I Will Try to be Polite, But...

Today I received what seems like the umpteenth appeal from Mitt Romney, or at least his campaign, for my "support", which is politicese for money.


Allow me to explain what it would mean for me to support Mr. Romney, who I am sure is a reasonably fine fellow in many regards. It would mean in essence that I believed that someone who believes that a here-there-to unmentioned angel was sent from god to visit and provide an updated revelation to a petty convicted felon in upstate New York, that not only was the Garden of Eden an historical fact and place, but that its location was somewhere in Missouri that no one has quite stumbled across just yet, that Native Americans were really the Lost Tribe(s?) of Israel, that Jesus found time (and a previously undisclosed form of transportation) during his short duration on earth to visit said Lost Folks, and that wearing a special kind of magic underwear could and would make you a better person, was fit to be president of the most powerful nation on earth.


Hell, I don't even believe that someone who believes all that, and much more I have not the time to mention, should even be permitted unsupervised home visits, much less allowed to ascend to such a high and prestigious office.


But here's the thing, even if I believed all of the above was sane and logical and defensible, I still could not and would not lift a finger nor spend a bad penny on Mr. Romney's behalf.  You see, I also believe marriage is a civil right whether a band of bronze-age, cattle-sacrificing nomads believed so or not.  I believe that no American should be summarily executed without a fair trial, nor detained without the ability to exercise their rights under habeas corpus.  I believe that taxation without representation applies every bit as much to our grandchildren as it did to our forefathers, and that it is unconscionable for us to leave them 50 to 100 trillions of dollars in debt simply because we cannot screw up the moral courage to bring federal government spending under control. I believe that for too long we have served as both the world's policeman and financier, and we now need to refocus our efforts and our treasure on our problems rather than on someones else's.  Finally, although I could go on like this for a very long time, I believe that we have destroyed too many lives and invested far too much of our resources fighting an unwinnable "War on Drugs".


So no Mr. Romney, or whoever is sending me these mailings, you can save yourself any and all additional printing and postage, because I believe on one hand you are batshit crazy, and on the other you are merely more of the same.  Believe me when I say I have my fill of both.

What Carnivores and Prey Animals Can Teach Each Other

A "Science and Religion" blog is running a "discussion" under the following headline:

What Believers and Atheists Can Teach Each Other

Taking their lead, I just might do a bit and title it "What Carnivores and Prey Animals Can Teach Each Other".  Seriously!

The only thing a religious person can teach me is how they have finally decided to keep their cosmic fantasies to themselves, which means from this moment forward refraining from attempts to impose their peculiar world views on others in general, and me in particular, whether through government mandates, undermining of the educational process, especially as it pertains to Science, and/or one or another form of ecclesiastical imperialism.

I am, by the way, most ready to return the favor. As soon as the religious get out of my face, I swear to stop bitching about them being in my face.  It only seems fair.

Hari-ed?

Talk about surreal.


I did some shopping at my local Market Street grocery this afternoon.  I was checking out, preparing to pay with my debit card, when the cashier began ringing a bell and dancing up and down, soon to be followed by the bag girl.


Had I been in Britain I would have been nonplussed, here I settled for slackjawed.  Was Market Street now hiring Hari Krishnas?  Was I an unwitting participant in a cosmic joke?


Fortunately, nothing so bizarre. Shortly the cashier paused her bell ringing to inform me I had won free groceries.  Sure enough, the register screen was displaying $0.00 where seconds before it had read $208 and change. I shop there all the time, and had no idea they even did such a thing.


And 208 bucks beats a gaggle of Krishnas any day.

Worth Considering...

For all my Progressive/Liberal friends who, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, still subscribe to the mantra that more government regulation and/or involvement in the banks, or healthcare, or whatever, will make those things safer, cheaper, fairer and so on, I offer up some info on one example where the U.S. did actually deregulate an industry:


In 1978, Congress deregulated the airline industry.  Between 1950 and 1978, the Civil Aeronautics Board had received 79 applications for startup interstate airlines, and rejected every one of them, effectively protecting the business and profits of a handful of legacy carriers.


Since 1978 however:

• Airline fares have fallen eighteen percent in real dollar terms,
• Airline safety has improved year after year and air travel is now safer than it has ever been,
• Air travel has been opened up to the vast majority of Americans.  Prior to 1978, fewer than 20% of Americans had ever flown on a commercial airliner, today it is estimated that 85% have done so, and
• Competition has increased dramatically, with airlines such as Southwest, Jet Blue, Horizon, and Virgin America (to name just a few) forcing what is left of the legacy carriers to reorganize, retool, and rethink their approach to the business.

Faced with these results, and the fact that most large industries are still heavily regulated, over-regulated actually, how can anyone argue that federal regulation or control is a good thing, or that the public interest would not be better served with far less regulation as opposed to more?

Ernie Hancock has famously stated that "There are only two kinds of people in the world, those who want to be left alone and those that won't let them".  I submit that the forces of regulation are manned entirely by "those who won't let them", and that they are what stands between Americans and cheaper, more accessible healthcare, lower bank fees, better energy sources, and on and on.  The cost to progress, and fairness, is enormous.

Penn "Smokes" the President

Penn Jillette takes President Obama to task for his cavalier attitude about, and harsh treatment of,
non-violent drug offenders.


.

The Law of Unintended Consequences...

One more example, two actually, of how Government Poisons Everything:

Real Money...

A Libertarian friend, Jeffrey Jones, sent me the following info. It portrays as well as anything I have seen the awful impact out of control government spending and a money-printing Federal Reserve have had on our real wages and inflation. Imagine how much better off we'd be today if we were paid in gold, even without receiving a raise over the past 50 years.  

Average wages in 1959: $5,016 - or 143 oz. of Gold


Average wages in 1977: $15,000 - or 120 oz of Gold


Average wages in 1999: $28,970 - or 104 oz of Gold


Average wages in 2008: $41,335 - 53 oz of Gold

And they say Ron Paul is nuts!

Epicurus, Lucretius, and Thomas Jefferson

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

Attributed to Epicurus, circa 300 BCE

In the strictest sense, Epicurus probably was not an Atheist.  He at least claimed to believe in the gods of ancient Greece, but at the same time curiously asserted that they were not at all concerned with humankind.  Being gods, what need might they have of us, or concern as to how we lived?

Other contributions of Epicurus include the promotion and further explanation of the atomist hypotheses generally attributed to Democritus, an early stab at a hypothesis of evolution, and the supposition that the earth was not the center of the “world”, nor for that matter was the sun.  Rather, he wrote, the stars were all suns like ours, and as such they would be surrounded by planets like our earth which would be inhabited by “other races”.  Further, he asserted, death was not to be feared – for we were dead before we were born.  Death was simply the atoms which composed our body rearranging themselves once again.  (And all this 300 years before a questionable and gory series of events in Palestine set human progress back at least a thousand years.

He may be best known however for his philosophy that living a life of pleasure was the highest ideal to which we can aspire.  By “pleasure” Epicurus was not referring to copious amounts of rich food, great wine, or sex, but rather to the simpler pleasures of learning, discourse, moderation, and living without fear.

Only three letters and a few small scraps of his writing is all we have left of Epicurus; all, except for the epic poem On the Nature of Things by the Roman writer and philosopher Lucretius.  The Roman’s work itself was nearly lost to us, only to be retrieved in the 15^th century by Poggio Bracciolini, a Papal secretary.  Many historians credit the rediscovery of Lucretius’ work with providing an impetus for:  first the Renaissance, and later the Enlightenment.  We know that many Enlightenment figures such as Montaigne, Locke, and Diderot owned copies of, and made frequent reference to, On the Nature of Things.

And here’s the thing:  Thomas Jefferson owned at least five copies of the multi-volume poem, and referred to it frequently.  You certainly recall his phrase “…life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness…”, the last phrase of which is pure Epicurus.

In the past, upon reading Jefferson’s phrase “…Nature and Nature’s God…”, I have always assumed he was making a reference to the Deist god, a deity which after the act of creation went off to play Bridge, or perhaps badminton or something, with the other gods and was thus unconcerned with mere mortals or anything else in nature.  (Sorry Christian revisionists, T.J. was not one of you.) What if, however, Jefferson was instead referring to Einstein’s god; nature and the laws of nature themselves?  Einstein was familiar with Lucretius and thus Epicurean thought, just as was Jefferson.  I recently found what could be considered at least strong circumstantial evidence:

In a letter to William Short, dated October 31, 1819, Jefferson answered in response to an inquiry as to his guiding philosophy, “I am an Epicurean.”  Further, “I consider the genuine (not imputed) doctrines of Epicurus as containing everything rational in moral philosophy…” In his diary, John Quincy Adams attributed a similar response to Jefferson during an 1807 dinner conversation.  At the very least we can rule out Christianity as being at the core of the author of the Declaration’s moral core.

Proof?  Perhaps not.  Stronger evidence however than the Cult of Torture and Human Sacrifice can offer, and that is a start.

SENDING HIS SON TO ISRAEL

A Jewish businessman in Chicago decides to send his son to Israel to absorb some of the culture from the Jewish Homeland.   When the son returns, the father asks him to tell him about his trip. The son says, "Pop, I had a great time in Israel. By the way, I converted to Christianity." "Oy, vey," says the father, "Vat haf I dun?" He decides to go ask his friend, Jacob, what to do. Jake says, "Funny you should ask. I too sent my son to Israel, and he also came back a Christian. Perhaps we should go see the Rabbi and ask him what we should do." So they go to see the Rabbi. The Rabbi says, "Funny you should ask. I too sent my son to Israel. He also came back a Christian. What is happening to our young people? Perhaps we should go talk to God and ask Him what to do." The three of them pray and explain what has happened to their sons and ask God what to do. Suddenly a Voice loud and clear from Heaven is heard, "Funny you should ask. I, too, sent my son to Israel. . . "

A light-hearted look at "Alternative Medicine"...

“By definition”, I begin

“Alternative Medicine”, I continue

“Has either not been proved to work,

Or been proved not to work.

You know what they call “alternative medicine”

That’s been proved to work?

Medicine.”

“Science adjusts its beliefs based on what’s observed

Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved.

If you show me

That, say, homeopathy works,

Then I will change my mind

I’ll spin on a fucking dime

I’ll be embarrassed as hell,

But I will run through the streets yelling

It’s a miracle! Take physics and bin it!

Water has memory!

And while it’s memory of a long lost drop of onion juice is Infinite

It somehow forgets all the poo it’s had in it!”

Excerpted from “Storm”, by Tim Minchin.

Ohio executes cult leader for 5 Killings

The above headline, from an Associated Press article, is a couple of years old now.  I do not normally read such stories because I am opposed to the Death Penalty for a number of reasons.  But that is not the point today.  The story continued:

“LUCASVILLE, Ohio - Ohio executed a religious cult leader Tuesday for murdering a family of five followers who were taken one at a time to a barn, bound and shot to death. The youngest was a girl just 7 years old.

Jeffrey Lundgren, 56, died by injection at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility. ‘I profess my love for God, my family, for my children, for Kathy (his wife). I am because you are,’ Lundgren said in his final statement.

The evidence against him in the deaths of the Avery family — Dennis, 49, Cheryl, 46, Trina, 15, Rebecca, 13, and 7-year-old Karen — was compelling.

Upset by what he saw as a lack of faith, Lundgren arranged a dinner hosted by cult members. Afterward, he and his followers led the family members one by one — the father first, young Karen last — to their deaths while the others unknowingly cleaned up after dinner.

Lundgren shot each victim two or three times while a running chain saw muffled the sound of the gunfire.

Lundgren argued at his trial in 1990 that he was prophet of God and therefore not deserving of the death penalty.

‘It's not a figment of my imagination that I can in fact talk to God, that I can hear his voice,’ he had told the jurors. ‘I am a prophet of God. I am even more than a prophet.’”

Lundgren formed the cult with about 20 members in the northeast Ohio town of Kirtland after he was dismissed in 1987 as a lay minister of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, an offshoot of the Latter Day Saints church.

He said God commanded him, through interpretation of Scriptures, to kill the Avery family, who had moved from Missouri in 1987 to follow his teachings.

I found the following three passages riveting:

• Lundgren argued at his trial in 1990 that he was prophet of God and therefore not deserving of the death penalty.
• "It's not a figment of my imagination that I can in fact talk to God, that I can hear his voice," he had told the jurors. "I am a prophet of God. I am even more than a prophet."
• He said God commanded him, through interpretation of Scriptures, to kill the Avery family, who had moved from Missouri in 1987 to follow his teachings.

Upon reflection on those three passages, I believe we can all agree that one of the following statements must be true.  Either

1. Jeffery Lundgren was stark-raving mad;
2. Jeffrey Lundgren was lying about his communications with God and his status as a "prophet"; or
3. Jeffrey Lundgren was telling the truth; that is, he was in intimate communication with the Almighty, he was HIS ordained prophet, and he killed the Averys on God's command.

Those are the only choices.  One must be true.

But which is it?

Frankly, unless you are a devoted member of Mr. Lundgren's cult, I am absolutely certain that you have not chosen #3.

Every reader in general, and especially those who profess Christianity in particular, has opted for either explanation #1 or #2.

# 3 is out of the question.  Dismissed.  Impossible.

But why?

Atheists and like-minded secularists have an excellent reason for their choice:  If there is no God, then #3 is not even a remote possibility.  Their response needs no further explanation.

What about those of you who are Christians, Mormons, Jews, or Muslims however?  Why do you reject the third option?  Indeed, how can you?

Your entire belief system is based on the conviction that one or more times in the past, a Deity communicated His wishes and instructions directly to a human or group of humans.  You are certain of this.  There is no question in your mind.

But if God did communicate with man in the past, how can you be so sure that He was not in communication with Mr. Lundgren?  Jerry Falwell claimed that God spoke to him every day, so why not to Mr. Lundgren?

And God has, according to the Bible, often ordered His followers to kill others, including little children.  The God of the Old Testament several times displayed an extremely bloodthirsty and vengeful persona, so how can you know He did not instruct Mr. Lundgren to off the Averys?

You believe that if we all do not accept, worship, and fear this God, He will cast us into Hell and torture us for eternity.  That's pretty serious, even vicious, stuff.  Why then is it impossible to believe Mr. Lundgren was telling the truth?

The fact is I have a clear, concise, and rational reason for rejecting option #3.

No adherent of any "revealed religion", including Christianity, can make the same claim. 

Open Mouth, Insert...President?

Politicians sometimes say the damnedest things.  Take the Democratic governor of Montana for instance.  Obviously sent forth by the Obama campaign as an attack dog now that Mitt Romney is the presumed GOP candidate, the governor went for every negative angle he could find, including pointing out the Mitt's father was born in a polygamous Mormon settlement in Mexico.  That would certainly hurt Mitt, he opined, because polls show American women by a large majority detest polygamy.

True enough.  The history is that polygamy was illegal by the US, and was thus eschewed by the Latter-Day-Saints in order to gain statehood for Utah in the late 1800s.  Some Mormons who considered the practice to be an important part of their faith demurred, emigrating to Mexico, where they peacefully continued to adhere to the original doctrine.

However Mitt's father was not polygamous, nor was his grandfather.  In fact one has to go back to his great-grandfather to find an ancestor who engaged in polygamy.

As unlikely as that connection is to cause a problem for Romney, there is however another candidate for president whose father was polygamous before, when, and after that candidate was born.

That candidate?  Barrack Obama.

So much for zingers.