Do you swear?

"Do you swear the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you god?" (OK, that's the old form...play along with me here)


First off, your honor, the Bible is a book of proverbs and mythology. I can't believe any reasonable person thinks some god is going to swoop down from his cloud and strike me dead if I do lie.

Both Nixon and Bush swore on a Bible they'd defend the Constitution of the United States and neither of them did. I don't recall any divine retribution in their cases. How many people are currently in prison for perjury? How many have been charged? Has any god taken action against them?


My testimony is the truth only as far as I know it. I don't claim to have an objective viewpoint that allows me to observe reality free of the bias of my experiences and mental abilities. Maybe I'm not even aware of the truth of this matter but only think I am. I can't say that everything I give testimony to is going to be the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I'm only human. I get confused, my memory isn't perfect, I'm a bit intimidated just being here, treated like some authority on the facts when I know I'm not. So I can only promise on my word (and since none of you really know me, how comforting is that?) that I'll relate what I think I remember. Perhaps I'll lie without meaning to. I'm not perfect. It's quite possible that what I remember regarding this case is so far from reality that it will only detract from the court's desire to uncover what really happened here.


You know, your honor, perhaps it's best that I just don't testify at all. I don't believe in your god, so the only fear you can put in my mind is the fear of going to jail for perjury, and with the economy the way it is at least there I'd get some sleep and regular meals. I might even have the opportunity to have sexual relations again. It's been quite a while, your honor.


Further, I have no idea if what I think I remember is the truth or even remotely related to the truth. I'd sure hate for anyone to take my testimony for the whole truth, whatever that is. At best it would be my imperfect recollection of events that may or may not have any relation to this case. It would be unfair and sadden me to have someone convicted based on my personal perception of reality.


My statement is all I can really be sure of in this matter. Can I go now, your honor?

What is an atheist?

It has been said that without theism atheism wouldn't exist. In the philosophical sense this is true. A position in opposition to another can only be maintained as long as the other position exists. You can't be a non-gluber if there are no glurbers. You can't reasonably disavow that which no one avows. It's also true that without the word "theist" the word "atheist" would have no meaning.

But what does "atheist" mean? There are many opinions on that. Some sources say (for example) that it means "without belief or lacking belief" while others (for example) say that it means "the belief that there is no god or the denial that god exists". There seems to be some confusion as to what an atheist is. Is he a doubter in gods or one who insists gods don't exist? How is an atheist different from an antitheist or an agnostic?

As is it the case with theism, the best way to avoid confusion is to ask a person what they mean when they call themselves a theist or atheist. There is no single definition of Christian, Muslim or Jew. Within each of those general categories are many separations and divisions. If someone tells you they're a Christian does that mean they're a Baptist, a Catholic or a Unitarian? Is a Muslim a Sunni or Shia? Are they fundamentalists or liberal believers in their religion? You just can't tell without asking them to be more specific. It's the same for atheists. Some are what we call "hard" atheists. They say that without a doubt gods do not exist. Some are "soft" atheists who say that since no evidence exists establishing unquestionably that a god or gods exist it is most likely they don't. Again, the only way to know what a person means when they call themselves an atheist is to ask.

Hard atheism is a dogmatic stance with no more evidence to substantiate it than theism. To maintain adamantly that gods do or do not exist is to make a claim that can only be supported by the possession of absolute knowledge. Since we have no reason to believe that any human possesses absolute knowledge, absolute claims of the existence or non-existence of gods, or much of anything else, are irrational and can be ignored as baseless. 

If theism is the belief in gods then "a"theism is the absence of belief. The prefix "a" means no or without. A person can be moral or amoral. An amoral person is neither moral nor immoral, they either lack or show an indifference to morality and immorality. An agnostic is someone who claims to have no knowledge (gnosis) of gods. They would have no opinion on the topic as they lack the knowledge to form one.(1) So my interpretation of atheism, based on word construction, the meaning of the prefix and my own personal attitude toward theism, is that an atheist lacks faith in gods. They have no belief. For me atheism implies no stance on the possible existence of undefined beings who may appear to us to be gods; it's the lack of belief in the gods man has worshiped over the centuries, gods well defined by their followers and with established attributes. Once a particular god is defined by its believers then there's a specific concept in which to believe or not believe. I am atheistic toward the gods of humanity, not the abstract concept of gods or god-like entities. The possible existence of that sort of thing, for now, remains unknown as we lack evidence for such things. 

So atheism as I understand it and live it is a neutral position. It's a position that requires both those who insist gods exist and those who insist they don't to offer evidence to support their claims. It's not an absolute position but simply one awaiting substantiation of absolute claims. 

(1) When T.H. Huxley coined the term "agnostic" he meant it to be both a philosophical position and a method for discerning truth. He quotes Kant, "The greatest and perhaps the sole use of all philosophy of pure reason is, after all, merely negative, since it serves not as an organon for the enlargement [of knowledge], but as a discipline for its delimitation; and, instead of discovering truth, has only the modest merit of preventing error." In Huxley's treatise on agnosticism he says, "When I reached intellectual maturity and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; Christian or a freethinker; I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until, at last, I came to the conclu[238]sion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure they had attained a certain "gnosis,"–had, more or less successfully, solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble. And, with Hume and Kant on my side, I could not think myself presumptuous in holding fast by that opinion." 

It is with this in mind that I describe my postion on concept of theism as being an agnostic atheist. I am agnostic when it comes to the possibility that a god or god-like entity may exist somewhere, somehow, but atheistic toward the gods that mankind has worshiped throughout history, about whom much has been claimed without substantiation.


(A decent Wikipedia article on the various religious philosophies.)

Business Ethics in 2012

In addition to all political issues raised by the financial crises, the bank bailouts and the Occupy movement, one factor that runs as a consistent theme through all of this seems to have been neglected by pundits and the media alike. Thankfully we have The Onion, who through the application of satire and exaggeration, raise the point I'd like to consider.

CHARLESTON, SC—With its firm grounding in honesty, loyalty to friends, and a strong spirit of generosity, the asinine ethical code of Kevin Premus has cost the 42-year-old idiot millions of dollars over the years, reports confirmed Friday.The moronic small-business owner, whose moral tenets are said to include basic human kindness and always trying to do what's right, reportedly never cuts any corners and is unwilling to fuck people over, poor habits that have led him into a life of endless mortgage payments, credit card debt, and a relatively small personal net worth.Worse yet, sources indicated, the dumbshit has no one to blame for being a good person but himself."What a complete and utter fool," Stanford University sociologist Anya Arneson said of the astonishingly stupid man, describing his insistence on providing quality health care for his employees and paying them fair salaries as "just plain dumb." "It's as though he's operating under some kind of intangible but deep-seated conviction that being a fair, decent human being is somehow more valuable than making a quick buck."

Through ridiculous acts of moral rectitude such as returning found wallets and lending his brother $2,500 for vocational school, the dumb-ass—who by all accounts is a weak-willed individual who treats his business rivals with respect instead of simply crushing them—almost seems to be looking for ways to lose money, sources noted.Moreover, at every turn, his steady moral compass has reportedly prevented him from ever embracing shady business deals, hiring a crooked accountant to skirt income-tax laws, or taking advantage of numerous moneymaking schemes that could have vaulted him into a higher tax bracket.According to colleagues, Premus previously worked as a corporate account manager, but his lackluster career floundered as a result of his shortsighted refusal to stab his coworkers in the back, a boneheaded move that cost the retarded dumbfuck several promotions, hundreds of thousands of dollars, and a chance to one day become a partner in the firm.

While his efforts to be a responsible citizen, faithful husband, and devoted father have made him look like a drooling moron in the eyes of his peers, Premus himself still doesn't seem to understand that each day he spends clinging to his scruples, he screws himself over a little bit more."My parents always told me to treat others the way you would like to be treated, and that's what I've taught my daughters," said the idiot, who in one sentence summed up why no one in his entire family will ever live free from financial worry or hardship. "In the end, it's just the right thing to do." (Source)

 I think this illustrates accurately the attitude we see in business, especially big business, today. 
Businesses have abandoned any interest in their customers beyond enticing them to buy a service or product. Product quality declines as businesses learn that most people won't bother complaining or returning a product for replacement, they'll just go out and buy another one, often from the same company that just produced their defective one. Defects are corrected in versions 2 or 3 of a product, forcing consumers to continuously upgrade to get a fully functioning product.


Customer service is so unimportant to most businesses it's been relegated to offshore companies with employees who are unfamiliar with both the product and the language spoken where that product is sold, so they rely on scripts that they cannot deviate from and that usually don't cover the specific issue the customer has. In the end most complaints are unresolved. Once you've purchased a product or service, most companies would prefer not to hear from their customers again until they're ready to purchase a newer, fancier, less problematic model or version.

Many businesses have discovered social networking and have staffs working those networks for their benefit. But they don't use those networks to reach out to their customers and attempt to engage them in a dialogue so that they can learn more about what their customers think of their service or product. Instead they use them as marketing tools, a way to push their brand out into a new marketplace. In this way they coerce brand loyalty instead of earning it. They exhibit a blatant disregard for the true value of social networking by using it as an advertising medium instead of looking at it as a way to listen to their customers and respond to their questions. I go more into this in a blog piece I wrote earlier this year titled Push or Pull?

Smaller businesses are being bought up by larger ones daily. Acquisitions and mergers have become the primary means of enlarging a business's market share and profits. No longer does a company need to increase their manufacturing capabilities, no longer do they have to develop a better and more productive way to produce their own product. They can just buy a smaller company that already provides what they need and incorporate it into their own business. This often entails laying off the workers from the smaller company and in the process of integrating that business into their own, degrading the potential benefits that product offered as a stand-alone company. A&M also allows a huge company to gobble up smaller competitors and thus coming very close to monopolizing their market. All they have to do is leave a few small providers alone, companies too small to offer any real competition, so they can point to them as "proof" that they aren't being monopolistic. They have managed to distance themselves from criticism by encouraging the politicians they own to focus on insubstantial, inconsequential matters that emotionally charge up the electorate and blind them to their unsavory and unethical practices.


I hear people complain constantly about how our society has lost all its moral values, how we're headed to hell in a handbasket for our immoral behavior. But I hardly ever hear these same people complain about the decline of ethics among businesses. Yet our country is far closer to being run by big business than it is to being run any longer by the will of its citizens. It seems to me the lack of ethics in business are having a far greater impact on the quality of our lives and the future of our country than whether or not gays are allowed to marry.

The Onion piece sarcastically exposes a truth. The best way to get ahead in business these days is unethically. And once you've managed as a business to get big enough (too big to fail) and are sufficiently unethical, you'll have the power and influence to push the government where you want it to go, which will be in whatever direction benefits you the most as a company.

America 2012-2016

 I'm going to present my not-totally pessimistic scenario of where I see America headed in the near future. These are all assumptions, my opinions, and you are welcome to challenge any or all of them.


First, the conditions that underlie my scenario:

1. Nothing of any significance will occur nationally or socially to improve Obama's popularity between now and the 2012 election. The approval rating bump he got from killing Bin Laden and the one he'll get by pulling the troops out of Iraq won't last long enough to push him anywhere near 50%. 
2. The Democrats will only grudgingly support Obama in 2012. He's lost a lot of favor with Democrats over failed promises and his ineffectiveness in standing up against Republicans. I see a change in vice-presidential running mate in 2012 but don't see a possible candidate for the job that would assure a Democratic victory at the polls.
3. By the end of 2011 a clear leader will emerge from the pack of Republican candidates that most if not all Republicans can support. 
4. The Tea Party and "Occupy" movement will both remain marginalized and won't have a real impact on the presidential race.

2012-2015


In 2012 the Republican candidate will win the presidency. I think this will happen due in part to Democratic apathy over Obama's presidency and the Republican's appeal to God, patriotism and financial stability, all of which resonate with the majority of voters right now. Specific plans for improvement won't be forthcoming, but that will be excused in 2012 for the same reason they were in 2008; Any change from the current situation has to be better than imagining a continuation of our current economic and social problems. 


A more fundamental form of Christianity will flourish under the new administration. Science, especially in education, will be less emphasized and more effort will be put into integrating Christian dogma and principles into government and education. The concept of a separation between church and state will largely be ignored solely in favor of Christianity. 

Conservatism will be the rule in economics and policy making, except in the case of military expansion. Entire federal departments will be eliminated or under-funded into non-existence in an effort to save the federal budget, with little or no thought as to how vital programs to millions will continue. 


Abortion will once again be outlawed in most if not all cases. Most if not all wildlife areas and national parks will be opened to resource exploitation. Little or no effort will be put into weaning Americans off their dependency on oil. Instead new oil deposits will be sought and/or new alliances to obtain foreign oil will be created. 


The economy will slightly improve for just enough Americans for the government to take credit for having stopped our decline into economic disaster. Thanks primarily to efforts to reduce the role of legislation in our lives, the same industries that created the problem in the first place will continue to conduct their businesses unregulated and unhampered. Fewer rules will be imposed on businesses, so wages will decrease and part-time work will prevail. Benefits will be available for only those few full-time jobs that remain. Profits will still be banked off-shore and even larger tax breaks will be given to big businesses. America will shift from being a nation "of the people, by the people, for the people" to one "of the corporations, by the corporations, for the corporations". 


Individual liberties will continue to erode. The threat of foreign and domestic terrorism will continue to be used as an excuse to employ tighter controls on the activities and movements of the citizens. The underlying xenophobia in the immigration issue will be used to excuse law enforcement from observing search-and-seizure laws and ignore the need for warrants. With the practices of Abu Ghraib as precedent, arrests and detainment without cause and without due process will be allowed in "certain" cases, and slowly expanded to any case in which the local, state or federal government can claim just cause, even secretly. Privacy will lessen to the point of non-existence. Phone and Internet traffic will all be routinely monitored, though it will still be nearly impossible for any government agency to properly assess the intelligence gathered as there will simply be too much to sort out. Key words will become the favored tool of the monitors and citizens will learn not to use certain words at all, just as we've learned how foolish it is to joke about hijacking a plane in the airport.  


Programs such as Medicare and Medicaid will be abolished as too expensive. Seniors will become a huge burden on society and many families will go broke trying to care for their elders. College tuitions will increase resulting in most middle and lower income class kids not attending college. Families will have to deal with stay-at-home kids in addition to caring for their parents and grandparents. The personal option of elective euthanasia will not be a legal alternative for the elderly. 


During this period the Democrats will remain largely ineffective in saving vital social services, protecting the rights of citizens or in improving the economy. They will continue to lack the resolve and power to challenge the Republicans on almost every issue. They will snipe and complain, but that's about all they'll do.


2015-2016


The promises of the Republicans to right the economy will be seen as efforts only to enrich the already wealthy, their biggest supporters, and corporations. The citizens will not be any better off financially than they were in 2010. The citizens will also realize that the freedoms they've sacrificed have not made our nation any safer nor have they contributed to the quality of their lives. After three years of entitlement, Christians will in large numbers become politically apathetic and the Republicans will lose the support of many big churches. The Republican's transparent support of big business will become a burden for those same businesses as their own employees begin to revolt against them. Businesses will consider it in their own best interest to provide better working conditions for all their employees and they will blame the Republicans for fostering the anger towards them. Businesses will also suffer from a less well educated work force. Any industry that relies on mathematical, engineering or scientific skills will be especially hit hard by the low numbers of college graduates with those skills. Meanwhile fast food franchises will appear on every block in every town just to take advantage of the huge number of unemployed, willing-to-do-anything-for-a-paycheck people of all ages. 


But those who decide to no longer back the Republicans won't have much of a viable option. During the previous three years the Democrats will have failed to develop any realistic strategies of their own for fixing what ails America. Indeed, the majority of Americans may have, by this point, concluded there is no way to fix all the problems facing their nation. 


The elections of 2016 may be the end of business as usual for America. With neither major party trusted and no emergent party with enough power to exercise change, Americans could very well lose all hope that the country will ever again be financially solvent and the home of freedom and liberty. At that point its likely that America will become a true corporatetocricy, owned by and run as a corporation. Citizens will be considered employees and the federal budget will be based solely on profits. 


2017 could be a very interesting year in the (if they still are) United States. 

10 Commandments for Atheism

A lot of people enjoy Penn and Teller's magic, but not that many realize that Penn is an outspoken atheist. While not every atheist, or every theist for that matter, will agree with his take on the 10 Commandments, they are worth considering.

Penn Jillette's "10 Commandments for Atheism," a list he created and turned into the best-selling book God, No! after Glenn Beck asked him to come up with a list of moral dictates for non-believers. Here they are:

1. The highest ideals are human intelligence, creativity and love. Respect these above all.

2. Do not put things or even ideas above other human beings. (Let's scream at each other about Kindle versus iPad, solar versus nuclear, Republican versus Libertarian, Garth Brooks versus Sun Ra— but when your house is on fire, I'll be there to help.)

3. Say what you mean, even when talking to yourself. (What used to be an oath to (G)od is now quite simply respecting yourself.)

4. Put aside some time to rest and think. (If you're religious, that might be the Sabbath; if you're a Vegas magician, that'll be the day with the lowest grosses.)

5. Be there for your family. Love your parents, your partner, and your children. (Love is deeper than honor, and parents matter, but so do spouse and children.)

6. Respect and protect all human life. (Many believe that "Thou shalt not kill" only refers to people in the same tribe. I say it's all human life.)

7. Keep your promises. (If you can't be sexually exclusive to your spouse, don't make that deal.)

8. Don't steal. (This includes magic tricks and jokes — you know who you are!)

9. Don't lie. (You know, unless you're doing magic tricks and it's part of your job. Does that make it OK for politicians, too?)

10. Don't waste too much time wishing, hoping, and being envious; it'll make you bugnutty.

(Source)

Computing on the go

It seems these days nearly everyone has a smart phone. We once had to wait until we got home to catch up on email or read our favorite websites. Now there are people who surf the web and text with their phones far more than using them to make phone calls.

The dramatic growth of the mobile lifestyle isn't just due to the increase in ownership of smart phones. One major factor is the unpredicted success of the iPad and similar tablets. I don't know anyone who is influential in the tech world who would have guessed ten years ago that tablets would finally catch on. They'd been introduced and failed so many times it appeared to be a form factor that would never be more than a niche product. These days I know several tech-heads who don't even own a desktop. All their web needs are met with a laptop, smart phone and tablet. They all seamlessly interconnect, file transfers are dead simple and websites are becoming more mobile friendly every day.

Another factor in the growth of the mobile web is the increase in application programming interfaces (API). Many of us don't even visit a browser-based website anymore, we access their app on our phone or tablet. Even social networks are releasing APIs so that developers can create apps for them.

If we put these recent trends in computing together I think it indicates that the mobile web is going to, very soon, eclipse the desktop, browser-based web. Why should I have to wait until I get home to reply to that last comment in a forum that I'm involved with when I can just whip out my iPhone or Android phone or even my iPad and reply right now, almost wherever I am. Connectivity is becoming available in more locations through WiFi, 3G and 4G networks.

The increase in involvement with social networks shows that people still have a need to connect with their friends and families, but now they can do so regardless of where they're located on the globe. You can even video conference with them right from your mobile device.

I'm still impressed that I can be on a website and without leaving the site I can send a friend a link to it, can post the site to my Facebook wall, store a bookmark to it on a cloud-based site, save a quotation from the site to my notebook and even search terms I'm not familiar with on Google or Bing. And the options for what we can do from a single site are only going to increase.

It's an exciting time for those of us who spend a fair amount of time on the web but aren't always at our desk.

Is theism on the rise in America?

Today over on Ayloo, a new social site that encourages conversations centered on specific topics raised by its members, I was asked if I thought theism was on the rise in America, on the decline or unchanged from years past. Here's the reply I posted there.

I perceive theism as being on the rise here in the U.S., but not a compassionate theism or even a primarily religious theism. By that I mean that the theism that I see becoming more popular these days is more political than spiritual. Theists are embracing conservative political values and infusing them with their theological beliefs, creating a conservative movement that unashamedly defers to the Bible as the basis for deciding national and foreign policy. It's ironic that George Bush was lambasted for saying that part of the reason he went to war in the Middle East was because he thought god told him to and now we have candidates openly calling for prayer to end the drought in Texas and the teaching of creationism in schools as an "alternative" to evolution, and the press and public seem unconcerned.

It's been said for years that an atheist would have no chance to be elected to the presidency, or any public office for that matter, but now we have evangelical Christians running for office that don't accept or endorse the notion first put forth by Thomas Jefferson that there ought to be a wall of separation between religion and the government. I'm amazed that Perry, Bachmann and their fellow conservative Christians have convinced their followers that the economy and crime will both be straightened out if only America becomes a more Christian nation in light of the fact that America has always been a primarily Christian nation. Considering their percentage of the population it's reasonable to conclude that the economy was wrecked by people who call themselves Christians and most crime is committed by people who would describe themselves as Christians. Bars and sex shops would have gone bankrupt long ago if their only patrons were non-believers. The state that consumes the largest amount of Internet porn is Utah, home to some of the most conservative Christians there are, many of whom must have had to dip into their porn allowance to send money to their church in opposition of California's Proposition 8. It appears this massive hypocrisy not only doesn't bother American Christians but is completely ignored by them. Despite all evidence to the contrary they think that if only they can get a conservative Christian candidate elected president the nation will somehow be blessed by god and everything will get better.

The theism I see on the rise is a form of fundamental Biblicalism combined with a devotion to profit and a deference to the wealthy. This is understandable in the case of politicians, they follow the money. But it would be hard to explain in the case of the average citizen. I think this is why religious belief is being emphasized so much. Religious citizens naturally follow strong religious leaders. It's a part of their training. Perry and Bachmann, even Palin, are attempting to portray themselves as religious leaders as much as political leaders.

The primarily religious theism that is increasing is in reaction to the perception that civilization is going to hell at an increasing rate and that end-time predictions are coming true. People unfamiliar with history can easily be fooled into thinking that times like these have never occurred before. Plato credited Socrates with complaining "The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers." Nothing we see today is new or unique to our age. But once again, as they have many times before, Christians have decided that these must be the end times and many quasi-religious people, worried that they may be among the "left behind", are becoming more committed to the claim that they are religious. Not that they are attending church any more often or have increased their caring for the poor among us. They are less interested in following the dictates of Jesus than they are interested in avoiding hell. It's a convenient Christianity, and in my opinion a useless one. Another minor factor in the increase of theism is as a reaction to the perceived increase in the number of Muslims in the U.S. The "Us or Them" mentality of the Middle East has waded ashore here.

9/11/01 - 9/11/11 Lessons learned

So what have we as a nation learned in the ten years since 9/11/01?

I submit the primary lessons have focused on fear and hate.

Had we been attacked by radical Christian fundamentalists, like those who kill doctors who perform abortions or encourage the suicides of their followers, we would have been assured that these killers did not represent the goals and attitudes of the vast majority of Christians. We wouldn't have protested the building of Christian churches in this country, we wouldn't look nervously at everyone who wears a crucifix or worships the Christian god. We would not have been tempted to consider every Christian a potential mass murderer.

But those who flew the planes on 9/11 were Muslims, and Americans don't understand Islam or Muslims. We fear what we don't understand, especially when we believe it can hurt us. That's human nature. Fear, in some cases, can preserve our lives. And fear, nurtured over time, becomes hate. We hate that which makes us afraid.

Those who attacked us ten years ago hated us then and hate us now. They hate us because they fear us. They fear our religious beliefs, they fear our Western attitudes, they fear our motivations for being in their countries.

There's a solution to the cycle of fear and hate; knowledge. The more we understand something the less reason we have to fear it. The less we fear it the less reason we have to hate it.

It should be obvious by now that terrorism will never be defeated with guns and bombs. A militaristic approach simply provides more fuel to the fire of fear and hatred. We need to fight fear and hate with education and enlightenment. We need to encourage people to learn about each other, to meet and exchange their thoughts and opinions. They may never agree on much of what they believe, but in gaining understanding they will be less likely to fear and hate each other.

Besides coming to fear and hate Muslims, what did the events of 9/11/01 teach us?

It's Friday!

The power has been restored here in San Diego and I'm off for my last day of work at Cartridge World.

In 3 weeks Cleo, Liz-Beth, Sara and I will be headed for Virginia.

What will you do to remember 9/11?

Here are some ideas.

Please join the 9/11 Tribute Movement by briefly describing what you will do this year, a good deed, charitable activity, or other plans, to honor the 9/11 victims, survivors and those that rose in service in response to the attacks.

I will, will you?

911day.org 

The "smaller government" argument deconstructed

One of the most popular catch-phrases in politics these days is "smaller government". People from every party acknowledge the expensive and often useless bloat in the American government. The fix appears to be simple, reduce the size of government which will in turn reduce spending and, as many predict, lead to a stronger economy.


However, like in the case of most political catch-phrases, looking at the details behind the simple idea exposes the difficulty of implementing this apparently simple plan.


"Government" is people, folks like you and me, sitting at desks, at their computers, doing basic office work. Reducing the size of government inevitably means closing departments and agencies and turning their employees into more unemployed workers. 


According to the July employment report from the Department of Labor, "The number of unemployed persons (13.9 million) and the unemployment rate (9.1 percent) changed little in July. Since April, the unemployment rate has shown little definitive movement. The labor force, at 153.2 million, was little changed in July. Job gains occurred in health care, retail trade, manufacturing, and mining. [B]Government employment continued to trend down[/B]." (emphasis added)


We already have at least 13.9 million people without a job, and government employment is already slowing. Admittedly many of those government job reductions are taking place at the local and state level. "Government employment continued to trend down over the month (-37,000). Employment in state government decreased by 23,000, almost entirely due to a partial shutdown of the Minnesota state government. Employment in local government continued to wane over the month."


Evidently the "job creators", those who have benefited most from tax exemptions and bail-outs, are failing to fulfill their roles as providers of increased employment. New industries are not being established, new opportunities are not being provided for the unemployed. What we have seen is an increase in profits to shareholders, money which could theoretically benefit the economy if it was spent on commodities produced in the U.S. or paid to employees. Looking at our economic state it appears neither of these are occurring. Instead big oil subsidies (amounting to about $4.4 billion), for example, produced first-quarter profits totaling more than $35 billion on the back of sky-high crude prices. How and where is this money finding its way back into the economy?


So it seems the country wants to eliminate jobs and at the same time not require those who have benefited most from low taxation and subsidies to create new jobs or industries. This lack of accountability coupled with a lack of foresight bodes ill for the future of our country. I have yet to hear any politician present a plan that acknowledges the fact that decreasing the size of government will result in higher unemployment and provide a means to deal with that.

Scientists don't understand everything

Lately I've been encountering a number of posts by theists claiming that evolution and cosmology are seriously flawed but that scientists will never concede that fact.

The theists claim that this is because those researching and experimenting physics and biology all toe the scientific line, that dissent and disagreement are not allowed. They claim that funding would be withheld from any scientist who presented conclusions or interpretations that differed from the mainstream dogma.

In other words theists want us to believe that scientists are just as "religious" in their adherence to doctrine as any god-believer.

To those theists I offer this in rebuttal.

Newly released observations of the top quark — the heaviest of all known fundamental particles — could topple the standard model of particle physics. Data from collisions at the Tevatron particle accelerator at Fermilab in Batavia, Illinois, hint that some of the top quark's interactions are governed by an as-yet unknown force, communicated by a hypothetical particle called the top gluon. The standard model does not allow for such a force or particle.

The results, presented¹ today at the Europhysics Conference on High-Energy Physics in Grenoble, France, could help researchers to understand the origins of mass. According to one theoretical interpretation, a top quark bound by to its anti-matter partner, the antitop, would act as a version of the elusive Higgs boson, conferring mass on other particles.

Regina Demina, a physicist at the University of Rochester in New York, and her colleagues sifted through eight years' worth of particle-collision data recorded by one of the Tevatron's two detectors, known as DZero. Top quarks produced during collisions can fly off in the direction of the accelerator's proton beam or its antiproton beam; Demina and her team discovered that more travel towards the proton beam than is predicted in the standard model of physics. A different model would seem to be needed to explain the discrepancy. 

Dan Hooper, a theoretical physicist at Fermilab, notes that the top-quark asymmetry is just one of many cracks in the standard model of particle physics. And although Schwartz agrees that it is unlikely that any one theory will explain all the defects, he says that accounting for the odd behaviour of the top quark would be a promising start. (Source)

Join me on Google+

If reading this blog has piqued your interest in Google+, I have quite a few invitations to share with you.

Click on the "Email Me" link in the sidebar and send me the email address you'd like the invitation sent to. I will not retain your address or use it for any other purpose than to send you the invitation.

As you may have read, Google+ isn't like Facebook or Twitter. I would compare it more with Friendfeed, if you're familiar with that site.

Once you've joined Google+, you might want to read this link. It's a "how-to" guide for the site.

Would you like an even easier alternative? The first 150 people clicking this link can get an invitation.
https://plus.google.com/_/notifications/ngemlink?path=%2F%3Fgpinv%3DJif0A0QlOy4%3AI7jqa81J-fc

Will liberals support Obama in 2012?

If Obama fails to secure a second term as president, and I think it's quite likely he will be a one-term president, it will be largely because he's lost the support of his liberal base.

He's not likely to win over any Republicans, conservatives or members of the tea party. They despise him as a person and president; that has been evident since he was sworn in. So extreme is their disdain that they have not even attempted to disguise their hostile rhetoric in the cloak of patriotism.

And he can't rely on support from progressives. They don't even have a party to represent their opinions. They are dedicated more to an ideology than any particular candidate. If the Republican candidate offers a more progressive agenda than Obama they'll back him/her over the Democratic incumbent.

Obama has lost the good faith and trust of the American liberal. His campaign promises appealed to the goals of the liberals. He envisioned an America where everyone would be welcome to share in our prosperity and freedom. He promised greater governmental transparency. He pledged to undo most of the damage done to our image and economy during the Bush years.

Once elected, he failed to follow through on those promises and pledges. He didn't close Gitmo, he didn't immediately end "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", he didn't put an end to tax loopholes enjoyed by the wealthiest of our citizens. Transparency in government never saw the light of day. Federal powers to snoop and spy on American citizens weren't curtailed, they were expanded. In many ways he became more "Bush" than Bush himself had been.

If Obama can't win back the hearts, and more importantly the minds, of liberals before the campaign gets well underway, where are liberals to turn? Certainly not to any Republican, conservative or tea party candidate.

The Republican party and their followers in the conservative and tea party clans have shown that they don't share the same vision for America that liberals do. They are beholden to and do the bidding of corporations and the wealthiest among us. They support big business because big business supports them. When was the last time a middle-class person dropped a check for a million dollars into a Republican's campaign chest?

It most likely won't be another Democratic candidate. Who else besides Obama can the Democrats hope to put into place before the 2012 election season kicks off? Not to mention how much credibility the Democratic party has lost in the recent debt debates. The only way they could have capitulated even more would have been to offer Obama's resignation on the spot. The Democratic party has been effectively neutered, primarily by their own inaction and inability to stand up to the opposition.

We could be seeing the end of a liberal perspective in American politics. In the near future we may no longer have a counter opinion to those voiced by the more conservative elements in our government. We may well be witnessing the end of governmental checks-and-balances. And where there is but a single party, a single ideology, a single candidate with any real hope of being elected, we no longer have a representative democracy.

I'm not saying liberal ideals are always the most beneficial for our country. The liberal ideals of caring for even the most destitute citizen and trying to ensure that no one goes unfed, unclothed and uncared for have to be paid for, and yet Democrats are loath to suggest an increase in taxes even for the wealthiest among us. The Democrats are as afraid of pissing off the money merchants as the Republicans are, and for many of the same reasons. Yet taxes are how we Americans pay for the services we receive from the government, from the local level to the federal. To suggest that we can receive benefits without having to pay for them is the height of folly.

So where do liberals turn for a champion for their liberal ideals and goals? I honestly don't know. But I do know this country needs at least two parties in power. We need opposing opinions and debates over proposed spending. We cannot afford to become a one-party country, not unless we're willing to scrap the Constitution and invent a new corporate-sponsored image for the nation.

Readin' and writin'

A friend of mine made me realize yesterday that as hard as it is to keep up with reading all the blogs of interesting people I know, the real challenge is creating the content, writing the posts, for the blogs I own.

Honestly I much prefer to read other people's ideas than to write down my own. My own ruminations don't surprise me or cause me to think of things in a new light. Other people's ideas often make me pause and reconsider my own opinions.

I one of those people who think more than speak, and when I do speak, I try to say something thoughtful and considered. I value words and interpersonal communications. I dislike idle talk and babbling. Foolish though it may be, I tend to waste money and time more than words. In the past I've usually only posted something after I've thought about it a good deal and have a conclusion I can defend. As a result I tend to keep most of my random thoughts to myself.

Yet I realize that if I keep my own thoughts to myself my blogs will get really boring really fast.

Until Google sees fit to allow me to import my postings to Google+ into this blog, I'll make every effort to post a little something more often than has been my past practice. Some days it may read more like Twitter postings. I may only post seeds of ideas, stray thoughts that haven't fully been considered. Perhaps they'll serve as a means to a broader conversation.

Googlfied

(Reposted from October 2007)

In the next few years, after Google buys up Microsoft and Intel, and owns a controlling amount of stock of the internet, they'll want their piece of the real world. Real estate, literally. So somewhere in the mid-West will blossom Googleville, a beta community. I, of course, will be among the first in line to apply for residence. Landscaping be damned, we'll all be in our lovely Googlehomes, sitting in front of our GoogleMachines computers with broadband access via our Google ISP, 24 hours a day. Blooging this, gmailing that, searching for even more entertainment. Once a week I'll trek down to GoogleMart for my supplies, maintaining my net connection with my Googleberry device. On the way back I'll stop to fill the tank of my Googlemobile at GoogleGas, then hurry back home to surf/blog/email/search some more.


Soon I'll be at Mecca, Google headquarters, heaven on Earth. I shall bathe in Googloodness. I shall feast on Googlisms. I shall share my dream of the future and secure my place in it. I will be reborn as BetaBoy©, a registered Google property.


Behold, I am Googlfied.

10th Anniversary

Ten years ago I joined Blogger.

That doesn't make it my oldest blog, but it is a milestone for my affiliation with the Google empire.

There isn't one of the services shown in this image I haven't at least tried during the last decade. Many I still use on a daily basis.

Google has become the AOL of the 21st century and web 2.0. But to be fair, it's AOL done right, or at least better for productivity.

Someday soon I expect Blogger entries to automatically show up as posts to Google+. Eventually all of Google's widespread services will interconnect. I'll be able to link to videos at YouTube, pictures at Picassa, documents from Google Docs and you'll be able to find them all using blog search. While the current debate is centered around Google+ versus Facebook, the larger debate will be over a Google identity versus a Facebook profile and which will become a more ubiquitous passport to every website and service. And the biggest winners in that debate will be the advertisers.

Jeber's is dead, long live Jeber's

After many years of posting to my blog at jebers.com and evidently far too many updates to the WordPress framework, that site is totally broken. Years of posts have been lost, site functionality is completely borked (a technical term meaning damaged beyond repair) and I have run out of ideas as to how to restore it to its former self.

For now and possibly well into the future I'm redirecting jebers.com to this blog, one I've been using almost as long as the former jeber's site. It doesn't appear that I can import any of the posts to the other site into here, they're just gone.

I went through this with another blog not long ago, one that was pretty popular if my host's stats can be trusted. It was a traumatic loss at the time but I've gotten over it. No doubt I'll get over the loss of jebers.com as well.

I've also lost a lot of trust in the WordPress platform and my host, 1and1. Since Google owns Blogger I doubt I'll encounter the same problems here I'm experiencing on my 1and1 site. I may even move my tech blog over here. Why not. I've pretty much become a commodity of Google's anyway. It almost feels like I'm back in the 1990's and Google is AOL.

For a blog, content is king. When my content disappears I get irritated. If Google can offer the kind of stability others cannot, then I'll put my trust in them and divorce myself from WordPress and 1and1.

So let me welcome those of you who have bookmarked jebers.com and are wondering how you wound up on jackcarlson.net. I appreciate your interest and support. I welcome your comments and feedback.

Jebers.com may be down for the count, but Jeber will survive.

Dear readers

Just a quick note.

In the next day or two this blog will have a new URL: www.jackcarlson.net.

As soon as the DNS records update the old URL will redirect to the new one. You will want to update your bookmark for this blog.

Thank you for continuing to read and respond to my blog.

Jack (Jeber)

I'm still alive, I think

I've just been a bit distracted.

There's this new service called Google+ and since I joined up a couple of weeks ago I've managed to log out of it for several minutes at a time.

Realizing that real-time conversations beat the heck out of blog posting (then waiting sometimes forever for a comment or reaction), I've cut down dramatically on the number of blogs I maintain, from more than 8 to just four. Now when something comes up on a social network that I want to expand on I can blog about it in whichever blog is most appropriate. And since it's highly likely that Google will at some point incorporate Blogger into the Google+ family of related sites, this blog is the most obvious one in which to expound on topics first raised in Google+.

So this blog will cease being my "everything that interests me" blog. That honor is bestowed upon jebers.com, my primary personal blog. I also will begin keeping jebersblog.com updated more frequently with tech tips and discussions, especially about Macintosh, since my MacBook and iPad have become my primary computing devices. I'm keeping my jeberjabber.typepad blog for purely sentimental reasons. While not the first blog I started, it was the first blog I started (in 2004) that still exists.

Stick with me, folks. I think the year ahead is going to be one wild ride for social networking and the ever growing Google empire.