America: A Basketball Game

Many are still yelling about choice and competition. These are two things that are often incompatible. First off, to have a competition one has to be clear about the fact that a game is being played. In a game someone makes the rules, someone designs the field or court or rink, someone creates the game piece or pieces and someone decides how the game is won or lost. This is where the confusion begins in the U.S. as some have a very primitive, often overly emotional, perspectives about the game being played, while others seem to be open to playing whatever game works.

Let's say, for example, that a fair sample of American citizens are placed on a basketball court, handed a round, orange ball and told that whoever wins the game will receive one million dollars. Knowing only this information, what will follow will likely be complicated, frustrating, time-consuming and unfair. In the beginning there will be a segment of people who will immediately grab the ball and start informing others about how the game of basketball is played and what needs to happen in order for the game to get underway. These people will back their rules with statements like, "This is just commonsense," "Don't over-complicate it," "It will just be easier if you let those of us who know what is going on lead," etc. Others who could care less about the sport of basketball and who are too young, too old, too fragile, not athletic, not tall, potentially injured, disabled, mentally ill, or have creative, critical brains will say, "We weren't told to play a game of basketball, we were put here with this ball and told that whoever wins gets a million dollars. Now let's slow down and work this through."

In reality, the latter argument is obviously correct. Any number of things can be done on a basketball court, with a round, orange ball. However, it is likely that those who are capable of competing in a game of basketball will ignore what they see as whining, complaining, and "crazy" ideas from those who are not able or have no desire to compete at traditional basketball. They will say,"Look, this is a basketball, this is a basketball court, traditionally when someone gives you this ball and places you on this type of court they mean for you to play this particular game." Is it simpler? Yes. Is there choice or freedom involved in telling someone arbitrary rules to an arbitrary game and expecting them to accept this game and these rules as being somehow inherently true? No. Will this deter the basketball players from playing whatever they want and ignoring the voices of the group? No.

This is America today. There are many in our country hell bent on playing the game of basketball. They were taught the rules of basketball growing up, they've practiced at it, they've gotten good at it, and they're already in the process of teaching their kids to play basketball. They base success and failure on the game they were taught to play, and they demonize everyone not focused on playing at this game or having discussions of a different game. Meanwhile, another large section of the population either has come to the conclusion that they are not great at basketball, or find the sport boring, or find the game unfair, or simply want to be recognized for their abilities that have nothing to do with the sport at all. They want to put together committees and start a discussion about a better game to play; a more fair, more engaging, and fulfilling game that includes everyone. Many agree and the discussion begins, but meanwhile, those who have hijacked the court, and stolen the ball are busy running up and down dunking and scoring and congratulating themselves on how successful they are at something they deem worthy of their time. They're ignoring the conversation and have been for a very long time. It is not until a majority of people walk out onto the court and stop the game momentarily and engage these mindless superathletes that some progress toward something more fair occurs. Even then, the change is small, and it is ultimately based on keeping the game of basketball in tact so as to not offend the angry, presumptuous athletes or start a war over differing ideas.

There is nothing inherently necessary or right or successful about playing the game that is being played. Nor, is there any inherent reward in playing an arbitrary game so intensely that one becomes angry and hostile with those choosing not to participate. We are simply playing to be playing. It is easier than thinking and more fun than showing empathy. Perhaps the game that was intended was for everyone to come up with something to do with this ball and those baskets and this court that is all-inclusive, fair, and fulfilling for everyone involved. If this is true, the game being played is a huge waste of energy and ultimately a huge distraction from making progress toward success. This is the state of our nation. A large pissed off cross-section not wanting to stop playing a game that only a few really care about and verbally/ physically intimidating those with other ideas about what kind of game would get us closer to success. Every so often someone who is the star of the game steps up and says, "Hey, maybe we need to take a break and figure out how to include these other people." This is Obama. He is getting harassed for talking to other successful, capable, competent people like himself about their lack of concern for the other half of the country that not only don't care, but aren't able to play in this game. He's saying, "Let's change the rules, let's change the court, let's change the game so everyone can play." Those who are already good at the game being played are so angry that they may have to play something different that they are behaving like little children. Grant it, if someone were asking them to play an equally unfair game that they don't happen to be good at, the frustration would simply change hands from those playing to those previously on the sidelines. However, this is not the case. All anyone is asking is that those who are likely going to win no matter what kind of game we create allow the game to be fair enough that those who aren't likely to excel can still live reasonably enjoyable existences. It's just a game: an arbitrary, boring, and somewhat stupid game that allows some people to buy more stuff than some other people. Is it really worth the starving and dying and torture and abuse and suffering that takes place to maintain the rules to a completely made up game?

Reflection on America's Money Problems

The solution to our national financial crisis? A) Repeal the Bush tax-cuts on the wealthy and use the money to pay for single-payer health care. In turn, use the money we save on health care costs to pay down the national debt. B) Pull our troops out of everywhere in the world that isn't providing humanitarian aid and cut the defense budget in half. Done and done. No more national debt problem. Conservatives can stop whining about government spending. Liberals can pay for their programs to solve social problems, and we can all calm down and focus on more important aspects of life. On an individual level: Cut up the credit cards, buy a smaller house, wear older clothes, drive your car into the ground and live in the black.

As anyone who lives on a budget knows, Americans don't have money problems, we have money management problems. It's comical to watch really as men and women dressed in wardrobes that cost more than most Americans make in a pay period scurry around from appointment to appointment in a panic trying to figure out how we're going to solve the "financial crisis." I get it. On a large scale it's not so simple. Tightening the belt on a national level means cutting funding to programs that, in general, are helping the people most affected by an economic bust. It also affects environmental programs, educational programs and the like, which are deal-breakers when planning for the nation's future. Death is obviously worse than debt, and there are fates worse than death in terms of the amount of suffering some people must endure as a result of a nation not holding itself to a higher moral standard. Some think it is as simple as not spending money until money is made, but this essentially only helps those already wealthy get wealthier (as they have no use for social systems of education, health care, and retirement and seem to believe environmental issues don't affect them).

However, on an individual basis, for the vast majority of people not born with debilitating illnesses, or destroyed by abuse and hardship growing up, debt (perhaps with the exception of student loans) is inexcusable. A large portion of Americans simply can't put the credit cards away and live within their means. The appearance of success is more important than actual success. This is also narrowing the definition of success to a pinpoint-like scope. Obviously, America has more than its fair share of citizens with financial success who are udder failures in every other area of life. As a nation, we're over-weight, undereducated, have pathetic marriage success rates, all but ignore the idea of stable family life, lack most qualities that make a human being interesting and relish in the fact that we are still free to talk as much shit as we want despite our astonishing mediocrity where it counts. I would estimate that about 5-10% of the American population make up those national qualities that the rest of us are so proud of--the rich, the talented, the healthy and well-educated, the over-achievers and self-sacrificers that make us proud to be Americans. The other 95% of us are wishful thinkers. The people who least deserve the American reputation for progress and prosperity are the very people who seem to boast it the most. They want so badly to appear to be on the level with the men and women who are actually in the game in this country that they run up credit cards and take out more and more loans to buy the houses, cars, and clothes that, they believe, make others think they are successful. If you haven't figured this out on your own, I'm here to tell you, it's a farce.

Not only do Americans have money management problems, but we have priority/ value problems. People want this shallow outward appearance of success so badly that we vote for policies that protect the people that maintain these appearances for us. Then, we vote for policies that grow our military to an outrageous size to protect us from the people who are offended by our poor priorities. Countries who mind their own business and take care of their own in the world do not have terrorists out to kill their citizens. They live relatively quiet, peaceful lives with long holidays, and lackadaisical lifestyles. They, of course, have militaries that can protect their borders, but not militaries so large that they could destroy half the planet if they so desired. Perhaps we have a bit of a messiah complex as well. If we stopped presenting ourselves as the free police department of the globe, I imagine other countries would step up to fill the void. The unnecessary war in Iraq could have paid for single-payer health care. The Bush tax-cuts for the wealthiest 5% could have paid for single-payer health care (and then some). The people concerned with the national debt seem to only be concerned when we're spending money on positive changes and investments in our people, not when we're spending to play cowboy in the Middle East. We are destroying our own country's well being at the expense of saving capitalism and military superiority. Diplomacy and a sense of ironic detachment with countries who won't listen to reason might serve us well. Our "big stick" is about 8,000 times the size of the sticks of any of our potential threats in the world. We can relax just a little bit. Just because terrorists were creative enough to slip under our radar one time in the history of our country, doesn't mean we have to bust the bank trying to prove our strength. Obviously a bigger military isn't solving the problem. Meanwhile, those of us more concerned with our families, friends, and neighbor's well-being are wondering why our fellow citizens are electing politicians content with continuing this pattern of ignorance.

Why I Secretly Love That Conservatives Are Protesting

The ranting and raving of conservatives at town hall meetings isn't all bad for America. That's right. I said it. Worldwide it has always been progressive parties who come out to protests. Very rarely are people out with signs saying, "Support the rich!" or "I want less civil rights!" Progress is often made when the wealthy becomes corrupt and people have had enough of being under their thumb. In fact the very premise of Karl Marx's "Communist Manifesto" (that few have actually read, but everyone seems to oppose) was/ is that capitalism could only work for a finite amount of time before it would isolate wealth within a small portion of the population and the people would demand a fairer economic system. Where he was wrong was in capitalism's ability to keep "the people" on the rope just enough that they might complain, but they won't rise up. Socialism is the natural next step (after industrialization) of a civilized nation. It is where people go once their country has made enough money to raise the entire nation to the next level--a moral high ground that cares about everyone living there. The reason working and middle class citizens are protesting is that they are no where close to being able to comprehend a moral high ground in their personal lives. Morality is a subject out of their realm of comprehension. It gets them no closer to having their basic needs met.

Let's take, say, the family of a medical doctor. They make a considerable amount of money and I don't think anyone would argue that if they are not financially well-off it is their own fault. The children of these individuals will likely have their schooling paid for--in many cases private schooling with very dedicated teachers and very harsh rules that encourage discipline and self-reliance. The children of wealthier families can see the value in this type of education mainly because they are allowed to have very high standards for their lives. They won't have student loans to pay back, they won't have to work fulltime jobs that distract from their studies, they won't have dysfunctional families causing trauma in their lives; they can focus solely on learning and later on making money. These people hopefully learn a certain level of compassion somewhere along the line. Financial comfort makes it easy to be compassionate. If one has a great deal of disposable income it is eventually seen as rudeness and avarice to not give something back. It can also become socially isolating. Thus, these are not the people we are seeing at anti-healthcare reform rallies. In fact these individuals have been relatively quiet in this debate. Why? What decent human being with financial and social comfort is going to stand in the face of 50 million uninsured and millions more under-insured--people who are their neighbors and family members in many cases--and say, "We don't need reform. Let them figure out a way to take care of themselves."

This is why the ranting mobs of middle and working class conservatives at town hall protests is encouraging to me. It means they are engaging in the national conversation. This is the first step toward learning, and thus, toward progress. Eventually they are either going to get tired and go home, commiserating with one another, and feeling dejected and unheard, or they are going to calm down and attempt to articulate what specifically they are so angry about. The reform is for them. They are the uninsured and under-insured, yet they have been so ingrained with the, "Government bad, free market good" dogma that they can't even hear the details of the plans being discussed. As "the people" (meaning the majority of Americans making under $50K a year) become engaged in the debate--if they actually listen and debate--will start to recognize that they are being very subtly oppressed by the principles they believe so strongly in. When this realization hits on a widespread level a country naturally moves left. We are the most conservative democratic industrialized nation in the world. The fact that this is true speaks to how uninformed and hopeless our citizenry feels in competing with corporate fat cats. They've made their peace with these giants and walk through life trying to be good little conservative workers so these companies will hire them. The only way to compete with corporations is to use the legislative powers of government to balance the scales. Engaging in the national conversation leads people to see that this is true. When the majority starts voting to tax the wealthy more to instate more public options (and improve those that exist) to supplement their small salaries (instead of supplementing with credit card debt and irrational loans, and unhealthy means of making money, which only makes them weaker an corporations stronger), the country will improve all around. It's happened all over Europe. Gun violence drops, crime decreases, drug and alcohol related issues decrease, etc. People want and need to be taken care of. So far the people have not realized that the answer is as simple as showing up at public events and speaking their minds. Instead they turn to unhealthy behaviors to ignore the issues or get their needs met. They isolate, the way depressed people do. They pull out of the conversation and out of the culture and become hard and stubborn and ignorant. Then we see what we have now; people protesting their own best interests in favor of supporting the very people denying them health coverage.

This is why I am secretly loving the political atmosphere of the U.S. these days. People are engaged. They're pissed and they're coming out of the woodwork. This does two things: 1) It allows respectable, moderate conservatives living in their comfortable suburbs to see how scary their political party has become, and 2) It allows these people to start learning about politics in general. It's embarrassing how little Americans know about their government. If radical reforms is what gets people researching their arguments and trying to make cases against progressive politicians trying to help them, I'll take it. Let'em yell, or let'em learn. Either way it's better than watching them isolate and collect garages full of guns waiting for the second coming to solve all their problems.

Popular Fiction: The Junk Food of the Arts

I don't believe it will come as any surprise that the United States is obsessed with popular culture. In the world of literature, it is no different. People have become inured with gimmicky storytelling, visceral, knee-jerk plot twists, and weak-minded characters constantly engaged in gratuitous sex, violence, and greedy quests for wealth. These formulaic tricks are in most televisions shows, most Hollywood movies, most popular fiction writing, and increasingly a part of our day-to-day reality. It isn't that these mediums and styles don't have entertainment value. This kind of writing has been around as long as any other kind of literature--and I am no saint when it comes to not indulging in my animal instincts--but when it comes to the point, as it has, when people find boobs and explosions more interesting than the human condition and psyche, it's time to reevaluate what we are ingesting. Otherwise, someone should get on developing a television channel where keys are jingled at a camera 24 hours a day.

What many people seem to forget from their high school English classes (arguably because high school teachers are learning more about classroom management and utilizing technology than they are about understanding the subjects they teach) is how interesting human obsessions, subjectivity, flaws, strengths, vices, quarks, criticisms, and drives can be. Some are probably saying to themselves, "But it's all been done. How many more times can an old man fall in love with a young vixen and question his morality, or a disillusioned vagabond go searching for meaning?" To you I ask, "How many more times can one read or watch doctors, lawyers, and forensic psychologists problem solve while trying to resist screwing each other in a back office?"

There are four general themes that all stories fall into: a love affair between two people, a love affair between three or more people, the quest, and dealing with death. Even popular stories combine these themes--it's just a matter of craft. Bad writing (like bad music, art, theater, film, etc) is like corporate prints hanging on the walls of office buildings; safe; saying nothing; exposing nothing; taking no risks, and creating no feelings except perhaps the trite, "Awe, that's a pleasant feeling. I wish I could feel that way instead of this soul-crushing pain of sitting in this cubicle wasting away for a retirement plan." Good writing (like good art of any kind) gets inside a person. It makes one think, question, and feel. It takes one to places one could never dream of going in real life. It's sexy (not sexual). It delves into moral gray areas and has one questioning one's values and life choices. It exposes the grotesque. It changes lives and minds. This is what one should be demanding of their writers. Instead we accept what is put in front of us. Bad writing is all that is on television. It's all that is on the best-seller lists. It's all that is in your local theater. Thus, it must be what someone with knowledge of these things thinks is good, right? Wrong.

As an English major, young writer and, thus far, struggling novelist, I have searched far and wide for an "in" in the publishing world. I've subscribed to Writer's Digest and received emails for writing competitions. I've mastered crafting the perfect query letter and I've tried looking for guidance at writer's conferences. At every turn the question has always been presented this way: "Are you the next Stephen King?" I hang my head and try not to laugh (or cry, depending on my mood). No one is asking, "Are you the next Hemingway?" No one is asking, "Are you Kurt Vonnegut's predecessor?" It isn't a question of, "Are you going to define our generation to those who come after us?" but essentially, "Can you devise the perfect template with the ideal marketing hook to sell millions of books overnight?"

To be fair Stephen King does use some literary tools (he did after all study creative writing), but let's face it, no one has ever walked away from a Stephen King novel questioning the ennui of their generation, or the absurdity of western culture (see Hemingway and Vonnegut). If anything he leaves us paranoid of our dog's intensions, avoiding small towns in Maine, and questioning our spouse's sanity (one of his better themes by and by). The same is true of our music, our art interests, and our boredom with theater. We like things upbeat in America. Happiness keeps us productive and thinking too much depresses us. Thus, we work, we drink, we go to church, or temple, or mosque, we jog, we chatter, we follow sports and sitcoms, we pop pills, we go to therapy; anything to avoid accepting the darker sides of our human condition. We don't demand that our musicians know how to play their instruments. As long as they can play three chords and get us bobbing our heads in unison, we're happy as babies with a pinwheel. We don't demand that our actors can act so long as they weigh under ninety pounds while maintaining the rack of a pregnant woman. If I have to watch one more muscle-bound hunk with a five o'clock shadow and an eighth grade vocabulary blow up the bad foreign man, I may find out if my television can swim. Likewise, we don't demand that our writers can write. We want out-of-the-blue plot twists just as the chapter is ending. We want promiscuous blonds, lawyers on yachts, and a constant building of tension that inevitably putters out in some cliche life lesson or death of the antagonist.

I'm not saying the occasional speed read and viscerally gratifying experience is so wrong. All I'm saying is that it shouldn't be a way of life. Much like fast food should be the occasional treat releasing you momentarily from your usual disciplined eating habits, pop culture should be appreciated in moderation. These "artists" should have to suffer through the challenges of mastering their craft. They should not be rewarded for being the antithesis of talent and discipline. Think of two hundred years from now when those who come after us study our culture and think to themselves, "Wow, they didn't even make an effort, did they?" Is this how you want your cohort's brief period in the time/ space continuum to be remembered? Really? America's Got Talent? I'm not so sure anymore.

Modern Indentured Servitude

I'm not normally a fan of using dictionary definitions in my writing as, after all, they are just one group of scholars' opinions on what a word means, but in this case I think the definition is general enough that Webster will suffice. The Merriam-Webster dictionary refers to indentured servitude as a person who signs and is bound by indentures to work for another for a specified time especially in return for payment of travel expenses and maintenance. In the 17th and 18th centuries Europeans of various backgrounds came to the states and worked for landowners. These were individuals and families who came with nothing and worked for "free" in return for having their travel expenses paid, and food, clothing, shelter, and other necessities provided. They were not technically slaves as they signed contracts that bound them to the landowner for a number of years after which they could leave. As with slavery, which was a similar situation but with individuals who were not allowed to leave, these were workers who took very little out of the profits of the landowners and were not a threat to the industry at large. They were kept at arms-length, taken care of on a very minimal basis (essentially enough to stay alive and keep working), and then put out into the world with only the clothes on their backs and a clean slate to start a life. Doesn't sound like too bad of a situation for some. In fact many today would say this is a win-win for both parties.

Here's the trouble.

On an individual level, yes, this is not a bad deal for many who were coming over to America. On a broad scale this was the beginning of tyrannical rule by the private sector of American industry. As the poor had their minimal needs met through incredibly difficult and dangerous working situations that lasted long hours and paid very little, allowed no time for education or creativity, or time to spend with loved ones, the landowners became incredibly wealthy by delegating responsibilities to low paid "supervisors" (literally slave drivers at the time) and enjoying the massive profits they incurred from the labor of others. This wealth, of course, was then passed down to generations who followed, isolating the wealth further amongst a select few in our society. As history progressed, even though slavery was outlawed, indentured servitude continues.

Consider modern day mainstream American culture. Assuming one will not inherit the wealth of his or her elders at some point in adulthood, an average American has one of two choices for his or her future. One, he or she can forgo higher education and establish himself or herself within a company after high school with the intention of making immediate money, avoiding debt and making his or her peace with the long hours, unfulfilling work and working under management that is equally uneducated, dissatisfied, and underpaid. Many of these companies will be corporately owned and run businesses in which they will never know who it is exactly they work for. Again, not a horrible option, but one in which these individuals will do far more work than they are paid for and have very minimal possibilities to compete in the free market. The second option is to incur the debt of a college education, enter the work force at a slightly higher level, with a slightly bigger paycheck, and the appearance of a better life. In reality this choice leaves an individual tens of thousands of dollars in debt leaving no viable option except to accept work at an already established company that can afford to pay back some of these loans, provide benefits and what, in the end, amounts to a stipend compared to what the company makes as a whole. Sound familiar? Contracted work for basic needs while workers scrape by and owners continue to isolate wealth among a small percentage of society.

Here's the icing on the cake.

These companies have become so large that--although the potential to start a small business is still a possibility--they can essentially move into any town they choose, put every small business out of business (aggressively and intentionally), hire the entire town to work for them, and become the only providers of goods to the very people they employ. How do you like that for indentured servitude? They own the country so long as the country continues to function under deregulated free market principles. A side note to complete corporate take over of rural towns is that when these corporations begin to lose money (as they inevitably will during the natural booms and busts of the economy) they will close down their stores in the towns that make the least profits and leave the people there bankrupt. Everyone will foreclose on their loans, people will lose their houses, and in most cases the town will be forced to transplant themselves in order to survive.

However, despite these dismal prospects of success in America, most Americans still believe in the fictitious "carrot" principles of capitalism. Though, for all practical purposes, we are all enslaved to a handful of corporate giants who continue to get wealthier as the rest of us, maybe, if we are incredibly disciplined and ambitious, may attain a middle-of-the-road lifestyle before it is time to retire. Again, not a horrible prospect by comparison to the majority of the world population, but there is yet another kicker. Our newly elected president is offering the people of America a chance to take their country back from these giants through increasing taxes on the wealthiest of us, enforcing greater regulations to provide safer, healthier, and more enjoyable workplaces, and offering more public options for gaining our basic needs for life. Unfortunately, rather than celebrating this liberation from tyrannical rule of corporate business owners the people are ironically calling the president a tyrant and a fascist. The average American household makes between $30,000 and $70,000 a year. This means the average American will not pay higher taxes for the plans Obama is trying to attain for them. Yet, they have been so duped by the people who have taken over their towns, outsourced their jobs, pay them unlivable wages, provide them with the lowest quality of food and goods while simultaneously paying themselves million dollar if not billion dollar salaries per year that they are fighting the government who wants to take some of that wealth away and use it for the good of society at large. They trust the "landowners" who have enslaved them over the people they democratically elected and have complete control over through free speech, voting power, and lobbying rights. These business owners are not people who worked hard and got where they are because the system works. They are in large part the ancestors of the very people who used slavery and indentured servitude from colonial times to increase the wealth of a few while keeping down the majority. Of course there are exceptions to the rule. There are your Bill Gates and other characters who instantly make it big, but these individuals are so few and far between that to continue policies that allow a one in three hundred million chance at becoming wealthy while the vast majority turn the tiny but numerous wheels of industry in a trillion dollar national economy while receiving very little in return seems ludicrous. Americans claim they are free, but how free can one be when the choices for life are so few and the real power brokers are not democratically elected? I personally believe our situation has resulted not from the greed of corporations, not from the constant lobbying of currupted government officials, but from the uneducated citizenry that exists in our country and the apathy of the people to fight for what will most benefit their lives.

A Talk By Richard Dawkins on Atheism in The United States.

God, Evolution, and Scientific Inquiry: A Conversation.

The following is a conversation between me and an old camp friend, Sam Vore, who has since become a pastor. It started when I posted a story on Facebook about the Pope's comments to Africans that condoms would not solve the HIV/ AIDS epidemic there, implying that abstinence and a moral sense of sexuality are the only real solutions. I made an angry comment along with my post about how silly it is that we still listen to men in white robes whom do not hold higher degrees or provide any viable solutions to real world problems in the 21st century when we have the level of scientific data and empirical evidence that we do today to rely on. The following debate occurred as a result of this post.

SAM: As a pastor I'm glad I wear jeans and shirts when I preach and not these robes you speak of...pfew! Religion is bad. Pop christian, islam, buddhism, evolution, catholic, tarot and crystals, conspiracists, mormon, fortune cookies they all do spread ignorance! Matthew is right! But jeff, on principle I would disagree that a person has to be doctor, psychologist, or a social worker to be right. So I don't share your view that only educated people should have a voice. People should read Jesus without any preconcieved bias. Then the world would change for the good. Everyone would work together to eliminate AIDS. Everyone needs to be fed, housed, and given medical care. I agree!.. I don't like the pope.

JEFF: Hey Sam, I agree that SOME religious groups do try to help end social problems. My beef is that they don't seem to understand that there are very educated people doing very useful studies on HOW to solve these problems in universities worldwide. So if they want to help, I believe they should help as concerned people, not as members of a religion, and that they use the methods being established by the educated specialists sans the moralizing religious judgments and alternative treatments. For instance, something like Doctors Without Borders is a very useful, secular group trying to help with the African AIDS epidemic. However, right along side them are missionary groups saying, "I want to help, but I also want to talk about my faith, and about Jesus, and about moral choices these people are making." I don't believe this is helpful because in these religious opinions they are going to contradict the empirical evidence and confuse the people being treated as to who knows what's best. This could potentially make matters worse, making the doctor's job even harder. So I don't believe educated people are the only one's who should have a voice, but I do believe they should be turned to for information on how to best carry out one's good intentions.

Wait, wait, wait...did you just throw evolution in with tarrot cards and crystals spreading ignorance? Sam! Evolution is science! Ok, I know the argument that it is not fact, per say, it is technically a theory, but this is only true because it is only provable through deductive reasoning, not empirical evidence. However, if it is wrong most of what we know in the field of natural sciences can't be true and we should all stop going to doctors and cut all science programs from schools everywhere.

SAM: Yeah I did=) If science needs to be fact, and evolution is as you admit technically a theory, then theory has no place in science as fact and should be placed in the category of religion and faith. You can practice your faith just as I can, but our faith has no place to be taught as fact. If you don't want me teaching my theory of creation in school, don't teach the theory of evolution in school. Dude, don't say that human deductive reason leads us to know evolution is true because human reason also leads us to know there is something bigger than us and therefore we're not just animals. Science is good, but theorys should never be presented as fact, but only as theorys...I want you to know this is all just friendly debate, and I don't disown friends just cause we disagree, just so you know. I also support HIV/AIDS work and personal differences come well after helping human beings.

JEFF: Sam, no one teaches evolution as fact in science. It always has been a theory. However, here is the difference between the theory of evolution and the theory of creationism. The theory of creationism is made up. 100% fabricated out of someone's mind and presented as a viable alternative to evolution despite its being in conflict with numerous other facts in history and actual laws of science that we know for sure to be true. In science it only takes one example of something contradicting scientific law or historical fact for a theory to be dismissed. Evolution, however, is based on the fact that we know living beings evolve in present day reality. We have collected data for long enough periods on species of creatures that proves they have evolved from a point earlier in history to now--be it a week, a month, or a hundred years. We also know from our recorded history that nothing natural has happened that would suggest that things did not evolve in the same way for as long as life has existed. Therefore, evolution is breaking no scientific laws, nor is it in conflict with any historical evidence, plus we can see it happening right in front of us today, thus we can assume it has always happened this way. That's deductive reasoning. We cannot see things appearing out of thin air today, and we know that this is scientifically impossible (for matter to appear out of thin air). Thus we can deduce this is NOT the way human life began. It's a story and should be taught as such. Understanding that things evolves leads to other scientific inquiries necessary to cure diseases, understand natural behaviors and continuing intellectually evolving as human beings. And I believe the reason creationist are particularly upset these days is because this debate was already had over 100 years ago and evolution won. Thus, we don't have to have it again. We can point them to the history books where the debate is recorded and see if they have anything new to add.

SAM: Oh please, No evolutionist has ever come up with a good explanation of how life began in the universe that is any more believable than that God did it. You're right things don't come from nothing so everything has to have an origin therefore the question is of how life began in the first place. Evolutionists theories range from alien seed to random... Read More probability. Nobody finds it ironic that the probability of chemicals arranging themselves into simple proteins is so small that belief in aliens or a creater is more logical? Darwin even said that his theory was quite flawed. And besides, his methods were so primative, and I would speculate (and its ok to do so because evolutionist can make assumptions about things nobody actually saw) that if Darwin had access to equipment today, he would not have come to the same conclusions. Evolution has won like Bush won his first election: if you get down top the root of it, things don't add up. I went through public high school and a public university and thought evolution was fine untill things didn't add up. I started reasoning myself and came to the conclusion that someone created the earth...If natural selection rules the world why worry about protecting species. If pink iquanas in the Galapagos can't evolve maybe they shouldn't be allowed to live among the "fittest." Same for humans. If we destroy the Earth, it means our ethics and consumption lead us to it, and maybe humanity should die out. Life will spring forth again and evolution will continue. If we can't adapt to a warmer earth, or evolve to live in a warm ocean then that's the way its supposed to be. We don't need AC cause we need to start evolving today! Disease helps limit population growth so compassion to stop it would be contrary to the natural order. Or could it be that there is way more to the universe then we know?

JEFF: First I want to say that I appreciate the debate Sam, and you do raise some interesting questions, but at the same time I think you are mistaken about what science is teaching. You're talking about the beginning as though it is completely disconnected from the present. I've never heard the "alien seed" or the "random probability" theories. My understanding of the most plausible theory is Big Bang and Evolution. Big Bang being based on the fact that the universe is expanding in all directions, which implies there may have been a central point that exploded and sent these parts floating off into different orbits. Earth has life based purely on where it landed in the universe in proximity to an energy source like the sun and that it's atmosphere is made up of gases that create water. Micro-organisms grow in water and thus life begins and evolutionary theory picks up there with the adaptations that took place over millions of years to get from there to here. Why does a higher power have to be involved in this equation? I guess the question would be where did the initial chunk of matter that exploded come from, but some Big Bang theorists believe that the universe is going through cycles of expansion and implosion. Meaning that the matter could have always existed (mind blowing as that is) and has been expanding to a point until the physics of outer space send it back into an imploding cycle. It compresses back together, builds pressure until it can't implode any further from the heat build up and explodes again. Seems perfectly plausible to me. It at least follows general laws of physics and biology. It isn't just some random guess based on mythology.

SAM: Jeff, I appreciate the debate too. I always hear out anybody who would like to peacefully share their view. I don't want anyone to think I respect you less because we apparently disagree. The alien seed and random probability theories are just two explanations I've seen from highly educated evolutionists about how life began. Primordial soup and random molecular formation into proteins is just about scientifically impossible. People don't realize how near impossible it is, but people still say life began by chance from primordial ooze. I know the universe is currently expanding. I don't argue with scientists on that observation. God speaking the universe into existence seems like a big bang to me. The fact is the earth is in a perfect spot. I think God put it there, others claim its by chance. Micro organisms grow in water yes, but its the molecules and structure of even single celled critters that are scientifically improbable to have happened. A higher power has everything to do with this discussion. My ancient text says there is a God who created the earth. I look at the data of bones in the dirt and strata in the ground and it proves the text. We can both find fact to try to prove our beliefs. There is a great debate in "science" about throwing creation out of the possible interpretations of the data we collect. If its a mind-blowing idea that matter can exist eternally (which does defy laws of thermo dynamics) could it not also be just as mind blowing that a God really could have made life and the whole universe...I am an educated human being. I believe the God of Israel to be the only living God, who created the Earth. The history of this God is recorded in ancient Hebrew texts as well as first century texts in reference to the hebrew messiah Yeshua of Nazareth, who has delivered the world from sin. If that makes me crazy, I'm happy to be... Jeff, I need to sign off, but today has been good. You can have the final word.

JEFF: Ok, well thank you for the last word. I have had this debate enough times to know I won't convince anyone who doesn't want to be convinced because there is absolutely no way to prove that there is a higher power. I say that means there isn't one. If there has been no empirical evidence to back the theory of a higher power in the history of humankind, that to me is pretty clear evidence that we're doing this on our own (which makes educating ourselves on what has already been tried and what theories are the most radically out of touch even more significant). In my experience many Christians have the luxury of not having the weight of these decisions on their shoulders and when they do they most often put aside their faith and go with science and logic in life and death situations. That's how this discussion was started. I believe religion needlessly instills doubt in science when science never claims to have all the answers, it simply has the best answers humans have come up with. Religion on the other hand strikes me as being very much like the Republican Party right now. They have no ideas. The ideas they do have are old and have been tried and didn't work, but for some reason they think if they just keep raising doubts in people generation after generation this will somehow change the outcome. It strikes me as intellectual dishonesty and ideological warfare. Instead of seeing holes in science and problems in society and trying to help--perhaps choosing that particular gap as what they will spend their life studying in an attempt to solve this question for the next generation--they see a hole and say, "See! Look, your argument is faulty and therefore there must be a God." That's not a theory, or even a debate, it's just a made up story to fill in the holes that science hasn't gotten to yet. And if they weren't hurting anyone I would say, great, who cares, let them believe what they want, but since they are causing confusing and blurring the truth about science and ideologically speaking, not really doing any good for anyone. I think it can be said that people can be moral and concerned and helpful without the need for religious institutions confusing young people and the less educated about whom is telling them the truth.

Obama Has Nothing To Prove

In recent days it has become quite apparent that some Americans (mostly those working as correspondents for Fox News and their cowardly followers) are outraged with our president going to other nations abroad, acting like a civilized diplomat, and telling the truth about what our nation is all about. He told members of the G-20 that we were not a Christian nation, but a nation of citizens with the freedom of religion, which is true. He then went to Saudi Arabia and bowed to the king, as is customary in their country. Conservatives are upset because he has not been to church in the 11 weeks of his presidency, even though he was very clear during his campaign that although he was a Christian he did not go to church very regularly. They are outraged! "What is he doing to our nation?" they ask. Well, let me explain.

Obama is doing what everyone of us in this nation should be learning to do. He is living by the rights endowed to him as a U.S. citizen to practice religion as he sees fit, or to not practice religion at all. He is going to other countries and having the common courtesy to abide by the local customs instead of shoving some generic, low-brow form of American culture down the throats of the rest of the world. When he greets members of other nations, he takes the time on the plane ride to learn how to say, "Hello," in their language. This is not a difficult task, and quite frankly is something anyone can and should do if visiting another country. It goes a long way in extending a signal of peace and civility to our neighbors. It also says to them that we are not monolingual idiots incapable of comprehending other languages while the rest of the world speaks two, three, even four or five different languages before leaving high school.

Where this becomes an issue for the right-wing nut jobs of America is that they believe it makes Obama look weak to be so friendly and peaceful with the rest of the world. They like the image we have portrayed for the last eight years of being hard-ass cowboys with the largest military in human history. They like scaring the shit out of the rest of the world and watching them squirm under the thumb of a giant nation. Obama, along with the 60% of Americans who gleefully approve of his policies so far, seem to understand that a well-spoken, attractive, worldclass educated, bi-lingual man--with a beautiful, worldclass educated, formly corporate executive, bi-lingual wife, and two intelligent, compassionate children--who is president of the wealthiest, most powerful and well-armed nation in the history of humankind does not have to walk around in the world being paranoid and defensive and so scared of other world leaders that he needs to put up a front of power. He understands that his prescence is reminder enough of what America is capable of. His very being as a black man with his abilities democratically elected to lead a free nation is symbolic enough to the rest of the world that we do have classy, hardworking, intelligent citizens among us and we are capable of finding them and electing them as leaders. By bowing to other leaders in their country, he is sending the signal that when he is in someone else's country, he is a visitor and will behave like one. This then allows him the leverage to demand the same respect when leaders visit our country. In fact, the Obamas are so respectful and polite that the Queen of England actually let Michelle put her arm around her, when the custom is that no one ever touches the queen. It really isn't that complicated. It's how decent human beings interact with other human beings. Period. No games. No drama. Honesty and fair competition. We're in the lead, we don't have to work so damn hard to impress people.

What we are seeing is that the Obamas are defusing tension around the world with their calm respectful demeanor and sending a message that we are an open nation ready to talk through our problems like mature, educated people do. The world is well aware that we have 9,000 nuclear warheads pointed at every region of the world and that all it would take is this man's word to literally desimate a large portion of the globe. A man with that power needs to speak softly or people tend to get a little shaky. People respond to fear in many different ways. Some respond with pride and would rather die than be under the thumb of an aggressive super-power. That is what we do not want. That is the message Bush sent to the world as the threatened, childish little dumbass that he was. Now we have an adult who wants those proud poor (economically speaking) people of the world to feel that they are in the peaceful embrace of a giant who feels their pain. He wants them to know that we are not a nation of Christians that hate Muslims, that we are in fact, as he clearly stated, a nation of citizens with the right to worship as we please. As far as foreign policy is concerned--religion has no place in government. Thus, Obama does not, and should not, care what religion other world leaders abide by in their personal lives. He is saying, "We don't even care what religion our own citizens are. Hell, I haven't been to church in 11 weeks! Rather we care about understanding on a logical, secular level what other nations want for their citizens, why they would want to attack us, and what we can do to help with the former and aleviate the latter." That is what wealthy, capable people with any shred of human decency do with their wealth and power. They use it to solve world problems. They do not use it to lock down their private property like some kind of gated community with nukes and spend the rest of their existence gaining more wealth and building higher walls and larger weapons to fight off poor nations just looking to get some respect.

So I hope Americans will turn off the rantings of Fox News and Rush Limbaugh and recognize that although we have freedom of speech, there is a big difference between listening to a man who chooses his words carefully and thoughtfully with the best intentions for everyone involved, and listening to rich, paranoid chickenshits who can't comprehend that they have a better chance of dying on their way to work in a traffic jam than they do getting bombed by an angry nation looking for attention. Thus, Obama can chill out and work on making friends and preventing all of the other "fates worse than death" that occur within our own boarders everyday. Everyone dies. More people die everyday from cigarette smoking, heart disease, traffic accidents, etcetera, etcetera than died in the 9/11 bombings. They aren't always as violent and flashy, but the people die all the same. So if one is that concerned and afraid of another attack, there is no logical reason why one would not be very concerned with our failing health care system, with our poor laws of preventing greenhouse emissions, and with our poor laws for reducing health risks before they happen. No one wants to have to pass legislation to make people do what is best for them and for society as a whole. Things run much more smoothly when people educate themselves and do these things of their own accord. However, people don't. Americans misuse and abuse their freedoms to do what ever they damn well please. This is dysfunctional. This is what caused the plethora of crises we are experiencing now and this is why we are likely to see a multitude of regulations placed on everyone to get things back to good. It's not socialism. It's not tyranny. It's one confident guy standing up and saying, "Look you morons, think about the big picture. Is it really worth having freedom if your nation is full of sick and dying, uneducated, frightened people? If everyone in the world wants to kill us for acting like arrogant assholes? Is that really something we can be proud of? Is that really an enjoyable way to spend our lives and the message we want to send to our children? No. So either get your shit together and learn about what's going on outside your own little narcissistic wonderland, or we're going to have to pass laws that wake you up and re-engage you in reality. That's what the majority of the country voted for. That's what I'm going to do." I for one could not be more proud. Everyday I am more amazed with Obama's boldness and intelligent ways of handling problems. I hope others agree and that we get eight wonderful years of this and, fate willing, another eight after that and after that and after that.

The Academic Time Warp

Academia is a world unlike any other that one will find in any other part of our culture. It is challenging, it is open, it chews up many a weak mind and spits it back out while taking other minds and brutally molding them into something strong and refined and worthy of a sophisticated life elsewhere in the world. The politics of academia are unequaled, and the personalities more interesting than what one will find in any day-to-day job or community organization. However, something happens to these individuals during this schooling process that both robs them of their humanity and gives them permission to leave social and cultural norms and responsibilities by the wayside. What is it?

I, like the majority of human beings living in the world today, did not come from a community of highly educated citizens. There were, of course, a handful of doctors, lawyers, and professionals who lived in and did work in my community, but they were often detached and more or less seen as role models for the rest of us. They interacted on the human level as little as possible with those whom they saw as beneath them and did their jobs, which for the most part allowed them to interact professionally and in a detached manner. Starting my life, as everyone does, as an uneducated person building on my experiences and studies to reach the level I have achieved today, I was very curious about what happened to a person once he or she left high school and began the world of higher education. I can remember as a younger person watching my older cousins go into college with an exuberance and excitement, a wantonness to make a difference and change the world, only to come out the other side better dressed, soft spoken, and seemingly incapable of communicating with the rest of the world. The excitement was gone. The enthusiasm was gone. The interest in other people disappeared and those social and cultural concerns were no more. It was as though they were superheros who had slipped away into a phonebooth for several years only to come out as Clark Kent instead of the other way around. People were no longer people, but clients, patients, and markets to be sold to. They were something to be polled and studied and manipulated for the sake of impressing a distinguished few standing outside the rat cage, poking and prodding at their experiments.

Now that I am older and have experienced this phonebooth for myself I can see that it is not so much like a secret place to change clothes as it is like walking into a hurricane and finding ways of seeming civilized and cordial while keeping from falling into a hundred mile-away stare that others might mistake as lunacy. Academia is the wardrobe that we walk through in anticipation of the snowy-white pleasantries of Narnia only to come out the other side in professional clothing, armed only with our wits, in the same caustic warzone we were a part of earlier in life. Suddenly we are responsible for other people's lives. They want to know what we know and what we plan to do about it and if we can not answer fast enough or with the appropriate conviction, we are tossed to the wolves; all of our hard work written off as insignificant and impractical. Furthermore, the wolves want to know why they should respect us when we don't even have any money. They want to know why the hell anyone would spend years of their life and tens of thousands of dollars on a wardrobe that just kicks them out on the other side with a head full of theories and statistics and an uppidy attitude on how to solve the world's problems. But they don't know what goes on in there.

Those who never enter the wardrobe, or who tried to enter the wardrobe and became overwhelmed with how different it was in there and how complicated the world is beneath the surface, don't seem to get that there never was a promise of riches or snowy-white pleasantries. This seems to be an urban myth of college that is told to young people so that they will stay focused on getting into this world. What we can't tell them is that they are actually choosing the lesser of two evils. If we truly wanted our kids to go to college we should take them out to work on construction sites and fishing boats. We should send them off to actual warzones or make them live in roach-infested apartments on food stamps. We should make them work thirty-five hours a week at a corporation that requires fulltime employment to receive healthcare benefits and remind them that the corporation will NEVER give them those extra five hours. We should show them how the rest of the country has to live who could not afford, or could not make it through collge.

What college offers is an education, nothing more, nothing less. It allows one to stay on par with those also getting an education so that they cannot be tricked or fooled or bamboozled into the projects of those less-ethical graduates who, feeling duped by the system as well, decide they will make up for those lost years and missing dollars by smooth-talking the uneducated into working for them for nothing or handing over their hard-earned cash for products and services nowhere worth what they will charge.

I now see that that far-away look and lack of exuberance I saw in my relatives was the look of knowing that now that they had this information about how the "real world" works, and now that they had spent their first ten year's salary on learning these tricks, they would not be off to solve the problems of the world and help the less-fortunate as their high school teachers had hoped, but instead would be tip-toeing the line of ethics for the rest of their days in an attempt to uphold the worthiness of their academic experience. They will scrimp and save and withdrawal themselves from everyday life to build fortresses that protect them and their family from the uneducated wolves, fighting to get by in the world. They will send their kids to private schools where they can learn how to get ahead without the distracting influence of the poor and uneducated. They will teach their kids philosophies that allow them to believe that the wolves are not struggling and oppressed people who need their help, but are lazy, good-for-nothing fools who don't care about their children's futures or about taking care of their families. They will build a world so neurotic and stress-filled that no one will ever be accepted in this world until they are AS neurotic and stress-filled as those already living there. And that's how they will know that you are hard-working and worthy. If you are relaxed and still able to communicate and still want to communicate with the general public, you must be one of THEM and thus you cannot play in this game. If you are not surrounded by only the most wealthy and highly educated, you are low-class yourself and unworthy of the time of those in the bourgeois and aristocracy. You had your chance, and you blew it so you could remain a "normal" lay person. Now you are out, until you can find the energy to get stressed out about things that don't ultimately matter and sink yourself into a debt that you will never pay off...then you will be "with the program" and the civilized world will include you in their reindeer games.

It's rather pathetic really and I don't know which side I should be more concerned with: the side that thinks college is so unimportant that they throw away an opportunity at living a rich and full life and passing on the information necessary for their kids to live an even better life so that they can make some fast cash and eat fast food the rest of their lives, or the side that after a couple generations of financial comfort completely forget that there is a whole world of people out there starving and dying and destroying eachother while we sip coffee and talk about high art. And the fact that both exist within the same country does not speak well to the systems we have created for ourselves that allow such a dicotomy of beliefs, both with enough money to have serious influence over other people. It is something that has been with me my entire life and something I'm sure others are experiencing or are working/ drinking extra hard to ignore. I don't know what the answer is. I only highlight the problems as I see them.

CPAC-tastic and Obama Foreign Policy

The GOP recently had a conference to bitch and complain about how uneducated and irrational bigots and bible-thumpers are having their opinions marginalized. I couldn't quite stomach watching the entire thing as it was one angry white man after another coming to the podium to rant about guns and power and using one's inalienable rights for nothing but lowbrow fighting and the bullying of others in our society and the world at large. As I listened it struck me that these people just don't have any idea about what is going on in America. They don't understand its history, they misunderstand the forefather's intentions, they are virtually incapable of high-minded debate and discourse. In fact, if they were students in a college classroom I believe it is likely they would be asked to leave for disrupting class to rant about unfounded opinions and unresearched ideas.

So where does this stuff come from? It's absolutely baffling to me because they are so steadfast in their wrongness. I have to give it to them, if there was a prize for unfounded confidence and asserting oneself based on how much money one has accumulated rather than how many experiences one has had or how capable one is at articulating reality once broken down into its tangible parts, they win, hands down. What democrats and progressives do not have going for them is that it is nearly impossible to explain complicated realities in thirty second sound bites to a nation of people who have no idea how their government even works. On the contrary it is extremely easy to wage character assassinations, make fun of intelligent people, and conjure a sense of pride in one's country in thirty seconds. I believe this is where it starts and frankly why conservatives have been so successful at creating a leaning right nation over the last thirty years that values nationalistic pride, religious culture, and creating a dominating economic/ militaristic presence in the world--because it is easier to package and sell. Just as it is easier for a large bully to march out onto the playground with a big stick and go into circles of children minding their own business and enjoying themselves and take their money, it is also easier for Americans to remain ignorant of what is happening in the rest of the industrialized world and continue to intimidate everyone into doing what we want. Rather than showing them we are smarter, more innovative, respectful of our brightest minds and latest studies, and capable of leading by example, we have created a much less sophisticated, but none-the-less effective game that rises out of a philosophy of, "He who has the most guns runs the show." The new president of the NRA actually said at the CPAC convention that, "Our forefathers understood this principle." Rubbish. Our forefathers were brilliant secular men who believed in fairness and balance of power and high-minded logical debate and diplomacy. They were frankly disgusted by war and violence. In fact most of our constitution was written under the premise that when given the opportunity to not be under the thumb of the wealthy and oppressed by religious institutions, Americans would use their freedoms to rise up against these fat cats and rework their government to protect "the people." Instead we have devolved into a mass of unhealthy, uneducated citizens who are not even sure what our rights entail, and what rights we do understand we use mainly to get out of having to challenge ourselves or engage in confrontation with our oppressors.

I believe this is why we have become so concerned with Islamic radicalism: It is not far from what some in our country (mainly those speaking at the CPAC convention) believe philosophically about how America should be run. They believe we can get our way by bullying and intimidating and making our presence known militarily in the world. So do terrorists. The difference is they don't have the trading power that we do or the tools to create the nice shiny facade that America presents to the world. They have oil that we need or we (The industrialized nations of the world) would do what we should do with these countries: monitor their weapons programs, extend an olive branch to engage them in a peaceful exchange of ideas, trade, tourism, etc. and leave them alone.

In the past I have always, without exception, been against America expanding its borders to include other nations, but in recent years I have had to ask myself what the outcome would be if, as a group, the industrialized nations of the world split up some of the Middle Eastern nations that have become such a problem for the world and more or less offered them the opportunity at living in a more democratic and civilized society. I almost can't believe I am writing this and already I can hear the opposition being that this would be absolutely immoral and to suggest that they are uncivilized just because they aren't like us is insensitive. However, they have nothing in many of these places. Afghanistan in particular is the fourth poorest nation in the world. The people there are largely illiterate even with their own language. Meaning we are trying to teach sophisticated means of governance to a nation without the education necessary to understand how peace and diplomacy and education could possibly help keep them safe and get food in their stomachs tomorrow. The place is a wild west situation where the cowboy with the biggest posse and the largest guns gets control, which of course leaves it open as a training ground for any terrorist group that needs a home. So my question is, Why not offer Iraq and Afghanistan statehood in the United States? Why not go in and say, "We have bigger guns than all of these guys and we will happily protect you and help you build a prosperous nation, and in exchange you will pay taxes as a United States citizen, be required to follow all federal regulations, elect officials to sit in our congress, and maintain the same freedoms that states have in our country. They can always say, "No," but I feel this would be a good way to obviate the terrorists' interests while helping the civilians that just want to get on with their day-to-day lives. I actually feel this way about a lot of nations in the world today. We're letting our corporations go in and take over anyway with absolutely no oversight, why not extend the offer of statehood, receive more tax revenue, set higher expectations for these nations that are still functioning in agrarian societies and continue to allow them the freedom of electing state officials that could throw their ideas into the American melting pot. Everyone wins. Plus we and the people of these nations regain control of the corporate giants who are essentially running the world unfettered by a democratically elected government.

I would love to hear from people on this because I think it could work, but I'm sure there are things I am missing. I realize that cultural takeover would be one of the biggest counter-arguments and the potential uprisings, but wouldn't this still be better than military occupations and building a damn fence across our borders? Obama's foreign policy has been less than impressive to me thus far; in fact seems to be a continuation of the Bush policies in large part. I believe this is probably a nod to the right that he is trying to be bi-partisan (though I have no idea why he feels the need to please people who didn't elect him and whose ideas those of us who did vote for him would like to marginalize as much as possible), but to me it seems like a brilliant man is getting wrapped up in a stagnant ideology of how we do things here in America. I fear his creativity is going to diminish year by year as he tries to please conservatives who are reluctant to change. My feeling: people will understand when they see how much better progressive ideas work (if they are even paying enough attention to notice something changed), much in the same way that one learns to trust professors upon seeing how much smarter they are than students. One cannot teach people who think they know everything or feel empowered by their "personal freedoms" to not listen to those who have data on what is going on. Obama and his cabinet are more educated than 99% of the world population. In fact those smarter than Obama's cabinet are most likely teaching in our universities. Thus, I believe that the citizens would be best suited to give the president some slack and let him show us what he knows. Instead he is walking the line trying not to upset conservatives by showing them how much smarter he is than they are. Makes no sense to me, but then, democracy is not a very efficient way to run a country. It's sloppy and expensive and unruly because a person who is educated has only one vote and one voice like everyone else. This to me says that we should be trying to educate more people so the voices are more informed and discussion is possible, but apparently as long as they're self-reliant financially they can yell their little heads off. Anyway, that's my piece.

Logic and Spiritual Beliefs (A Conversation)

The following is a conversation that started in a chat with my aunt on Facebook concerning the afterlife and spirituality. I always love talking about this stuff (I realize others do not), so I thought I would share for any who care to read. I would love to hear your thoughts on the topic.

I guess my first thought when it comes to the human need for a belief in "otherworldliness" and the afterlife is that it is uniquely a human belief. Humans are the only creatures on the entire planet, that we know of, that have brains capable of comprehending their own deaths far in advance of their own deaths. Therefore we can plan for them, make attempts to avoid dying, make plans for those who will be left in our absence, and maybe more significantly, worry incessantly about dying and make very poor, shallow decisions based in clinging to something that will inevitably end. This is why I believe that what one creates during his or her life is what goes on, not the actual person or the "soul" of the person. If a person was a total asshole for his entire life, when he dies he will likely leave behind a total mess that will be passed down to the next generation (much in the same way Bush, a total asshole, passed on a wreck of a country to Obama/ all of us). On the other hand, if a person lives a magnanimous and altruistic life, he will actually solve problems that were left to him and pass on a better situation to the next generation. In this way, these people are with us for a long time after they are gone and the more good they do while here, the longer lasting their inspiring influence; the more negative, the longer lasting their mess will hang around.

So, I believe this is where religion comes from; the attempt to build a community based on values that are timeless--such as not taking others lives prematurely or out of anger or fear or lust or spite, etc; not taking sex so lightly that one forgets that life can be produced with this act and will then need a responsible set of parents to flourish; not getting so caught up in day to day logistics that we forget to slow down and appreciate the finer things in life while we still have it--otherwise our life can devolve into the pursuit of comfort and money and "things" and we start overlooking the big-picture goal which, I believe to be to improve ones life and pass on a better situation for our children. What I think religion has turned into for many is the need for an authority figure to tell them how to behave because many people do not develop into rational thinking adults with adult tastes and adult interests with adult brains capable of comprehending these mature subjects and having adult conversations about them. Therefore they cling to their fear of death and begin thinking everyone in the world is as scary and immature and unenlightened as they are and that they need protection from these scary people. They also begin to see their religion as "THE WAY" that all must come to in order to become enlightened, rational people with mature insights into life and begin expending massive amounts of energy, money, effort, etc. arguing over the specifics of how we ALL (all 6.5 billion and growing of us) should be living in order to achieve God's graces. The irony is of course that the more rigid one becomes in believing in something that is essentially unknowable (and can only be speculated about) the more the person begins to break all of these timeless values in an attempt to get others to think the way they do (i.e. starting wars, fighting instead of discussing, becoming bitter and callous and unopen, protectionist, etc)--when the ultimate goal in the first place was to get people who might devolve into unloving, killing, raping, thieves and liars (or more animalistic, uncivilized behaviors) to not do these things out of fear and guilt that God is watching.

Enter 21st century science and logic: we have overcome a lot of the problems that religion and spirituality once had to deal with through scientific inquiry and viable studies. We don't have to guilt our kids into abstinence anymore because we can educate them on where babies come from and how diseases are contracted and how to avoid both while still enjoying the pleasures of sex. However, we still have a huge chunk of people believing this is absurd and immoral to talk to young people (who are already talking about sex and having it) about something that is so clearly sinful based on books written 2000 years ago in the most war-stricken region of the entire world because of differing religious beliefs. I say, who the hell cares what religion says on this topic (and many topics), we've solved the problem. They say, it wasn't our problem to solve and we should just take what God gives us and suffer through it. I say, we can't think clearly and solve problems if we're always suffering, fearful, and feeling guilty and judgemental. So this is a real problem with respect to the afterlife. If they are correct and it is as simple as God spoke to the prophets and we're just supposed to live out what these religious texts say (which are highly open to interpretation) than yes, America is the devil, science is an arrogant, shallow, sinful area of study and we're all going to hell for messing with God's infallible creation. If, as many of us have obviously accepted in western culture, there is nothing supernatural controlling what happens here in reality and we are completely in control of our own fate, than America is a leader and science and logic trump religion and we should be having secular, rational arguments about how to live as ethical and free-thinking human beings, enjoying life and passing on a healthier, happier world to our children. I know many are trying to reconcile these two schools of thought, but I really don't think it's entirely possible, suffice to say that there are things science hasn't explained yet and things science has created that have not been positive and thus we still need to instill a sense of humanity, morality, and responsibility as we progress. However, as long as people still believe that there are ghosts and spirits and gods guiding our behaviors I think we are actually inhibiting our society from maturing and controlling its own fate; rather encouraging people to ignore our leaders in logic and science and philosophy and turn to books written in a time and place that is completely unfathomable by today's standards. I know it is comforting to believe that there are "angels among us" but unless those angels have studied 21st century law, ethics, and scientific inquiry, they may very well be out of touch with what one needs to know to achieve some level of peace and satisfaction in today's world.

Anyway, that's where I am with it all these days. I am open to more fantastical interpretations. I'm a creative person and I enjoy fantasy and imagination and there really is no way to know that we aren't just pawns of the spiritual world. However, for the practical purposes of living sane lives and having sane conversations about life, I do believe it is healthy to be able to recognize the difference between fantasy and reality and travel between the two worlds in a way that doesn't suggest to others that we are unreliable narrators of our own experiences.