban same-sex marriage. While the new Democrat majorities in both Houses of Congress is surely cause for celebration, such a victory is quickly tempered when we consider the passage of these marriage bans. It may be true that people across the country have voted in favor of fiscal responsibility, scientific integrity, accountable governing, and sensible foreign policy. But the sobering reality is that many people are also voting in favor of bigotry and religious discrimination.

Progressives and moderates will do well not to take too much solace in the congressional switch-over, knowing that there are still very important issues requiring serious attention and diligent effort in the years to come.

The Autumn Reading Summary (part 1)

2006-10-21T03:17:00.000-05:00

Pindar said: "Mistress of high achievement, O lady Truth, do not let my understanding stumble across some jagged falsehood."

In between the time I've been spending reading my sociology and geoscience textbooks, I've found a bit of time (every now and then) to read for enjoyment and personal interest. Here are a few excerpts that I found particularly interesting...

First, I've been reading a bit of Plato. Specifically, several of his dialogues of Socrates. All of the following quotes (except one) are thus Plato's account of what Socrates said.

From Euthyphro, "Consider this question: is what is pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved?" This question of yours, Socrates, has been named the "Euthyphro dilemma," and ever since you asked it more than 2,400 years ago, it has been running philosophers and theologians around in circles. I'm mildly annoyed that I was 26 years old before I came across it..

In Phaedo, Simmias says, "[That idea] appealed to me, without any proof to support it, as being based on plausible analogy; which is why most people find it attractive. But I realize that theories which rest their proof upon plausibility are imposters, and unless you are on your guard, they deceive you properly, both in geometry and everywhere else." He has a good point there, Socrates. And he voices this insight right in the middle of a conversation in which you clearly demonstrate man's ability to prop up quite ridiculous beliefs by all means of dubious "proof." That's ironic, in my opinion.

From Meno, "...true opinions...are not worth much until you fasten them up with the reasoning of cause and effect." Quite true, Socrates, but good luck convincing most people of that.

To which Socrates might reply, "But my dear Crito, why should we pay so much attention to what 'most people' think? The really reasonable people, who have more claim to be considered, will believe that the facts are exactly as they are." I don't think I can disagree with you there.

From Phaedo, "You know how, in an argument, people who have no real education care nothing for the facts of the case, and are only anxious to get their point of view accepted by the audience?" I think I know just what you mean, Socrates...

Second, in keeping with my occasional habit of science reading just before bed (previously Stephen Hawking, or Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy), I've started reading The Whole Shebang. It was written by Timothy Ferris, and so far it is quite good. From the preface:

"Religious systems are inherently conservative, science inherently progressive."

And...

"Scientific findings, even the most imposing ones, customarily stumble into the world fraught with blunders that have to be worked out before they really begin to fly. They lack the satisfying, thunderclap certitude of religious and pseudoscientific dicta that admit to no error. But they are alive, and the withering of one branch of a theory does not necessarily mean that the theory as a whole is doomed."

That second sentence is a truly impressive sequence of words. It reminds me a bit of some of the text that I plan to share in part two of my autumn reading summary, which I will hopefully post soon.

Attention Republican Party

2006-10-06T16:43:00.000-05:00

Dear GOP,

The cost of obtaining my vote has gone up. The new price requires rational and logical support for planks in the platform, and policies that are honest, accountable, and responsible.

My vote will no longer be obtained by appeals to neo-Fundamentalist values. I will not be swayed by a "pro-life" banner that contains mutually contradictory positions (anti-abortion but pro-death penalty and pro-war; anti-stem cell research but pro-invitro fertilization, et cetera). My vote will not be won by religiously-motivated "abstinance only" campaigns that have spent billions on an "education" program that has been proven (time and again) to be ineffective, and that often includes overt lying to children.

Furthermore, the trumpeting of conservative "family values" that represent nothing more than bigotry, thinly veiled oppression, fear, religiously-fueled discrimination, and hatred, will absolutely not convince me to vote in your favor.

I will no longer vote for a party who has shown repeatedly that it has no respect for scientific integrity.

My vote will not go to a party who's leadership has consistently engaged in illegal activities (secret military tribunals, unconstitutional wiretaps, blatant cruelty and torture and seemingly endless violations of the Geneva Conventions) and steadfastly refuses to admit to any wrong-doing. In fact, rather than own up to its deeds, the administration had instead asked for "clarity" in an attempt to re-write the rules and legalize the torture they've been caught doing. Such behavior is completely appalling and absolutely unacceptable.

Speaking of illegal activities... How many people in the current administration have been indicted now? Libby, Noe, Safavian, DeLay, and soon Frist, and others? My vote will not be had by any Republican who ignores or approves of such wide-ranging problems.

I will not vote for any candidates that engage in their party's new "strategy" of using name-calling and made-up-words to marginalize opposing views and obfuscate legitimate matters of importance. The new fad of using empty transitory slogans, one-liner (or recently, one-worder) epithets, and divisive polarizing rhetoric will simply not earn my vote, and should be recognized for what it is: childish and an obstacle to progress.

My vote will not be given to the party that repeatedly attempts to cancel programs that hold it accountable for its policies. Examples, such as trying to silence the SIPP because it proves an increase in US poverty, railroading the OSC by dispensing with whistleblower protection, and granting the Pentagon arbitrary immunity from the FOIA, are indicative of Orwellian government and should be exposed and decried, not tacitly approved of.

I will not vote for a party who's fiscal and economic policies have encouraged or caused one of the largest deficits in history (including a nearly 9 trillion dollar national debt), and promoted the enrichment of the rich. Furthermore, I will not vote in favor of an administration that seeks to increase spending on propaganda while cutting support for real reporting from PBS and NPR.

The above is a brief explanation of the many reasons I have for reconsidering how I spend my vote. It should be clear that even without considering the increasing problems and mistakes of the "war on terror" (and the administration-leaked NIE report that says invading Iraq has made terrorism worse), the reasons are plentiful. I would encourage others to think carefully and weigh the value of your vote, and join me in my resolve not to give that vote away for far too cheap a price.

The Summer Reading Summary

2006-07-24T10:30:00.000-05:00

Among the joys of married life, I've found time recently to get some reading done. Here's a glance at what I've enjoyed so far.

Scripture, Tradition, and Infallibility by Dewey M. Beegle

This was one of those accidental and exciting finds you sometimes come across while browsing through a rummage shop of old odds and ends - antiques, used furniture, miscellaneous books. After starting to read through parts of it, imagine my surprise when I realized that along with McKinsey, Beegle is the main target of all of the inerrancy reading I've done for classes at college. Of course, my schooling tells me that these two men are scoundrels - how dare they question inerrancy, let alone have the audacity to list case after case where errancy is proven. Beegle's text is lucid, and he cogently presents individual cases as well as he summarizes general problems, such as the New Testament's heavy reliance on the (often wrongly translated) Septuagint when quoting from the Old. Later, in reflecting on results, he wrote...

"From beginning to end, history warns us that theological Maginot lines or fences fail to achieve their purpose. Not only do they fail to protect, but they also restrict the outreach of the truth being guarded. This is the ultimate tragedy of all legalism."

Later, in explaining the authoritarian reasoning behind inerrancy, he quotes James Smart:

"Doctrines and practices soundly based on an infallible Scripture could not be subject to any essential change. There could be no error in them. Thus has man in different ages used Scripture to establish his own or his own human church's authority over men."

The Dharma Bums by Jack Kerouac

Buddhist philosophy, hitchhiking, and living out of a rucksack as Kerouac wanders 1950's West Coast America. I laughed at his recounting of a time when he was living in a small shack with his friend, a shack that neighborhood kids thought was abandoned. The kids snuck up to the tiny house to peek inside, but just then Kerouac opened the door while holding a big black cat and said "I am the ghost." The kids were quite frightened, ran away and didn't return.

Towards the end of the book, describing time he spent as a fire lookout on Desolation Peak in Washington state, you will find one of my favorite parts of the story.

"Standing on my head before bedtime on that rock roof of the moonlight I could indeed see that the earth was truly upsidedown and man a weird vain beetle full of strange ideas walking around upsidedown and boasting, and I could realize that man remembered why this dream of planets and plants and Plantagenets was built out of the primordial essence. ...But let the mind beware, that though the flesh is bugged, the circumstances of existence are pretty glorious."

Situation Ethics: The New Morality by Joseph Fletcher

The strength of this text lies in it's attempt at systematic destruction of two other kinds of ethics - legalism and antinomianism. Early in the book, he wrote:

"[Plain legalism] may reveal a punishing and sadistic use of law to hurt people instead of helping them. How else explain burning at the stake in the Middle Ages for homosexuals (death by stoning, in the Old Testament)? Even today [1966] imprisonment up to sixty years is the penalty in one state for those who were actually consenting adults, without seduction or public disorder! This is really unavoidable whenever law instead of love is put first..."

Later, two small points that Fletcher makes are of large importance in my mind. The first is the simple (and fully adequate) response to reactionary arguments such as the "slippery slope" and "abuse of freedom" tacts. Simply: Abusus non tollit usum - abuse does not bar use. Second, he questions the ubiquitous maxim "the end does not justify the means." To this oft-assumed statement he asks: then what does? What else but the end could justify the means? Certainly, he makes sure to be clear that the ends do not justify any old means we can think of, but in the final analysis his reasoning is compelling: if means are not justified by their intended end, then they are not good means.

In a shorter dose, I also recently read an excellent article (and subsequent discussion) concerning bad religion. It was written by Mark Isaak and is called "The Larger Issue of Bad Religion." You may find it interesting.

My intention now is to read yet another book. This time, a book by some silly scientist named Stephen Hawking, called "I know more than everybody."

Soon to be married...

2006-02-27T18:00:00.000-05:00

So, the moment that Amy will become my wife is only 96 days away. Which causes me to contemplate a few things about the way life works...

I take particular enjoyment in a few interests of mine: novels, music, video games, movies. There are particular video games that I strongly believe are perfect. I could explain at length to you the many brilliant aspects of one of them that come together and amount to "total genius." There are books that I love, and have read multiple times, and am sure to read yet again. I have favorite bands, whose music I could extol with abundant words of praise. There are movies that I think are so expertly made that they contain no flaw.

But in all of these areas, I am supremely incapable of choosing just one. No matter how amazing Zelda is, I cannot forsake all other video games and play only it. No matter how mightily Dream Theater blisters my ear drums, there is still other music that I must also listen to. I could read Gibson's sprawl trilogy a third time, but there will still be many other novels that I cherish. I may have favorites, but they are indeed favorites among many.

Yet, strangely enough, I know without doubt that there is only one woman for me. She is a favorite unto herself, and without peer. Despite my refusal to abstain from variety in virtually all other areas of life, in this one instance I am powerfully persuaded that there is indeed only one, and I choose her exclusively.

2006-01-04T01:32:00.000-05:00

"Quixotic Quotes"...not for the faint of heart.

ID (intelligent design) is not creationism, and can be perfectly compatible with evolution. This is why we're asking schools to teach the "evidence against evolution". [click]

We're not creationists, except for those of us who are, but the rest of us won't confirm that we're not. But if you call us creationists, we'll complain to no end. [click]

ID is a widely accepted theory in the scientific community. Just last year, over 100 scientists signed a statement which does not support ID, but does say that they are "skeptical" of Darwinism. The opinions of tens of thousands of other scientists don't count, because they're all biased. [click]

Mainstream scientists dare not disagree with the monolithic block that is Darwinian orthodoxy. However, here are a number of mainstream scientists who disagree with each other on some issues, which means that they can't agree on anything. [click]

Darwinists are driven by religious and ideological motivations. But since we've removed the picture of God and the phrase "Cultural Renewal" from our website, everyone knows this isn't true of us. [click]

Absolutely everything wrong in society is caused by dogmatic Darwinian atheistic materialists. Including stereotyping, demonizing, and scapegoating. [click]

Since the peppered moth case has been proven problematic, natural selection is disproven. The other 1,582 studies of natural selection in the wild, as well as the numerous laboratory studies, don't count. [click]

And peppered moths don't rest on tree trunks. The actual datasets of moths found in natural positions in the wild, off but also on trunks, are irrelevant because researchers have captured thousands of moths over the years in their moth traps, and not once has a moth in a trap been found on a tree trunk. [click]

As demonstrated above, moths don't rest on tree trunks, which means that the photographs showing the contrasting conspicuousness of moths on tree trunks found in textbooks are FRAUDS. All the other staged animal photos in textbooks are however unobjectionable. [click]