Wikileaks and all

I won't attempt to pass myself off as well-informed about the Julian Assange case, but I'd like to make a few general remarks about power and secrecy. Your regular Joe can't keep too many secrets if more powerful people think it's in their interest to know Joe's secrets. This is even more true since the government has whittled more and more of Joe's rights away in the name of national security since 2001. If they want to know something about you, they've got a vast array of tools to do the job.

I don't think most people will argue with me when I say that, the more power a person has, the more secrets he is able to keep, unless the media are vigilant, which they seem less and less inclined to be. We know that the previous administration has violated the Constitution, and that they do their best to convince us that it's for our own good. They, and the current administration (more's the pity) keep secrets in the name of national security. Some secrets probably do improve our security, but there's a whole raft of secrets that cover up a government's criminal activity, or serve simply to help powerful people avoid embarrassment.

I believe that the rights of the common man are greatly diminished in a climate of government secrecy, and that any tool we have to expose wrongdoing by those in power is very valuable in preserving democracy.

Attention, all you folks who want to tear down the wall between church and state...

Those of you who want religion in your government, please help me out with this question. Do you want the government in your religion?

Is your brain smoking yet?

A thorn in the side of good government

If there's anything a conservative can't stand, it's a shakeup in the social order. As I've mentioned before, the fact of a black man in the White House must feel like the end of the world to some of them. It's no wonder that the opposition has done all in its power to bring about the failure of the Obama administration. If they can prove that it was a mistake to elect a black man president, perhaps we won't be foolish enough to try that trick again!

Of course, today's conservatives not only want to impede any progress that might be made today, they seek to undo things that happened a long time ago: civil rights legislation, the New Deal, the north's victory in the Civil War. In their fantasies, someday it will be proven that the Earth is 6,000 years old, and that the sun revolves around it.

In any case, now that the Republicans have regained control of the House of Representatives, men like Lamar Smith now have subpoena power, and have promised to pester the Executive Branch for the next two years, at least. Again, in their fantasies, they would love to impeach Barack Obama. For what, I don't know, but they've been dying for revenge since the Nixon resignation.

It is my most fervent wish that Barack Obama be reelected in 2012.

By their fruits ye shall know them...

Remember the good old days when the people on the Right called us bleeding hearts? That epithet at least was based on reality. Nowadays, the teabaggers call liberals Nazis.

But consider the teabaggers' behavior. You might recall that, during the health care debate, the teabaggers had a strategy of attending town hall meetings and shouting down any argument in favor of government involvement in health care insurance. In fact, no argument even needed to be made before the teabaggers began shouting. Their intent was to disrupt.

For all their talk about freedom, their behavior showed their lack of belief in democracy.

Of a piece with that behavior was their habit of bringing sidearms to Barack Obama's speeches. Their claim was that they were making a statement about their Second Amendment rights, but the truth is that wearing their guns was an attempt at intimidation. Again, very undemocratic behavior.

The teabaggers would like to "take their country back" from a government that was elected by a wide margin, democratically. If things don't go their way this time, they warn, well they just might spill blood. More than a tinge of terrorism in their threat.

Recently, one Tim Proffitt, a member of Rand Paul's organization, in an attempt to control an anti-Paul protester, stomped on her neck while another "man" held her down. This behavior, I suggest, is a further step toward brown shirts, truncheons, and jackboots.

Of Tim Proffitt and his victim, Lauren Valle, who is the lover of freedom and democracy, and who is their enemy?

You have the right to remain ignorant

You think nobody could say anything stupider than that stupid thing you heard yesterday, but then...

O'DONNELL: What I will support in Washington, D.C. is the ability for the local school system to decide what is taught in their classrooms and what I was talking about on that show was a classroom that was not allowed to teach creationism as an equal theory as evolution. That is against their constitutional rights and that is an overreaching arm of the government.

Yes, that's Christine O'Donnell answering a question from Wolf Blitzer. States rights and local standards trump the truth! Education is not the process of knowledgeable people passing their hard won knowledge on to the next generation. Education is the process of the majority, in spite of their lack of any special expertise, telling the knowledgeable to teach the next generation what the knowledgeable know is not true!

You know, folks, you can run your school system that way if you want to. Good luck trying to apply anything you learn there in the real world!

And another thing, tea party idiots: the government does the entire population a favor by providing a free (with the exception of taxes) education, and you want to bite the hand on the end of that "overreaching arm"? You are both fools and ingrates.

One Nation Working Together march in Washington, DC, 10-2-2010!

Pat Buchanan was right. There is a battle going on for the soul of this country. Pat's on the wrong side, of course.

I'm lucky to live in the Washington DC area, and I will be attending the One Nation Working Together march on October 2. I've been looking over the list of sponsoring organizations, and it reminds me of all the wonderful things that liberals have done, and continue to do, for this country.

List of march sponsors

What do these organizations stand for? So many things that make me proud to be a Democrat.

Decent treatment of working people

Support for education

Respect for the environment and nature

Human rights and equality for all

Medical care for all

Free speech

Freedom of religion

Peace

Economic security for all

Rationality

Recognition that our nation was built on 18th century Enlightenment principles

Separation of church and state

Real science

Immigration reform

Respect and support for the arts

Respect for international law

Preference for individuals over corporations

I plan to take lots of pictures at the march, and I hope to highlight as many kinds of organizations as I can. I know which party has the big tent.

May this heathen rage a minute?

Every once in a while, I get so fucking depressed. I seem to live in a world in which so many people are... what, post-rational? pre-rational? just plain irrational? just plain liars? They are impervious to logic, but somehow they are able to use logic to turn black into white and vice versa.

People who try to view the world rationally certainly have more facts on their side than mere believers in superstition, and yet the true believers cling tightly to their beliefs. Why do they do that? And why misuse the tools of science to advance the unscientific? One could say that this is their last desperate cry, but sometimes I'm the one who feels desperate.

In which I draw your attention to a Daily Kos diary by Michael Moore, and make additional comments...

Michael Moore makes the case that it was the political cowardice and/or gullibility of liberals in the media and in government that allowed George W. Bush to lie us into the war in Iraq. He is right, of course.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/9/15/902221/-Never-Forget:-Bad-Wars-Arent-Possible-Unless-Good-People-Back-Them

Now, of course, we know that, when we go to war, we are all supposed to band together behind the president and help him fight the war. Therefore, in cases when the war is uncalled for, people, politicians especially, need great courage to go against the tide. If we look back to Viet Nam, even though the anti-war position ended up being the conventional wisdom at that time, historical revisionism has bitten politicians who did not serve in that war in the ass.

I have mentioned before that Bush betrayed America by using our grief and anger from 9/11 to trick us into supporting his war in Iraq. We had been wounded by Al Qaeda, and we obviously needed to take some action. President Bush used this opportunity to engage in a war that he wanted an excuse to get into before 9/11 even happened.

I don't claim to be a political genius, but the Bush administration's lies always seemed to me to be so clumsy and transparent that anyone could see through them. After 9/11, we went into Afghanistan, which is where Osama bin Laden was hiding. So far, so good. Then, George W. Bush announced that, far from limiting our actions to punishing Al Qaeda, we would fight terror world-wide, wherever it was to be found. I immediately thought to myself, "Oh, so this is how he gets into Iraq."

So, if your average Joe (me) could see through that ruse, you know that there were professional politicians and pundits who recognized it immediately. Yet, very few had the courage to speak up, with the result that we lost more soldiers in Iraq (in a war justified by events that had nothing to do with Iraq) than there were deaths in the 9/11 attack.

As a tangent to all of this, I have a theory about the media's vehement response to George W. Bush's bungled response to hurricane Katrina. Bungled it was, but the hurricane was huge, affecting the city as much as a war would have. We know that FEMA, under Bill Clinton, would have done a better job, but the task would have been a daunting one in any case. I believe that the media, and others who might have stood up against our going into Iraq, experienced a growing rage as the case for the war unraveled, and they realized how they had been bamboozled. The rage that could not be expressed over Iraq exploded over Katrina.

Joseph de Maistre

My mind is on fire.

Ever since I watched Jonathan Miller's interviews with some atheist philosophers, I've been reading philosophy. The reason I read, whether fiction or non-fiction, is to try as best I can to get inside the great minds. I'm not really up to it, of course, but I see no reason to settle for less.

I've recently been reading "The Crooked Timber of Humanity," by Sir Isaiah Berlin. There, I happened across a very important essay for me, because it sheds light on questions that have been perplexing me for a long time. The essay is called "Joseph de Maistre and the Origins of Fascism."

If you have read any of my previous diaries, you know that certain things about the Right drive me crazy. For instance, why do so many people believe things that have no factual basis, and dismiss things that have been demonstrated to be true? And why, when the evidence shows that there is no factual basis for a certain belief, will the believer invent false evidence instead of changing his belief? The career of Joseph de Maistre strikes me as a window into the conservative mind.

Maistre was a leading reactionary voice in the face of the Protestant Reformation and the eighteenth century Enlightenment. He believed that the idea that people could govern themselves was false and dangerous. In his view, humans were driven by mysterious, dark impulses that were God-given, and that, in order for society to function, people must be ruled by God's representatives on earth: The Pope above all, and the kings whom God had also selected. Democracy would necessarily end in anarchy.

The aspect of Maistre's beliefs that struck me the most is that empirical science was evil because it caused people to question the supremacy of popes and kings. Even if the discoveries of science could be demonstrated to be true, science should not be pursued or taught. In Maistre's view, scientific facts were unimportant surface details in the big picture. The important things were God's mysteries, which science could never unravel.

Reading Berlin's essay caused me to reflect that, to many people, even today, empirical knowledge is a small thing that should not be allowed to get in the way of belief in God. There still exist many, many people for whom belief in an ultimate authority (however imaginary) is more important than things that can be demonstrated to be true.

My timing in reading Berlin's essays was just about perfect, in the sense that it coincided with the Glenn Beck rally in Washington, DC. Beck and his allies are very afraid of living in a country where (the Christian) God is not the source of governmental power. Instead of the democracy built in this country on 18th century Enlightenment principles, Beck and his compatriots want, whether they know it or not, a less democratic government, under God instead of under the rule of law.

Obama the Muslim?

Some people don't seem to be able to figure out things for themselves. You know, if you want to find out if Barack Obama is a Muslim, all you have to do is pay attention.

Remember the 2008 presidential campaign? Yes, that was a long time ago, I know, but maybe you remember the Reverend Jeremiah Wright controversy? Heck, maybe you're still mad about it. The man upset a lot of Americans, and those upset folks demanded that Barack Obama, who attended the Reverend Jeremiah wright's church, denounce some things that the reverend said.

He said those things in a church, remember? Obama went to that church, remember? It was a big scandal, remember? My point, of course, is none of this happened in a mosque. The holy man in question was called Reverend, not Imam.

Things like this are not that hard to figure out if you just pay attention and learn to think for yourself.

Yeah, I know what you're thinking. Obama is a secret Muslim! Perhaps America's first anchor baby.

Islam vs. the U.S. government?

Some Americans are sold on the idea that Islam itself (as opposed to Islamic extremists) is a danger to our democracy. Certainly, if the U.S. had a very large Islamic population, most of whom believed in Sharia law, our democracy might be in trouble. I don't pretend to know what's in the minds of America's Muslims, but I imagine the average Muslim mind isn't too different from the rest of our minds. No more or less political than yours or mine. Not particularly fanatic. Another thing I wonder is, if a foreign-born Muslim wanted to live under Sharia law, why would he bother to come to America, where he'd be unlikely to get that kind of government?

One thing Americans can do to prevent Sharia law is to protect the separation between church and state. Yes, that's what I think, and it's precisely the opposite strategy from that of some fundamentalist Christians. Their idea is to make it clear to the world that ours is a Christian nation. But I think that, besides being unconstitutional, that's a short-sighted approach. Suppose in 2010, we say, "Our nation is officially Christian, and no other faith my participate in our government." What happens to America should members of other religions begin to outnumber Christians? Assuming these others are allowed to vote (not a sure thing, once we've disposed of separation of church and state, but...), now perhaps Christianity is outlawed.

In any case, in a Christian nation, are some Christians more equal than others? Even today, some Christians are declaring that Islam is not a religion. Suppose the Catholics and protestants form a coalition and decide that Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Quakers are not true Christians?

If you want to ensure that the United States of America is never a land at peace with itself again, just end the separation of church and state and watch the various religious factions go at it. We can be just like Lebanon.

I think we'd all like to avoid that.

Sacred ground?

Here's a link that's been making the rounds on Facebook. It's a blog of photos that were taken near the proposed site of the mosque in New York. http://daryllang.com/blog/4421

The pictures suggest that the neighborhood where the mosque would be built is not currently thought of as sacred ground by the people who live and do business there.

When I saw these pictures and thought of the political storm raging around this issue, I suddenly thought of the Terri Schiavo case. The analogy I'm drawing here is not exact, since more people can be said to have "standing" in the mosque case. But to me, it's just another example of opportunistic politicians sticking their snouts where they don't belong.

Facts matter! Judge Vaughn Walker's Proposition 8 decision

I'm on a mailing list with a bunch of my high school classmates (1968), and, representing a pretty good cross-section of political philosophies, we argue a lot about politics, science, religion. The usual stuff. There's a small group of very ardent conservatives who I'd put in the Tea Party category. One of the things they often do is to pass along things that have been going around the 'net that support their point of view.

One of my classmates is (thankfully) quite anal about fact checking, and in a majority of cases, he can demonstrate that the information offered is fabricated or mistaken, or at least taken out of context. The conservatives respond by making fun of the classmate, and by deciding that they no longer believe in the source of his refutation. Never, however, do they stop passing on new bits of false information. One of them says, "I'll pass it on and believe it until it's proven false!" I point out to him, thinking I might be doing him a favor, that his constant presenting of arguments backed by misinformation is making him look bad. I point out that I try to get my information from reputable places, places that take the trouble to check facts. But he keeps passing new things along without seeming to care whether they're true or not.

One of the problems we're having in our country these days is that advocacy organizations are making things up and publishing them. If they get caught, it's not too big a deal, because some of those they've fooled will either not hear the truth, or don't really want to hear it. People are also confusing fact and opinion. One of the guys on my list says, "If I post an editorial, are ya gonna snopes the opinion?" Of course not, I say, only the facts supporting the opinion.

So I get depressed about the lack of respect for facts and scientific rigor that I see all around me.

Thank goodness facts and rigor still matter in a court of law. Thank goodness facts matter to Judge Vaughn Walker, whose decision overturned California's Proposition 8! If you get a chance to read it, do. It's a good read, and a victory for anyone who believes that even though there are "two sides to every question," one side usually carries a lot more weight than the other side.

The judge's decision shows just how poor a job the proponents of Prop. 8 did in defending it. The only two witnesses on their side who claimed expertise failed miserably because they were not actually experts, and their evidence did not stand up to scrutiny. If you want to prove that children of two heterosexual parents will be better off than those of two gays, you've got to have studies that prove your point, and your studies need peer review. It's not enough to just assert.

Here is Judge Walker, explaining it better than I can:

"Plaintiffs called nine expert witnesses. As the education and experience of each expert show, plaintiffs’ experts were amply qualified to offer opinion testimony on the subjects identified. Moreover, the experts’ demeanor and responsiveness showed their comfort with the subjects of their expertise. For those reasons, the court finds that each of plaintiffs’ proffered experts offered credible opinion testimony on the subjects identified."

And:

"Plaintiffs presented eight lay witnesses, including the four plaintiffs, and nine expert witnesses. Proponents’ evidentiary presentation was dwarfed by that of plaintiffs. Proponents presented two expert witnesses and conducted lengthy and thorough cross-examinations of plaintiffs’ expert witnesses but failed to build a credible factual record to support their claim that Proposition 8 served a legitimate government interest." (Emphasis mine.)

Facts matter.

Link to the Proposition 8 decision:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/35374462/Prop-8-Ruling-FINAL

And may I say, finally, in this modern case of civil rights, thank you Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jerry Brown for not blocking the schoolhouse door. Declining to defend Proposition 8 was a great thing to do!

Brilliant things I didn't say

In my reading I collect quotes I like, especially quotes that illuminate issues I'm precoccupied with: the class system, religion, politics, reason. I keep them in my Facebook profile, where I doubt anyone ever goes. I thought I'd put some of them here, another place they're sure not to upset the social order.

"Sacred books are as dangerous as snakes, but what makes them particularly poisonous is their sophistical methods of argument, and consequent abandonment of reason, their rejection of testing and debate, and their implicit disparagement of experience, since they, not life as lived, contain all that really needs to be known." -- William Gass

"No self-respecting fish would want to be wrapped in a Murdoch paper." -- Mike Royko

"You have made ample use of the times of ignorance, superstition, and infatuation, to strip us of our inheritances, and trample us under your feet, that you might fatten on the substance of the unfortunate. But tremble for fear that the day of reason will arrive!" -- Voltaire

"Imagine this place is not about us and never has been and never will be and that this is the history it teaches us and that this is what we must learn and never seem willing to study." -- Charles Bowden

"The relation of stupidity and evil has long been noted." -- Leonard Michaels

"The religion that is afraid of science dishonors God and commits suicide" -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

"The sure mark of an ideology, in science and philosophy as in politics, is the denying of obvious facts." -- Colin McGinn

"As for the view that God's eternal blessedness should be a comfort to the poor, it has always been held by the rich, but the poor are beginning to grow weary of it." -- Bertrand Russell

"If it is the purpose of the Cosmos to evolve mind, we must regard it as rather incompetent in having produced so little in such a long time." -- Bertrand Russell

"Americans have decided to be stupid and shallow since 1980. Madonna is like Nero; she marks the turning point.” -- Joni Mitchell

"One may say, broadly speaking, that Protestants like to be good and have invented theology in order to keep themselves so, whereas Catholics like to be bad and have invented theology in order to keep their neighbors good." -- Bertrand Russell

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." -- Thomas Jefferson

“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”– Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781-82

Education

I was in Borders today, and I wandered into the science section, and there were all those troublesome Darwin books. When I hear people arguing that evolution isn't true, I often think, "Don't take my word for it, go to the source." "The Origin of Species" is so bursting at the seams with evidence, experiments, explanations, you almost don't need any of the books about evolution that have been published in the 150-or-so years since then. It's a staggeringly great book.

But then I reflect the people I know who don't believe in evolution would not be convinced, no matter what anyone said, let alone Darwin himself. As I looked through the books, I was suddenly reminded of people I knew in high school who were impatient to get out of school and start working. They were in school because someone was making them go. They always asked the same question: "Why are we learning this? We'll never use it after we leave here."

I think, are those same people now Tea Partiers? Or were they lucky enough to rediscover how wonderful the world is, wonderful enough to learn about?

A little more on Thomas Paine

As a result of writing "The Age of Reason," Thomas Paine lost most of his friends. Only six people showed up at his funeral. In my estimation, that means he must have done something right. Here is what Robert G. Ingersoll said about him after his death:

"Thomas Paine had passed the legendary limit of life. One by one most of his old friends and acquaintances had deserted him. Maligned on every side, execrated, shunned and abhorred – his virtues denounced as vices – his services forgotten – his character blackened, he preserved the poise and balance of his soul. He was a victim of the people, but his convictions remained unshaken. He was still a soldier in the army of freedom, and still tried to enlighten and civilize those who were impatiently waiting for his death. Even those who loved their enemies hated him, their friend – the friend of the whole world – with all their hearts. On the 8th of June, 1809, death came – Death, almost his only friend. At his funeral no pomp, no pageantry, no civic procession, no military display. In a carriage, a woman and her son who had lived on the bounty of the dead – on horseback, a Quaker, the humanity of whose heart dominated the creed of his head – and, following on foot, two negroes filled with gratitude – constituted the funeral cortege of Thomas Paine." [Source: Wikipedia]

My kind of person.

Class war???

Ever notice that every time the Democrats want to make life a little more fair for the poor by giving them some little crumb, the Republicans accuse us of waging a class war?

You know very well that the poor didn't start the class war. The rich have been waging it since the ascent of Man. It is all very well that some people should make more money than others. It is most definitely not right that the "alphas" should have everything and the poor do the heavy lifting and yet have nothing.

The importance of continuing education: Start corrupting yourself!

The argument over whether the United States was founded as a Christian nation, or "on Christian principles," has sent me scrambling to read some works by the Founding Fathers. Now as you know, I have my own opinion on this matter: Freedom of religion (on which this nation was founded) means freedom for all religions; a government endorsement of Christianity would mean the end of religious freedom.

I'm currently reading Thomas Paine's "The Age of Reason." I suppose that Paine is not a Founding Father in the strict sense, but his ideas were very influential. The people who assume that our nation was meant to be a Christian nation don't take into consideration the spirit of the eighteenth century, which was abuzz with science, and which didn't put much stock in the irrational.

Thomas Paine begins his book with a profession of faith: "I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life." The rest of "The Age of Reason" is full of all the things that Paine doesn't believe.

First of all, Paine does not believe in the Bible. He reasons that no human language, whether Hebrew, Greek, Latin, or English, is a proper vehicle for the Word of God. The Bible was written by men and the decision of which writings should be included was made by men. And who knows how the words have been adulterated, both inadvertently and on purpose?

So, if the Bible is not the Word of God, just how does God make Himself known, and how do we learn about God's nature? Paine's answer is: by study of the universe. By observation. By science, which Paine dubs "the true theology." Not only is the Bible not the true theology, its manifest falseness actually hinders a person from knowing God.

Well, if one doesn't read the Bible, how does one learn about Jesus? It turns out that the whole Jesus story, as well as most of the rest of the Bible, is repellent to Thomas Paine. Especially odious is the concept of a Father (God) who would have his Son (Jesus) killed to atone for the sins of Adam and Eve. And remember, Paine believes in one God, and that God is not some agglomeration of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

Thomas Paine was a man of his time, and what a time it was! Knowledge and reason flourished, and Paine felt that Mystery must be banished from religion. He saw God only as the Creator, and thought that understanding the laws of nature was the Way. Paine's view of the Universe was still a little anthopocentric for my taste. He felt that the universe had been created as a kind of teaching tool for Man, the reasoning being. The study of evolution was some years away.

My little essay here is a roundabout way of illustrating the importance of continuing to read, and to educate oneself with "Great Books." They're not boring or hard to read, as it turns out. There's a reason they're called "classics!"

I may have mentioned in past posts that I grew up in a religious family, but in a family that also valued education. In my coddled childhood, I learned a lot about the Bible, but also about molecules and such. Until I got to college, I was still quite naive and unworldly, and still had the view of the world that my family and neighbors gave me. I feel that I am still overcoming my provincialism. My parents were relatively open minded, but not particularly well-read.

So, this is my little sermon to those of you who may think that K-12 and, possibly, college were enough. If you've finished with school, you're just getting started. And if your parents home schooled you with the intent of shielding you from the world's corruption, start exploring on your own now! Read! Don't believe my second-hand account. Go to the source!

Great, great headline!

Here's a great diary from one Roger Shuler over at Daily Kos. I don't know if these links last forever, but I was attracted and delighted by the article's title, which sums up so much that has gone wrong with this country as conservatives try to dismantle the New Deal.

"Reagan Revolution Is Washing Ashore in the Gulf of Mexico."

I must get a t-shirt made.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/6/14/875814/-Reagan-Revolution-Is-Washing-Ashore-in-the-Gulf-of-Mexico

Books or Nooks?

Walking into a Barnes & Noble, you're confronted with a display of their portable electronic book delivery system. You can't miss it. It's blocking your path from the door to the books. I suppose these gadgets are good things, over all. They save loads of space in your house if you're a person who buys a lot of books. If everyone read them, we'd probably save a lot of trees.

But don't you think the guy demonstrating them feels a little strange? He works in a bookstore, and he's selling a piece of technology which, if it really takes off, might make it necessary to close a lot of bookstores and put him out of a job. Him and a bunch of other people involved in making, selling, and delivering books.

I don't know that there's any going back from a system that allows a person to get his media electronically. I guess I should feel grateful, but my two favorite places in the world are bookstores and record stores. The job I look back on with the most fondness is my four-year stint in a college bookstore. As easy as the new technology makes it for me to get anything I want, I'm going to miss going through shelves looking for treasures. I don't know if I could get used to not doing that.

Holocaust denial summed up in one sentence

"The Holocaust never happened, and if we had a chance we'd do it again."

Frank Kameny

Back in my high school days, if a guy wanted to insult another guy, he'd accuse him of sucking dicks. Not being a worldly person, I assumed that this was all talk, that nobody actually did that sort of thing. Yes, I was a totally overprotected being.

When I started college in 1968, I became interested in the wonderful world of campus protest. One day, a man named Frank Kameny showed up and gave the first speech I had ever heard on gay rights. I was quite taken aback that, not only did homosexuals exist, but that this man publicly admitted to being one.

I don't suppose that I can say that from that very day my eyes were opened, but I had definitely learned a thing or two.

The memory of that day was freshened for me today on a Daily Kos diary by one Michael Petrelis. Mr. Petrelis wants President Obama to give Frank Kameny the Medal of Freedom.

Here is a link to Petrelis's blog (and I hope he doesn't mind my linking there):

http://mpetrelis.blogspot.com/

The post in question is from May 31, 2010.

Frank Kameny was the bravest of men, campaigning for gay rights when things were many times more dangerous for a homosexual than they are today.

Cardio-gasp-vascular... puff... fitness

I went to Yosemite last week, for the first time since I was in my twenties--I'm 59 now. I wondered if my back would give out on some trail, and planned only easy day hikes.

Easy. A few hundred feet up the trail on my first hike, I was so winded I thought I might faint. It was the famous aha! moment.

I didn't expect hiking to be as easy as when I was 24... or maybe I did. I was shocked by how out of shape I am, even though the ugly extra 30 pounds of gut I see in the mirror gave me fair warning.

I'm hoping that, instead of merely becoming dispirited, I take measures to improve my cardiovascular fitness. Stair climbing would seem to be appropriate exercise. You've got to climb to get out of the valley.

During my park visit, I bought a book about Yosemite trails, and reading it does excite me--I long to see some more places in the high country before I die. That desire is a good impetus to get fit.

Birdbrains

In a recent column, George Will claimed that power-generating windmills will kill more birds than the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. Other conservatives have called the windmills eyesores.

Eyesores. The Right is deeply offended by these eyesores.

After hundreds of years of smoke-belching factories, coal mines, oil derricks and refineries suffered without complaint, the Right has suddenly developed compassion for animals and a sense of aesthetics.

Bafflement

I was just watching a video on Youtube of a prayer being given at a college graduation ceremony. A young woman was repenting for "worshipping the intellectual mind" and "the humanism that we have embraced."

Why... did... you... go... to... college?

Must be Santa

I've been reading philosophers lately, mostly on the subject of atheism. For some reason, the question that recently popped into my head was, "What is the point of Santa Claus?" When we treat our kids to mythical old Saint Nick, and then let them know when they're older that there is no Santa Claus, why do we do that? Does anyone even know?

I'm not suggesting we stop the Santa stuff, but I just wonder what it all means? I'm forming vague ideas about its being an unconscious preparation for the revelation that there is no God. But that revelation never comes to a lot of people.

I'm looking for ideas. Maybe there's a book. Google time.

More material for your Sunday School class

Way back when, I made a snarky (but I meant it seriously) comment about scientists invading churches and teaching Sunday School. I've been doing some reading, and I think that Daniel C. Dennett is the man for such a job.

Mr. Dennett is a philosopher by trade, but he has done a good deal of studying in the hard sciences of biology and paleontology. One of his books, "Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon," asks the question, Does the human penchant for religious belief have an evolutionary basis? Not only is Dennett an unbeliever in any religion, he posits that religious belief is a biological phenomenon. This idea is not new, but it is probably shocking to many.

The book is actually a call for more scientific research on the subject, because there are many questions that have to be answered, not the least of which is, If religion is a product of evolution, what benefit(s) has it conferred on the human race? In other words, if religious belief has been selected for, who benefits?

If you're a person who believes that the Bible contains everything you need to know, you probably won't want to read "Breaking the Spell." But if you have a suspicion that other books have something to teach you, here's a good one. Bring it to Sunday School, if you dare.

Choking hazard

The Teabaggers and Libertarians are complaining that the government is ramming health care reform down their throats. They behave as if Barack Obama and the Democratic party staged a coup, instead of being elected by a wide margin.

Folks, we live in a country where the majority rules. A majority of Americans voted the Democrats into power because the Republicans abused power and wrecked the economy. Teabaggers didn't notice anything amiss about the Bush administration, but that's another matter.

There has been no coup, the Republicans just lost the election. Say aaahhhhh.

Who vs. who?

It's not a matter of East vs. West, or Christian vs. Muslim. It's a matter of rationalism vs. religious fundamentalism. Both the Christians and Muslims of the fundamentalist type believe that only purity--their kind of purity--can save the world.

I'm not a fan of purity. With theocracy of any kind, we are lost.

And the separation of Church and State is the only guarantee of religious freedom.

I am not a religious person, as my posts prove, but I am perfectly happy to not interfere in the lives of the religious. But I will fight against any religious government.