For Crimes Against Humanity...

The global financial crisis was perpetrated by a few hand-fulls of people and will affect potentially billions. There is no question that, left to their own devices, the perpetrators would have continued their destructive policies. Therefore, I feel there should be no other recourse than to try them for crimes against humanity. Their policies were intentionally deceitful and they showed an utter disdain for the harm they were causing and have caused. This should leave no doubt that these people are of the worst sort of human and must be made to pay for their crimes.

On Visions and Reality

How can a person spend so much time looking in the mirror without truly seeing themselves?

A Thought on Modern Life

Today it's all about the destination. Where has the enjoyment of the journey gone?

Does this sound like a civilized country?

Perhaps I'm just upset by the youths who come round every few days trying break out kitchen window (which is now safety glass, since they succeeded three times previously). Or perhaps I'm truly shocked by the events of my current home country, but wouldn't you be? In the category of 'truth is stranger [scarier?] than fiction' comes Three reasons to question whether you country is civilized

1) It is a hotbed for slavery. Criminals trafficking in women and girls aimed at the illicit sex trade are widespread.

2) I has been known to export terrorists and is currently under investigation for possibly exporting terrorists in regard to a recent massive terrorist attack

3) The national security department has secretly searched and detained official opposition to the government

Now, I'm pretty sure that we're all horrified when we hear of countries like this. What wrong with the world? Why doesn't the UN or someone do something? At least I live in a civilized country. We shake our heads in dismay for the poor victims before we breathe easy, secretly happy that at least our country doesn't do such things. I know I was that way once. It seems long ago now, before I became more aware of the world's reality, before I paid real attention to the news--trying read between the lines, taking in the global picture. Sometimes I wish I had remained like I was before, sometimes I still try. I've even taken to watching the news only once or twice a week to reduce the media fear-mongering and sensationalism, and to try not to be so depressed.

It's all building up to something--something that can only be beginning with fire!--Pete Townsend

We do have chances to fix things--the financial crisis was the perfect opportunity to try and rectify and obviously flawed system. We chose to use the bandaid approach. Car manufacturers are in crisis (what a surprise! people buy fewer cars when they have less money and when they worry about the environment!). We could choose to make them go green, force them to develop and build green cars after we bail them out. Instead it's same-old, same-old. All we're doing it passing the problem to our children. Sure, that's what we humans have being doing for many generations...only this time, our children really will have to deal with them.

Anyway, I've digressed somewhat from the opening topic. So, for anyone curious as to which country I was speaking about: it's England.

1) Sex trafficking has been a huge problem here for many years. Girls as young as 12 from Asia or Eastern Europe believe they are visiting their new boyfriends and looking for work and when they arrive, their passports are taken and they're forced to work as prostitutes.

2) The UK has exported Muslim terrorists in the past (one was involved in a suicide bombing in Israel) and currently, allegations that some of the terrorists involved in the Mumbai attacks were British are under investigation

3) Yesterday the Homeland Security Department searched the office and homes of opposition member Damian Green and detained him for questioning for 9 hours in regards to 'leaks from the homeland office'. All of this was done in secret and was, technically, legal under the anti-terrorism laws. Maybe they were taking him in for 're-education'.

Children: a Privilege not a Right

I'm hoping to elicit some comments with this entry. Basically, this last week there has been a lot of news in the UK regarding child abuse:

a 17 month old foster child was brutally beaten for months before being killed and left in his blood-spattered bed.
a mother stabbed her two young children to death (Manchester)
a mother was involved with the kidnapping of her own daughter in order to get a share of the reward money when she was found (Leeds).
a father was discovered to have repeatedly mentally and physically abused his two daughters over a period of 25 years! leading to 19 pregnancies, 9 births and 7 living children (many of which have severe disabilities). (Sheffield) [this comes on the heals of a similar case in Austria recently]

This brings me to the very obvious point that there are some people who simply should not be allowed to raise children. Actually, they should not be allowed to conceive, raise or even be around children. In this day and age, with almost 7 billion humans on the planet, there is no justification for allowing such people to breed. Countries like China already have limited procreation, perhaps the west should follow.

Incidentally, many people will argue: well China does it because of their limited space and resources. China is the fourth largest country in the world, and has a population of 1.3 billion. The United Kingdom is one of the smaller countries in the world (about the size of Oregon), and has a population of about 60 million. In terms of population density, the UK, with 298/sq km has over twice the density of China (138/sq km)! [you can work it out for yourself using the numbers on the CIA world fact book web site] There is no way that humans evolved, are wired if you will, to live in an area with an average density of almost 300 people per square kilometre (incidentally, that's about the same as India).

I propose that a license be brought in. You have to take a test and qualify for the right to have a child. And then, your license will state how many children you are allowed. The government should love this as it could be another source of revenue--you have to renew your license after the first year, and then every x years (5, 10).

[as an aside, I'm still adjusting to all the people in other countries. I grew up in Canada, where the average population density is 3.3/sq km (and 0.3/sq km where I grew up). You get a very different perspective on life in such places).

[aside #2: it's interesting to me that most countries really start to worry when their population growth is negative. This is a sign of the times: growth is better, more is better, quality doesn't matter. In today's world, in a country like the UK, with 60 million people, the government should be happy with a falling population. The country would probably be comfortable with about 20 million people. Incidentally, a license could help regulate the rate of population growth also.]

The Reality of Reality TV

Okay, we all know in our heart-of-hearts that there is something screwy with Reality TV. Many questions have arisen regarding people in past shows not being who they are described as being. And just why do so many actor-wannabe's get on the shows, etc. Not to mention the fact that all survivor-type shows feature strong Type-A's. There hasn't been a single reasonable person on the show.

More recently, the big reality shows revolve around talent searches: X-factor, Come dancing, and others. The key to this model is that we the public get to spend our hard-earned money to vote for who we want (just imagine how much money that could be! If 100,000 people call in to vote, that's $100,000 made per episode, excluding advertising!). For such a model to work, and not to lose face, the public's vote has to count, their decision has to matter. But, even ignoring the fact that they don't reveal the number of votes for each person and that the last two have to 'sing off', regardless of their vote differential (at least in the UK), does it?

Here in England there have recently been two cases that question the validity of the vote and the public's importance to the network. First was an X-factor show where a singer favoured as one of the top two was voted off seventh. This sparked a petition of 21,000 names to get her reinstated (in vain).

The second case was far more blatant. On Strictly Come Dancing, the public was, for whatever reason, in love with a guy who simply couldn't dance. Week after week they voted him back despite the judges' very harsh criticism (judges, I might add, that have no real role in the show except as targets for the public scorn). Finally, the guy quits the show! It might be what the judges wanted, but it was not what the paying voters wanted! Clearly someone, somewhere in TV land is taking themselves too seriously and the public not seriously enough.

Now, personally I don't care, I don't like dancing and I would definitely never watch a dancing show. However, the principle of this really bothers me. The fact that the networks have a show where people can vote in to get what they want, and then the network decides to tell the people what they should want or what the show should be! You can't have your cake (or cash cow) and eat it too! You have a show run by the people, you have to listen to the people. It shows you just how much they really think we're mindless ants, doing whatever they tell us.

World Philosophy Day

In honour of World Philosophy Day, I'll post some questions from the BBC and my responses. Feel free to post your own answers/comments:

1. SHOULD WE KILL HEALTHY PEOPLE FOR THEIR ORGANS?

(A) Suppose Bill is a healthy man without family or loved ones. Would it be ok painlessly to kill him if his organs would save five people, one of whom needs a heart, another a kidney, and so on? If not, why not?

(B)Consider another case: you and six others are kidnapped, and the kidnapper somehow persuades you that if you shoot dead one of the other hostages, he will set the remaining five free, whereas if you do not, he will shoot all six. (Either way, he'll release you.)

(C)If in this case you should kill one to save five, why not in the previous, organs case? If in this case too you have qualms, consider yet another: you're in the cab of a runaway tram and see five people tied to the track ahead. You have the option of sending the tram on to the track forking off to the left, on which only one person is tied. Surely you should send the tram left, killing one to save five.

But then why not kill Bill?

(A) Obviously not. Where would it stop? One could easily envision a warping where rich and powerful people could buy less fortunate people from poor families for money. Poor could even have children just to sell them (hey, it already happens for other reasons). In any event, donors could become available after you killed Bill.

(B) No. To quote James T. Kirk: 'I don't believe in the no win scenario.' As long as there was a chance, I'd try and work to stop the guy. And if he gives me the gun to shoot them, what's stopping me from turning it on him? or throwing it away?

(C) Yes, if I can find no way to derail the tram. In my opinion, this is the only one of three where someone actually has to die (and will die regardless of whether you interfere or not).

2. ARE YOU THE SAME PERSON WHO STARTED READING THIS ARTICLE?

Consider a photo of someone you think is you eight years ago. What makes that person you? You might say he she was composed of the same cells as you now. But most of your cells are replaced every seven years. You might instead say you're an organism, a particular human being, and that organisms can survive cell replacement - this oak being the same tree as the sapling I planted last year.

But are you really an entire human being? If surgeons swapped George Bush's brain for yours, surely the Bush look-alike, recovering from the operation in the White House, would be you. Hence it is tempting to say that you are a human brain, not a human being.

But why the brain and not the spleen? Presumably because the brain supports your mental states, eg your hopes, fears, beliefs, values, and memories. But then it looks like it's actually those mental states that count, not the brain supporting them. So the view is that even if the surgeons didn't implant your brain in Bush's skull, but merely scanned it, wiped it, and then imprinted its states on to Bush's pre-wiped brain, the Bush look-alike recovering in the White House would again be you.

But the view faces a problem: what if surgeons imprinted your mental states on two pre-wiped brains: George Bush's and Gordon Brown's? Would you be in the White House or in Downing Street? There's nothing on which to base a sensible choice. Yet one person cannot be in two places at once.

In the end, then, no attempt to make sense of your continued existence over time works. You are not the person who started reading this article.

This isn't a question so much as a statement, and it is rather obvious anyway. It is only our belief in ourselves as separate entities that even allows us to raise the question. To a Budhist, the question is irrelevant as we are all one and everything is constantly changing.

As an aside, your mental states result from the structure of the cells and neurons in your brain and thus, your 'mental state' could not be implanted on another biological brain without completely altering its structure. In which case it would not be a copy of your brain anyway. It may be possible to mimic the brain through computer software/hardware and thus imprint your brain on a computer at sometime in the future (maybe even in this century?!). In which case, who says one person cannot be in two places? That is a very restricted view of reality (I would suggest reading Mindscan by Robert J. Sawyer for a good presentation of this possibility).

3. IS THAT REALLY A COMPUTER SCREEN IN FRONT OF YOU?

What reason do you have to believe there's a computer screen in front of you? Presumably that you see it, or seem to. But our senses occasionally mislead us. A straight stick half-submerged in water sometimes look bent; two equally long lines sometimes look different lengths.
Muller-Lyer illusion
Are things always as they seem? The Muller-Lyer illusion indicates not

But this, you might reply, doesn't show that the senses cannot provide good reasons for beliefs about the world. By analogy, even an imperfect barometer can give you good reason to believe it's about to rain.

Before relying on the barometer, after all, you might independently check it by going outside to see whether it tends to rain when the barometer indicates that it will. You establish that the barometer is right 99% of the time. After that, surely, its readings can be good reasons to believe it will rain.

Perhaps so, but the analogy fails. For you cannot independently check your senses. You cannot jump outside of the experiences they provide to check they're generally reliable. So your senses give you no reason at all to believe that there is a computer screen in front of you."

The reverse of 'how do I know I exist?' Short answer is: You don't. As Descartes wrote 'Cogito ergo sum' I think therefore I am. Pretty much the only thing you have any chance of being remotely sure about is that there is some entity somewhere that is having your thoughts. If nothing else, The Matrix should have convinced you of this.

4. DID YOU REALLY CHOOSE TO READ THIS ARTICLE?

Suppose that Fred existed shortly after the Big Bang. He had unlimited intelligence and memory, and knew all the scientific laws governing the universe and all the properties of every particle that then existed. Thus equipped, billions of years ago, he could have worked out that, eventually, planet Earth would come to exist, that you would too, and that right now you would be reading this article.

After all, even back then he could have worked out all the facts about the location and state of every particle that now exists.

And once those facts are fixed, so is the fact that you are now reading this article. No one's denying you chose to read this. But your choice had causes (certain events in your brain, for example), which in turn had causes, and so on right back to the Big Bang. So your reading this was predictable by Fred long before you existed. Once you came along, it was already far too late for you to do anything about it.

Now, of course, Fred didn't really exist, so he didn't really predict your every move. But the point is: he could have. You might object that modern physics tells us that there is a certain amount of fundamental randomness in the universe, and that this would have upset Fred's predictions. But is this reassuring? Notice that, in ordinary life, it is precisely when people act unpredictably that we sometimes question whether they have acted freely and responsibly. So freewill begins to look incompatible both with causal determination and with randomness. None of us, then, ever do anything freely and responsibly."

As presented, this point is not very interesting. Given Quantum uncertainty principles, we would argue that such a level of prediction is not possible. My only interest in this part is pertaining to religion, as it would be easy to replace 'Fred' with the God of Christianity, who is supposed to be all-knowing. If God could be all-knowing then why punish someone (Adam and Eve) for doing something that is not their choice? Surely, as the creator of such a system, God would know how everything would go from the beginning. It actually makes him irrelevant after the big bang.

However, a more interesting version of this has come about recently in relation to neurobiology research. It seems that our brains are far more autonomous than we previously suspected. Measurements of signals in the brain have revealed that the stimulus to do something (say, pick up a glass of water) is actually made before the conscious thought. Without getting into more detail, it seems the role of our conscious mind is simply to veto, or not, the thought/action that our brain initiates. There have been several good SF short stories made around this research into free will (or lack thereof).

Anyway, those are my answers/comments/reasoning. I'm interested to hear from others.

A sign of the times

It seems to me to be somehow symbolic of the larger global climate, that the monks of two Christian sects came to fisticuffs at their most holy site this weekend. The world is controlled by Christian countries. If the clergy of different Christian sects can't even get along, how can anyone expect their countries to.

Scary thought for the day

In honour of the approaching Halloween, I'm offering my scary thought for the day.

With the rapid pace of technology--nuclear, computer, biotech--by the middle of this century the average high school student will have the ability to destroy the human race.

Sweet dreams.

The REAL dangers of porn

Here is a great article discussing the REAL dangers of pornography--not the 'dangers' that the feminists or religious right would have us believe (rampaging sex-crazed men). Rather, the opposite, and the important gender relationship changes that come about from this (i.e. less male interest in 'real' women).

http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/trends/n_9437/

Athiest thought #6

It seems many people never outgrow the need for an imaginary friend.

Interesting Times

"There is a curse that says 'may you live in interesting times.' " - Terry Prachet

Carbon Footprint

I'm really bothered by the hypocrites on TV who boldly announce that you should reduce your carbon footprint by turning your TV from standby to off. Meanwhile, they boldly drive around in their SUVs.

I may leave my electronics on standby, but I walk or take mass transit everywhere. My family doesn't even own a car (by choice). Fifteen years ago I gave up my driver's license (no, I wasn't legally obliged to; no, I had no points on it). Most of the known world considers me crazy for doing so, including every one of my friends and family. Which only shows that, unlike most of the population, I actually believe in personal responsibility and will back up my words with actions.

Now, I won't get into how politics, the economy and the environment would change (for the better in my opinion) if everyone gave up their cars. What I will say is only, if you want to talk to me about reducing my carbon footprint by unplugging my toaster, or something equally ludicrous, don't. Just get on your four-wheeled high horse and ride on back to the ranch, carbon farmer.

New Definitions: Blockbuster

Blockbuster used to be used to refer to some product (movie, drug, book...) that made vast amounts of money. Obviously our most familiar usage is with the phrase 'blockbuster movie'. Interestingly, I'm under the impression that that meaning has changed to 'something that cost a lot of money to make' or 'something we have high expectations of'.

Case-in-point: today on the news I heard mention that 'the latest blockbuster, City of Ember, is premiering today in Belfast'. But how can it be a blockbuster if it hasn't even been released yet?

Like children playing with nukes

Modern bankers / brokers are like children playing with nukes, they aren't careful with their toy, and they don't understand the true power they wield and the effects it has on other people's lives. Unfortunately, we, society, are the weak parents. We aren't teaching them the difference between right and wrong or the consequences of their actions. This financial crisis was the perfect opportunity to give them a big spanking and set them back on the right path. Instead, we just told them they were bad, gave them a kiss on the cheek, and sent them out to play. With these reassurances, their delinquent ways can only continue.

Global Financial Crisis - some questions

The words in the title of this blog bring to mind so many different thoughts, especially now that 'clean up' processes are supposedly under way:
why do we, the little guy, have to clean up after the rich (they won't ever be affected by the crisis, but we are)?
why does no one insist the rich have to pay for their mess?
is the 'bail out' really helpful, or just another money grab by those who want more (the stock markets still haven't responded positively, despite plans in the US, UK and EU)?
is the crisis truly global (I haven't heard any word of trouble in China, India or the Arab nations)?
just how long can we put off the inevitable collapse of the Western Empire?

and one that I'm quite interested in recently, in this world of ubiquitous addiction (food, TV, work, substances, religion), why has no one insisted that those responsible for the 'economic crisis'--the leaders and major stockholders of the banks--undergo therapy for money addiction? Yes, that's right, these people, who have far more than enough (the richest 400 Americans have more combined assests than the poorest 150 million Americans!) are clearly suffering from severe addiction to money. As part of any bail out deal, they should each be made to undergo intensive addiction treatment until they realize that they have neither the right nor the need to make more than 400 times what their average employee makes.

Alas, it won't happen. Why? Two reasons. First, the rich are the ones in power and thus make the rules. They see nothing wrong and so nothing will happen to them. Second, we the people, the masses that actually support the system, don't insist. That's right, it's as much our fault as theirs for letting them get away with it, for following along like sheep, for allowing our own greed get the better of us and believing and hoping that their fairytale--you too could become disgustingly rich--could, possibly, be true.

'We the people...' have the power. That's why much of government/industry's energy is bent towards controlling us--either calming us into a state of quiet acquiescence, sedating us with cheap baubles and flashing images so we ignore what they're doing, or whipping us into a state of fearful panic so we gratefully allow them to do what they want. We're like trained dogs, panting at sweet-sounding orders for their amusement. And until we wake up (if we ever wake up--read '1984' by Orwell people, it's far more prophetic than the bible) we always will be.

'We the people...' have the power. But we have to get out of our lazy-chairs to use it.

Olympic men's 100m sprint: Paradigm Shift

I didn't get a chance to write this when the event occurred, but Ussain Bolt went on to win 2 more gold and set 2 more world records after the 100m sprint so, in a way, it is even more obvious now. What is? Namely, that we are the beginning of a paradigm shift in men's sprinting. Until now, the paradigm had been that tall athletes did not make good sprinters. Their long legs would mean poor starts, an inability to accelerate as a shorter athlete could. Well, Bolt has demonstrated, convincingly, that a tall athlete can be a world-class sprinter. True, he has a slow start, but his powerful legs and long stride mean that in the middle of the race, he simply blows past the other sprinters. He set a world record of 9.69 in the 100m without trying his fullest. Jamaica, with Bolt running the 3rd leg, destroyed the US world record in the men's 4x100 relay with incredibly cautious handovers--meaning they should be able to beat that record in the future.

So, it should be obvious that Ussain Bolt's performance will mean a paradigm shift in the thinking of world-class sprinting. You've heard it hear...expect 100m sprinters to be getting taller from now on.

Unpunished crimes against humanity #1

In keeping with the date and my recent Rush theme, a relevant quote from the band's 1985 song Manhattan Project off the album Power Windows:

The big bang took and shook the world
Shot down the rising sun
The end was begun and it hit everyone
When the chain reaction was done

The big shots tried to hold it back
Fools tried to wish it away
The hopeful depend on a world without end
Whatever the hopeless may say

So, today's unpunished crimes against humanity could actually count as #1 and #2, one being perpetrated 63 years ago today, and the other 63 years and 3 days ago. Of course, while there is debate, they have never been officially considered as crimes against humanity--despite being responsible for the #1 and #2 largest loss of lives in any single attack in the history of the world--because, well, history is written by the winners isn't it? As you might guess, I am speaking about the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nakasaki (Aug. 6 and 9, 1945, respectively). Yes, they led directly to a swift end of WWII, but does the ends justify the means? I certainly hope not, or we're all in a lot of trouble.

A few facts from the bombings:

Hiroshima

Atomic (fission) bomb--Little boy
Core: U235
Yield: 13 kT (13 kilotons TNT equivalent)
Detonated: 600m over Shima Surgical Clinic
Estimated killed instantly: 70,000
Estimated total killed in attack: 140,000
Radius of total destruction (i.e. everything destroyed in that area): 1.6 km

Nagasaki

Atomic (fission) bomb--Fat man
Core: P239
Yield: 21 kT (21 kilotons TNT equivalent)
Detonated: 439m above city
Estimated killed instantly: 40,000-75,000
Estimated total killed in attack: 80,000
Radius of total destruction (i.e. everything destroyed in that area): 1.6 km

As if the instant destruction of 2 cities and over 200,000 lives wasn't enough, the US government was readying a third bomb for the next week, with three more planned for September [ref:National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 162. The George Washington University (1945-08-13).]

For all these reasons and more, I think it's obvious that the nuclear bombings of Japan in WWII easily deserve the title of the most heinous unpunished crimes against humanity in recorded history.

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki for much more detail, including references.

Human-made intelligences and Intelligent Design

It's interesting to think that those believing in Intelligent Design--a recent bit of Christian pseudoscience--would try and convince us that our intelligence was created, not evolved. It seems to me that, having set such a precedence, i.e. that intelligence can be created, such people would have to be strong proponents of the possibility of so-called true artificial intelligence. In other words, they surely must believe that, if we keep increasing our understanding of life and the universe, there is no reason why we could not create our own intelligent, albeit inorganic, beings. If not, then at the very least they would have to believe we will be able to uplift other creatures to intelligence. After all, God may have created the first intelligent species (perhaps, the jury is still out...) but he still had to follow the rules of the universe, rules that we can learn and use ourselves.

Sadly, I'm willing to bet that very few Intelligent Design proponents actually believe that humans will have either ability (AI or uplifts). And this is one of my big beefs with religion. It sets us at the center of the universe while telling us that we are either not allowed or too stupid to go anywhere else. Apparently, we were just supposed to sit quietly in our paleolithic caves and wait for salvation (oops, except most modern religions hadn't been invented at that time).


A response to some comments:

Thanks for the comments.

In response to the I.Q. point--this is true and has been happening throughout history. It's obvious if you think of the things that you know now as part of your general knowledge versus what, say, the average ancient Roman knew. General things about the structure of the atom, space, technology, how things work, different types of wildlife, history, geography, biology... If an unskilled biochemist today went back even 70 years, their knowledge of biochemistry (even just protein and DNA structure) would make them the pre-eminent genius in the field at that time. Almost anyone in the western world today has better medical knowledge than the best doctors of only a few hundred years ago. The 'average I.Q. remains, by definition, at 100 (and, in truth, represents only a very small amount of the population). What has to change, every 5-10 years probably (and soon more often), is what qualifies as 100 on the test.

Incidentally, and on an only minor aside, the future extrapolation of this trend is feared by some (do a search of technological singularity).

Currently, high school student's can do molecular biology experiments that required most of the duration of a Ph.D., and a lot of hard work, in the '70s--only 40 years ago. So...what will the situation be 40 years from now? The fear is that it will be trivial for almost anyone with the desire to create a genocidal pathogen.

In fact, much of technology follows a similar trend:

There a several high school students who have successfully built inefficient nuclear reactors in their basements.
Pre-pubescent kids can lock-up corporate web sites using easily available software and a network of zombie computers without even fully understanding how the software works.

It has even been postulated, due to these trends in technology and general knowledge, that an intelligent species is very fragile once it develops basic technology. Within 200 years from the harnessing of radio waves, based on human progression, a species will not just develop the means (or several means) of autogenocide, but that means will be in the hands of each and every citizen on the planet!

In the 1960s we worried about presidents with the fingers on the red button. In the 2060's we will very likely have to worry about the kid next door...or down the block...or the one who's upset with his teacher...

Feeding the world...

Can't feed the people, but we feed the machines

A prophetic line from the Canadian rock band Rush in 1985. In someways, today the situation is even worse. We are getting to the point where we can't afford to feed either the people or the machines. And when we can, we choose to feed the machines. I mean, how messed up are our priorities when, due to the rising costs of oil, we have devoted food crops to producing fuel for machines while millions starve each year. You'd be laughed at if you ever put something like this in a novel. Reality really is stranger than fiction.

X-Files Movie 2008: I don't believe it!

Ten years on, the duo shacked up, a wimpy stance on stem cell research, lots of God, and no aliens. Who's crazy idea was it to diverge so strongly from the main theme of the entire series for the new movie? [and just what is it with Hollywood's return to the big red scare lately? Everywhere you look the Russians are back as the bad guys?!]

Sharing mp3s: not stealing, giving to charity

The RIAA (the Recording Industry Association of America) would have us believe that sharing/downloading mp3s/movies is like stealing cars or televisions. We are told this almost constantly in the news, before movies in the cinema, etc. Most people find this difficult to believe at least for the obvious reason that, once a TV is stolen, it is no longer in the store. But once an mp3/movie is downloaded, it still exists with the 'supplier'.


However, what has occurred to me recently, is that P2P sharing of mp3s/movies is less like traditional theft and more like...giving to charity. One steals a TV or car in order to make money, which is to say, to resell it. Instead, most people who trade mp3s online do not do it for the money, but rather to sample what is there, to reacquire songs they once owned but lost, or other similarly non-capitalistic reasons--appreciation, for example.

Thus, P2P sharing is more similar to taking your old clothes to a charity, than it is to stealing a new TV.


As a post script, the RIAA and movie industries claim huge losses due to downloads. Indeed, this is the prime driving force behind the current 'awareness' campaign (and lawsuits). However, I beg to differ with their interpretation. In reality, if the internet (or P2P) didn't exist and the songs/movies couldn't be downloaded, most of them would never be acquired by these people. That is, the people doing much of the downloading (apart from those doing it as a business--and these people are not targeted by the RIAA) would not be buying the CDs/DVDs anyway. Most of these people just download as a collector might and probably never listen to most of the songs they download--and would definitely not be buying them. So, in effect, P2P has not lost the companies much money and has actually gained them a free advertising venue. Unfortunately, the typical, dollar-signs-in-their-eyes executives are unable to see reality through their imaginary financial losses. Anyway, anyone that's traveled some of the world can tell them that their real losses are coming from the mass downloaders that package and resell the CDs/DVDs more cheaply than the original, something that happens in the Mediterranean countries, the middle east and southeast Asia. I've seen stores in Middle East shopping centers that have the knock-off media proudly displayed in the front of the store and will mention to you that you can also buy the more expensive original, if you want, in the back.

Not the Jedi I should be

Sometimes I feel like Anakin in Revenge of the Sith: 'Something's wrong...I'm not the Jedi I should be.'

Western 'life'

More and more westerners understand, at least at a subconscious level, that money is not the answer. Unfortunately, we've moved so far down the path in pursuit of it that it now seems we've lost sight of what the answer is.

Don't believe me? Countries of the western world have the highest suicide rates. We live in the most luxurious conditions, with the best jobs and highest standards of living. Yet we commit suicide more frequently than any other culture. If money was the answer, shouldn't we enjoy life more, not less?

Athiest thought #5

The only thing religion actually teaches is how to blindly follow an ideal.

None of the 'rules to live by' espoused by religion (ten commandments, etc.) are specific to deities or especially to any one deity. They can be arrived at just as well through secular reasoning, thus, they are independent of religion. Therefore, when stripping away all that can be learned either secularly or through sacred means, we are left with only this one fact.

Rigged games shows #1: Goldenballs (UK)

Over the course of their existence, there have been several cases of rigged game shows. Usually this has taken on the form where popular contestants have been helped to win. However, the form of 'rigging' I'm speaking about here is the modern, money-conscious, control all variables form. And nowhere is this better exemplified than in the UK game show Goldenballs.

For those who haven't seen the show, it begins with four contestants who each have four golden coloured balls before them, two each in two rows. Everyone can see the 'front' two balls but only the contestants can see the rear two. The balls each have a money value inside them, however, to make things interesting, there are several 'killer' balls which come into play in the final round and thus form one basis for 'voting off' contestants. In round one, the four contestants talk and try to convince each other of what they have in the other balls and why they should go to the next round. After a time limit, they vote and one person is removed, showing all their balls (which are then removed from play). More money balls and killer balls are entered into play and the second round proceeds much like the first (except each contestant now has 5 balls). After the voting, two players remain. They then enter a short, cooperative round to build up as much money as they can by trying to select money balls and avoiding killers. The show ends with the inevitable back-stabbing round where each player elects to either 'split' or 'steal' the money. If both 'split' they each take half the pot. If one splits and one steals, the stealer takes all the money and if both steal, none get the money.

At first appearance, the show seems an interesting psychological experiment. First in trust and deception, then in the old golden vs silver rule of life. When broken down logically, however, it can simply be seen as a fun show where virtually no one will ever take home any money.

Why?

Let's look at the final round: split or steal, and break it down logically.

1) Choose 'split'

a) opponent chooses: split

result: win half the pot

b) opponent chooses: steal

result: win nothing

2) Choose 'steal'

a) opponent chooses: split

result: win all the pot

b) opponent chooses: steal

result: win nothing

From the above, it is easy to see that a contestant's best option is always to choose 'steal', regardless of any real or perceived greed or trust issues. Regardless of which choice one makes, there is a 50/50 chance to take home money. However, with 'steal' you will take home twice as much as with 'split'. Since the odds are the same, but the take is higher, contestants could always be counted on to choose 'steal'. But if all contestants choose steal, no one will ever win money and the show never has to pay out. (thus, if every contestant chose 'split' they would all win, always But since there will always be someone choosing 'steal', so too will everyone else).

The only way one could ever see it changing would be if several contestants made a written agreement, in private, before the show. Or, perhaps in a charity show where all could be expected to choose 'split'.

Unusual Things Married Couples Fight Over #3

or

Before you were married, you never thought you would fight over this

Temperature

Who would have thought something so basic as the temperature could cause such problems. Yet problems does it cause. Doubly so if you are from different parts of the world. While I don't believe all women require the house to be a sauna, it does seem that women require greater warmth, in general, than men. Perhaps owing to their more minimal attire?

Whatever the cause, I still have to try to avoid dehydration while my wife has the fireplace heating and 2 quilts on the bed...in June!

Today's Neural Spasm: Aspartame

Wouldn't it be funny if Aspartame (Neutrasweet) was found to cause retention of fat?

Athiest thought #4

God doesn't save people, people save people.

Athiest thought #3

To the more liberal minded: So what if the bible is 'inspired' by God? Have you ever listened to a CD of music 'inspired' by a movie? Did it, in any way, help you understand what the movie was like?

Athiest thought #2

Religion is like a drug, it makes the weak feel powerful. And just like a drug, in the vast majority of cases that power is little more than illusion.

Athiest thought #1

God doesn't kill people, people kill people.

Unusual Things Married Couples Fight Over #2

or

Before you were married, you never thought you would fight over this

#2 Bathroom clutter

Perhaps the modern metrosexual man is an exception to this but, in general men seem to be bathroom minimalists. The general necessities for bathroom going include toilet paper, hand soap, a toothbrush/toothpaste, a towel, shampoo and bath soap and shaving items. In an average-size bathroom these will take up almost no space, leaving an uncluttered bathroom and an, if not pleasant, at least not frustrating bathroom-going experience.

Women, on the other hand, seem to have an almost psychotic urge to fill whatever bathroom space exists. Regardless of the size of the bathroom, rest assured, it will be completely filled with...stuff. Once all the 'necessities' are moved in (and I have no idea what most of those 'necessities' are), if there is still visible open space, a woman will proceed to introduce all variety of small, colourful, often smelly and generally in the way, decorative objects. All of this has the result of turning a once simple room into a cluttered mess.

Is there any surprise men don't like to wash the bathroom? The shear volume of objects to move for completing the task is almost overwhelming.

Unusual Things Married Couples Fight Over #1

or

Before you were married, you never thought you would fight over this

#1 Dirt

Yep, number 1 cause of marital disputes is dirt. Most men, even ones considering themselves to be clean and orderly, like myself, find they end up fighting with their wives about cleaning. Seems clean is never clean enough for most women. This is particularly problematic for me in those times that my professional wife stays home (such as during maternity leave).

Of course, man-to-man, the real issue here is not cleaning, but rather cleaning on demand. Which is to say that said area of house has to be cleaned when she wants. Two hours from now is not good enough. Five minutes from now is not good enough. And this evening, after you've finished your work and whatever else is infinitely more entertaining, is definitely not good enough.

As you may gather, I work from home which brings a whole new level to the issue. Some people, no matter how hard they try, are just unable to truly believe that working from home is working.

Bush Co. is at it again

It's become a regular occurrence, something inevitable, expected, and unavoidable--like death or taxes. Yep, now that election time is rolling around, Bush Co. have whipped out the 'terrorists want you' card.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j3OfYY31yv9LNOspwKcj73SwDegwD90CCOO00

Is anyone even surprised anymore? Between the fear factor and the rigged voting machines, I smell another Republican 'victory'.

Why the green approach won't clean up the environment

Simply? Because it's been commercialized.

That's not to say that the green mentality, as it's meant to be, wouldn't have worked. Only that it won't work any longer because the companies have gotten hold of it and bent and twisted and pureed every ounce of meaning from it.

Case in point:

Today we received a junk mail advert the size of a large postcard with the similar hard feel and glossy image on the front (in this case from The Boxford Farm in Suffolk). As far as I can see, the point of the advert is to give a coupon for a 50p discount on Copella fruit juice. So? you say, what's unusual about that?

Yes, we all get vast amounts of junk mail each week and that, in and of itself, is not unusual. In this case, however, the coupon, itself, is less than 1/4 of the postcard. The rest is meaningless babble, some personal-sounding smoozy letter that no one will read. This wouldn't even be 'bad' or noticable, just a corporate gimmick, if it wasn't for the labels at the bottom of the card:

'Paper sourced from a FSC sustainable forest
Printed using waterless presses and vegetable based inks.'

So, as far as I understand it, this company has intentionally chosen eco-friendly paper as...?...a sneaky appeal to the conservationist in all of us? It can't be because they actually care about the environment or reducing the size of landfills or their carbon footprint, etc. If that was the case, they might have thought that they didn't need a postcard advert 4 times the size of the coupon! With the same amount of paper, they could have produced 4x the number of coupons/adverts or, of course, they could have printed the same number while only using 1/4 of the paper.

And so, until everyone (companies included) actually notice this specific problem in logic, and until everyone actually cares about this kind of thing (and how many of us really do?), the 'green mentality' is doomed to be relegated to just one more useful tool in the corporate advertising machine.

What is the Western World Coming To?

I thought the Nazi's lost WWII but apparently, in this world terrorized by the thought of terror, I'm wrong. In both the US and UK, street photography is strongly frowned on and, in some instances 'illegal'--by which I mean, the police will stop you, sometimes even confiscating your camera, and will make you delete your pictures. Just for taking photographs of public buildings, landmarks, interesting sites.

A few links to show you what I mean:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7351252.stm
http://www.vividlight.com/articles/3802.htm
http://www.alternet.org/rights/22084/
http://copyfight.corante.com/archives/2005/05/23/public_photography_becoming_illegal
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/december2007/201207_b_illegal.htm
http://flickr.com/photos/21500190@N07/2167976932/
http://digg.com/security/Photographer_Told_Taking_Picture_of_Building_Illegal

I've recently moved to the UK. I thought that, although they had their idiosyncrasies, they were still better with human rights than the US. Now I'm not so sure.

Incidentally, you can check here: http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf for you rights as a photographer (unless they quote 'national security'. Then all rights go out the window).

Interestingly, in all cases it seems you are more likely to be accosted by the authorities if you look professional (ie: are using a 'real' camera vs. a cell phone)!? Does this strike anyone else as a little backward? After all, anyone looking to take clandestine photos would likely try and hide the fact. Although, in reality, any terrorist target is already going to have a million photos all over the net and probably the blueprints to go with it.

Does anyone still believe the 'allies' are winning the war on terror? How can we be when almost daily our rights are being stripped away. I'm sure this is how intelligent Germans felt as the Third Reich strengthened their grip on power, slowly stealing the basic rights and freedoms of the German citizens.

On the chance you believe the state and believe that the paranoia about terrorists is justified, I have the following questions for you (aimed at those living in western countries):

1) This year, how many people in your country have died unnatural deaths? How many of those deaths were due to terrorists?

2) In the last 10 years, how many people in your country have died unnatural deaths? How many of those deaths were due to terrorists?

#2 intentionally includes 9/11 to demonstrate a point. In the US, in the last 10 years there have been more than 160,000 murders ( http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm --that's a lower estimate as I was a bit lazy to add the yearly figures. The upper estimate of 9/11 deaths was 3000. That means that in the last 10 years 'murder' by terrorists accounts for less than 2% in the US (and that's not even factoring in deaths by car accident, accidental shootings, etc.). But financially, including the Iraq war (war on terror) it accounts for a huge percentage of the US budget (trillions).

Incidentally, in the UK, the murders by terrorists in the last 10 years is a much smaller percentage (approx. 60/8000 or approx. 0.75%).

We are killing ourselves at a much faster rate than 'they' (the terrorists) are, so why all the fear about 'them'?

In my opinion?

It's an excuse for a power grab, a convenient excuse to build to unreasonable levels in order to scare the people into handing over sweeping powers to the government. This is no conspiracy theory people, and this is not Orwell's 1984. This is real and it is happening now. And it is only the power of the people that can stop it.

Think I'm crazy? For all our sakes, I hope you're right.

Global warming--hate to say 'I told you so', but...

...I did (see my December 10, 2007 entry). Four months ago, I told you that global warming was here to stay and all the well-meaning attempts at carbon-footprint reduction that the few hardcore greens were doing would mean precisely squat. Well, it now seems other scientists, economists, etc. have come to the same realization. As reported in the NY Times, online edition, today:

A Shift in the Debate Over Global Warming

Recommendations are now being made to the effect that, instead of focusing on reducing emissions, we need to focus on new, cleaner technologies. Why? Again, precisely as I said, because the numbers from recent years show that people are not reducing and fuel efficiency is actually decreasing globally. So *surprise, surprise* whatever reduction we attempt (geologically slow as our governments are) will be far too little far too late.

So get out your wet-suits and wax up your surfboards, cause the age of Aquarius is coming (Aquarius being the water bearer of the zodiac).

The passing of a visionary

Yes, in many way the death of science fiction author and visionary Arthur C. Clarke on Tuesday feels like the end of an era. Along with Isaac Asimov and Carl Saga, Arthur C. Clarke was one of the most influential people in my early life with regards to science, science fiction and skepticism.

In addition to being a science fictions writer, Arthur C. Clarke was an expert and a visionary in the field of communications technology. In WWII he was involved in the development of radar defense systems. In 1945 he lay the theoretical foundations for geosynchronous satellite orbits, which were realized two decades later. Such satellites are now placed into what are called Clarke orbits, in his honour. One day he may also been more widely known for championing the space elevator, which was featured in several of his books including the 2001 series and is now under development.

Clarke celebrated his 90th birthday last December. His clarity and vision will be missed.

Most Christians don't really believe

That's right, I've recently come to the conclusion that most Christians don't really believe in their religion. Oh, they think they believe, but they don't really believe. Don't get me wrong, there are some that do and I, for one, am thankful that most don't, but that doesn't change the simple fact.

Okay, I'll throw you a bone. Yes, all Christians believe the basic tenet that Christ died on the cross to forgive their sins. But that's about all they believe these days. The most obvious area where they don't believe, and the topic which lead me to my conclusion, is in life after death. An easy way for me to highlight my point is by describing some points from the movie Johnny Q, which I have recently seen again.

The father in Johnny Q is trying to get his son's name put on the heart donor list but runs into the horrible American health system where money, and only money, speaks. Eventually overcome by frustration, this good Christian and family man takes an emergency room hostage. He does all he can to help the people he's trapped while negotiating for what he wants. After all, he's a good Christian man. Finally, after being shot at by an inept police sniper, he gets more serious, however, time has almost run out for his son. Therefore, Johnny Q decides the only way to save his son is for him to commit suicide and donate his own heart. The rest of the movie is not relevant to my discussion here and I don't want to ruin the rather obvious ending for anyone who hasn't seen it.

On several occasions, the movie mentions that he is intended to represent a good Christian husband/father so let's look at some of his actions with regards to Christianity. I can already hear some of you saying 'but he only held them hostage to fight a corrupt system'. That's fine by me and completely irrelevant to this discussion. My main interest is in the fact that, after Johnny Q has exhausted all possibilities (presumably God has ensured Johnny's devotion by now) he then decides to take his life to save his son.

Now, in my understanding, one of the other big tenets of Christianity is that all good Christians go to heaven to live in peace and happiness with their family for all eternity. And now we come to the meat.

While Johnny's actions are more extreme than most would attempt--after all, this is a movie, the realm of hyperbole--I'm sure most Christians do not criticize them on a Christian level-->after all, he's showing great devotion and love for his child. Or is he?

Let's take a logical run-down of what would happen assuming the Christian belief system is correct.

A. If nature takes it's course and the son, call him Junior, dies then Junior has lived about eight years and will now spend an eternity (presumably infinite time or at least until the end of everything) in heaven in peace and happiness. When Johnny Q and the wife die in forty or sixty years they will join Junior in heaven for an eternity, reunited as a happy family. So, the family will miss Junior for the rest of their entire 'natural' lives which amounts to an insignificant value in relation to the infinity together in heaven after their death (60/infinity x 100% = infinitesimal %).

B. If Johnny Q had succeeded in his suicide plan, then he would have sinned one of the big ones (can't repent after suicide, cause you're dead). So Johnny Q would go to hell for eternity (hey, seems unfair but I don't make the rules). In the meantime his wife and child live their normal lives, die presumably good Christians and go to heaven for eternity. In this case, Johnny Q has sacrificed an eternity together to allow his son an insignificant amount of extra life (80/infinity = infinitesimal).

So, if Johnny Q is really a good Christian, the logical thing to do would actually be to let the child die--anyway, presumably that is the will of God, no? Yet he chooses what is basically the worst possible choice, and the important part to me is, never once is his status as a good Christian questioned.

Now many of you good Christians will say "it's only a movie" and yes, you are correct. But how many of you would fight as hard as you could in the same situation instead of rejoicing that the Lord has chosen your child early. Many of you feel sad when a good Christian loved one dies? Why? Should you not feel happy that they are going to heaven? Some of you will argue that I'm analyzing the situation too much and in the heat of the moment you do what come naturally. This is actually exactly my point--a true believer 'knows' there is an afterlife and will except and be happy that God is taking their child there. Only someone who doesn't believe will fight the situation.

There are some 'true' Christians, don't get me wrong, but by-and-large, I am willing to argue that 99% of Christians don't really believe in the afterlife (if they analyze their feelings and motivations on the issue). In reality, this is undoubtedly a good thing for the world as I could see no real reason for doing much of anything with an eternal afterlife of milk and honey waiting.

Censor it? Don't play it--and a challenge to muscians

This is a note to all those radio stations and music TV channels out there. If you feel the urge to censor a song then please, just don't play it. Don't. It's almost laughably absurd to listen to some songs where 1/3 to 1/2 the words can be censored and any meaning the song might have had is completely lost in a wash of null sound. Censors already disgust me but if a company is not willing to challenge the censors or to find a way around it (like playing the music after prime time) they just shouldn't play the music. Period.

Note to the parents: Get in touch with reality. Your desire to censor such things will have absolutely no effect on whether your children know/use the language (except, perhaps, to make them more curious). You're living in a dream world if you think otherwise.

Challenge to musicians: I would love to see a well written song designed so that, after the censorship, the remaining words form a message (ie: the song has one meaning without censorship and another meaning with). Could be anything, but obviously a political statement or comment against censorship would be most interesting.

M.I.A. Paper Planes

Alright, who's the tone-deaf record exec that signed this group? I just heard this song and the only thing I could think of was how annoying the voices were and how bad the singing was. At the risk of sounding older than I am, is bad singing the new trend? I mean I like rock, alternative, hip-hop, etc, (not country...too depressing) so I consider myself fairly open-minded musically. However, not only is every verse in the song repeated at least 2x but it's repeated off key. And this is supposed to be the best song on their album? Well, let's just say, they are either really good and doing it on purpose or...

On another note, this song really makes me feel out of touch with western society since I'm not overly concerned about an influx of immigrants (which is apparently what the song is about--relax, the group is only intending to highlight society's fear). It does make you wonder why westerners are so afraid of 'foreigners' (a word that I feel has little meaning in today's world) however.

Of slaves, religions and history

Can anyone doubt that we are still living with the consequences of history? Of course, this is true in many ways, but I'm thinking predominantly of the effects of religion--namely, the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam). Before you click the 'next' button, I'm not here to rant about religion today, but more to wonder on how similar events and circumstances can effect different peoples in so dramatically different ways.

More precisely, I'm interested in how two groups of people, enslaved and mistreated throughout recorded history--namely, Jewish and African peoples--can have had such a different effect on the world. While the differences can be seen in many areas, simple observation has to suggest that, while Africans and their descendants have had a relatively minor effect on the world (outside of their more recently achieved domination in sports and music), the Jewish people have been at the center of events and ideas that have, and continue to, crucially effect the world--I'm speaking, of course, about their creation of a monotheistic religion, it's progenitors, and the conflicts that has spawned throughout the world.

There can be little argument that both groups spent a significant part of their early history enslaved (by the likes of the Egyptians, Romans and many others). However, while Africans continued to be enslaved by various groups until quite recently, the Jews liberated themselves from the Egyptians and then fought the Romans for freedom (something that, unfortunately, led to the creation of Christianity and further prosecution for the Jewish people). So, what interests me is what is the difference between the two groups that led to vastly different responses and outcomes to their persecution.

We can guess from the Torah (old testament) that the Israelites had already developed a sense of community, a loose nationality at the time they were enslaved by the Egyptian pharaohs. They already felt themselves 'a people'. Moses, or which ever person or group he might represent, was able to draw on this sense of community, forging it, through the bonds of religion, into a unified cause. A cause that has held the Jewish people together throughout time and distance in the millennia since.

Africa, to state the obvious, is much larger than Israel. In the early world, this would undoubtedly mean that the peoples and communities likely existed in much smaller, more independent forms. It's quite likely that, because of the vastness of distance, the richness of the nature and relative abundance of food, and the absence of competing neighbours (at a distance they could appreciate) there was little reason for a 'sense of community' or the larger concept of a 'people' to develop quickly. Thus, when the first empires invaded, seizing the people for slaves, there was no sense of a nation about which to form a resistance. Hence, the African people continued to be enslaved with relatively little trouble for thousands of years, accepting this lot with a fatalistic view but otherwise causing little trouble.

An analogy to the African people can likely be found in the indigenous people of North and South America. These people also lived on large continents in similarly nature-oriented communities. Of course, these North American peoples did develop strong loyalties toward their communities, their nations, but one could argue that they quite likely had many more thousands of years over which to develop this before the Europeans invaded. So when the Europeans did finally invade, the indigenous nations fought (and where, of course, slaughtered due to the greater technology of the Europeans).

I believe this idea of the influence of community can further be bourne out by following the plight of African slaves brought to America. Again their was little resistance amid the enslaved peoples as they were largely kept separate, unable to communicate or develop a greater sense of disenfranchised community. Once the civil war ended, however, African-American were more free to form communities through the US, although they were clearly still treated as 2nd or 3rd class citizens. However, from the end of the civil war it took only about a century until the event that lead to the rising of the African-Americans themselves and the granting of greater 'equality'.

Thus it appears, to me at least, that the sense of belonging to 'a people / a nation' has been a significant force in shaping the events of history right up to the modern world. It's amazing to think how the world would be different if the Jewish people had been enslaved before they had developed their own identity, or if the African people had been enslaved after they had developed their identity.

Hmm, I smell some interesting alternative history stories in the making.

I'm An Atheist...

I'm an Atheist, which means I have nothing to die for.


It's true, regardless of how you view it. Unlike the majority of the world (almost 40% claim to be a member of an Abrahamic religion with another almost 20% being Hindu), I have no reason to want to die. There is no heavenly host waiting for me, there are no 40 vestal virgins, no past and future loved ones after I shed the mortal coil. I have nothing to die for. Conversely, that means I have everything to live for.

Yes, that's right. Contrary to what religion teaches, atheists have everything to live for. We accept that there is only one life--for us or for anyone else. Somehow, religion has twisted this idea into the suggestion that atheists should therefore be violent and untrustworthy. The very opposite of what would be expected of most atheists. After all, if you only have one life, you don't want to screw it up.

Of course, everyone needs a scapegoat and, besides members of other religions, theists commonly choose the rationalists or non-joiners. After all, we're 'different' and most people consider 'different' as strange at best, bad at worst.

The funny thing to me...and that's funny 'on no!', not funny 'ha, ha', is that it is really the theists who are to be feared in life. At least, the true believers. After all, there are no reasons that I can see for any good Christian or Muslim not to rush immediately to the afterlife. What do they have to gain by staying on Earth? Furthermore, I can see no reason for any true believer to justify their staying on Earth. After all, who in their right mind wouldn't want to go to heaven, and both those major religions provide easy ways to get there.

The west is currently facing an onslaught of devout Muslims eager to ascend in service of their Lord. They are the true believers, the ones who are certain there is something waiting for them. Fortunately for the world, there are many less devout Christians these days (their days were spent in service of fighting the Roman Empire and during the Crusades, etc). I leave it to your imagination to visualize the horror of 1 billion soldiers on either side of a modern war eager to reach their just rewards in the sky.

I suppose I should back up a moment because I hear the outraged cry of countless Christians screaming in my ears 'we are good Christians! just because we don't want to go to heaven yet...'. Well, my point is actually that, in my opinion, most Christians don't really believe in a heaven and thus aren't really 'good' Christians. I mean, the evidence is all around you...ever been to a Christian funeral? What's all that about? When a good friend goes on vacation to a great place for a few months I, and I'm sure most people, don't start bawling their eyes out and crying 'I'll miss you so much!' Instead, they congratulate the person 'you lucky dog! I wish I was going with you.' For a good Christian, death is only a stepping stone to the next life. Regardless of what you've done in this one, as long as you accept Jesus as your savior, you're set. So what's the problem? Why aren't you happy when a good Christian friend dies? Funerals should be grand events with lots of celebration, music, dancing and generally good times. After all, in the big scope of eternity, a few years wait to see them again is nothing. Hell, if I really thought there was something that great up there, I'd be game to get there as quick as possible. If only the anti-abortionist activists really believed! Then they could spend as much time killing themselves as they do other people.

So, I'm forced to understand that most Christians don't really believe. Which also, fortunately, explains why they're not throwing themselves at the terrorist horde. Oh, and there's no use claiming that suicide is a sin in Christianity. You, conveniently, have a 'get out of hell free' card in Jesus's crucifixion. There's no point in claiming otherwise, the logic doesn't stand. Either his death forgives all sins if you believe, or it doesn't. Anyway, I'm sure you've committed other sins in a premeditated fashion--ever steal stationary from the office? download mp3s or movies you didn't own...you get the idea. A different scale, you say? I don't recall the 10 commandments specifying which theft or which murder. And Jesus didn't put limits on the sins he was dying for. Which all brings us back to the fact that most Christians don't really believe.

Now, if only they were willing to admit it to themselves we could get on with the business of fixing the world without everyone holding their collective breath for their magic flying pasta monster to save them.