P&T: the Unreview

Three years since last post?  Yeah, I've been.... um.... busy.  I know the world weeps for my wisdom.

If you're looking for a review of the travelling Penn & Teller magic show, you're probably in the wrong place.  What you're more likely to find here is just me being a big kiss ass toward the dynamic duo.  It's not really fair for me to ask if I liked the show.  That's like asking if I like ice cream.  Or steak.  Or bacon.  You see: I've been a fan since my late teens (and I'm an old fart).  But I never knew how much of a fan I was back then... I just knew their humor and style appealed to me.

What I came to discover -- and hope to impart here -- is that their magic matters.  Oh, sure, it is a silly show full of all sorts of chuckles, lies and trickery.  But it is more than that as well.  It is true art.  And it's art with a purpose.

To really understand their impact, you'd have to understand the town I grew up in.  When I was a child, it was a sleepy little town fully entrenched and ruled by Baptists.  And I mean seriously ruled.  It was "made safe" by continuing alcohol prohibition well up until 2013.  I remember the religious leaders up in arms protesting -- successfully I might add -- to keep the heretic ideas in Monty Python's "Life of Brian" out of the cinema.  I remember city ordinances that shuttered dangerous pornography like Playboy magazine and kept it safely outside the city walls.  And all I could think at the time was how bassackwards the town was and how much I wanted to escape it.

And escape I did.  Roughly about the same time I first saw P&T's blood and cockroach infested appearances on Letterman -- I also was dabbling in that evil that we know of as Rock and Roll.  In particular: Rush -- which also had quite an influence on my young mind.  I found their intriguing ideas on art, self interest and philosophy really melded with my own forming opinions.  When I found a one-liner in their liner notes: "with acknowledgement to the genius of Ayn Rand"... I dug through bookshelves and started reading.

It was probably about 10 years ago I realized that Penn & Teller were outspoken libertarians and atheists -- well, one of them was outspoken anyway.  I stumbled upon their Bullshit! series and was hooked immediately.  And it was just a little more than a year ago that Ellie May pulled out her phone with Penn's podcast loaded and said "Spork: you've GOT to listen to this."  Just like that, I became a member of Penn's congregation.

So why do silly magic tricks matter?  They matter because I saw a room full of old Baptist geezers listen while Penn trivializes religious thought -- and they laughed and applauded.  They matter because many of these same people patiently waited 45 minutes for a 10 second photo op with them, grinning with insane childish joy.  You can tell the magic tricks matter when you hear a stranger in the crowd say "I really don't like their world view, but MAN that part with the Constitution was powerful!"

They matter because men can express their love of individual rights and their distaste for religion all wrapped in laughter and wonder.  A group that's usually thought of as lunatic fringe is the star attraction for 2 whole hours.

And maybe most of all it matters because they somehow symbolize that the backwards town where I felt oddly out of place seems to have grown up -- just a little.

That Pesky War on Christmas

Ahh... 'Tis the season for beautiful lights, secret presents and... self persecution. Yes, it's the magical time of year where a whole bunch of crazies stand up, lick their imaginary wounds and declare they are going to fight against... the war on Christmas.

Well, let me let you in on a teeny tiny little secret: there isn't one. There never has been one. It's all in your head.

Just because some greeter at Wal-Mart says "Happy Holidays" to you does not, in fact, mean he is on a jihad to wrestle your beloved religious beliefs out of your cold dead hands. It could mean lots of things. It could mean that saying the same "Merry Christmas" phrase over and over for 8 hours in a day is dull and tedious. It could mean that the corporation wants to sell trinkets to Christians, Jews, Muslims, and anyone that will fork over cash. It's not anti-Christian to say "Happy holidays" nor is it anti-Christian to say "Happy Hanukkah". I could take the extreme opposite approach and say your hatred of the Capitalist free market system this country was built upon is a war on Capitalism -- you commie pinko.

If, in fact, someone were to wage a war on Christmas, it wouldn't be by saying "I hope everyone has a nice time regardless of their religion". It would probably be in making fun of the whole story in the first place. You know -- virgin birth, seeing apparitions, stars leading wise kings around at night. This sort of thing just doesn't make sense and no sane person in modern times has seen this sort of thing occur. (Don't you scoff at the headlines in the National Enquirer ever! Alien babies are no less possible than an army of angels floating in the sky.) A war on Christmas would be in pointing out the worship of said birthday is really not part of the Bible, nor is there any reason that December was arbitrarily chosen other than as an invented holiday to coincide with the god-awful pagan solstice celebration.

As far as Christmas goes, it's a relatively new holiday, even if your earth is only 6000 years old. Remember that in the 19th century puritans strongly forbade their people to worship it -- as it was such an icky awful heathen tradition. Even in the god-fearin' US of A it has only officially been a holiday since 1894. That's only 2% of your 6000 year old planet's age. (Or 0% of my planet's near infinite age.)

And surely Christians must loathe Bing Crosby for his Christ killing 1948 hit "Happy Holidays" ... and don't get me started on the new-fangled hate in those new age "holiday songs" that ignore our beloved savior -- like "Deck the Halls", "Auld Lang Syne", "The Holiday Season", "Good King Wenceslas", "Jingle Bells", "O Christmas Tree" and "The 12 Days of Christmas". These all avoid the Christian message and do nothing but spawn Satanists and Muslims and Commie atheists.

So... this is just a reminder that probably needs to be sent out once a year now: the entire world is not out to forcibly squash your religion. In fact, many of us non-believers would probably go to pretty extreme lengths to protect your right to do something we think is ... well, rather silly. Calm down. Take deep breaths. Remember that you are 80% of the population of the USA and 100% of the governing body of the US. There is no one persecuting you. Get back in your Ford and be Bob of Taurus, not Paul of Tarsus.

I think I have a tear... in my eye

Let's ignore Taterize's love of socialized medicine for one brief shining moment. This demotivator photostream is teh awesome.

Spork silently bows his head in reverence.

Shackled by religion

...and they're more than willing to admit it.

Apparently this downtown church is willing to loosen the old shackles just a wee bit if they're hurting you -- but they are in no way interested in having you remove them. You might escape.

Irony is always funny

The left is upset by the Texas Governor Rick "The Hair" Perry's appointment of a creationist to run the state education board. And, yeah, they should be. Mr. Hair chose the lesser of 2 evils by taking the "little bit crazy creationist" over the "totally batshit crazy creationist" -- you know, as a sort of compromise. For the benefit of the left. You can thank him later.

But I get why they're angry. They just don't get why it's funny.

They are angry for several reasons. The biggest really has to do with separation of church and state. Intelligent design is, at best, a hypothesis -- and really not a good one. It's not a theory by any scientific definition. It's religion, packaged in a shiny shrink wrapped bundle that we're told is scientific. Lefties are upset that something unscientific is being taught as science and "dumbing down" the next generation. And -- what is most important here and most likely to be misunderstood by the left: It is just plain wrong to forcibly take their money through taxation and spend it educating kids on something they are diametrically opposed to. It's wrong on so many levels. It's a question of their individual rights.

And yet, they're more than ecstatic to forcibly take the money of the right through taxation and spend it on educating kids on something THEY are diametrically opposed to. And even though I totally think the left is scientifically backing the right horse -- they have no more right to force feed the religious conservatives their science than the religious conservatives have to force feed their religious-based doubt to the left.

The problem here is the whole idea of public education for the public good. Who is the public? What is good? Who decides? Certainly not the individual. It's for the benefit of society as a whole. It was the left that told us that.

Is the public good decided by majority vote? If so, then -- go ahead, scream "evolution is only a theory" from the roof tops. Let's hand out fliers in the hall ways on the upcoming lectures on "strengths and weaknesses" of evolution. Let's offer a whole series of classes based on Micheal Behe's non-scientific works. Majority rules, buddy. Sorry. Thanks for playing. If you don't like it -- move to a blue state. Woodja like some sweet tea to wash down that bitter pill?

Or is the public good just decided by your own opinion? -- even if, in this case, I think you are correct. You are also so incorrect.

Oh, and remember this -- while you swing your big huevos around on the national level. The more you push outside the limits of the Constitution -- the more change and control you seize -- the more it will bite you hard on the ass some day.

The left/right pendulum never seems to settle somewhere moderate. The further it swings right, the more it swings back left. And when you over compensate left, you just make it worse again to the right. And they'll push the Constitutional limits just as hard. They'll push change you DON'T believe in. They'll seize control and expand the government more in ways you don't like.

So, back to public education: That knock on your front door? It's just the chickens. They've come home to roost.

Our 6000 year old planet is getting hotter all the time

[Editorial note: I am not actually taking sides on either of the following issues. And I am not really interested in arguing the specifics of either. And, in fact, I am not necessarily even presenting my own arguments here. If that's what you come away with, I didn't get my point across.]

This is a tale of two subgroups. Group number one is extremely right wing politically. And extremely religious. They think anthropomorphic global warming is bullshit. And they have a whole list of reasons:

• AGW takes an extremely complex climate model with millions of variables and makes finite predictions based on very small fluctuations in a single gas (CO2)
• AGW is generally politicized science -- and government involvement in science is bad for government and bad for science
• AGW proponents spout: whether we know if this is real or not, we should do something about it. It cannot hurt. (Pascal's wager)
• AWG proponents pretend to be science by using the word "theory" in a scientific context when they really mean "hypothesis". Theories, in a scientific context are "reserved for ideas which meet baseline requirements about the kinds of observations made, the methods of classification used, and the consistency of the theory in its application among members of that class. ... In general theories are expected to be functional and parsimonious: i.e. a theory should be the simplest possible tool that can be used to effectively address the given class of phenomena." (from Wikipedia). AGW is does not meet these baseline requirements... and is certainly not the simplest explanation.
• AGW proponents ignore theories of cyclical cooling/warming, sun/oceanic cycles, even though these ideas seem to successfully explain past events and have successfully predicted future changes
• AGW proponents present a whole list of facts that are, well, not facts. This list is long but examples include: Arctic passage is open now for the first time in history, Greenland has always been an arctic climate and is dangerously melting, polar bears are in decline and are going to become extinct, glaciers everywhere are all melting and getting smaller, etc.
• One of AGW's biggest hurdles isn't a problem with AGW at all. It is that it is represented by hucksters -- like Al Gore -- who obviously do not believe in AGW as they live a lifestyle that is incompatible with their own teachings and seem to be in the game for their own profit.

Group number two is extremely left wing politically. And generally buys into anthropomorphic global warming. They think intelligent design and religion are bullshit. And they have a whole list of reasons:

• ID takes an extremely complex model of how we got here with millions of variables and makes a finite conclusion based on one or two things it deems "irreducibly complex."
• ID is generally associated with politicized religion -- and government involvement in religion is bad for government and bad for religion
• religious proponents spout: whether or not you believe in god or not, you should try to believe. It cannot hurt. (Pascal's wager)
• ID proponents pretend to be science by using the word "theory" in a scientific context when they really mean "hypothesis". Theories, in a scientific context are "reserved for ideas which meet baseline requirements about the kinds of observations made, the methods of classification used, and the consistency of the theory in its application among members of that class. ... In general theories are expected to be functional and parsimonious: i.e. a theory should be the simplest possible tool that can be used to effectively address the given class of phenomena." (from Wikipedia). ID is does not meet these baseline requirements... and is certainly not the simplest explanation.
• ID proponents ignore theories of evolution even though these ideas seem to successfully explain past events and have led to further scientific discoveries.
• Religious proponents present a whole list of facts that are, well, not facts. This list is long but examples include: the world is only 6000 years old, the entire world was destroyed by a flood that covered the entire land mass, radiocarbon dating is inaccurate by billions of years, evolution violates the laws of thermodynamics, etc.
• One of religion's biggest hurdles isn't a problem with religion at all. It is that it is represented by hucksters -- like Benny Hinn -- who obviously do not believe in religion as they live a lifestyle that is incompatible with their own teachings and seem to be in the game for their own profit.

The failure to generalize will one day make your head asplode.

Lessons from the middle: The conservative's guide

As a serious proponent of capitalism, I read my handful of conservative blogs. Conservatives think they are capitalists. They're not. Anyone that can make any apology or excuse for Bush Jr. is not even close. Being a true capitalist, I also read my share of blogs that are pretty liberal. Liberals don't seem to understand economic freedom and conservatives don't seem to understand personal freedom. But I can't bitch about both of them in one rant. I've already ranted about Lessons from the middle for liberals so this time the bitchiness is awarded to: the conservatives.

What has my ire up is the total failure of conservativism. In fact, the term is no longer even meaningful. They don't conserve anything. At least "liberal" is still correct -- they are liberal with the use of public funds. What the hell does conservatism conserve? Even amongst the conservatives that consider themselves skeptical, capitalist and politically centrist -- they are none of these. Zip. Zero. Zilch.

And if you look at the trends, the party is shrinking. It may be in the minority now, but you just wait. The downward curve is pretty steep and if you want to ride that curve to the bottom, then feel free. But if you want to fix the problem, listen up. If there is one key divisive issue it's religion. I am not saying you have to abandon it in your personal life. I am saying that if you want to grow your numbers or even have a chance in your hell of winning, you'd better listen up and get it out of your policy.

Conservatives pride themselves on being the party of "freedom." Put your party planks where your mouth is.

• Quit arguing over endorsing religion by trying to put the Christian Protestant version of the ten commandments in public places. Put them in your churches where they belong and will be revered properly. You know you don't want some icon of Islam in your courthouse (even though there is an extremely similar set of Islamic commandments) and you don't want some silly atheist "there is no god" plaque either. We also know you don't want the Catholic or the Jewish versions -- and yes they are different. The reason you don't know about them is that you're too busy nailing up your own version.
• Stop your arguing over abortion. And yes, this is a religious issue. You don't have to change your opinions. You don't have to stop peacefully protesting. Just stop trying to legislate. This is an individual rights issue and if you think the rights of the fetus are in conflict with the rights of the mother: check your premise. Individual rights do not conflict. (I actually have some ideas here... I just don't have the science background to back them up. Maybe someday...)
• Stop trying to outlaw gay marriage. It's contract law. You make the same silly stupid arguments here that you made in the sixties about mixed race marriage. Tradition is not a logical reason for anything. We all damn well know you have no legal argument against this and it is all about what you've read in Leviticus. But we all also know you're picking and choosing your Leviticus references. When you have a Defense of Edible Crustaceans Act alongside your Defense of Marriage Act, I'll start to believe you endorse the whole book.
• Don't argue over endorsing religion on your currency. Don't try to appeal to tradition and pretend it's been there all along. It hasn't.
• Don't argue over endorsing religion in some silly pledge of allegiance. Don't pretend that religion has been there all along either. It hasn't.
• Quit the war on drugs. Prohibition has never worked and never will. Criminalizing something stupid just creates a dangerous industry of organized crime. Don't play into that. Will smart people do stupid things and do drugs? Will innocent people die? Probably, but those things are happening now when it's criminalized. It's odd that you whould outlaw drugs because they are dangerous, but would defend your guns to your death. (And no, I am not arguing for gun control.)
• Stop trying to insinuate religion into public schools. If you want to start a private school and teach it there -- go for it. But don't use the tax base to support it. This applies to prayer and it applies to teaching the "theory" of intelligent design. ID is not a theory. It's barely even a hypothesis. And if you say "it's only a theory" one more time about evolution then I'm going to require you say the same about Newtonion physics. "Theory" means something specific in science, and apparently not what you think it means.
• Don't ever ever ever try to rationalize or apologize for Bush or anyone in his empire. (I know this doesn't apply to religion, but golly gee whiz, this is still so frickin common that I cannot ignore it.) His economic policies that got us into this mess and his economic rescue plans are philosophic equivalents for Obama's plans. Sticking up for Bush while you bash Obama makes you look foolish.
• Fully and completely understand that separation of church and state protects both the church and the state. Christians cannot even fully agree how to interpret their own bible. (Wikipedia lists some 37 distinct different sects and sub-religions.) Just remember that yours may not always be the one on top making the laws. Maybe that's why some smart folk wanted them separated so long ago.

You want to be the party of freedom? Then embrace freedom -- all of it. Freedom includes the freedom to be stupid and the freedom to do things someone else doesn't agree with. If you want to waggle your tongues about freedom then drop religion from the party and try to bring the moderates and the libertarians back into the fold. If you don't want to do this, then drop out and get out of the way so the libertarians can make something of themselves.

It's Eoster!

Well, I guess it is the religious significance of the day... One quick nod and moment of silence...

• for the one born of a virgin
• for the one killed and resurrected in the spring
• for the one representing new life and new birth

Of course, I speak of Attis (Atys) - the reason for the season.

Pardon me, but can I borrow a half cup of crazy?

I have failed you. I really should follow the signage on crazy vet guy's office more. I have posted one example in the past, but this guy... he takes the crazy cake.

I snapped this one today:There is really nothing funnier than when someone unknowningly insults themselves. I've argued with religious folk before that the absolute pinnacle of their value system was suffering, non-self and martyrdom... and just how completely backwards and wrong that is. A lot of them will argue and actually say their beliefs are based on some amount of selfishness or self love -- and while that isn't at all compatible with the bible, it is at least a breath of fresh air to hear them have some sense that there is good in putting their own interests first.

But this pretty much sums it up. The purpose of life is to suffer and die and worship martyrdom. Wow. How about the purpose of life being to prosper and live?

I have not read anything that was so ethically backwards since I read the story of Adam and Eve. This rates 10 of 10.

[Editorial note 3 days after posting: Ellie May says this post seems harsh. I reread it and ... I just don't see it. So, in an effort to use more simple language, I will restate my intent:

• The sign is put up by a religious person. Not me.
• The sign is, in my belief, biblically accurate.
• The slogan on the sign represents something I think most people (religious or non-religious) would find morally repugnant. ]
  

Apocalyptica

[Editorial note(s):

1. It appears I am now taking requests. I would explain, but I won't. I could say it's a long story, but it isn't. It's just not a particularly good story.
2. I never miss an opportunity to plug the band Apocalyptica, so I was sneaky on putting that in the title, though it has no bearing whatsoever on the rant. If you've never heard Metallica played on the cello, your life is incomplete. I don't care what your musical tastes are, you'll like it. I promise.]

---

Self awareness and evaluation time: I've been living off the grid^[1] for two and a half years -- living in a 600 square foot metal tool shed in the woods in the middle of nowhere with the wife (Ellie May), 2 shelter rescue dogs and 3 bulimic cats. My threat level with the federal government has officially been downgraded from "unibomer wannabe" to "mostly harmless." At at some point I start to wonder: Who's the crazy next door? No, not next door in the physical sense of the word.^[2] But, you know, in the general area. Out here in the country, it's an odd mix of tin sheds (me), 3 bedroom brick affairs, monster doctor/lawyer houses, geodesic domes and the occasional tar paper shack meth lab.

I was driving by "never smiles or waves scary Viet Nam vet guy" as he painstakingly hand watered the drainage ditch.^[3] And I started to wonder: how many tightly wound nut jobs live within a 5 mile radius -- ready to go sproing at any moment. Sure there's a Google API plugin to find the nearest sex offender... But where's my Ruby Ridge Google? I want a map with a little confederate flag markers and a satellite view where I can zoom in and see the catacombs of broken school buses buried in the back yard.

The funny thing with these people is that, while they are all waiting on the impending doom of the next disaster, they're not all waiting on the same disaster. You've got your basic "housing market/stock market crash" guys, "racial riot expectations/Klan" folks and your basic "impending nuclear holocaust/terrorist briefcase dirty bomb" guys. They all have 6 months of food and a 55 gallon drum of gasoline stashed away. They're just waiting on different disasters. But the sad truth here is: There has always been some fire on the horizon. There has always been impending doom. Yet, mysteriously we still keep chugging along.^[4]

And I do mean always. Just in the last fifty years, I can name a multitude of them off the top of my head: the cold war, the bay of pigs,^[5] the Carter energy crisis, Reagan's star wars, Y2K,^[6] the expected tribulations following the imminent second coming of Jebus,^[7] asteroid strike, Mel Gibson, global warming, nuclear war, Islamic terror... I could go on, but I had to take a breath. It makes me wonder a few things, though.

First of all, what's the payout for all the hoarders and woodland creatures? Sure, they see it as insurance of sorts. And to some degree I understand that. I live within the last mile (literally) of a power line branch. I understand I am last in line for power restoration when a disaster occurs. I understand the need for a generator, a garden and a little bit of food. But the idea of hoarding a 6 month supply of food and a big sack of real gold just doesn't reach me. That food is just not likely to last and will have to be constantly replaced. Let's say you spent $10,000 on food for the coming apocalypse in the late 70's. Then assume, instead you put it in the stock market. It would be an underestimate to say it would be worth almost $100,000 some thirty years later -- even in today's down market.^[8] And if the apocalypse comes and you really have a large sack of real gold, you may find it extremely difficult to defend or find the government may want to take it. Your best bet here is to just have a skill and a willingness to trade it.^[9] But isn't that pretty much true all the time?

But most importantly I want to know: how do I make a big sack of cash off of these folks? Selling freeze dried banana chips in bulk isn't my thing. I am unlikely to open up a gun store. The school districts have the lock on broken down buses. I fear that the reasonable, rational model may win out again here. I suspect the way to win in castastrophear is to buy into widely diversified mutual funds. "What?" you say. "You're a crazier than a commune dweller. The market is sunk." Precisely. And here I sit without a real income. One lowly Unix administrator in a county that has 15 Unix systems -- 2 of which are mine. It's time for me to find an income stream or two and sink a big fat wad of it in the market. Remember: the goal is actually to buy low. So what if it tanks a little more. Low means its on sale. Turning it down would be like saying "I'll buy the Costco tennis shoes if they ever get up to $30 a pair. I don't want them at $14."

Besides, Ellie May wants a real kitchen. And I don't get home made pie crust until then.

---

1. Well, socially at least. Not physically.
2. That would be (a) "Have you found a spiritual home guy" and (b) the "everyone move in with grampa before he croaks" family. I guess in 30 months I should know their names, huh?
3. Yes, I am serious. He does it absolutely every day. No, I don't know why he does it.
4. At least here in US... There's poor bastards in forever unstable lands that mark time by when the next mortar round falls. Whistle. Boom. -- Ooh, tea time.
5. Mmmmm. Pork
6. Y2K was my personal fave! As a geek that expected a big fat lot of nothing to happen, I enjoyed the biggest paycheck of my life for the least amount of work. We weren't even allowed to touch anything for a month before because we might break it. The real scare comes in 2038 and no one will hype that one.
7. And why in hell would you worry about the problems of the second coming? Is it because you have enough faith he's coming back but afraid you chose the wrong flavor? Are you afraid you picked a dunking when you should've gotten sprinkles?
8. This is such an underestimate. This just follows the Dow 500 price without dividends. Reinvested dividends would make this figure huge, but computing that sounds like work.
9. I can see it now. A post nuclear world and there are bands of IT directors wandering the countryside seeking Perl hackers.

ANNOUNCEMENT: First sporadically periodic photo captioning contest!

I would call it "first annual." But there are a bunch of things wrong with that. The obvious is the picky gripe that the first in a series is not the "first annual." There actually has to be 2 of them to qualify. (I am still guilty on that charge.) Secondly, annual seems like a long ass time. And third: I find it really hard to tie myself down to a calendar based schedule. It just is not me. Maybe it should be the "first occasional." I don't know -- but its the first, anyway.

The prize: bragging rights that you are, in fact, the wiener.
The reason: I saw this at The Walmarts¹ parking lot. The absolute flood of smartass captions to this photo was so huge that I thought my head might actually asplode. I had to sit right down, set my milk on the asphalt and breathe into the plastic bag to settle down my hyperventilation.
The rules: Rules? Why do we need rules. It's not like there's a real prize or anything. Enter as often as you like. Have your friends, relatives, pets, enemies and livestock enter. I don't care. It is a blank canvas. Please scrawl on it with spray paint like you're spraying graffiti. Pull up your damn pants. Besides, if there were rules, I would probably change them as the contest went along...

The photo

Ah, the Jesus Gas Cap. My god, it's beautiful. And Jesus must be so honored to be proudly displayed here... in a place of honor.

Let me get you started:

• Jesus cries every time you use fossil fuels: Dinosaur juice doesn't exist and the world is 6000 years old. Drive a horse.

By the way: I am still waiting on the "Bathtub Jesus" photos that were promised to me so so long ago.

¹If you live in the country, you absolutely must pronounce it this way. It must be preceded by 'the' and must be plural. Period.

Oba-Maniacs

I am a skeptic. I am a skeptic about pretty much everything -- a "Show Don't Tell" sort of guy.

So while the majority of the world seems all a titter over Obama, I don't. I don't hate him (yet). I just don't get all a titter. Don't get me wrong: I am not a Bush apologist. But just because I don't like Bush does not mean I do like Obama. It's not either-or, okay?

I guess the optimism of the country is good in a way. There is some amount of self-healing and placebo effect of a positive attitude. So in a way, I am glad that attitude is there. But I also think that attitude is dangerous. Well, maybe dangerous isn't the right word, but it's in the ballpark. There has been a sort of messiah complex built around the man, which I don't think is a good thing. Firstly, it allows him to do get a pass when he does bad things. He's the messiah, he must be right. Secondly, there is this little gnawing fear that if he disappoints, people will over react in the opposite direction. And, quite honestly, that may be worse than getting a mulligan on doing the wrong things.

I do totally get the celebration of the black community that they actually feel represented. (I have pretty much never felt represented, though I never had to sit at the back of a bus or eat my lunch out back.) And I guess they really should celebrate that. Though I think the real progress on that front occurs when race is not even so noticed. Both sides are guilty here: there are sub-camps that like him and dislike him because of his race. The real celebration occurs when there is no celebration. Ironic.

I didn't actually sit down and watch the inauguration. The TV was on. I was in and out of the room. I heard bits and pieces. But it is interesting that with partial deafness and full inattention I picked up on the same phrases that the media did:

"The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works – whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public’s dollars will be held to account - to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day – because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government."

Maybe I am being too picky here, but immediately 2 things really bothered me (beyond the point that he is a politician and I already doubt he really is looking for something that works.)

• First, I am bothered by the fact that the question is "does it work?" instead of "is it right?" While "it works" is seriously important in the evaluation of something, it cannot be the sole justification. We could probably act like Somali pirates and steal everything of value on the international waters to finance our failing economy. That might work. But it isn't right. In the same regard, we can steal money from an increasingly unemployed population via taxation. That might work. But I don't think it will. It may make the problem bigger and put the pain off for another day. And it isn't right.
• Secondly, history has shown us what works. And I doubt seriously that will be considered. In the history of the world, the more free the economy, the more successful it has been. The less intervention, the more the return. What works would require -- not doing nothing -- but UNdoing lots of things. The sad part of this is: it not only is the answer to "is it right?" but it is also the answer to "does it work?" And yes, there would be those god awful selfish people making tons of money. Odd that selfishness is so successful, huh? Odd that our culture teaches how evil it is even when it positively answers both "does it work?" and "is it right?".

The one thing Obama seems determined to do (and I am slightly optimistic about) is attempt to be inclusive. There is the possibility that this means he will just get everyone's hands dirty so blame goes all around, but there is also the (slight) possibility that he might actually listen to someone that holds an opposing viewpoint. He did say:

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus – and non-believers."

This. This does give me a tiny sparkle of hope. I don't know that I have ever heard any public figure acknowledge that we were anything but a Judeo-Christian society. Often they even try to say we were founded on those beliefs (even though that statement is categorically incorrect). But the fact that there is a slight acknowledgment of non-christians and (gasp) even non-believers among us does at least inspire a tiny spark of optimism. Maybe, in my own skeptical tiny way, I suffer from a diminished form of the same messiah complex, but it sure beats "I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots."

Holy Pope on a Rope, Batman

I am totally busted.
According to this article, the funny hat wearing head of the Catholic church is cracking down on phony arbitrary visions of the slightly tarnished Mary like mine. (As opposed to the "real" visions of a 2000 year old dead figure who's actual existence is arguable in the first place.)

Some highlights from the article [with snarky comments]:

"In some cases exorcists will be used to determine if a credible apparition is 'divine' origin or 'demonic'." [This is of course, because exorcism is a scientifically proven method of ridding people or inanimate objects of scientifically proven demons.]

"The Pope is said to be deeply concerned by the explosion in the number of pseudo-mystics who, claiming a direct line to God, set themselves against the bishops and lure the Catholic faithful out of the Church and into cults." [...as compared to the real mystics with a direct line to god...]

"The third step will be to investigate the person’s level of education and to determine if they have had access to material that could be used to falsely support their claims." [So, just to be clear here: If said claimant was raised by abusive parents that kept them locked in a dark closet 24 hours a day, then it is possible the apparitions are real. If they have ever seen a television, newspaper or internet connection then they are automatically deemed to have access to material that could falsely support their claims. Suddenly a big dark cloud of logic surrounds the pope and he is defeated by his own argument.]

"It said that in many cases 'signs from heaven' were exposed as human trickery." [You are kidding me. The grilled cheese sandwich isn't really the holy mother's endorsement of dairy products? What about "blessed are the cheesemakers?"]

The Devine Dog, Ma

As I pointed out before the awesome unexplained miracle does happen. And it sets your spine a tingle. Imagine my surprise when visiting my sister to see the image of the virgin Mary appearing in dog slime on her dog door. (By now, she is probably "the only slightly tarnished Mary". It has been 2000 years, though. Give her a break.) This, my friends, is way better than "Mary on a sandwich" or "Mary on the bathroom door varnish" or "Mary on my dirty window." This was created by living, breathing, loving dogs. Surely this must be a sign! Praise Dog. Now if I can only get her to sell this on Ebay and split the prophets with me.

Didn't believe me?

For those that have never visited and doubt the validity of my profile location -- "In a metal shed in the woods" -- I offer you solid proof:



There she blows, complete with Ellie Mae's car, Sally the goat truck and a glimpse of Tilly the tractor. If you look hard enough you can even see the colored sheets placed over the plants in the garden to protect them from frost.

My buddy and college room mate JohnBob is in town. Back when we were room mates, I made him jealous by getting my private pilot's license. Now he often returns the favor by taking me putting around in his own damn plane. That dirty rotten bastard!

It almost sounds like the start of a great joke: What do 2 college educated, unemployed guys do instead of finding a job? Go flying. I gotta work on that punchline.

JohnBob has a sweet new radio stack.



You know there are too many lawyers on the planet when warning labels pronounce nothing but common sense. If you click on it, you can make it out, but let me spoil the surprise: "Caution: Leaking fuel caps can cause loss of fuel" REALLY? The saddest thing here is (a) this is probably there because someone didn't know that and died. (b) that person was smart enough to earn a pilot's license, but dumb enough not to know leaking fuel caps leak.
And because I know everyone on the planet shares the "joys of tractors" just the way I do: Here is the tractor store where I bought Tilly.
And another item from the wonderful and mysterious world of the tractor: The tractor auction. Sorry kids, this isn't auction weekend or the entire lot would be full to the brim with leaking, smoking, sick tractors with flat tires and worn out clutches. Grab some ether and get over there.And what tour of the city is complete without seeing "Jesus and the money lenders." Stop into the book store and purchase a T shirt or a big box of pamphlets. But hurry while the tiny struggling church only covers 10 acres. As you can see, it's about to double in size. Oh, and that building across the parking lot in the top right... yeah that's part of it too. It's okay they bulldozed all those houses. I am sure the property taxes from the church will be more than the city got from the houses.

How to use your nose

1. grab something stinky
2. inhale

You would think, as humans, we could memorize those 2 steps. We cannot.

I hate internet rumor. Sure, it can be entertaining -- mostly laughing at the folks that believe it. But there are serious consequences as well. But if the folks involved could just use their damn nose, they could smell the stink.

Let me tell you a story

Once upon a time, I worked at a very big company. I was managing email servers. At the time this company had about 100,000 employees. (Those were the days.) I forget exact numbers and dates, but at the time it is safe to assume the servers I managed handled mail for 20,000+ people (and it is more likely to be 40,000+. I just don't have notes of dates/numbers). So about this time there was an internet rumor that directly affected me. This rumor caused millions of emails to bombard my servers -- enough that the servers had to be upgraded. Before the rumor the servers worked fine. After the rumor they were not enough. The internet rumor cost about $40,000 in hardware.

The Rumor

FYI. In case you didn’t already know. This was sent to me from an attorney friend of KC’s.

FOR ALL OF US THAT HAVE USED 'SNOPES.COM', THIS IS VERY INTERESTING . . . . . . . . . .

---

Original Message-------

It has recently been discovered that Snopes.com is owned by a flaming liberal and this man is in the tank for Obama. There are many things they have listed on their site as a hoax and yet you can go to Youtube yourself and find the video of Obama actually saying these things. So you see, you cannot and should not trust Snopes.com....ever for anything that remotely resembles truth! I don't even trust them to tell me if email chains are hoaxes anymore.

A few conservative speakers on Myspace told me about snopes.com a few months ago and I took it upon myself to do a little research to find out if it was true. Well, I found out for myself that it is true. This website is backing Obama and is covering up for him. They will say anything that makes him look bad is a hoax and they also tell lies on the other side about McCain and Palin.

Anyway just FYI . If you continue to use Snopes.com at least be aware of their political leanings as well. Many people still think Snopes.com is neutral and they can be trusted as factual. We need to make sure everyone is aware that that is a hoax in itself. You might try TRUTHORFICTION.COM ---- wonder who owns that . . . . . . . . . .

Analysis

Let's forget Snopes here for a minute and just look at the mail. Geez, you would think people had never seen the internet before. Okay, though I have mentioned it before lets just go through what makes a good rumor:

• an authority figure. Usually it is "Sheriff Bradley of Winslow County" (just made that one up myself) or something that just bubbles authority. In this case it is "an attorney friend of KC's". Now this guy is an attorney, so that means he is smart and went through lots of school. And you can trust him because he is KC's friend. Of course, it makes no difference that no one in the chain of this has a clue who KC is.
• State an absolute fact. "There are many things they have listed on their site as a hoax and yet you can go to Youtube yourself and find the video of Obama actually saying these things. So you see, you cannot and should not trust Snopes.com....ever for anything that remotely resembles truth!"
• Give a pseudoreference. "you can go to Youtube yourself and find the video of Obama actually saying these things".

Okay, in the real world, if this was factual, you could easily have said this in a way that was provable:

• Obama said "X". Reference: http://www.someverifiablenewssite.com/obama_story.html (I almost filled something in there instead of "X", but thought better. I would probably start another insane rumor.)
• Snopes claims this is false. Reference: http://www.snopes.com/we_are_lying_liberals.html

The problem here is they stated no real fact. And they stated no real proof of the fact (though you can find that proof on youtube.) And we know everything on youtube is factual because it is video. I mean just to prove it to you: as I sit here I am eating the popcorn I made with my cell phone.

Full Disclosure

• I am neither "left" or "right". In fact, I have pretty negative opinions of both.
• I really like Snopes. In fact, if you go back to my internet rumor story above, I should add to that. Snopes was a huge part of quelling this rumor. I do not know them. They do not know me. But I sent the aforementioned rumor to them and acted as the unauthorized (by management) voice of authority for my company. Within a few hours, my comments were on their web site. I won't say this stopped the bombardment of my server, but I am pretty sure it helped.

In defense of Snopes

I have no earthly idea what the political leanings of David & Barbara are. (Note how I call them by their first names, like we are buddies. I must be a lefty pinko commie too.) In fact, I don't care. I have been reading their site and using it as a reference for many years. Truth doesn't lean left or right. It just is. And falsehood just isn't. I have seen enough "true" and "false" references to both "the left" and "the right" to get the gut feeling that their goal is just to publish fact. I seriously don't think they are slanting the facts. All I can assume is that there are other internet rumors that are false that snopes has marked as such and that this is a smear to make you disbelieve them.

I might also add a bit of irony: Let's just believe the thesis for a minute: "If a liberal owns a media outlet, everything they say is a lie." Okay. Now do the words "Fox News" and "Rupert Murdoch" mean anything to you?

And irony bit number 2: Again, let's believe what the rumor says. Screw snopes. Trust TruthOrFiction.com. Here's their story on this story.

A Ranty Conclusion

As I mentioned in Polly Ticks there is one facet of this I do not understand. And it bothers me. A whole lot.

Religious folk are typically given "a pass" by our society. They are immediately believable. They are "good". Think how many times you hear "he was a good religious man" in a obituary or as a comment about a poor victim on the news. Its as if "religious" automatically enforces "good."

But I cannot begin to tell you how many times "religious folk" are the ones sending out this type of rumor. And it just is not accidental. It is so formulaic that it is impossible for it not to be intentional. Tell a lie for political gain... so we can get someone in power that is "trusted and religious." Hmmm... Isn't that self disproving?

Or is it just that since the whole concept of religion is an unverifiable source telling you something that is difficult to believe. Maybe these folks are just overly gullible. Gullible is important in religion.

I am not saying the person that sent this to me is lying. Or the person that sent it to them. Or the person that sent it to them... but there is a liar in the chain. And a whole lot of gullibility.

Scary Movie

Want to see a scary movie? I just saw the scariest movie I have ever seen: Jesus Camp. It's a documentary about a christian camp. Seriously. Scary. (I don't just watch documentaries, honest. If you dont believe me, look at my flickview.)

And the chick that runs the camp says something (paraphrased) like "left wing liberals are going to be shaking in their boots when they see this." Well, I am by no means left wing or liberal, but I am shaking in my boots over it. Not for the reasons she talks about (their power) but for a vast virus of irrationality. There is nothing scarier than that.

A few tidbits that won't spoil it for you

• (Paraphrasing) "those people need to get off their fat lazy butts." (said by a chick that easily tops the scales at 275.)
• (paraphrasing) "who in here believes god can do anything?" (a mom grabs the hands of her kids and physically raises them herself)
  
• talk of the likelihood of demonic manefestations
• there are some military families that absolutely think Iraq is a holy war and meant to spread the word of jebus.
• preaching to a room full of kids under 10 about abortion. Now, correct me if I am wrong, but aren't these the same kids that you don't want to have in sex education? If they can't learn about sex, what bidness do they have getting the abortion talk?
• (paraphrasing) "Its terrible, in Muslim countries they have little 5 and 7 year old kids being taught to blow themselves up and give their life for their cause. We need to do that here." Really? Wouldnt it be better to teach folks the folly of self destruction?
• ...and of course, what god movie is complete without Ted Haggard (who says he talks with our president once a week to give him advice) giving a speech on the damnation to hell for homosexuality. Classic.

surprised by arbitrary assertions

I hadn't intended for this to be Kooks Korner for Religious Fanatics.... but I just saw an interview with Stephen Colbert and N.T.Wright. The subject was Wright's new book. If you think religion is arbitrary and illogical... you aint seen nothing yet. And this guy is sort of... mainstream.

Wright basically proposes (at least on Colbert's show) there is an "after-after life". In other words, after all of you go to heaven (I suspect I wont make the cut) you will then have an afterlife after that. As if it were not arbitrary enough to propose one, why not two? This is sort of the reverse Occam's Razor. I am going to call it Occam's Beard. Hell, I might even think we should have an after-after-after life. And I think we should also start worshiping god's creator while we are at it.

My favorite quote of this guy was this:

The great thing about Anglicans is that we have no theology of our own. If something is true the Anglicans believe it.... You chaps [Catholics] have stuff you look up in these big books all the time.

I suspect the concept of "Anglican truth" is not based on evidence of the senses here -- especially judging by the context of the statement. Let me translate what he said into plain English:

We don't need the proof of data written in a book by flat-earth superstitious folk in the dark ages then madly edited by the Catholic church in a quest for squashing knowledge and maintaining power. That's way too structured for us. We'll just obtain magical truth and believe it.

Tivo causes me to forfeit my immortal soul

Damn Tivo. You think you love the thing... and then it does this to you. There was a news story on ABC's 20/20 on June 6. And I didnt watch it until last night. Apparently it gave me a week's worth of warning: The world ended on June 12. And I missed it. If you haven't figured it out, I dont get out much. So apparently a whole week has gone by with me being the sole inhabitant of the planet. I didnt even know I was lonely until last night. Now I am damned to live my eternal life here lonely on earth. Anybody else out there? Or is it just me here alone?

Okay, this takes a little setup explanation for those of you that dont live in my neck of the woods. You may think there are lots of nutto religious extremists where ever you live, but if you don't live in Warren Jeff's compound, I think I may have you beat.

There is this one vet's office we drive by almost every single day on the way to/from town. And instead of something "normal" on his marquee like "Merry Catmas and a Barky new year" or "Vet Techs needed, apply inside" -- he has really really bizzarro religious nutty stuff. In many cases, the sign doesnt even make syntactical sense -- almost like written by Yoda it was.

I almost peed myself with fits and giggles over his current sign:

Now there are multitudes of reasons why this is funny... and it mostly is because this sign is so absolutely true.

• The logically implied corollary of this is "Love that IS based on love of god first is self loathing in disguise".
• Not so implied, but more explicit is the idea that love of self is evil and wrong. Any local shrink could pull in the big bucks trying to cure this sort of self esteem problem. It's going to take more than a couple of hours on the couch.
• This could have almost been a line from a Francisco d'Anconia or Hank Rearden speech on the true meaning of romantic love.