Humanity Hour One: A Review
(or Delusion: Part Four.)
Posted by seed @ 10:48 PM
I made a post a while back regarding the latest Scorpion album, Humanity. I've had time since then to spin the disc no less than twenty times. I don't say this lightly, it comes from me with very high recommendations. Granted, you will have to be able to cross over into the metal category, albeit quinquagenarian-style, to be able to embrace the album. Fuck-it, open your mind. What you will find is an album that does a very solid job of describing some of the finer things that are human.
I will not go into an anthology of the band. That has been done before. What is of note is the the Scorpions prove, with this latest album, why the Rolling Stones completely suck beyond all comprehension. While Mic and the galactically embalmed have been producing the same mediocre, formulaic material for decades, a similarly aged band has been attempting new material. With the latest offering, the Scorpions bring in Desmond Child and take a swing at an album that loosely resembles a concept album. The results are fantastic. Not only is the album catchy like the clap, parts of it are actually beautifully composed. I know, it's hard to type that in regards to a Scorpion album.
Still, I cannot help but listen to the album and get a good reflective choke at parts, a spirited uplift at others and a nice smirk in your general direction towards the end. All of this without the mention of religion, which is most conspicuous, given our recent discussions: three, two...one.
Human nature is the reason
For our downfall
And we deserve it playing God
With our machines
Our religions are a prison
That's our fatal flaw
Bombs are flying
While we're sleeping with the enemy...Source: Hour One
I cannot help but juxtapose this album into the meat grinder that we get from Dawkins and Steyn. With Steyn we get the current state of events indicate non-secular is kicking the crap out of the secular, in terms of the reproductive hit-parade. Which is interesting, when considering that Dawkins, the premier biologist of his time, considers the power of science enough to satisfy the intellect. Satisfied or not, not making babies is a sure way to lose the race. That left me with the thought that humanity cannot exist without religion, in some shape or form. And then again maybe not.
What the Scorpions have presented here is an album that articulates ambition, aspiration, remorse, love, masochism, addiction, honesty and acceptance all without the higher-power jargon that other artists choose to associate with these feelings. The Scorpions describe what it is to be human, and nothing more than that. If you only get a few minutes to convince yourself, try these: We Were Born to Fly, The Future Never Dies, Your Last Song, Love is War. (And yeah, that's Billy Corgan in The Cross.)
I'm putting in my prediction for album of the year, in the metal genre.
This just in: Wood hardly gives a chubby.
Posted by seed @ 12:55 PM
No offense intended towards Kid K at all. With all the success the Cubs have been having over the last two months, there's plenty to get excited about. In fact, it was nice to get on with our lives without the constant reminder of the bad breakup that was Wood and Prior's pitching status. Every time I flpped on the news not only was I reminded that the Cubs lost that day, there was continued coverage of the proclaimed prodigies and their health, or lack thereof.
Since then, the Cubs have done a 180ยบ and surfaced above .500 and in chase with the Brewers for first-place. All along the way, we began to ask Mark who? Kerry, you mean that kid who pitched out-of-his-mind a few years back? And we were all the better for it. Nowadays, the thought of the dynamic duo doesn't even give me a chubby. And then there's this.
Surgery seemed imminent, but Wood decided to throw one last time, if only to confirm what he already knew. "(I) really just went out to go throw and it would flare up, so when I went and saw a doctor, they wouldn't miss anything," he said. But the shoulder didn't erupt. Wood felt great. He threw again the next day without pain.
After four rehab appearances for the Cubs' rookie-league team, Wood is inching closer to a return. He threw 17 pitches Saturday, allowing a hit and an unearned run in 1 inning of work, before flying to Chicago for his Strike Zone Celebrity Bowling Tournament, held Sunday night.
Umm, that sounds more like a reading of the immaculate conception that it does an DL pitching report. Wood just decided to go out and pitch one day, and sure enough, the clouds parted and he felt great.
As for the California Kid, my money says he's on the market by the end of the year.
Delusion: Part Three.
Posted by seed @ 3:33 PM
It's difficult to consider Steyn and Dawkins in the same mindset and not point them at each other. Richard Dawkins' arguments boil down to the pure idea of science being enough to feed the human mind* (God Delusion, p 362). Religion is a by-product of the software we possess. We have everything we need to lead fulfilling lives. If we didn't have a moral base already established we would not have been able to create religion in the first place. The idea of moral is a misnomer. What we consider moral is simply what has proved to be advantageous to our species: cooperation, protection, etc. A biological Game theory, of sorts.
If that is the theory, and we are lead to consider that secular thoughts are enough to progress our species, then Mark Steyn torches it with a study of demographics. The West's secular population replacement rates are in steep decline, while the non-secular Middle East's rates are exactly the opposite. In practice, it appears that the secular team is losing numbers fast, while the groups that posses the strongest faiths, either christian or islamic, are adding to their ranks. As a biologist, I would be interested in hearing Dawkins' response to current reproduction trends. Regardless of whether or not religion propagates misunderstandings about our species, I agree that it does, religion sure seems to be better at convincing people to have more babies, which is the name of the game.
With that said, the absence of belief that is atheism is not unifying. As convincing as Dawkins' arguments are, I still find myself coming to the conclusion that the secular society is not workable on a large scale, where variables range from desperate poverty to physical deformities. "What's that you say? You were born with a spine that resembles a pasta dish? Well, that's too bad, hope you make the best of your one time around." It is nice to suggest that the idea of humanity can be enough to organize, motivate and unify a society. In practice, without the top-down influence of a higher power, I don't see society motivating behind common ideas.
If we remove the labels that religion affords, then we are forced to organize under other lesser labels, either race, nationality, political party or even a local sports franchise. The thing that religion has going for it is the trump card. Conflicts that arise from differences in race or politics can be unified under a religion. The idea of a common humanity is still one notch down on the ladder.
I absolutely believe that the concept of an after life/supreme leader is complete bullshit. At the same time, once the genie is out of the bottle, it's hard to put her back.
Birth of a Single-Issue Voter, The Series: Part I
Posted by Savage Henry @ 3:03 PM
Let's get the whole series started. Consider this a warm up. A setting of the stage, if you will.
You are not owed good health.
There is no point at which, in any legal setting or document, you have been promised an ongoing, unblemished record of health and general wellness. And even if someone has attempted to sell this to you, there is no way to actually make it happen. Simply, we are machines, imperfect and prone to multiple part failure. It's built right into the system; planned obsolescence didn't start with car makers in the 80s.
Not even the time-worn phrase from the Declaration of Independence, that among man's unalienable rights we count "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", suggests that you have some claim to a life without ailment. [Aside: (And note, be prepared for many of these. I am a notoriously non-linear thinker, and frequently interrupt myself. Hearing no objections...) You ought to familiarize yourself with the notion and usage of "in(un)alienable" here. The word choice, like so much of Jefferson's writing, is searingly specific. An inability to transfer those rights, by will or by force, through sale or granting, runs as a common thread through those rights considered to be basic or fundamental to all humans. Their inability to be repudiated, even by the holder, is of primary concern here.] In very basic terms, we can consider these delineation of a few negative rights: ones that demarcate how others are unable to act. At base, you are (if you choose to not trample these basic rights) prevented from acting in such a way as to deny me, well, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The emphasis is to indicate, again through Jefferson's mastery of both philosophy and language, the understanding that happiness itself is not the right, but rather the ability to follow your interests in attempting to achieve it, is.
Of course, positive and negative rights are a fairly simplistic view of the issue, and we have a strong and pressing concern with the fact that some basic behavior that, freely chosen, does impact the ability of others to continue with their lives unimpeded. The long and tortuous debates on this are not my point here. I concede fully that a total right to drink yourself into oblivion, mixed with the right to own a car, shaken with a liberal amount of the right to be a complete assclown (I'm looking at you, T. Kennedy) can and often will interfere horrendously with others. Some restraint must be in place. In the end, though, the stark, bright line between positive and negative helps frame the argument in a way that hopefully avoids the regular pitfalls so regular in such debates; shades can and do exist, but would only detract from the major topic.
A right to a certain level of health, however, is by construction a positive right. That is, it obliges others to act in a way to ensure that good health is yours for the taking. Of course, this does not stop numerous people from arguing that health is, of course, a basic right to be provided by the governing system. And thus does it enter our debates about the health system in use in the US. There seems to me be a reductio ad absurdum issue, however, if we are to consider health as a positive right. [Aside: The basic idea of a positive right to life is a sticky one, and not one I feel capable of, or compelled to, make. Do you have an obligation to help me out of a burning car? Help me if I'm choking? I'd like to think you might help, but if it were a legally recognized right, I might be able to sue everyone who passed by on the highway, or everyone seated in a restaurant who didn't attempt to help. I expect Chuck Palahniuk's sequel to Choke to cover this...] To be obligated to help you keep up good health, I could be liable for any action I take that allows you to engage in things that are unhealthy. I simply couldn't go out my door, knowing the statistics on deaths in cars every year.
To make a claim that health is a right, you must, I would say, have to be willing to also claim that everyone around you is obligated to contribute to your wellbeing. And vice versa. The next logical step is to suggest that you, as a trustee of my health, have a right to know those things I do that might result in poor health. This is the nature of a positive right. Either choose total ignorance, in which case you're choosing to avoid all instances where you might help (and are thus avoiding your duty), or take seriously the responsibility and make sure that I cannot do things that result in problems down the line.
The possibility for total deprivation of privacy is clear. But it's not much discussed. People might suggest that such extremes are impossible, and of no use in argument. Even if I concede that we're not on the track to living in 1984, there is still much use to be had in pointing out the end-point of a line of argumentation. At what point would it stop, this command and control of my habits by well-meaning others? Certain drugs are verboten. Drinking is limited, and public intoxication is against the law. But we have moved beyond this, to limiting the ingredients in mass-produced food, to banning foods because of fat content. We have told private business that their customers must not smoke. We have done this despite the complete ability of people to avoid the potentially hazardous situation. The negative right has been swapped, in legislation, for a positive one. And the results of the positive right are, I argue, clear and ludicrous.
Birth of a Single-Issue voter, The Series: Intro
Posted by Savage Henry @ 2:50 PM
Have you noticed that a good portion of the news coverage of the coming 2008 US President's Derby Race begins with "Of course, it's over a year and a half away, but..." followed by a rehashed version of a prior story about how the race is "shaping up"? Me too. But I have to borrow the point, I'm afraid, since I can already tell something about how this whole thing is going to turn out for me. And, since I can get some free space to ramble on, I figured I'd share my decision with you.
Let's cut to the chase: I'm voting for whoever I think will keep this country away from universal health care the longest. This might be a conservative who will steadfastly fight against the policy, or it could be a liberal who is likely to so botch the process or incite so much negative opinion, that it will mobilize people against the plan. Either way, the result is clear. I've come to the opinion that the single most damaging policy that could be enacted by the new administration (which can only occur because some of the whoppers of the current administration have made even Bill O'Reilly stop and stare) is some form of single-payer/single-buyer/universal/whatever you want to call it so it doesn't sound like socialized medicine.
And I want to make excruciatingly clear to people why I've come to this point. So I'll take some time, lay out the points, hit the topics as they occur to me, and provide anyone who cares to read it, precisely why the concept of actual universal health care in the US scares the living fuck out of me.
Please, feel free to offer support, criticism, pointers, topics for consideration, or just stay quiet. It makes no difference to me. Be prepared for some econ, some ethics, some constitutional references, politics, and perhaps a judicious amount of swearing.
This isn't a debate hall, it's the Mint.
Delusion: Part Two
Posted by seed @ 11:17 PM
Dawkins leads with the question: Why do we offer intellectual concessions to those who possess strong religious convictions, while not making similar exceptions to those who believe in anything from astrology to boogie men, when all are based on the same amount of factual data?
Enter Mark Steyn: America Alone.
Muslims have assimilated brilliantly, at least when it comes to mastering the principal discourse of the advanced democratic state - the legalism, victimology and entitlement culture. Here are two small foot-of-the-page news items: First, a decision by the Massachusetts Supreme court as reported by the Boston Herald: "The state's highest court has rules that the state prison system has failed to justify denying a Muslim inmate special feast-day meats, such as oxen and camel. (link)
The third infantry division has to make do with MREs, by a muslim prisoner can sue because they're not serving him camel. Meanwhile, in Britain they're rebuilding half the bathrooms in Her Majesty's prisons because Muslim inmates complained that the toilets face Mecca and that therefore they're obliged to ride sidesaddle, which can be very uncomfortable. (link)
Steyn is a human blow-torch. Where Dawkins asks the high-brow questions, Steyn jumps right in the trench and blankly states that there is one religion that consistently refuses to play nice with other. It starts with I and ends with slam. Shelve that for a minute.
The crux of America Alone is a study of demographics that is hard to argue with. Try this: Western Europe has the largest entitlement programs that are funded by the highest taxes, anywhere. The problem they face is one of dwindling birth rates. Most of Western Europe is at or below 1.5 kids per household. That is below replacement rate and means that every generation at that rate equals 20-30% less people. Which, if you're funding such an entitlement state, is a huge problem. Skipping the why component of Western Europe's low reproduction rate - could be a new consciousness, or simply that too many Parisians are content sipping espresso and listening to their iPods in quaint cafes - the what is a significant factor. Europe's native populations are decreasing, with Spain being the worst at a rate of 1.2 kids per household.
But that doesn't mean that their populations are dwindling. Guess which groups have fantastic replacement rates? Hint: starts with I. You got it. Most Muslim countries have rates between 3 and 6. Now, Steyn doesn't correct that for first-world and third-world variables. Even considering that, it doesn't take too long to see who is moving in. Western Europe's nanny state is failing to sustain itself, for whatever reason it's native people are not procreating. Muslim populations are immigrating to fill the void. When they do, they will begin to shoulder the tax burden and with it, gain more political leverage. See also: America's hispanic influence on immigration policy.
At this point, some of you are ready to wave the asshole flag in my direction. Not so fast. What's being presented here is a completely normal thing when it comes to demographics. One population goes down, the one that goes up gets power. Simple enough. I am not suggesting here that there is an attack on western culture. What I am describing is a potential shift in the tide, same as any time in history.
The difference is that tide is unified under a set of memes that do not openly endorse alternative points of view. Wanna try it out? Count the number of instances where Muslims openly protested against their own citizens for inciting the cartoon riots. How about the number of times Muslims have held memorial services for their own citizens that were the victims of their own terrorists. Come up empty? Think about that the next time the anniversary of the Oklahoma Bombings comes around, or Columbine. Dawkins' question of why we grant asylum to the insane, in the name of respect and diversity rings true.
Steyn goes on to cite numerous examples of why a utopian welfare state modeled after Western Europe is a tragic mistake. Say what you want about idealistic goals of a modern society. Point blank: the reason Western Europe can afford their current entitlement programs is because their defense was subsidized by America. Altruism aside, it just so happens that they were in between the Red Bear and Uncle Sam. The U.S. does not have the same luxury. Current tax burdens and entitlement guarantees have the potential to strap America with an economic chastity belt. A healthcare overhaul is not in the best interest. But that's off-topic.
What is of note is that a shift in demographics towards Muslim inhabitants will change the face of Europe. The question that is left is what type of change that will be. Will it be a shift that assimilates to a multi-faceted culture? Or, is there a component to the Muslim culture that is more receptive towards 7th century values? Of course there are no absolutes, insert the not-all-this or -that disclaimers here. Steyn could be a doomsday crier. Or he could be raising a flag that says Creeping Normalcy at Play. To bring Dawkins back into the mix, and I do not know that the two would even entertain a conversation, if a predisposition towards faith in teams through memes is a given, then we should be really specific which teams those are. Diversity for diversity's sake is a delusion.
Stage Nine Wreckage
Posted by seed @ 8:42 AM
You guys saw the rider/dog collision on the 9th stage of the Tour de France, right? Ok, I've had a few bike collisions before, some of which were pretty significant. None of them resulted in a rim that looks like it came from Savage's higher math courses. Curbs, embankments, asians... you name it, I've hit 'em square-on and have never had a front wheel look like that. This guy hits a golden lab, smack in the ribs, resulting in a front rim that looks like a calamari appetizer.
And the pooch is fine. I don't get it.
Big type is back.
Posted by seed @ 7:47 AM
I had some time this weekend to get to the new skin. There are still a few pages that I need to get to.The search function is not currently working. But that is a quick fix. And then I still need to revise the css classes that we I use here. If you like, make the same calls in your posts and they will work in a few days.
My hope is to get the multi-column layout working on the individual archive pages. And then maybe getting the Andromeda data to load on the home page and nix the pop-up window all together - it's so 90's.
As always, once I get things nailed down all appropriate linkage to those that I borrowed code from will be served up.
If you guys notice anything that is entirely wiggey, please drop a line.
Had a great time in the Sandwich Islands
Posted by seed @ 11:15 PM
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
Had a chance to stretch the legs, and a few lenses. Spent four nights in O'ahu and three on the Big Island, where the Fairmont gave us a complimentary upgrade to their $800/night gold level room. I have no idea why, and honestly, I wanted to start stringing people up by the end of the stay there. I mean who the fuck travels to Hawaii with two nannies for four kids anyway? Jeeez.
O'ahu is fabulous. We beach-hoped and hit a few landmarks. The island of Hawaii was a little unexpected, to be honest. We stayed on the Kona side with day trip to the Volcano National Park near Hilo. That tree in the bottom row, to give a sense of scale, the negative space is about six feet wide.
On the tech side of things... we stopped on the cliff for a spell, on the black lava cliff. That water has to be near a hundred feet below and the wind was blowing so hard that the water was splashing up in my face. Those gulls you see were just hanging in mid air, probably flying near 40 mph. standing still. For the life of me, I could not get the focus set just before infinity, at 200 mm, with the gail-firce wind in my face hanging over edge. If I had, that would have been one kick-ass shot. Alas, I have a near real of outakes.
Oh yeah, and that one in the middle of the third row? The lava formed that shape by encompassing a tree, evaporating it and cooling just enough to retain the shape. Neat.I call it the clit.
Delusion: Part one.
Posted by seed @ 4:24 AM
I've got three things on the burner that have made the most interesting combination. You know how sometimes you just get lucky by happening to be reading something that has something to do with something else, albeit unintentionally, and given the juxtaposition you just get a different perspective.
To start, I just blew through Dawkins' latest pulp: The God Delusion. Admittedly, I am a complete aetheist. You guys knew that, right? Anyway, eight years of catholic grade school down the drain, except for the skirts. Dawkins' is hardly soft spoken on the matter, and actually may be doing the new aetheist' movement a disservice by being so passionate about his work. For those unfamiliar with Dawkins here is a quick drive-by: evolutionary biologist that breaks ground in analyzing the genes as a building block of evolutionary processes. Not genetics mind you, but how the cumulative effect of genetics may be the driving force behind Darwinism. Instead of the competing organisms of Darwin, Dawkins sees competing genes. With that, he takes it a step further and suggests that genes are responsible for mental recipes for what he calls memes, or thoughts or behaviors that can be transfered through culture. Basically, your genetics give you a brain that is capable of a certain behavior. That behavior is transferred to others like you, and since it happens to be an idea that is advantageous to your species' survival, like manogamy, culture who practice it may fair better than those who do not. Got that?
In The God Delusion, Dawkins turns that spotlight on religions. He contends that humans have developed a set of memes that are advantageous to our initial survival. Ancestral humans may have benefitted from things like: our inherent ability to interpret intentions of other animals; open belief/trust of elder generations by the younger, etc. So for instance, when early humans saw a predator they quickly learned to do two things: estimate its intentions and predict its behavior, tell others from your pack your experiences. Those that listened absolutely were better off than those who did not. The tiger will most likely not eat you unless you do this or that; the bison tend to round up easily, even if you head them towards a cliff; your kids can benefit from this type of knowledge by not wasting time investigating it too much, and spending time on other things we haven't figured out yet.
Given that, those memes make us susceptible to other by-products, namely religion. Really quickly: tribal people tended to personify inanimate objects - hey once you've got those cats figured out, why not give us your take on the mountains and the fire? They may have also associated meanings to things that were not accurate, but not a disadvantage either. And, they were able to transfer these understandings to future generations. That is the recipe for all religions, from polytheism worship of the sun-god, to the monotheistic worship of St. Joseph and his inherent ability to influence real estate sales when buried upside down facing away from the house in your backyard. Dawkins is brilliant.
The book goes through modern arguments for religion and the belief of a supreme being like a band-saw. For example, he states that the declaration that scriptures are the basis for moral evaluation is complete non-sense. And I totally agree, by the way. If modern day people are allowed to interpret ancient texts and draw their own conclusions on what is relevant to today and what is not, what meter stick are they implementing to make those decisions? Whatever it may be, it had to be in place before those texts were written otherwise we would have no idea that it is bad to sacrifice your own siblings, or gang rape women.
Of course, along the way there is an amount of stumping that Dawkins does. It is hard to argue with the guy. He tends to treat the three majors religions equally bad, and for the most part shys away from politics. He makes his case against the current administration, and the perceived religious-right movement in America and moves on. That's not the point of the book. He also does this dissection at the end that is quite powerful. In an effort to open consciousness, he mentions that humans are built to operate in a certain space, with things that don't move too quickly, or slowly, aren't too small or two big, etc., from a ball point pen to a mountain, a snail to a fastball. When things move outside of those parameters we tend to lose our inherent understanding of them. Sure we cab build a particle accelerator and map out the collisions like clockwork. But that requires a great departure from our quite comfortable billiard table. As that applies to things like quantum physics, we may find that the way things operate at that level is completely the opposite of what we expect from our perspective of not-to-this or that. To illustrate: we know that the atomic structure is such that a proportionate model would place the nucleous in the center of a football stadium and the orbiting electrons in the upper seats - each atom. That makes everything we touch empty space, basically. But that hunk of steel sure feels like a lot more than that when you pick it up. It might be that our senses, our finger tips, is doing it's best to interpret quantum mechanics. Magnetic forces keep the atoms intact and push and pull them towards or away from others, we feel that as hard, heavy steel.
If we are able to make that kind of a leap in thinking, why do we insist on pushing the proverbial goal-post back and insist on retaining the idea of a god, once a man with a white beard in a cloud, now an intelligent designer?
Honorary Rider: Daniel Ellis
Posted by seed @ 12:36 PM
CNN: Jury duty excuse: I'm a racist, homophobic liar
"You say on your form that you're not a fan of homosexuals," Nickerson said."That I'm a racist," Ellis interrupted.
"I'm frequently found to be a liar, too. I can't really help it," Ellis added.
"I'm sorry?" Nickerson said.
"I said I'm frequently found to be a liar," Ellis replied.
"So, are you lying to me now?" Nickerson asked.
"Well, I don't know. I might be," was the response.
Not for skipping out on civic duty, but just for having a huge set of nads, and sense of humor. Cheers.
Exit only
Posted by seed @ 11:55 AM
I really tried to get it scheduled for Friday evening, it sounded like such a good time. Alas, the middle of the week is the best I could get. Tomorrow morning I get the dirty-scope. As far as the routine proceedure goes, I am not that worried. I'll get put out, if the lights don't come back on at least I went out in style, right?
Today's day of prep work is what I cannot wait for. File under TMI: on a normal day, I can make it to the can about six times, and all of them fruitful, so to speak. So. when I get home and have to start the cleansing process, the shit will quite positively hit the fan...the walls... and just about everwhere else if I am not careful.
More on that later. Maybe I'll turn this into a photo blog.
