How Easy It Could Be

"Living life is easy; what goes wrong, you're causin' it." --Jay Farrar

Lately I've been reminded of these lyrics written by the former lead singer for the now dissolved band "Sun Volt." Though it seems like a simple statement no matter how one looks at it, I think this singer/ songwriter was more or less correct in his assertion that we screw up our own lives with bad choices. When I look at the revolutions going on in the Middle East, and the cultural divide in the U.S. and the endless array of backwards priorities, irrational beliefs and ideologies, ignorance of the problems already solved, and stubbornness toward ideas that will solve current problems, I have to laugh in detached befuddlement of how these problems got started in the first place.

It seems to me that many people simply love to suffer. They love the idea that they are "bad" people; they love the idea that they are helpless and oppressed; they love the idea that they are not in control and some mystical twisting of the cosmos is testing their patience and fortitude. Why? Because it is a truly frighting concept to most to accept that they have made and are making poor choices that overly complicate their life and cause suffering. For those in adulthood, let's harken back to those childhood years and remember how we got from there to here. For those who are younger, let's look at a some preventative measures you might take so you don't have to join the ranks of the miserable, searching, suffering souls loudly expressing their howls of pain and ignorance across the Earth.

The Ideal:
In a healthy society it would make sense that young people go to school and get a broad education. Early education should encompass many ideas, subjects, applications, and activities unfettered by judgment. These areas should be based on the best evidence available, not what someone's parents were taught, and not what some person or community has conjured up as an ideology of what the world should be like. As one gets older and learns more about his or her world and his or her interests and talents, they should be encouraged to focus on those interests and talents so that one day they may contribute to society in a way that is both rewarding and beneficial to everyone.

Reality:
What actually happens is that young people have their elders' uninformed ideas, philosophies, prejudices, and poor habits shoved down their throats until they lose hope. They start to believe their talents and interests are worthless to society because they may not contribute to financial success for themselves or their country. I can't count the number of talented, intelligent, sensitive people I met growing up who literally or figuratively had their hopes and dreams beat out of them with simple-minded statements like, "Get real," and "You're living in a dream world." Most of these individuals gave up early on their interests and talents and now contribute little more than menial tasks at low-skilled jobs. They have become the new misinformed adults, embittered with the reality they have created for themselves and passing on poor advice to the next generation.

The Ideal:
Children who are encouraged to throw themselves into their talents, interests, and education grow up to contribute and want to live happy, healthy lives. They are not beaten down with the fabricated falsities of the previous generation, but focused on untangling the needless complication of what is otherwise a simple, enjoyable way to live. Those who find themselves interested and talented in areas that lead to lucrative careers should consider themselves lucky. They have won the "ovarian lottery"! Now they can live happily with job satisfaction and money to live comfortably and give back to the society that appreciates their contribution enough to make them wealthy. Those with skills in areas not so lucrative, but equally important in society--say, the arts, or science research, or academic inquiry, or public health--should still follow their interests. If it becomes necessary to work a day job to fund what truly brings a person and his or her community joy, then so be it. There is no reason to become a slave to a career or a company where one is contributing none of his or her talents, and finds the job un-stimulating. In an ideal situation those lucky ovarian lottery winners would take the time to financially and otherwise appreciate what these, unfortunately, not so valued contributors are contributing.

The Reality: People want money and stuff more than satisfaction and joy. People create companies making products that quite frankly are unnecessary gadgets, toys, and distractions. Other adults, infatuated with their own suffering and hardships, buy these products to distract themselves from the pain they have created by giving up on their talents and skills. Instead of working toward recovery from the problems they have already created, or refocusing on what would truly bring them joy and allow them to contribute in a positive way, people go to work for the very companies they are making wealthy by buying their products of distraction and opulence. Thus, the tail begins wagging the dog. Companies contributing shallow (but entertaining) products get wealthy and hire the people buying their products so these people can make more money to continue buying the products that keep them employed. Society becomes one continuous loop of working, producing, and consuming, very few focusing on the activities, talents, ideas, and applications they were taught as a child. This is not freedom; this is little more than indentured servitude in disguise.

Final Thoughts: It doesn't have to be this way, but most people find it incredibly difficult to pass up a life of wealth and stuff for something that brings them and the world joy. They tell themselves, "I have a family to support," or "I have bills to pay," or, "I can't keep living in a fantasy world, I have to be more responsible." What does this mean? How did they accumulate these bills? Exactly what are they doing to "support" their families that requires them to miserably slug through life working on things that bring them suffering. Is suffering helping their families? Is it possible that their spouses and children perhaps do not need to be dressed to the 9s, living in houses with rooms that barely get used, driving in cars that are in no way efficient uses of money or resources, and living in a culture focused predominantly on distraction, production, and consumerism? Would it not be more beneficial, more responsible, and less expensive to contribute something truly valuable to society that also happens to bring personal joy? These problems people have are their own creation. Many children are very happy, healthy, contributors. This is obvious in the fact that so many suffering adults continue to have more and more children in hopes that these innocent beings will bring them the joy they are lacking. Where do the kids get off-track? Why do parents simultaneously want to help while only making things worse?

Is Jay Farrar right? Are we causing it?

The Conclusion of Lost: In Praise of Rose and Bernard

After so many hours spent wondering if Lost was written by teleplay geniuses, the likes of Aaron Sorkin et al, or sloppy sci-fi nerds on meth, I still can't quite wrap my head around the liberal arts orgasm that was six long years of this television thriller. I had hope; I really did. I kept on episode after episode of unsatisfying endings that continually brought more questions than answers, thinking to myself, "Surely these guys have a plan. The writing is so good in certain parts. They have to know what they're doing. This is going to be brilliant when it comes together!"

But it didn't.

Complete with polar bears, a malevolent smoke cloud, religion vs. science, logic vs. the supernatural, a grab bag of philosophical theories, Christ figures, Bible story parallels, heroes, antiheroes, heroines, and enough characters to fill Times Square, I personally assumed that any team of writers with the hubris to go this far outside the generally accepted guidelines for crafting a solid story (on national television no less) had to be worth the brain power to figure out what it all meant.

But they weren't what I had hoped for.

In the end, the show turned out to have vomited every literary tool from the profound fantasy world with conflicting laws of God, Man, and Nature to trite tension-building devices the likes of what may be seen in a MacGruber skit on SNL. A large part of writing, like many arts, is restraint. Just because one has a comprehensive toolbox (which the Lost writers obviously do) doesn't mean one has to use every tool in the box to create a quality story. After all, it doesn't take a jackhammer to build intricate cabinetry.

I appreciated their effort to get as far away as possible from the hackneyed, "lost on a island without contact to the rest of the world," story (aka: Lord of the Flies, Cast Away, Gilligan's Island, etc), but now that it's over, I have to say that I'm not sure they succeeded with this strategy. They kept it interesting and exciting, but much in the same way that one could keep his or her life exciting by constantly changing settings, partners, groups of friends, worldviews, and values (not to mention time and space) every few months so as to avoid building something deeper, lasting, and more meaningful.

I thought this was the conclusion the characters would come to--that life in the real world wasn't that much better or worse than life on the island, so why go through so much trouble and risk trying to get back there. But this is what Lost lacked.

For all its metaphor and spiritual philosophy and existential quests for life's meaning, only two were able to come to a place of enlightenment and find peace in their lives. When Rose and Bernard finally said: Look, you guys are way too restless for us. We're staying here and we're going to except that some day we will die--whether it be from an island exploding, Others killing us, black smoke tossing us into a tree, or in a car wreck back in the real world--and enjoy the fact that we're on a beautiful island with everything we need in life; I wanted to scream, "Finally!"

Every week some character would get a big idea and hike everyone to the other side of the island and they would fight with each other along the way and then get there only to realize that why they went in the first place didn't turn out to be the answer to anything. Then someone gets a different crazy idea from that journey and talks everyone into going on a different hike to another far-off place on the island (how big was this friggin island anyway?) to find some other potential clue for either, A) getting off the island, or B) figuring out the grand meaning of the island and why they were there. I'm still not sure which of these was supposed to be the big-picture conflict the characters were to overcome or that either actually occurred.

So, like many Lost fans, I spent the evening and next day after the finale racking my brain to put it all together--searching for some nugget of logic to satisfy my need to reconcile watching so much story for so little payoff--and came to much of the same conclusion as Bernard and Rose. This story was not about fate, or meaning, or relationships, or time travel. It was about trite drama and tension-building. The island was not the super-glue of life holding the universe together with its pure white life-force radiating from a cave beyond the bamboo fields. It was about keeping the story as vague and intense as possible to keep us on the hook week after week. If the dark smoke was trying to put out the "light of life," and everyone was there to stop this from happening, shouldn't we have learned this prior to two episodes before the end of the series? And since the light was put out briefly at the end with only the repercussion of some mild earthquakes, can we really believe the light was that important after all? Was it important the way pushing the button in the hatch was important--until it wasn't. If putting out the light was, as Charles Whitmore, Ben, and Jacob all implied, going to destroy the universe and everyone in it, wouldn't it have been more important for everyone to stay on the island and prevent it from being put-out rather than hastily fleeing the island only to go back to their flawed lives that would soon end if the light went out anyway?

Being brought to the island did not turn out to be about anything except the idea that Jacob had brought some of the people on the plane--because after all there was an entire other half of the plane that became Anna Lucia's crowd, who apparently weren't candidates because they weren't sitting in the front (was Jacob involved in the seating arrangement?)--as possible choices to protect the light when he died. After six seasons of leading us to dead-ends and implying false synchronizations between character's lives in a parallel universe, and false tension about what will end the world, it turns out in the final scene the moral of the story was: everyone dies? Maybe?

If this is what we walk away from Lost with, I have to say that the only characters who seemed to have arrived at this answer before dying were Bernard and Rose (very minor characters). I suppose John Locke went through some change, but never really codified a new perspective before dying and having his body hijacked by a smoke monster. Jack seemed to have gone through a change from logical naivety to confused supernatural believer, and then back to some middle-ground hybrid of the two; again, never finding anything like the enlightenment Bernard and Rose found. He still needed to fix everything; still needing to be the hero. Sawyer seemed to have come close to enlightenment during 1970s Darma era. He seemed content and satisfied with his life and community. Jack and Kate came close in the real world while raising Aaron. Hurly seemed to exist in somewhat of a transcendent realm all the way through with no real change. But--and this is for all those arguing that Lost was a character-driven story--the plot twists continually got in the way of the character's finding what they were looking for. I let this ride thinking that the real story was about the island and getting back there and figuring it out and keeping it around so the world would not explode. But they went back and immediately started looking for ways to leave again!

I wish I could give the writers more credit than I do, but alas, I cannot. Sloppy writing is sloppy writing, even if it's thoroughly entertaining until it falls apart at the end. The end is what matters. Making crazy things happen and torturing characters is easy. Resolving the conflict in a way that is neither overly sappy, nor gratuitously tragic is what makes writing great. This is usually done by not raising viewers' expectations to the heavens so that no realistic ending will ever live up to the rise in plot. Subtlety was definitely not in the Lost writers' tool box. Nor was managing a hundred characters (though spending entire episodes on the back-stories of minor characters does kill a lot of time). Had it ended differently I could have given the writers this: that people do often run around from crazy idea to crazy idea, ignoring interesting and beautiful people in their lives and not appreciating what's around them. But since, in the end only Rose and Bernard seemed to get this, it is hard to justify all that intense drama over essentially trying not to die (and in the process killing half the characters). Had the writers been writing with the end in mind, this wouldn't have happened. They had two conflicting conflicts (if you will) that could not be simultaneously resolved. Either everyone was supposed to get off the island, or everyone was supposed to figure out why they had been brought to the island and fulfill their purpose for being there. Because they were trying to do both, there really was no chance that the ending would bring closure.

The Politics of Now

Always optimistic and painfully distracted, Americans have lost a vision of a sustainable and forward-thinking socioeconomic future. Why? There are several reasons that ultimately boil down to lack of education, impatience with long-term plans, America's notoriously myopic worldview, and perhaps worst of all, an adolescent interpretation of the word, "freedom."


Lack of Education

To some this may seem like a radical statement. After all the United States has some of the most educated people in the world living here. In fact, this is the place to come for a cutting-edge education in a variety of academic areas. But these powerhouses make up only a small fraction of the U.S. population. Furthermore, many times these intellectual giants set aside any altruistic ambitions they had for studying their field of choice in lieu of pursuing the kind of wealth that is offered by multinational corporations. This isn't always a bad thing, but as we have seen in the recent years, when the people working for the corporations are smarter than the elected officials attempting to regulate them, the temptation to set ethics on the back burner becomes very appealing. After all, who's going to stop them?

In a democracy, the answer should be, "the people." Unfortunately this would require a certain degree of critical thinking and intelligent subversiveness toward the American idealism we are taught growing up. People who possess this ability to sift through the BS and focus on the harsh reality behind the hype, often went to college, where professors have the power to tell the truth and back it up. Unfortunately, so did many of the people providing the irrational hype--they went to college specifically to learn how to very effectively create the kind of hype that keeps people buying their products, working for their companies, and voting for their politics. In an educated society, entertainers like Sarah Palin and Glen Beck would not exist. People would be outraged that one of their fellow citizens would have the audacity to say such ignorant things into a microphone for all the world to hear. They would say, "What is that opinion based on?" or "Do a study and prove it," and these entertainers posing as politicians and members of the media would go back to theater where they belong. But America as a whole does not have the gumption or the information to ask these questions. Nor do they seem to disagree with the misinformation being conveyed. When people like this are welcomed into a culture with open-arms and paid handsomely for irresponsibly interjecting nonsense into the our political discourse, what is an intelligent American to think except that they live in a frighteningly uneducated country.

Impatience With Long-Term Plans

Progress takes time, patience, and discipline. Three things of which Americans are not big fans. We want to hit a button and have immediate gratification. Whether it's surfing channels, surfing the web, or multitasking for a job, we want things to happen, right now! Creating a sustainable, healthy, and educated society doesn't work this way. It's a chess game, not a hundred-yard sprint. It's relocating hundred year-old trees, not searching websites. It requires strategy that is often complex and it takes years--even decades--to see the results. But the results are lasting. As any chess player faced with a small-minded opponent who's in a hurry will tell you, it's not difficult to settle in and frustrate this individual with a slow, solid game plan. In politics, professionals gauge their success with statistical indicators and studies. They collect data, and if what they intended to happen is happening (however slowly) they argue to stay the course. However, this does little good when they are arguing against people who not only don't understand the studies, but make full-throated arguments against the idea that facts reflect reality. Some even go so far as to suggest that what is happening in the world is a result of some supernatural happenings--that their praying is doing more good than educated people making well thought-out plans and following through on them. What's more is that even if the plan sounds good, many don't have the discipline to let the plan take effect. Some will hear a plan, listen to some entertainer (with no credentials to be speaking on the topic) bash the plan as unrealistic, or expensive, or out of sync with some arbitrary set of principles they believe Americans still value, and the next thing we know, the architect of the plan is being voted out of office and the plan is being scrapped for the tired, old, dysfunctional mantras of less taxes, less government regulations, and enforcing religious social dogmas. Which brings me to my next point:

America's Adolescent Interpretation of the Word, "Freedom"

Most Americans love this word. We toss it out like t-shirts at a pep rally. We say it in the same way a teenager tells her mother, "You're not the boss of me!" But it's a very vague noun. Freedom from what? Freedom for what? Does it mean we should scrap all rules and legislation from federal to municipal and live like anarchists? That's what pure social freedom would look like. Does it mean individuals should be able to profit from any product or service that the public demands? That's what total economic freedom would mean. Yet nearly all elected officials from the president (almost all our presidents in fact) to the mayor of the smallest town in your state implement policies that fall closer to living in a society where government dictates social behavior more than personal choice does, and free market demands control the economy more than government regulation does. By and large, when American citizens are tossing out the word, "freedom," they mean social freedom. They mean, "I should be able to say what I want, go where I want, and live how I want." Yet they vote for politicians who do not agree; who don't trust their electorate to make wise choices when left to their own devices (and for good reason based on some of the social problems our country has). When business people talk about freedom, they are arguing for economic freedom. They make more money when they are able to ignore studies about how their industry is negatively impacting the world. So, the less the government says, "Run your business in a safe, just, and ethical manner, or pay the price," the more they profit by pushing the envelope in these areas. However, this wonderfully vague word, "freedom," makes it very convenient for business people--and politicians supporting profit over the aforementioned moral values we claim to uphold in the U.S.-- to lump economic freedom in with social freedom, creating a culture of people who just want government to go away, period.

The majority of Americans--average Americans working 9-5 jobs and making in the area of $25,000-$65,000 a year per household--do not benefit when the government, "goes away," with regard to economic issues. When government, "goes away," average people can be required by their employers to work more for less wages in unhealthy environments and endure a total disregard for issues regarding race, gender, sexuality, and those social freedoms Americans get so up in arms over in the political conversation. The government, when the people use the system for what benefits them and don't vote based on wishful thinking, is the average person's first line of defense against the tyranny of the private businesses for whom they work. We elect government officials; we are employed by businesses. We have control over our government; our ability to survive rests in the hands of the people for whom we work. So do we really want to lump economic freedom in with social freedom? Are most people going to start the next Walmart or Microsoft? No. This happens for less than one percent of the population. And even if one does come up with the next great idea, should they be allowed to do whatever they want to keep the bottom-line growing?

Thus, it is very childish for average Americans to get on their soapbox about the word "freedom." Are school kids free? They're Americans. Should they be able to do whatever they want? Should child molesters? Should pimps? Prostitution is an industry. One of the oldest. There will always be a public demand for anonymous sex and illegal drugs. Should government stay out of those industries too? It's irrational and irresponsible to use the word, "freedom" so cavalierly. It is especially so when one votes based on listening to candidates who throw this word around like they're William Wallace in Braveheart; like they're going to unshackle their constituents from the very government they are a part of. Ironically, the politicians who use this word most frequently are talking about economic freedom, but leaving it open to be interpreted by uneducated Americans as talking about social freedom. Most likely these politicians are going to free their business friends from having to behave responsibly. In a country where businesses are free to make the rules, social freedoms need not even enter the discussion. It's not hard to control a population's social behaviors when you pay their bills. Employees must dress as the business says, speak as the business says, and behave in a manner that is to the business' liking. As long as a person is at work, they are not free. As long as we vote for politicians that give businesses the power to hire or fire us at their choosing, we are turning over social freedoms to private business owners. When we vote for politicians who believe in social justice, responsible (even when not profitable) business practices, and long-term plans for average Americans, we remain in control of our lives.

America's Myopic Worldview

Americans are notoriously bad at knowing what is happening outside of our borders. Last I checked, something like 10% of Americans even own a passport. Thus, we think we have it better than the rest of the world, but have absolutely nothing to compare our country to. Not only that, we don't read about other countries' cultures, religions, or customs. This tiny worldview leads to fear of the unknown and over-reaction to how the rest of the world's choices are affecting us, and visa versa. Again, in a democracy this is terrifying, both to many Americans and especially to those living in the rest of the world. When we are afraid of people who have done nothing to us, and would do nothing to us, we elect leaders who share these fears and perpetuate these fears to get elected. We become a very dangerous super-power. Imagine what a paranoid Bill Gates with nuclear weapons and a narcissistic personality would be like. Pretty scary right? He could do whatever he wanted to anyone he wanted. We have enormous power and control in the states and yet so many act like victims and vote like victims. The result is war and profiling and deportation and police brutality and hate crimes and legal torture. When powerful people get frightened over nothing, it tends to set the people around them on edge.

Midterm Elections

So as primaries begin across the U.S. in the coming weeks and campaigns start kicking into gear for November, think about what you're being told. Ask, "What is that based on?" when politicians and pundits make assertions. Ask, "Freedom for whom? Freedom from what?" when these same people start dropping freedom-bombs into their diatribes. Take a long-view of the plans politicians are offering. Will it benefit people seven generations from now? Maybe it will cost money to get started, but will it save your children and grandchildren money? And take a breath America. Overhauls like health care will take longer than six months for the benefits to become apparent, but your children will thank you for your patience. The same is true of all the regulations being hashed out right now. Is this really the time to put some dogmatic politician in office who will just fight to undo the strategies that are mostly working and mostly on the right track? Do you remember what Bush was like? Do you want to be smarter than your elected officials, or do you want educated people with well thought-out strategies to make your country a better place to live? Think. Vote. Be rational. Obama IS getting things done, but if he loses a democratic majority in congress, it's goodbye progress, and hello trouble.

The Gap (Or Why My Day-To-Day Disturbs Me)

I just finished writing a fairly scathing email to my fellow classmates and professor over a conversation we're having online debating whether a general audience understands mrems (I would explain mrems but until I research them myself, I don't know what they are either). My email was provoked by an assignment that we as technical editing students have to do for class. The assignment is asking us to solve equations related to physics, calculus, and chemistry. I have never taken physics or calculus and I took one entry-level chemistry class at age sixteen. My beef is that my professor and classmates are seriously going back and forth about what the best way to express these equations would be for the general public (my teacher arguing that most people know what mrems are). I not-so-gently explained (as I do sometimes when frustrated with either extreme idiocy or extreme intelligence that, through detachment from commonsense, lends itself to idiocy) that only 27% of Americans have a bachelors degree and 6.9% have a graduate degree and that a large chunk of these degrees are in business fields, liberal arts, and social sciences. As an English major I argued that because I have never seen equations like the three pages worth that I'm supposed to solve for homework (through magically learning three specialized areas of math and science in a week) that there is a good chance most average people have not either. As technical writers and editors our job is to break down technical information into a digestible format for average people. To do this, it seems to me that we need to be a little more in touch with what average people understand.

The bigger picture of my frustration comes from working all day with severely mentally ill people living in public housing. Every other day I hear the worst story I've ever heard in my life: voices, hallucinations, sexual abuse, physical abuse, animal abuse, drug and alcohol abuse, suicide, jail, psychiatric hospitals, grandparents raping their grandchildren, self-mutilation (sometimes of genitals)--you name it. I help these people attempt to "tune out" their ailments for an hour a week and focus on cleaning, organizing, cooking for themselves, eating something besides fast food everyday, etc. Then I get on my bike for a brief reprieve from the madness and ride to the university where I squabble over comma usage, and whether a verb is placed too far away from its subject and the evil of all evils: dangling modifiers! NO!

I understand that both realms are important. For instance, I sat down for my morning coffee the other day and started reading a newsletter that came in the mail from our state senator and had to get my editing pencil it was so bad. It made me think less of him and his competence as a senator, and was distracting from the substance of his ideas. So, I get that a well crafted document is a significant aspect of the professional world; it's just that: A) It seems rather trite in comparison to what I hear about during the earlier part of my day, and B) At some point, good enough is good enough. Most people are too busy to give a goddamn about proper grammar; they just want to access the information they need quickly and move on.

I only share this story because I think it points to the gap between what some Americans are very worried about versus the much larger chunk of people who are just trying to get through the week (and how one does very little to help the other). I consider a job well done as a writer if no one notices errors in a quick read over my material and walks away with the information they needed. In the context of say, a 1500 page technical book, which I may write or edit at some point in the not-so-distant future, an occasional typo or misplaced comma isn't going to kill anyone. Me setting off a vulnerable client at work might. The difficult part for me is that the people in my classes have no idea that people like those I work with exist in the world--no clue. And the people I work with have zero interest in the things my classmates and profs will spend thirty minutes of a class period arguing over. I don't know that this is a problem, or can be remedied, or is just life, but it definitely disturbs me on a weekly basis. How we get one privileged group of people to reach out to a struggling group of fellow citizens instead of splitting hairs over obscure information is beyond me. If you have ideas, you're a better person than me.

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.