Wednesday, March 11, 2009

Morning Link Dump!

Totally true Chuck Norris fact: He is an insane person. Literally. He's touting a telecast of thousands of right-wing cells (yes, he himself uses the same word used to describe terrorist groups) ominously titled "We Surround Them." At what point should the authorities start taking this stuff seriously?

The claim that Obama is doing too much too soon isn't only made by stupid people, but it's a claim that makes those who make it sound stupid. Like Jake Tapper.

I see that some of the comments have already covered it, but when Kevin Drum asked why the Wall Street quants were predominantly physicists and not mathematicians, the answer clearly lies in the difference between theoretical and applied mathematics. Mathematicians dig into the theory that underlies mathematics. Physicists, among others, apply that theory to the world. It's much more natural for someone who works in applied mathematics to transfer to another applied mathematics field. I speak only for myself, but I'm a mathematician, and I generally like math for math's sake and eschew applied math.

Cool optical illusion.

Weird fish, or weirdest fish?

War on drugs = FAIL. Incidentally, if you're not reading Radley Balko on a regular basis, you're losing out.

Blogging

It became hard for me to maintain a blog during the heat of the Presidential campaign. Both the primaries and the general. This happened for two reasons. First, I was often too busy paying close attention to every up-to-the-second detail that came up. Second, every time I wanted to say anything, someone had already said it, by and large. I felt like I didn't have anything unique to contribute to the conversation, so I just didn't really feel like putting anything out there, and preferred to just take it all in.

At this point, however, I feel like I'd like to get back into contributing. Reading a lot of opinion is all well and good, but it's left me feeling more passive than I'd like. Ultimately, I'd like to make this blog something a bit different from what it was when it started. I'd like to favor quality over quantity of posts, for the most part, and then occasionally do a "link dump" type of post where I pass on interesting stuff that I've been reading, likely on a variety of topics.

I hate these navel-gazing posts, and I know that I've promised resumption of posting in the past and haven't kept up with it, but it really is something I'd like to get back to. I can't make any promises, but I'll make the effort at least. Look for a post later today.

Fargus...

Friday, September 05, 2008

A Confession

Sometimes in conversation, I instinctively nod at questions I don't know the answer to, or references I don't recognize.  When this happens, I'm stuck with a dilemma.  Do I ignore it and hope it has no more bearing on the conversation, running the risk of looking like I'm either not paying attention, or completely uninterested in the conversation?  Or do I reverse myself and inquire about the point at hand, making myself look like I'd only momentarily lapsed in concentration?


Usually it goes about 50-50.

Fargus...

Sunday, August 31, 2008

Roller Derby

Last night Darren, Eli and I were enjoying a drink in the basement bar of the Grasshopper when "Hook" by Blues Traveler came on. I started singing along between sips of my beer, and I noticed a pretty blonde girl around the corner of the bar who was also singing along. Before long, we noticed each other, and at that point, she busted out with a challenge.

"I can beat any of you at drinking a car bomb," she said.

"No you can't," I said. "You just can't."

"If I lose, I buy the round," she said. "If you lose, you buy it. Okay?"

"Okay," I said. "You've got money on you, right? Because you're going to need it to buy the round." Understand, dear reader, that when it comes to contests of drinking things very fast, I've been nearly unmatched since college. Darren and Eli knew this and kept egging the whole situation on. Not that it really mattered.

"Pauly!" she yelled. "Three car bombs!" Darren was to be the timekeeper, and Eli, this girl and I were to partake of the Irish car bombs. Eventually the first round was poured, the time was counted, the drinks were drunk, and in the end, I beat her pretty handily. All observers agreed. It was at that point that she challenged me to another round. She implied that she'd somehow been holding back, like she was Inigo Montoya or something. I cheerfully agreed, and when the second round came, it was virtually identical to the first, though a bit splashier.

So it turned out, in talking to Pauly the bartender, that this girl was a player for the local roller derby. She was quite attractive, and she was wearing an outfit that left little to the imagination. She started to leave to use the bathroom, and as she walked by me, she started spanking me. Full-on spanking me. So I turned to her and said, "Oh, wait, I thought I was the one who spanked you." At that point, she turned around and presented, waiting for me to comply. I did, twice, confused throughout as to what was going on.

I don't have much more to say than that. It was weird, but it was also barely beyond the status quo for me and my friends.

Fargus...

Tuesday, August 12, 2008

The Perils of Public Geekery

Today I went to the mall with my friend Darren for lunch. He went to Eddie Bauer to buy a shirt, and as we were standing up at the counter, I was talking to him about my last two blog entries, and about the quandary posed by the definition of Dr. Sam Beckett's lifetime. After about a minute, the clerk behind the register turned to me and spoke without preamble.

"Do you have a girlfriend?" she asked.

"Um...uh, no," I stammered, a little unnerved by how forthright her question was.

"I could tell," she said.

I stood there a little dumbfounded, not knowing whether to laugh or be insulted. After a pregnant pause, she followed up with, "I don't mean that as an insult, of course." Ever nonconfrontational, I replied with, "Oh, no, not at all." Without sarcasm, even, if you can believe it. She started going on about something inane, wherein a bunch of guys were paired with one girl and...to tell you the truth, it didn't make a lot of sense, and I expect she was just trying to cover her ass.

It got me thinking. I understand the joke she was trying to make. I was speaking quite geekily (self-consciously, of course; as though there were any other way to refer to an aspect of Quantum Leap as "an existential quandary"), and she was trying to leverage the stereotype of geeks as socially inept. I get it. I'm not without a sense of humor. But the way that she felt comfortable berating a perfect stranger got under my skin a bit. Did she think it made it all right to say, "I don't mean that as an insult, of course"? What if I'd gone up to her and said, "People think you're ugly, right? I could tell." Would it be more acceptable if I assured her afterwards that I didn't mean it as an insult? Somehow I don't think so.

I also had a case of thinking of wonderful responses a couple of minutes after the fact, some blustery, some self-deprecating. Here's a sampling.

Clerk: Do you have a girlfriend?
Fargus: Yeah. She's in New York at the Hot Chicks Convention. She's the President.

Clerk: Do you have a girlfriend?
Fargus: Yeah. She's at a modeling show in Paris. She's running the lights.

Clerk: Do you have a girlfriend?
Fargus: It's none of your goddamn business. Give my friend his credit card back so we can get the hell out of here.

Fargus...

Monday, August 11, 2008

Random Thought #2.1

*Geek Alert*

In writing that last post, I recalled that Project Quantum Leap went live in 1999, according to the show's timeline. Ostensibly, Dr. Beckett can leap within his lifetime. It's an open question (so far as I know) whether the inception of Project Quantum Leap represents the end of the lifetime in which the good doctor can leap. If so, I guess the last post winds up being one level more hypothetical than otherwise.

Fargus...

Random Thought #2

If Dr. Sam Beckett's (de facto) mission through Project Quantum Leap is to leap "from life to life, striving to put right what once went wrong," you'd think he could get a lot of mileage by leaping into Katherine Harris for the last quarter or so of the year 2000.

Fargus...

Friday, August 08, 2008

Tuesday, January 15, 2008

A Confession

The first step is admitting that you have a problem. Or maybe that's just the first half of the first step. As I have no intention of taking the other eleven (or maybe it's eleven and a half), I guess it doesn't really matter. Fact is, I have an addiction.

It's nothing illicit, this addiction. But there's a reason that people are called "news junkies" or "political junkies." I can't stop reading political blogs. In between "fixes," I either obsessively check for the next one, or I hit up the comments sections to see what everybody else thought of the last one. Sometimes I'll be so hopped up on politics that I'll let fly with some comments of my own.

This addiction seeps down into other aspects of my life. Conversations with my friends and family tend toward the political, usually guided there by my hand. My current television watching habits include Lost, Weeds, Dexter, and a whole lot of CNN. I watch presidential primary debates, for Pete's sake. Even the Republican ones. Time which years ago would have been devoted to reading books is now spent reading blogs and comments. I listen to NPR nearly exclusively when I'm driving. I've donated money to a political campaign (three guesses which one, and the first two don't count).

Thing is, I don't really see this addiction as a bad thing. I don't think my life is unmanageable because of it. I see no need to subscribe to some ridiculous notion of a higher power to cure myself of it. I may occasionally lament the time not spent doing other things than getting myself worked up over politics, and I may occasionally make the offhand wish that I'd never started venturing down this rabbit hole in the first place, but I'm generally content to be more engaged with world events. I spend plenty of time on this addiction, but I'd never say that I've wasted time on it.

So don't cry for me, Argentina. I'll be doing just fine.

Fargus...

Thursday, January 10, 2008

Life Imitates Terrible Songs

Somebody get in touch with Rupert Holmes:

WARSAW (Reuters) - A Polish man got the shock of his life when he visited a brothel and spotted his wife among the establishment's employees. Polish tabloid Super Express said the woman had been making some extra money on the side while telling her husband she worked at a store in a nearby town.

"I was dumfounded. I thought I was dreaming," the husband told the newspaper Wednesday.

The couple, married for 14 years, are now divorcing, the newspaper reported.

For those of you who don't get the reference in the link, here's the lyrics to The Rolling Stones' "Street Fighting Man," G7! (It's actually the lyrics to "The Pina Colada Song" by Rupert Holmes, and if you don't get that reference, watch Dirty Work with Norm McDonald)
I was tired of my lady
We'd been together too long
Like a worn-out recording
Of a favorite song
So while she lay there sleeping
I read the paper in bed
And in the personal columns
There was this letter I read

"If you like Pina Coladas
And getting caught in the rain
If you're not into yoga
If you have half a brain
If you'd like making love at midnight
In the dunes on the Cape
Then I'm the love that you've looked for
Write to me and escape."

I didn't think about my lady
I know that sounds kind of mean
But me and my old lady
Have fallen into the same old dull routine
So I wrote to the paper
Took out a personal ad
And though I'm nobody's poet
I thought it wasn't half bad

"Yes I like Pina Coladas
And getting caught in the rain
I'm not much into health food
I am into champagne
I've got to meet you by tomorrow noon
And cut through all this red-tape
At a bar called O'Malley's
Where we'll plan our escape."

So I waited with high hopes
And she walked in the place
I knew her smile in an instant
I knew the curve of her face
It was my own lovely lady
And she said, "Oh it's you."
Then we laughed for a moment
And I said, "I never knew."

That you like Pina Coladas
Getting caught in the rain
And the feel of the ocean
And the taste of champagne
If you'd like making love at midnight
In the dunes of the Cape
You're the lady I've looked for
Come with me and escape
Apparently, the last (unwritten) verse should include something about the crushing weight of the unbearable resentment this couple will bear toward each other forevermore for each trying to find a way out. "Oh, we both hate each other and were taking out personal ads to screw other people and run away forever! I love you!" Doesn't seem to work, does it? The Polish version makes more sense.

Fargus...

Wednesday, January 09, 2008

Wow!

OK, so New Hampshire's over. I pretty much got the Repubs down, with some ordering issues in the guys past the top two. I didn't expect Huckabee to take third in a New England state, to be honest.

But as y'all know by now, the big story is the Clinton victory. And I, as an Obama supporter, say good for her. Everybody ended up being wrong for a variety of reasons, but I'm not sure just saying "they were wrong" tells the whole story at all.

Basically, I think that the Iowa bounce for Obama was illusory at best. Sure, I fell for it just as much as anybody else, but it seems ridiculous to believe, especially in retrospect, that New Hampshire voters would have effectively ceded their decision to Iowans. What we saw, with those double-digit leads going into the primary yesterday, was probably a natural result of the super-compressed time between Iowa and New Hampshire. The swing from Obama's double-digit lead to a two or three point loss was a big one, but it wasn't as big as was the lead from Clinton's double-digit lead to Obama's double-digit lead was in the first place. If we leave aside the Iowa bounce as illusory, Obama still seems to have done pretty remarkably well in New Hampshire last night, though the last week's polls will make it seem as though this result is sounding his campaign's death knells.

Just as it was dumb as hell to dismiss Clinton's campaign as dead after the Iowa results, it's similarly premature to write off Obama after the results in New Hampshire. What we've got here is a real race, folks. Break out the popcorn.

Fargus...

Monday, January 07, 2008

Obamamentum!

Obviously, I'm an Obama supporter. I buy his schtick, regardless of how many times critics call it his "kum ba yah" strategy, or "bipartisanship for bipartisanship's sake," or the ever-more-odious "Lieberman lite." The truth is, Obama's tapped into a wellspring of support that's not delineated strictly along partisan lines in a time when hyperpartisanship rules the day.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not one to shy away from partisanship, and I'll say that again and again. But I don't know how anybody can refuse to see the value in expanding the progressive coalition to include people who normally wouldn't self-identify as progressive. Obama's great at throwing a little bit of rhetorical red meat the way of independents and disaffected Republicans while simultaneously not changing the progressivity of his platform at all. That's a strategy that I truly believe is ultimately best able to win a mandate, and to sweep progressive legislators into office on Obama's coattails.

I've never actively disliked Hillary Clinton, and I've never specifically been a fan. I'd vote for her over any of the Republicans if she were the Democratic nominee, but I've always thought that I'd much rather see it go to Obama or Edwards. That having been said, I understand and sympathize with those bloggers who say she's been getting a raw deal largely because she's a woman. She doesn't get emotional, she's a robot. She gets emotional, she's shrill. Etc. Double standards abound, and I don't like it any more than anyone else.

That having been said, though, I was quite taken aback during Saturday's debate to hear her explicitly cite her gender as a reason that she's a "change" candidate. It's always seemed to me that Hillary's gender and Obama's race were self-evident, and things that didn't need to be explicitly stated. Obama's a presidential candidate who happens to be black. Seems to me that with her paean to people that her gender implicitly makes her an agent of change, Hillary Clinton's become not a presidential candidate who happens to be a woman, but a woman who happens to be a presidential candidate. I think Obama's got the right strategy (obviously). Only by downplaying the issues of race and gender can we get past them. Obama's is a candidacy, not a black candidacy. But Hillary's is explicitly a woman's candidacy. And while I have no problem with a woman being President, I don't think that someone's gender should at all be a reason to vote for or against them. I wonder if Hillary would argue that Condoleezza Rice would be an agent of change.

I can't wait to see what happens tomorrow night in New Hampshire, but I have a feeling I already know. I was pretty dead-on with my predictions last time, so I'll make some again today (one day early, and even with percentages!), and see how I fare this time.

Democrats

  1. Barack Obama - 40%
  2. Hillary Clinton - 28%
  3. John Edwards - 22%
  4. Bill Richardson - 3%
Republicans
  1. John McCain - 34%
  2. Mitt Romney - 26%
  3. Rudy Giuliani - 14%
  4. Ron Paul - 10%
  5. Mike Huckabee - 7%
  6. Fred Thompson - 2%
I feel OK about the orderings, but this is my first time playing with percentages, so don't hold me to them so strictly.

Fargus...

Thursday, January 03, 2008

Iowa Predictions

I'm not really in any place to be playing the prediction game in a serious way, which is why I don't put money into such things as those Intrade prediction markets, fascinating though they may be. Still, I have my hypotheses about how things will turn out tonight in the Hawkeye State, and I'm gonna man up and share them with you, dear readers, and let my powers of prediction be judged by time.

Democrats

  1. Barack Obama
  2. John Edwards
  3. Hillary Clinton
Why that ordering? Well, it feels right to me. Obama's got the lead in Iowa right now, though opinions vary on how wide that lead is (or whether it exists at all, actually). The latest Des Moines Register poll shows him seven points ahead of Clinton and eight points ahead of Edwards, but that's just one poll, and could be an outlier. And all of this says nothing of the fact that these polls may not end up having sample populations that are truly representative of the tiny, tiny percentage of people who will actually show up tonight to caucus. Regardless, the three are running at least neck and neck by any reckoning, and I put Clinton at third place because I don't think that she's almost anyone's second choice, which counts significantly in Iowa. Add to that the fact that Kucinich has explicitly suggested that his supporters put Obama second, and the additional fact that the Biden and Richardson campaigns have been making motions in the same direction, and I come away with Obama taking the thing.

Republicans
  1. Mike Huckabee
  2. Mitt Romney
  3. John McCain
The Republican process doesn't involve second choices, so the race is slightly easier to predict, but with all the volatility in the terrible, terrible Republican field, predictions are dicey at best. Romney and Huckabee seem like locks for first and second places, in some order, and McCain seems to be resurgent, especially with the promised support of Fred Thompson.

I'm no professional, and I'm certainly not a political insider, so take these predictions with the grain of salt they deserve. It's fun to play, though, isn't it?

Fargus...

P.S. Though I think that there's a lot about the Iowa Caucus, and about the Presidential Primary process in general, that's silly, as an Obama supporter, I can't help but be happy that it's there in this case, as it represents the absolute best chance he's got to gain the momentum he needs to catch Clinton. If we had a national primary, the contest would likely be over.

Happy New Year!

A new year is upon us, and with it, new hope. At least, that's the toast that I drank in Philadelphia early Tuesday morning. Hope for the world, for the country, for myself. Hope that this year will be better than the last. I don't want for hope. So what of it?

Well, I know the quote is a cliche by now, but Gandhi said, "Be the change you want to see in the world." I've believed in that sentiment for a long time, but I haven't gone about putting it into practice in my life. Well, that's my new year's resolution. I want to start being the change I want to see in the world. But first, as I've always realized (and never done anything about), I've got to be the change I want to see in myself.

For me, the first step in that process is the establishment of a routine. Of a lot of routines, actually, fitting into an overarching routine. This may seem trivial or easy to some people, but it's never been either for me. I've gotten good at doing the bare minimum of what I need to do in a lot of situations, and I've developed the bad habit of doing whatever I feel like doing whenever I feel like doing it. Example: "Boy, I should go grocery shopping, but it'd probably be easier to run down to the drive-thru and then pop in a movie." Needless to say, when that kind of logic works, it works tomorrow and next week, too.

Mundane as it sounds, the establishment of an ironclad routine for such everyday tasks as grocery shopping, laundry, housecleaning and exercise would be a big step for me. These changes may not represent the totality of the change I want to see in the world, but they're what's necessary for me to change in my life in order for me to even begin thinking about living up to a set of lofty ideals.

Fargus...

P.S. One bit of routine that went unmentioned above, but which I still intend to implement, is at least one blog post a day. And this one doesn't count.

Tuesday, October 09, 2007

Foo Fighters

Saw the Foo Fighters show in Wilkes-Barre, PA last night. They rocked ass. If you get a chance to see them, do. It's well worth it.

That is all.

Fargus...

Wednesday, August 22, 2007

Rewriting History

----------------
Now playing: Ben Folds - The Last Polka
via FoxyTunes In a recent ghost-written essay for the journal Foreign Affairs, Rudy Giuliani said the following:

"America must remember one of the lessons of the Vietnam War. … Many historians today believe that by about 1972 we and our South Vietnamese partners had succeeded in defeating the Vietcong insurgency and in setting South Vietnam on a path to political self-sufficiency. But America then withdrew its support, allowing the communist North to conquer the South. The consequences were dire, and not only in Vietnam: numerous deaths in places such as the killing fields of Cambodia, a newly energized and expansionist Soviet Union, and a weaker America."
The whole essay has already gotten all of the criticism it deserves from people much more knowledgeable than I am on foreign policy. But I wanted to point out this excerpt from Giuliani's ridiculous essay in light of a speech that our illustrious President gave today at the VFW convention:

"Three decades later, there is a legitimate debate about how we got into the Vietnam War and how we left," Bush told members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, at their convention in Kansas City, Missouri.

"Whatever your position in that debate, one unmistakable legacy of Vietnam is that the price of America's withdrawal was paid by millions of innocent citizens, whose agonies would add to our vocabulary new terms like 'boat people,' 're-education camps' and 'killing fields,' " the president said.

There are differences, of course. Giuliani says "Many historians say," while Bush chooses "[T]here is a legitimate debate." Giuliani speaks of dire consequences while Bush speaks of an unmistakable legacy. But they're really saying the same thing, and that thing is utterly insane. It leads me to only one conclusion.

Bush and Giuliani both have parts of history that they'd love to rewrite. Giuliani has been trying desperately (and, depressingly, successfully) to rewrite the history of 9/11, positioning himself as a hero who did no wrong, and who in fact stood proud guard over Ground Zero until the last rescue worker had left. Bush has been trying to rewrite the history of why we went to Iraq, why we stayed in Iraq, why we escalated troop levels in Iraq, and why we should be there indefinitely. Both of those revisions are bound to fail. So what do they do? Simple. In a classic Rovian move, they start to revise history that had nothing to do with them.

Remember in 2004 and 2006 when Rove had the GOP start spending all kinds of money in solidly blue states to make everyone think that the swing states were already locked up for the Republicans? It worked in 2004, but failed miserably in 2006. Well, Giuliani and Bush are doing the same thing. In talking about the controversy that exists over Vietnam (ed. note: it really doesn't exist), both Giuliani and Bush are taking their own revisions of history as givens. They're allocating their rhetorical resources to something that makes no sense, to make us think that they've already won their own battles.

In Giuliani's case, that 9/11-fresh sheen still hasn't worn off, so he's unlikely to be called on his lies and revisionism. But if this is an example of the Bush we're likely to see in the post-Rove era, trying badly to employ Rovian tactics, then if I might borrow a phrase, I hope he bring[s] it on.

Fargus...

Wednesday, August 08, 2007

Atheism Redux

I wrote a post about my self-identification with an atheist/agnostic worldview, but I realize now that I didn't really get into any specifics about why I identify with that particular philosophy. What I'll attempt to do now is to fill in at least a few of the blanks.

The Early Years

My extended family, on both sides, is quite religious. When young, living with both of my parents in California, I didn't attend church very often. Pretty much only when we were with the grandparents in Pennsylvania, as I remember. I was baptized at 12 days old into the Lutheran Church, and I went to a Lutheran school for my first year of first grade (held back because I was too young, they said). When I was 8 my parents divorced, and my mother and I moved to Connecticut. We didn't start attending church regularly until mid-1994, though, shortly before my mother got remarried.

When I was in 8th grade, I didn't have many friends. I got to know one kid a couple of years younger than me from the bus, and I stayed over at his house one Saturday night. His mother was a churchgoer, so on Sunday morning I saddled up and went to the Methodist church with them. I noticed, among the congregation, the girl on whom I had the biggest crush of my young life. Upon returning home, I began pleading with my family to start attending that church, if only so I could have more cause to be near the object of my affection. It didn't occur to me then, but it's struck me as odd on several occasions since, that we didn't start attending that church because of the strength of Methodist doctrine. Rather, we started attending that church (where my stepbrothers were baptized, my mother became financial secretary, and my stepfather became president of the trustees) because of the awakening of my adolescent hormones.

I attended that church through the entire course of high school. I was confirmed there, I attended church retreats, I sang faithfully (pun intended) in the choir, I even wrote a half of a sermon for Children's Sunday one year. It was the whole shebang, as they say.

And then, I went to college.

But college wasn't a big turning point for me, at least in terms of my views on religion. All that happened when I went to college was that I stopped going to church. Sure, I went when I was home, but I never went to church once while under my own recognizance at college, and I never once missed it. This wasn't because of some deep-seated resentment toward religion or anything. It was more because of a not-quite-realized complete ambivalence toward religion. I didn't realize it in those terms at that point, but everything that I could do at college on a Sunday morning was more alluring than going to church. Sleeping until 2 pm, eating a bowl full of crushed Reese's Peanut Butter Cups (Freshman 15? Try the freshman 30!), playing video games, watching TV, anything. Church didn't even occur to me when there were suddenly an infinity of other options.

Engagement

After I graduated from college, I taught high school for a year, and then I went back to graduate school for mathematics. While at graduate school, I decided, with the 2004 Democratic Presidential Primaries coming up, that I should make an active effort to be politically engaged. Up until that point, I didn't even know where I really stood on almost any issues. So I dove into research on issues of the day, quickly discovering that I identified quite powerfully with the liberal/Democratic Party side of most issues. At the same time, I began examining my religious beliefs. Religion and politics sort of went hand-in-hand for me at the time, as they were both things that I'd never really bothered researching in depth before.

By early 2004, I was still calling myself a Christian. I still had a presumption of belief in Jesus, and in at least some of the Bible. I'd go into internet forums and get in pointless fights with atheists who I thought were being too harsh in their rhetoric. They could believe what they wanted to believe, I'd assert, but did they have to be such dicks about it? But as often as the maxim that internet debate never changes any minds is true, I found my position subtly but inexorably shifting. I was never a biblical literalist or anything, but I was trying to come, at least at first, from a presumption of the existence of the God. Of the Christian God. A lot of the questions posed by those ornery atheists, though, were like brick walls to that presumption. I couldn't get around them.

Awakening

The first concept to go was faith. In watching conversations between atheists and the faithful, I began to see that common thread appearing. When asked why they believed in the face of evidence that pointed otherwise, believers inevitably cited faith. But what is faith? The more I thought about it, the more it started to seem like nonsense to me. There soon seemed to be no difference between "faith" and "wishing really, really hard that it were so." My perspective, I realized, was starting to become explicitly based in science and logic. If an extraordinary claim is made with no evidence, it's not unreasonable to ignore that claim as unlikely until some evidence is presented. Leprechauns? Mermaids? Fairies? The existence of these mythical creatures is an extraordinary claim, yet nobody is ostracized for choosing, as a default, to believe that they're nothing more than stories. So it began to seem to me with religion, and claims of the knowledge of God.

Other questions started popping up, and I didn't see any satisfactory answers. These, in large part, were the standard questions posed by atheists to believers. Why does God get credit for prayers answered, but doesn't get blamed for prayers unanswered? I had a cousin in Iraq, and when he came home safe, the family was abuzz with talk that God had heeded his family's prayers and brought him home safe. But I'd be willing to bet dollars to donuts that every single soldier in his unit who died in the desert had people praying for him back home. God didn't answer those prayers. Were those people not praying hard enough? Could God only save a certain number of people? All of a sudden, "God has a plan that we can't understand" seemed like more and more of a cop-out. I wanted to scream at people, and ask them why this twisted version of logic only applied to religion, but to nothing else in their lives.

After some time, I began to self-apply the label of atheist. It just felt more comfortable. And I realized that I had come to it fairly easily because in the back of my mind, I'd probably been somewhere near there all along. But all it took to push me over that edge was a conscious and rational look at the various claims out there.

I became (and remain) convinced that of the vast percentage of those who claim to be religious people in our country, and those who claim to believe that the Bible is a literal historical account, there is a sizable percentage that is at the place where I was before I sat down and took a good, hard look at my own beliefs. I think that there a lot of people in the United States who look at their religion as they look at their race or nationality. They view it as something that they were born with. They were told that the Bible is true, and even though they don't go to church or think about religion any more than twice a year, they feel fine filling in the bubbles on polls that coincide with a full-blown belief in that religion.

This is supposition, of course. But it feels right. If I'm wrong, I'll freely admit it. But I really, really think that there are a lot of people who are but a lengthy bout of self-reflection away from atheism.

Fargus...

Wednesday, May 02, 2007

Better Living Through Blogging, Parts 8 & 9

5/1/2007:

Breakfast: Sesame seed bagel w/ cream cheese, green tea w/ honey and lemon juice

Lunch: 3 soft tacos with shredded beef and cheese (had to try the new Qdoba Grill near work), glass of lemonade.

Dinner: Peanut butter and jelly sandwich

5/2/2007:

Breakfast: Bacon, egg and cheese sandwich on English muffin, green tea w/ honey and lemon juice

Lunch: Late breakfast, so I just had some snacks at the mall (free samples at Le Gourmet Chef)

Dinner: Bowl of vegetable beef soup, peanut butter and jelly sandwich

I promise I'll get another post up later this week, and hopefully a pretty lengthy one. I know what I want to write about. I've just been kinda busy with my new blog venture. Y'all can check it out if you want, but I warn you, it's quite different from what you'll find here.

Don't Judge Me.

Also, just for the hell of it, here's a new picture of me with my scraggly facial hair looking slightly more like a beard:


Fargus...

Tuesday, May 01, 2007

No Atheists in Foxholes?

Lt. Wayne Adkins, an atheist, was offended at a General's use of the phrase "no atheists in foxholes." He submitted a complaint, and the official response has been pretty revealing: It's OK to discriminate against atheists. The claim is that since atheism isn't a religion, that atheists aren't protected against discrimination on the basis of their being atheists.

As Adkins points out, this is the very definition of discrimination on the basis of religion. Just because it's going the other way doesn't make it OK.

Better Living Through Blogging, Part 7

Forgot to do this last night:

April 30, 2007

Breakfast: Sesame seed bagel w/ cream cheese, 16 oz. orange juice, green tea w/ honey and lemon juice

Lunch: Coffee cake and some Wheat Thins (I had a meeting that ran over lunch, as I do every Monday), and a couple of cans of Diet Coke Plus.

Dinner: Polpette Rustica (Meatball) sandwich on whole grain bread, little bag of baby carrots
Fargus...