Archive for February 2007
Double Standard, or Just the Boobs?
Kim has up a bit of a memorial to Anna Nicole Smith that I agree with wholeheartedly. Damn right. I’ve always gotten a kick out of flamboyant celebrities and entertainers who understand how to exploit the public propensity to mindless adoration and take maximum advantage of it in the short space of time they can. Good for them. I really can’t add anymore to what Kim said, and it’s the best analysis of that sort of thing you’re likely to read. Reminded me just a bit of Ayn Rand’s praise of Marilyn Monroe — though Miss Rand did not see fit to grace us with photos. But there is one thing I’ve got to call Kim on: She started off as a counter girl at the Dairy Queen in Mexia, Texas, and anyone who’s ever been to Mexia (and other towns like it) will not begrudge inhabitants of said towns the opportunity to escape them any way they can. Mexia, Texas, I guess; but not Mexico, Mexico.
Read MoreWhat’s the Problem?
Rogier van Bakel points to a bit of trouble in China (and elsewhere) surrounding government censorship in the various media to ban or curtail certain promotions, programs, or publicity starring le cochon, for fear of offending the sensibilities (values) of Muslims. Perhaps someone would care to explain to me what different principle is in play, there, in communist China, that’s different, say, from the ban of cigarette advertising here and elsewhere. How about restrictions on sexual content, or the uttering of particular words that some people find offensive? Personally, I don’t see a thing fundamentally different in any of it. Most of you, out there, seem perfectly willing to endorse or stand by while your values are respected by force, or your disvalues restricted from others by force. But then someone comes along and respects or restricts something you happen to disvalue or value, respectively, and you cry foul. Why? Is that honest? Is that the sort of irrational bigotry and prejudice you instill in your children? (Note: I don’t count Rogier amongst “most of you.”) Wouldn’t it be cool to live in a world where most everyone was self-assured enough to not require official sanction or condemnation of their…
Read MoreThe Rebel Billionaire
I’ll just say it: Richard Branson epitomizes what I’m all about in ways I can’t even describe. I really can’t think of anyone else that pursues the kinds of values and does it in the way Branson does. He just gets his hands in all sorts of things: created a couple of mega-businesses, numerous successful brands, broke several world records, attempted many adventuresome others, and is pioneering private space tourism in company with another Great One: Burt Rutan. By now, you’ve probably heard of the prize. I can’t help but be a bit disappointed. I’d like to think that he’s just doing it in his typical style of gaining unconventional publicity (that’s what he is, more than anything: a master of publicity) — that he’s really not so naive as to believe that this thing is settled. But I just don’t know. And, anyway, who’s to say whether or not whatever comes out of this will be truly beneficial, or not? At any rate, it’s none of my business. It just gives me a bad taste, that’s all. I’m a fan of Trump’s series, The Apprentice. Yea, Trump is annoying, but in spite of that, he delivers a whole lot…
Read MoreHard to Keep Good Scientists Down
On the heels of a rare entry on global warming comes this (via Kurzweil): When politicians and journalists declare that the science of global warming is settled, they show a regrettable ignorance about how science works. We were treated to another dose of it recently when the experts of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued the Summary for Policymakers that puts the political spin on an unfinished scientific dossier on climate change due for publication in a few months’ time. They declared that most of the rise in temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to man-made greenhouse gases. While I agree that most politicians and journalists are certainly ignorant about how science works, I don’t see that as causal. It’s actually a tool. They strive to ignore honest inquiry (evade reality), because the “value” they are acting for is not honesty, integrity, or truth. And what better way to exploit the ignorance in others than to develop a keen insight into how such ignorance functions to generate rationalizations (dishonesties and evasions) within one’s self? You can apply this same line of analysis to whole hosts of things. There’s nothing special about global warming. Generally, the value…
Read MoreHarris v. Sullivan
I’d intended to blog the debate between best-selling author and atheist Sam Harris and the pro-religious conservative Andrew Sullivan, but at the time, it was still in progress and I wanted to also take some time to highlight a few things. While I’m going to highlight my favorite parts, this is in no way an adequate substitution for reading the full context. [Harris] Where I think we disagree is on the nature of faith itself. I think that faith is, in principle, in conflict with reason (and, therefore, that religion is necessarily in conflict with science), while you do not. […] My use of the word is meant to capture belief in specific religious propositions without sufficient evidence—prayer can heal the sick, there is a supreme Being listening to our thoughts, we will be reunited with our loved ones after death, etc. […] Given my view of faith, I think that religious “moderation” is basically an elaborate exercise in self-deception, while you seem to think it is a legitimate and intellectually defensible alternative to fundamentalism. [Sullivan] The reason I find fundamentalism so troubling – whether it is Christian, Jewish or Muslim – is not just its willingness to use violence…
Read MoreReligion, Terror, and Self-Transcendence
Sam Harris, in a more comprehensive version of a speech I’ve previously seen. It’s also more tightly integrated in terms of the philosophical (epistemological) status of reason and the utter bankruptcy of faith, in the religious sense of the word, which I’m happy to differentiate from the common use of what can simply pass for confidence. Give it a look. For those perplexed by my recent inquiry into Eastern religious traditions, educating myself as to things of which I have not previously been aware, part 3 gives a very able summary concerning the basis of my interest.
Read MoreThe Law is an Ass
“‘If the law supposes that,’ said Mr. Bumble, squeezing his hat emphatically in both hands, ‘the law is a ass — a idiot.'” — Charles Dickens, Oliver Twist Another case of kids being immorally and criminally prosecuted and convicted by the immoral and the criminal. It is precisely because, dear readers, that the law is wholly and irreconcilably incompatible with ethics that we arrive at breathtaking contortions of “reason” such as this: Oh, but there’s more. From the majority opinion: Further, if these pictures are ultimately released, future damage may be done to these minors’ careers or personal lives. These children are not mature enough to make rational decisions concerning all the possible negative implications of producing these videos.Emphasis mine. And what effect, I wonder, does Judge Wolf think a child pornography conviction will have on “these minors’ careers or personal lives?” It is at times like these that I most wonder whether civilization will survive. I suspect it probably will, but if it does, it will only be in spite of the law.
Read MoreConsensus
I believe that in matters requiring a high degree of knowledge and specialization, it’s not only proper, but essential and desirable — think: division of labor — to defer to the work and conclusions of experts. This is why advocating and stressing the integrity of the scientific process, to include peer review, is so essential. In a real sense, we are at their mercy, just as you are at the mercy of a whole chain of engineering science performed by those qualified (not to mention the flight crew) every time you step on a plane. Ought the design of an airliner conform to physical aeronautical, metallurgical, and chemical principles, or ought it conform to the political and social views of the day? I have never once in my life suspected that very much of what passes for environmental science is being conducted honestly. What’s more, consensus is being claimed that simply does not exist, as a matter-of-fact that is undeniable by any honest person. Whoever claims that the debate is over, the results are in, and that consensus exists but for a small band of fringe kooks is simply lying, and ought never be regarded seriously in matters of science…
Read MoreKitlers
Any minute now, the WWW is literally going to have everything.
Read MoreIt’s Not Nothing
The news has been out for about a day about the police who conspired to get 90-ish Kathryn Johnston on drug charges, then murdered her in a shower of gunfire, and finally conspired to cover it up by preying on yet another innocent person. The first reaction, completely natural of course, is to think that perhaps justice will be done. But justice, in the most general sense, is the idea that everyone gets what they deserve. Kathryn Johnston didn’t deserve to die, so there’s no way for her to ever attain justice. Billy elaborates all over that, for ya.
Read MoreMetaphysics
I’m not dead yet. I have gained what I consider to be some valuable insights, and those mainly have to do with how one handles one’s ego. Whether how that has influenced me in what might be considered the intended way may be another story, but I’ll get to that later. For the time being, I wanted to throw something out there with respect to metaphysics. The Eastern traditions don’t really subscribe to the anthropomorphic, personal God we know so well in the West. By many ways of thinking, here, they would be atheists. Of course, that was one element of curiosity for me — going back to the five years I lived in Japan in the 80s. There is nonetheless a struggle to serve God, but “god” is really, for lack of a better description, “consciousness.” The rub is that by consciousness, I think they mean something with a different nature than we do. Anyway, here was a sent item from this morning. Wondering if anyone had any particular thoughts, insights, or flames. I can artificially categorize four metaphysical models implicit in all of our discussions, loosely describes as follows: 1. Anthropomorphic, personal God. 2. Physical world (existence), and…
Read MoreSilly Me
My email reply just now, upon receiving sound legal advice that I ought not do something nice and just for someone, because it could come back to bite me, given the status of current employment law litigation. Yea, OK. Pardon my lapse. For a second there, I was living in a fantasy world where officers, directors, and shareholders actually had more moral authority in matters of business practices than disgruntled ex-employees, trial lawyers, courts, and society at large. Silly me.
Read MoreIt’s Only Natural
According to Daniel C. Dennett, author of the recently published Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon, it is. Here’s what I would consider a captivating and interesting interview on the Charlie Rose show, with Bill Moyers sitting in.
Read MoreRelax. It’s Perfectly Safe.
I posted a bit of a dig yesterday on America’s kinda aw, shucks attitude with respect to established scientific fact that tends to stretch the bounds of certain religious doctrines out of all proportion. And so John Sabotta replies: I don’t believe in evolution. Sorry. I’m going to repost my own reply here — not because I want to make fun of John, but really just to shed light on the fact that there is nothing in the world that’s particularly new about this phenomenon. I expect the evasion of the fact of evolution to persist for at least some more decades to come. The fact that acceptance of the facts is over 80% in some countries, and now even 40% in America essentially guarantees that it’s only a matter of time. Once some aspect of reality (like, say, the tyranny of Great Britain over Colonial America) is recognized by 15% of a population, the rest is only a matter of time. Only about 13% of colonists initially supported the revolution. This is about science, not revolution and politics, and yet, I believe that makes no difference whatsoever in gaining acceptance of facts. Perhaps it’s even harder, since acceptance of…
Read MoreBlasphemy Update
I originally wrote about it here. And here’s Fox’s John Kasich interviewing Brian Flemming, one of the organizers of The Blasphemy Challenge, as well as producer of the DVD they’re giving away. There’s other media coverage too. The Nightline piece is pretty comprehensive and includes all the standard relativist objections. The local Roanoke, VA coverage is really shrill and funny. Regarding the Kasich piece, I get that a lot, too. “Why are you so angry?” Gee, I dunno. Should I be? Should I be angry that the first 20 years of my life were deeply influenced by falsehood, and that it takes years of effort to overcome and “reprogram” some of the automatic values responses (emotions) that are instilled at such a young age? Should I, or anyone else, be angry about growing up under the implicit threat of eternal damnation, torture, and torment — and not only for one’s self, but for other loved ones, like one’s cherished grandparents? How about being told, from an age when one only just begins to ask deeper questions, like, “am I going to heaven?” that, indeed, having already told four lies is too much. Too bad. You’re only six. Game over. Well,…
Read MoreNot Last!
Nope. Just second to last. In terms of accepting plain old facts. And for those of you who have yet to understand what theory means in a scientific context…? Note that one may indeed refer to the theory of gravity. Way to get out in front of the future, America!
Read MoreMr. Deity
Oh, my. I must confess: these are quite entertaining. Hilarious. I dare you to get past episodes one and two without getting hooked into watching all six.
Read MoreMake Them a Better Offer
Here’s quite a disturbing video documentary from the UK via Richard Dawkins’ site. It’s an hour long, but I just kept it open in a tab and watched it in bits and pieces: Dispatches – Undercover Mosque. I can’t say that I leaned anything really new, but it’s a pretty integrated piece, covering a lot of ground surrounding the network in the UK of extremist Islam that seeks to radicalize and energize their own flocks, as well as to proselytize the young. In that context, it’s difficult not to see this as simply the natural consequence of human and social evolution. Our values, as well as our “vices” — that we are nevertheless free to engage in — are pushing up against their culture and they’re fighting back. I really don’t believe that Muslims on a large scale want to take over the world, or even to cripple the West’s ability to generate the sort of material wealth (and “vices”) it does. Essentially, I think, this is an instance where they correctly see that the West does not offer them any spiritual values — only material ones — and those material values are seen as corrosive and displacing of their…
Read MoreThe Difference Between Truth and Honesty
“Hillary!” utters a truth. Did you catch it? “Take” is one of the correct words. It’s accurate. It’s a truth. She does indeed intend to take those profits. But in the overall context, she’s being dishonest. She uses the word “take” because of its moral ambiguity. If she were honest, she would have used the word “steal,” and the overall context would be honest in addition to truthful. And her political career would be over. This is why you have no end to politicians telling you that they have told the truth. They rarely, if ever, claim to have been honest. Watch for it. (Venlet)
Read MoreHard to Shake It
I’ve made a conscious effort around here to dwell not so heavily on the negative. That doesn’t mean it’s not there, or that it’s to be ignored or downplayed, but simply a recognition that there are positive things to highlight, too, as well as some pointed questions to ask — in addition to always only passing summary judgment — and I want to do more of that. Still, it’s very difficult to shake it — the urge to highlight the negative and pass swift judgment — when the shame and disgrace is this bad. The whole story, here. Now, you can come up with any characterization of officers Melody Spencer and Kevin Schnell of the Kansas City Police Department that you like. For me, a single word came to mind as I watched that video: animals. I was watching a Discovery HD show last night and, amazingly, saw nighttime footage of a pride of lions in Botswana take down a large bull elephant because it was the only thing left to eat. But they’re predators. That’s their nature and we can’t fault them for it. Give them a larger brain; put them in uniform; arm them with a club, handcuffs,…
Read More