Monday, March 21, 2011

The so-called "wrath of God"

A former Phoenix Mercury (WNBA player) tweeted this Saturday on the subject of the earthquake/tsunami in Japan:

"What if God was tired of the way they treated their own people in there own country! Idk guys he makes no mistakes."

"u just never knw! They did pearl harbor so u can't expect anything less."

And, to add insult to injury, in a remarkable example of Christian condescension, she tried to apologize:

"I wanna apologize to anyone I may hurt or offended during this tragic time," the tweet said. "I didn't realize that my words could be interpreted in the manner which they were. People that knw me would tell u 1st hand I'm a very spiritual person and believe that everything, even disasters happen 4 a reason and that God will shouldn't be questioned
..."

Besides revealing the obvious fact that celebrities should self-edit prior to releasing brain droppings to the world, it brings up the more important subject of religion.

Now, I want to get this out of the way right now -- I'm not intimating that this is how all Christians think. But, by the same token, we all know that this isn't just the lunatic fringe that believes that disasters are God's retribution.

But that isn't even the subject of my post. My beef is with how religion is deemed to be the source of morality when statements like this show it to be something very different. People that are bigoted, or racist, or in Pondexter's case, remarkably ignorant, use the veil of religion to justify themselves. When you feel that God himself is behind something, you have the moral certitude to make statements that an atheist would be pilloried for. After all, "he makes no mistakes". And that's exactly the point. I have no problem with an atheist being judged upon his statements and beliefs. But that is how all people should be judged.

Godless people are deemed to be immoral and anarchistic, but I suggest that most are the exact opposite. I believe that all my actions and statements must be held to an even higher standard and must stand on their own. I don't have the luxury of misinterpreting some ancient text of dubious origin to justify a belief that outside the protection of religion would be considered bigoted.

If any other segment of society had done the atrocities to children that Catholic priests have, imagine what would have happened.

Within the framework of religion, it is considered godly and moral to be against gays, or to subjugate women. Under any other criteria, those would be hate crimes or speech.

I am not saying that religious people are universally immoral. I am saying that they are not moral because they are religious. Religion does not define one's morality. A religious person can be good or bad, as can an atheist.

And natural occurrences like floods, and hurricanes, and earthquakes are not caused by God. And they do not occur to present a moral or punish us for sin. They may present a lesson or warning to us insomuch as our actions or inaction may contribute to them or our lack of preparation leads to additional suffering. If one feels that God is infallible and omnipotent, then every happening has to mean something. But most things don't mean anything. Life can be beautiful and wondrous sometimes ... but it also can be a cruel bitch. Learn from life, but don't attach causality to random events. To think that God would punish the Japanese for Pearl Harbor while letting the US off the hook for Hiroshoma, Nagasaki, Vietnam, Iraq, etc. is an example of not only Christian blindness but also a scary kind of nationalism.

So, Cappie, keep your tweets and your religion to yourself. You are entitled to your opinion and your free speech, but you are also entitled to be criticized for such.

Tuesday, March 15, 2011

There must be some kinda way out of here ...

"There must be some kinda way out of here"
Said the joker to the thief
"There's too much confusion
I can't get no relief ..."

Lyrics by Bob Dylan. Song covered numerous times, most notably by Jimi Hendrix




I'm not posting this for any particular reason. No tie-in to a current political or cultural event. The excerpt I quoted above certainly describes how I feel sometimes about work, life, the world ... whatever. But, I'm just posting it because it's a damn good song.

I just heard Hendrix's version on the radio the other day and realized how much I love the song. Dylan's version is great as well, but Hendrix imbued the song with a fire that even Dylan had to acknowledge. Dylan has even admitted that the manner in which Hendrix played the song informs his own performances since that time.

The song has obvious allusions to the Bible (as do other Dylan songs), but what strikes me is the out-of-order manner in which the lyrics unfold. The thematic start of the song is at the end, both lyrically and musically. Kinda like you would expect if Quentin Tarantino wrote a rock song. This propels the song forward and gives one a sense of anticipation or urgency for it to repeat. It's this sense of bottled-up repetition that makes it perfect as a recurring plot element in season 3 and 4 of Battlestar Galactica and really an encapsulation of the series as a whole.

"All this has happened before, and all of it will happen again."

This is a performance by Bear McCreary, the composer for the series, with a little help from Katee Sackhoff (Starbuck):



Saturday, March 12, 2011

Tyranny of the Fortunate

"Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone." -- John Maynard Keynes

Is it any wonder that we've lost our way (not that we ever really knew "our way") when tragedy happens and the things we are worried about are our stock portfolios? Capitalism is broken. Our media is broken. People are broken.



Larry Kudlow Devalues Human Life With Japan Earthquake Freudian Slip


In these tough economic times, isn’t it nice to know that calamitous natural disasters needn't have an adverse affect on your investment portfolio? After the 8.9-magnitude earthquake in Japan failed to induce a market nosedive, CNBC’s Larry Kudlow expressed his relief in terms that seemed to appall even his fellow cheerleaders for capitalism: “The human toll here,” he declared, “looks to be much worse than the economic toll and we can be grateful for that.”

I detest the trolls that populate these channels and I detest the sheep that hang on their every word. Go and get real job. Build something. Make something. Help someone. Don't profit from the suffering of others. We need to stop rewarding people for just moving money around. Insurance agents, mortgage lenders, bankers, stock brokers, venture capitalists, CEO's ... my garbage man contributes more to society than you do.

"Advocates of capitalism are very apt to appeal to the sacred principles of liberty, which are embodied in one maxim: The fortunate must not be restrained in the exercise of tyranny over the unfortunate." -- Bertrand Russell

Sunday, March 06, 2011

Political Song of the Day: BOOM! by System of a Down



I've been walking through your streets
Where all your moneys are earned
Where all your buildings crying
And clueless neckties working
Revolving fake-lawn houses
Housing all your fears
Desensitized by TV
Overbearing advertising
God of consumerism
And all your crooked pictures looking good
Mirrorism, filtering information for the public eye
Designed for profiteering
Your neighbor, what a guy.

BOOM!

Every time you drop the bomb, you kill the god your child has born-

BOOM!

Modern globalization
Coupled with condemnations
Unnecessary death
Matador corporations
Puppeting your frustrations with a blinded flag
Manufacturing consent is the name of the game
The bottom line is money
Nobody gives a FUCK
Four thousand hungry children leave us per hour from starvation
While billions are spent on bombs
Creating death showers

BOOM!

Every time you drop the bomb, you kill the god your child has born-

BOOM!

Boom-Boom-Boom-Boom-Boom-Boom-Boom!

Why must we kill our own kind?
...


"Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it." -- Noam Chomsky


Sunday, February 27, 2011

Look for me, Mom, I'll be there ...

" ... Where there's a fight 'gainst the blood and hatred in the air
Look for me Mom I'll be there
Wherever there's somebody fightin' for a place to stand
Or decent job or a helpin' hand
Wherever somebody's strugglin' to be free
Look in their eyes Mom you'll see me.""

The Ghost of Tom Joad by Bruce Springsteen


100,000 strong in Wisconsin and huge groups across the country protesting the Wisconsin governor's (and by extension the Republican Party) attempt to bust public unions. No matter what they say, it's not about the budget. It's about the rich of one party (Koch brothers and the Republicans) breaking up the biggest funding source of the other party (unions and the Democrats). Remove their funding and the ability of the common man to organize and you will have a self-perpetuating Republican majority that can't be stopped.

But, maybe ... just maybe, the Republicans shot their load too soon. Underestimating the resolve of 14 brave state senators and countless people across the country that make up the backbone of the working class (teachers, firemen, cops and your average private union worker).

Those that are trying to sell you "liberty" and "freedom" are encouraging the exact opposite ... a government funded and dictated to by a small group of huge corporations whose goal this week may be fiscal in nature. But next week, when they have effective control, it will be the removing of environmental and civil rights protections.

We have a choice.







"Let the workers organize. Let the toilers assemble. Let their crystallized voice proclaim their injustices and demand their privileges. Let all thoughtful citizens sustain them, for the future of Labor is the future of America." -- John L. Lewis(President of the UMWA from 1920-1960)


Friday, February 18, 2011

2011 VNSA Used Book Sale

Finds from our yearly trek to the VNSA Used Book Sale:


Sci-Fi
Anathem by Neal Stephenson
The Carpet Makers by Andreas Eschbach
River of Gods by Ian McDonald
Singularity's Ring by Paul Melko
The Forge of God by Greg Bear
Ender in Exile by Orson Scott Card
Earthman Come Home by James Blish (1955 1st Ed.)






Science Non-Fiction

"Dragons of Eden", "Cosmic Connection", "Billions and Billions ..." all by Carl Sagan
Black Holes and Baby Universes ... by Stephen Hawking
Many Worlds in One: The Search for Other Universes by Alex Vilenkin
Fermat's Enigma: The Epic Quest to Solve the World's Greatest Mathematical Problem by Simon Singh
The Origin of Humankind by Richard Leakey
Darwin's Dangerous Idea:  Evolution and the Meanings of Life by Daniel Dennett


The Third Chimpazee ... by Jared Diamond

General Non-Fiction

Amazing Grace:  The Lives of Children and the Conscience of a Nation by Jonathan Kozol


May Man Prevail? by Erich Fromm
Selected Papers of Bertrand Russell ... by Bertrand Russell
The Edge of the Sea by Rachel Carson
The Great Unraveling ... by Paul Krugman


"You don't have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them" -- Ray Bradbury

Wednesday, February 16, 2011

ASU Origins Great Debate: What is life?

I was lucky enough to have attended the ASU Origins Great Debate: What is Life? at Arizona State University's Gammage Auditorium (a great venue designed by Frank Lloyd Wright) this past Saturday. Fittingly, February 12th is Charles Darwin's birthday. I had a great seat, front row off to the side a bit.


Project director Lawrence Krauss (theoretical physicist and famous author) spoke for about 10 minutes introducing each of the panelists: noted atheist and evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, Nobel Prize winning chemist Sidney Altman, Nobel Prize winning Lee Hartwell, NASA planetary scientist Chris McKay, theoretical physicist and author Paul Davies, and Biologist and entrepreneur J. Craig Venter. The debate began with each of the 6 panelists speaking for 5 to 10 minutes on their own, ostensibly to define what life meant in their opinion. Each of them took a different tact, predictably. Some said what differentiates life from something inanimate. Other explained how you would look for life.

Richard Dawkins spoke first, defining life it as that which can not only reproduce but also pass along its genetic code. Altman followed Dawkins and did not differentiate significantly from his definition. The next speaker, Lee Hartwell,a physician by profession, was perhaps the most out of place. His expertise is in cancer research and he was obviously intelligent but, self-admittedly, he did not have particular insight to this subject.

McKay was next and was perhaps my favorite of the speakers. The area at NASA which he works on pertains to looking for life on other planets (and moons). He spoke on several criteria that they look for to try and detect life but the most interesting to me was in how life affects other things on a planet. The geology and weather of Earth are completely different because of the existence of life. Oxygen wouldn't exist without plant life. Geologic characteristics such as fossil fuels and limestone would not exist without organic life. Maybe because of my education (aerospace engineering) and childhood dream to be an astronaut, McKay spoke to a lot of my aspirations.

Davies talked about the fact that life that would not necessarily be the carbon-based forms we know of. He even went out on a limb and said that non-carbon-based life would be discovered on Earth within 10 years. The study that was released last year was misinterpreted to have indicated that such life had already been found. Rather, the study indicated that a life form was found that scientists were able to substitute phosphorus for arsenic and it adapted. It's still significant in that it shows that life doesn't have to be carbon-based but nothing like this has been found natively.

The last to speak was Venter and he didn't really try to define what life was but seemed more intent on talking about how he was going to create artificial life. The relationship between Venter and the other scientists here is much like it is anywhere else ... contentious. He does not hide his disdain for theoretical scientists. If you can't experiment with something in the lab, it's not worthy of Venter. Research for knowledge's sake is not really his modus operandi but rather will it give him publicity. I don't want it to sound like I'm completely down on Venter. I'm not. People like him definitely have a place and I do believe his research is going to lead to advancements in curing of diseases. But he needs to be tempered by others lest he turn into a modern Dr. Frankenstein. Venter, for those that don't already know, was the first to map the human genome.


The event ended with a round-table between the panelists and Krauss. Nothing earth-shattering was revealed except for the general disdain that Venter has for regular scientists and they for him. Krauss brought up artificial intelligence to get the others take on whether that is life. It was his belief that that A.I. is the future of the human race. With no real concerted effort to advance space exploration, the problems of population growth and depleted resources are going to make our own planet unlivable in less time than some would believe (or blindly hope).

The amount of people attending what one would expect to be a dry scientific forum among erudite crusty professors with primarily British accents gives one hope that our youth value things other than reality TV and mysticism. This was not a talk about religion but it is hard for any discussion on science or the nature of life to not address that elephant in the room. When discussing the age of the Earth, Krauss made a joke about those states that lean towards the Creationist view of the age of the planet. And judging by the thunderous applause for his joke, I'd suspect that there was not a single soul in attendance with the belief that the Earth is 6,000 years old.

The real rock star of the panel, Dawkins, attracts adulation that seems incongruous for a distinctly middle-age Oxford type. And, I'm not making this up, I am convinced that several attractive young ladies in dresses and high-heels in the front row were Dawkins groupies. They even ducked out of the talk a few minutes early to assure themselves a spot near the front of the line to get their books signed. I would have liked to have gotten my book signed as well, but by the time I got out, his line was about 500 deep. We're not talking about Peyton Manning or Derek Jeter here. We're talking about an atheist evolutionary biologist. I settled for getting Lawrence Krauss' autograph and he was exceedingly gracious, talking to me a for a bit, shaking my hand and personalizing his signature.


I figure I'll get another shot at Dawkins as he's already been to ASU Origins symposiums at least three times and seems to be a friend of Krauss. My seat was on the side of the stage where Dawkins was and when he stepped to the podium, he was no more than 10 feet from me. Pretty heady stuff for an evolution and atheist nerd like myself.


I find it gratifying to go to places where smart people speak honestly and politely disagree on some points when necessary but agree on larger ones. Most importantly:
- the need for rational thought
- the need for math and science education
- the need to honestly address the issues of our planet
- to have our investigations and research lead us where they may instead of having a result pre-ordained and fit the facts to it

I'm looking forward to more of the ASU Origins events and plan on attending the next one in April, ASU Origins Project 2011 Science & Culture Festival.

Wednesday, February 09, 2011

Life Looks for Life - Carl Sagan



Life Looks for Life - Carl Sagan. Best viewed at YouTube at 720p.

"It’s better to light a candle than to curse the darkness." -– Carl Sagan


Saturday, February 05, 2011

Just Because Something's Unexplained Doesn't Mean It's Supernatural


Before you say something is out of this world, first make sure that it is not in this world
By Michael Shermer

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was the brilliant author of the wildly popular Sherlock Holmes detective stories, which celebrated the triumph of reason and logic over superstition and magical thinking. Unfortunately, the Scottish physician-turned-writer did not apply his creation’s cognitive skills when it came to the blossoming spiritualism movement of the early 1900s: he fell blindly for the crude hoax of the Cottingley Fairies photographs and regularly attended séances to make contact with family members who had died in the First World War, especially his son Kingsley. Perhaps fittingly, Conan Doyle’s fame brought him into company with the greatest magician of his age, Harry Houdini, who did not suffer fakes gladly.

In the spring of 1922 Conan Doyle visited Houdini in his New York City home, whereupon the magician set out to demonstrate that slate writing—a favorite method among mediums for receiving messages from the dead, who allegedly moved a piece of chalk across a slate—­could be done by perfectly prosaic means. Houdini had Conan Doyle hang a slate from anywhere in the room so that it was free to swing in space. He presented the author with four cork balls, asking him to pick one and cut it open to prove that it had not been altered. He then had Conan Doyle pick another ball and dip it into a well of white ink. While it was soaking, Houdini asked his visitor to go down the street in any direction, take out a piece of paper and pencil, write a question or a sentence, put it back in his pocket and return to the house. Conan Doyle complied, scribbling, “Mene, mene, tekel, upharsin,” a riddle from the Bible’s book of Daniel, meaning, “It has been counted and counted, weighed and divided.”
How appropriate, for what happened next defied explanation, at least in Conan Doyle’s mind. Houdini had him scoop up the ink-soaked ball in a spoon and place it against the slate, where it momentarily stuck before slowly rolling across the face, spelling out “M,” “e,” “n,” “e,” and so forth until the entire phrase was completed, at which point the ball dropped to the ground. According to William Kalush and Larry Sloman in their 2006 biography The Secret Life of Houdini (Atria Books), the Master Mystifier then dealt Conan Doyle the lesson that he—and by implication anyone impressed by such mysteries—needed to hear:

Sir Arthur, I have devoted a lot of time and thought to this illusion ... I won’t tell you how it was done, but I can assure you it was pure trickery. I did it by perfectly normal means. I devised it to show you what can be done along these lines. Now, I beg of you, Sir Arthur, do not jump to the conclusion that certain things you see are necessarily “supernatural,” or the work of “spirits,” just because you cannot explain them....

Lamentably, Sir Arthur continued to believe that Houdini had psychic powers and spiritual connections that he employed in his famous escapes.

This problem is called the argument from ignorance (“it must be true because it has not been proven false”) or sometimes the argument from personal incredulity (“because I cannot imagine a natural explanation, there cannot be one”). Such fallacious reasoning comes up so often in my encounters with believers that I conclude it must be a product of a brain unsatisfied with doubt; as nature abhors a vacuum, so, too, does the brain abhor no explanation. It therefore fills in one, no matter how unlikely. Thus do normal anomalies become paranormal, natural phenomena become supernatural, unidentified flying objects become extraterrestrial spacecraft and chance events become conspiracies.

Houdini’s principle states that just because something is unexplained does not mean that it is paranormal, supernatural, extraterrestrial or conspiratorial. Before you say something is out of this world, first make sure that it is not in this world, for science is grounded in naturalism, not supernaturalism, paranormalism or any other unnecessarily complicated explanations.

The particular anecdote may be irrelevant, but noted skeptic Shermer's conclusion,

"This problem is called the argument from ignorance (“it must be true because it has not been proven false”) or sometimes the argument from personal incredulity (“because I cannot imagine a natural explanation, there cannot be one”). Such fallacious reasoning ... must be a product of a brain unsatisfied with doubt; as nature abhors a vacuum, so, too, does the brain abhor no explanation. It therefore fills in one, no matter how unlikely ..."


certainly is not. While most would take this to be aimed at religion (and it certainly is), it can also be applied to conspiracy theorists, new agers, UFO nuts, ghosts chasers, etc.

Any advanced race that would ever come to Earth would have technology and knowledge that would seem indistinguishable from magic to us. But that doesn't mean it is magic. Shermer focuses on points I've always tried to make here. Most notably, doubt is not a bad thing. Get over your own mental prejudices. Just because we can't explain something doesn't mean it is supernatural (or divine). It just means that we don't have the tools to understand it yet. And that's not a discouraging thing ... that's an exciting thing. It means that there is always more to learn.

Wednesday, January 26, 2011

Top 10 Movies of 2010

I put in a late push to watch as many of the Oscar-worthy movies released in 2010 as possible, so that I might be more prepared for my top 10.  In past years, some great movies have been left out because I didn't get the chance to see them in time.  Here goes:

(10) Unstoppable -- Your basic popcorn movie but with good chemistry between Denzel Washington and Chris Pine. Director Tony Scott, if nothing else, is not bad with action flicks and has had a few films that even rise above that (True Romance, Enemy of the State).


(9) Harry Potter: The Deathly Hallows Pt. 1 -- Basically the first half of a particularly long movie, but it sets the scene well for this summer's finale. The youngsters acting skills have rounded out quite nicely while the veteran British actors do what they do best.


(8) The King's Speech -- From a strictly historical perspective, this is a fascinating story and gives you a better appreciation of the role of King George in World War II and how different it could have been if his brother had not abdicated the throne. But beyond that, it's a perfect excuse to witness two awesome actors (Rush and Firth) go at it.


(7) The Town -- Who knew that mediocre actor Ben Affleck would turn into such a fine director?  A gritty crime drama with a fantastic sense of place.  Looking forward to more from Affleck in the future. And he actually acted quite well in this one.


(6) True Grit -- True Grit, like all Coen Brothers films, has the vernacular of the time and place perfect ... something that has been most evident in films like Fargo and O Brother, Where Art Thou. But also with the essential Coen twist - that sense of irony. The sense that you are getting a knowing wink from the directors and that you are privy to some inside joke. All the actors are great in this, but I was particularly impressed by the child actor, Hailee Steinfeld.

This is probably the most straightforward of all the Coen films, but masterfully done and beautifully shot.

(5) Inception -- Visually original with a plot intriguing enough to keep you interested. Maybe not as odd as other Christopher Nolan fare (most notably Memento), but still a very good film.  I am rarely disappointed by Leo DiCaprio's choice of films or his performances in them.


(4) The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo/The Girl Who Played with Fire -- For those that don't normally check out foreign films, do yourself a favor and check out these thoroughly original Swedish films based on the Steig Larsson books. Noomi Rapace as Lisbeth Salander is riveting and an unforgettable character. Looking forward to seeing her in the Ridley Scott sci-fi project, Prometheus, due out in 2012.


(3) The Social Network -- One can question the fidelity of the facts of Mark Zuckerberg's life as told in the Social Network. But it would be hard to question the use of the story as a metaphor for the nature of relationships in the modern age. Well-acted and wonderfully directed by David Fincher.  Great music by Trent Reznor.


(2) Exit Through the Gift Shop - My favorite documentary of the year ... or is it (a documentary)? Directed (or staged) by street artist Banksy. A fascinating and funny study into the nature of art, the art scene, hype and documentaries. What is "truth" in a documentary? Is "truth" about facts or is it about revealing some kind of truth through an artful lie?

A quote during the movie by Banksy's former spokesman Steve Lazarides says it all, "I think the joke is on... I don’t know who the joke is on, really. I don’t even know if there is a joke."


(1) 127 Hours A story of adventure, ingenuity and of opting out of the rat-race ...a perfect mixture for me. Plus, its directed by one of my favorite directors, Danny Boyle.  Much like Into the Wild appealed to me a few years ago, 127 Hours explores a lot of the same areas of nature, society, and success. I love movies that make you examine what the hell you are doing with your life and if you are living it for someone else's definition of success.  James Franco is incredible and my pick for best actor.

Honorable mention: Waiting for Superman, Creation, Black Swan, Alice in Wonderland, Green Zone, Book of Eli, Shutter Island, Salt, Tron: Legacy

Several good kid stories that I liked: Despicable Me, Toy Story 3, Megamind, How to Train Your Dragon

A couple of 2009 movies that I didn't see in time for my list of that year: In the Loop,
Moon

Tuesday, January 25, 2011

Great Debate: What is Life? at ASU

Awesome! I'm going to get to see Richard Dawkins speak in person again ... this time from the front row.


"Join a panel of renowned scientists and public intellectuals, including evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, human genome sequencer J. Craig Venter, Nobel Laureate molecular biologist Sidney Altman, NASA astrobiologist Chris McKay, Nobel Laureate biologist Lee Hartwell, and renowned physicist Paul Davies as they discuss some of the most profound questions in science today: What is life? When, where, and how did life begin? Can and should we create life in the laboratory?"

Saturday, January 15, 2011

Hitch 22 ... on outrage and irony


Reading the very first words of Christopher Hitchens' autobiography, Hitch 22, I knew I was going to like the book,

"I can claim copyright only in myself, and occasionally in those who are either dead or have written about the same events, or who have a decent expectation of anonymity, or who are such appalling public shits that they have forfeited their right to bitch."

Irreverence and a unique command of the English language have marked all of his writings, and this was no exception.

I can respect Hitchens not because I always agree with him, which I don't, but rather because I know at least he has deeply thought about the positions he takes. As he says, "it matters not what you think, but how you think. This manner in which he thinks is admirable and something I strive for myself,

"It's quite a task to combat the absolutists and the relativists at the same time: to maintain that there is no totalitarian solution while also insisting that, yes, we on our side also have unalterable convictions and are willing to fight for them. After various past allegiances, I have come to believe that Karl Marx was the rightest of all when he recommended continual doubt and self-criticism. Membership in the skeptical faction or tendency is not at all a soft option. The defense of science and reason is the great imperative of our time ... To be an unbeliever is not to be merely “open-minded.” It is, rather, a decisive admission of uncertainty that is dialectically connected to the repudiation of the totalitarian principle, in the mind as well as in politics."

Certainly, his takes on Iraq (for the invasion) and Bill Clinton (would have testified during impeachment against) I find almost indefensible. But he goes to great links to do just that, especially in the case of Iraq ... a whole chapter. Leaving that whole chapter out of this book would have improved it greatly. And there is obviously room to leave it out, as Hitchens left whole areas of his life out of the book, including his first wife and several of his children, and his younger brother, columnist Peter Hitchens.

Some reviewers have rightly called out Hitchens for being a inveterate name-dropper ... and he is. But I don't mind it so much. When you have led such an interesting life and have had such interesting company: Martin Amis, Salman Rushdie, Gore Vidal, etc., you can be forgiven. His stories are funny and he is not afraid to poke fun at himself or to admit dalliances that others might be reluctant to admit, including homosexual encounters in his youth.  His well known propensity for drinking, among other vices, is well represented as well.

Several chapters are spent on his friends, including Amis, James Fenton and Rushdie. Many of his early friendships were strained or outright ended because of Hitchens' gradual turning away from his progressive (and to a certain extent, Marxist) roots. For many, his cheerleading for the Iraq invasion was the final straw. His position, while regrettable in my opinion, shows his willingness to follow his thoughts to their logical end. It may be hard on relationships, but it's probably a necessary choice for a public intellectual.  He's not swayed by religion or parochiality or even family and friends.

His autobiography goes to great lengths to recount his schooling and his parents. When describing the British public schools (the American equivalent of private schools) and his experiences there, Pink Floyd's Another Brick in the Wall (Pt2) came to mind,

"... We don't need no thought control
No dark sarcasm in the classroom
Teachers leave them kids alone ..."

With his father, a military man, his words are respectful but detached. With his mother, someone he found to be Jewish after her death, affection is more apparent.

One of the "four horsemen" of modern atheism, along with Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, Hitchens has the virtue of being the only non-academic, though he's obviously well-read. That detachment gives him the leeway to be more biting and distinctly more funny than the other three. That's not to say he is my favorite, at least on that subject. I've always been partial to Sam Harris, and then probably Dawkins.

Hitch 22 touches on his atheist contemporaries a little bit, and in glowing terms, "I feel absurdly honored to be grouped in the public mind with great teachers and scholars such as Richard Dawkins…, Daniel Dennett, and Sam Harris ..." Largely, the book is not about his atheism at all. The only time he touches on it is in the final chapter. But when he does, it is to great effect and one of the reasons that I admire Hitchens. On the "meaning of life" for non-believers,

"About once or twice every month I engage in public debates with those whose pressing need it is to woo and to win the approval of supernatural beings. Very often, when I give my view that there is no supernatural dimension, and certainly not one that is only or especially available to the faithful, and that the natural world is wonderful enough—and even miraculous enough if you insist—I attract pitying looks and anxious questions. How, in that case, I am asked, do I find meaning and purpose in life? How does a mere and gross materialist, with no expectation of a life to come, decide what, if anything, is worth caring about?

Depending on my mood, I sometimes but not always refrain from pointing out what a breathtakingly insulting and patronizing question this is. (It is on a par with the equally subtle inquiry: Since you don't believe in our god, what stops you from stealing and lying and raping and killing to your heart's content?) Just as the answer to the latter question is: self-respect and the desire for the respect of others—while in the meantime it is precisely those who think they have divine permission who are truly capable of any atrocity—so the answer to the first question falls into two parts. A life that partakes even a little of friendship, love, irony, humor, parenthood, literature, and music, and the chance to take part in battles for the liberation of others cannot be called 'meaningless' except if the person living it is also an existentialist and elects to call it so. It could be that all existence is a pointless joke, but it is not in fact possible to live one's everyday life as if this were so. Whereas if one sought to define meaninglessness and futility, the idea that a human life should be expended in the guilty, fearful, self-obsessed propitiation of supernatural nonentities… but there, there. Enough."

Though Hitch 22 was written prior to his discovery that he had esophageal cancer, his words clearly envision his eventual passing, "The clear awareness of having been born into a losing struggle need not lead one into despair. I do not especially like the idea that one day I shall be tapped on the shoulder and informed, not that the party is over but that it is most assuredly going on—only henceforth in my absence. (It's the second of those thoughts: the edition of the newspaper that will come out on the day after I have gone, that is the more distressing.) Much more horrible, though, would be the announcement that the party was continuing forever, and that I was forbidden to leave. Whether it was a hellishly bad party or a party that was perfectly heavenly in every respect, the moment that it became eternal and compulsory would be the precise moment that it began to pall."

Hitchens has lived on his own terms, and shows a desire to leave this Earth on those same terms. We should all be so lucky.

"Your favorite virtue? An appreciation for irony."

"I hope never to lose the access to outrage that I felt then."

Tuesday, January 11, 2011

I'd have to say that, in general, the response to this last weekend's shootings in Tucson by politicians of both sides and the public has been the appropriate response - contemplation, sympathy, and calls for more tempered dialogue. Of course, you knew you could count on Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck to take it to new levels of narcissism and have their own little pity party. But, I knew it was just a matter of time before you'd have a few people go completely off the reservation. That's what's so entertaining about the far Right, especially my own state's far Right. Faced with a stupid and unfortunate event that calls for solemnity, they will double-down. In their book, their is no inappropriate response. If you are catching heat because inflamed rhetoric might have even remotely and indirectly influenced someone, then ratchet up the rhetoric and ratchet up the stupid:

AZ State Rep. Jack Harper, (Repub.) -- "When everyone is carrying a firearm, nobody is going to be a victim. The socialists of today are only one gun confiscation away from being the communists of tomorrow."


And if a situation calls for people to review our gun laws, then, of course, the response should be to ... promptly go out and buy more guns: Sales in Glock Pistols Up After Arizona Shootings

It's straight out of the Karl Rove playbook. Make a negative into a positive. I'd like to say I was surprised, but I'm not.

Sunday, January 09, 2011

I read the news today, oh boy ...

I had a whole bunch of ideas on how to express my feelings and thoughts on yesterday's senseless shooting in Tucson of Arizona Congressmen Gabrielle Giffords, a federal judge, a 9 year old girl and many others. Then I watched Keith Olbermann's Special Comment. I could not have said it better ... and I won't try:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy


Tuesday, January 04, 2011

Small Town Iowa - Know Your Enemy

Just a day or two removed from our trip to Iowa for the holidays. A good trip, cold, but family was nice. And I didn't get in any awkward conversations about religion or politics with the in-laws. I played nice. Wanted to get over to Chi-town to see some of gang, but unfortunately it was not to be. Weather, health and time conspired to prevent it.

I got quite a bit of reading done, Hitch 22 by Christoper Hitchens (review soon to come) and Zero History by William Gibson.

 I went walking around town just about every day. Osceola is not so different from where I grew up (Red Oak) or any other small Midwestern town. The small town checklist? Less than 5,000 people, little industry, a ridiculously large Wal-Mart, Indian gaming, decaying but interesting old buildings:


Largely white populations (Osceola 95.73%), a sinking economy with little hope for the future. Deprived of a longtime enemy,



they are forced to look for new ones. But, instead of looking at that Wal-Mart or casino on the edge of town ... those things that emasculate the community and render it generic and dependent ... they look elsewhere. Iowa, at once encouraging because of the law to allow gay marriages, at the next moment discouraging because of the drive to repeal the judges that made it happen.

And small town Iowan looks at immigrants. You don't have to go far to hear the phrase "damn Mexicans". (I didn't have to leave the house). It's too bad, but perhaps destined to happen. Osceola is named for the Seminole of the same name,


. Osceola was captured under a truce flag and died soon after,



To quote BSG, "All this has happened before, and all of it will happen again."

"From a certain point of view our real enemy, the true troublemaker, is inside." -- Tenzin Gyatso, The 14th Dalai Lama quotes (Dalai Lama, b.1935)

You can't be serious!

My FB "friend" with her latest status:

This is a status I just could NOT pass up: When you carry the Bible, Satan gets a headache. When you open it, he collapses. When he sees you reading it, he faints. When he sees you living it, he flees. And just when you're about to re-post this, he'll try to discourage you. I JUST DEFEATED HIM! Copy and re-post if you can...AMEN!!!

True Christians, you must not allow those among you to post things like this. It does not exactly sing out intelligence. I don't respond to her on Facebook because there is no possible way to. This kind of person has absolutely no grasp on reality.

Saturday, December 18, 2010

'Happy Holidays' ... there, I said it


I swore to myself that I wasn't going to talk about Christmas on my blog this year. I respect the fact that it means different stuff to different people. And that's OK. What I don't appreciate is the fact that all people don't have such an understanding attitude. Exhibit 1: one of my Facebook "friends":

"Please don't tell me 'Happy Holidays'. There is only on reason that I celebrate right now and it is because of the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ. 'Merry Christmas' is appropriate:)"

Hey, I celebrate Christmas because I like seeing family and friends, having good food and maybe just a little drink. I enjoy seeing the magic of Christmas in my son's eyes. And 99% of that magic has nothing to do with Christ, even though my son is currently a Christian. But if your enjoyment of Christmas relies on others kissing your sanctimonious ass, then you can kindly kiss my heathen ass.

It's not about being politically correct for me. I don't care if you say 'Merry Christmas' to me. I won't be offended. I've been known to say it myself on occasion. But don't tell me what to say or to think.

I'm beginning to really hate Facebook and if this continues, I will hate 90% of my friends and my family. But, then, maybe they are really not my friends. The people that I know really care about me and that I respect in turn would never post something like that. Maybe my friends list just needs some housecleaning.

Some other atheist takes on Christmas:

Richard Dawkins on Christmas

Christopher Hitchens on Christmas

Friday, December 17, 2010

Political Song of the Day - Annihilation by A Perfect Circle



From dehumanization to arms production,
For the benefit of the nation or its destruction
Power is power, the law of the land,
Those living for death will die by their own hand,

Life's no ordeal if you come to terms,
Reject the system dictating the norms

From dehumanization to arms production,
To hasten the nation towards its destruction
Power is power, the law of the land,
Those living for death will die by their own hand,

Life's no ordeal if you come to terms,
Reject the system dictating the norms

From dehumanization to arms production,
To hasten the nation towards its destruction
Power is power, the law of the land,
Those living for death will die by their own hand,

Life's no ordeal if you come to terms,
Reject the system dictating the norms

From dehumanization to arms production,
To hasten this nation towards its destruction,

It's your choice, your choice, your choice, your choice,
Peace or annihilation


Song originally by the American hardcore band Crucifix. Movie clip is Lord of War.

Friday, December 10, 2010

Movie Review: 127 Hours


I saw a great movie this last weekend ... sure to be one of my year end Top 10, Danny Boyle's 127 Hours about adventurer Aron Ralston. For those that don't know, Ralston is the climber/hiker that found himself between a "rock and a hard place", literally, a few years ago and made a decision, to save his life, that most of us could not do in a million years.  Hiking in a remote canyon in Utah, he becomes trapped in a crevice with his arm pinned between a large rock and the side of the crevice.  "127 hours" is the amount of time that he spent in that position with minimal food and water and no warm clothing.  Resourceful and with a sense of theatricality, he had both a still camera and video camera to document his trials.

127 Hours appealed to me because of the aesthetic of the subject of the film, much like one of my favorite films, Into The Wild. That aesthetic of the beauty and harshness of nature without sentimentality.

The comparisons to Into the Wild are inevitable and appropriate. Both Ralston and Chris McCandless (of Into the Wild) were intelligent loners who escaped civilization willingly even though they would have been successful in the business world. They both took a perverse pride in their independence. On many occasions, each would disappear without even telling their family or friends. During their last moments of despair, they came to appreciate others more than they had before. That crisis-caused clarity also revealed to them that their predicaments were culminations of the paths that they had set for themselves.

Ralston is played by the great young actor, James Franco. Franco's acting is largely solo with one encounter with some attractive female hikers.  A lesser actor could make this film unwatchable but Franco manages to add levity and depth to a performance that will be compared to Hank's in Castaway or maybe this year's Buried with Ryan Reynolds. I haven't seen Buried yet, but I think Franco is much better than Hanks, at least for these two performances.

The scenery is gorgeous, shot on location in Utah. Boyle, as is his wont, is a bit unconventional and used two different cinematographers.  The scenes in the crevice have even more realism to them largely because Franco and Boyle were privy to Ralston's own video diary.  Prior to them viewing it, only family and friends had seen the video and, to the best of my knowledge, the Ralston family has no intention of ever releasing it.

Like a lot of Boyle's movies, most notably Trainspotting and Slumdog Millionaire, 127 Hours sometimes plays like a music video with flashy editing and jumpin' music. 127 shares Oscar-winning composer A.R. Rahman with Slumdog, and he does a great job in this movie as well.

Now, if you don't know the climax of the real-life story and have not seen the movie yet, then stop reading as I'm going to discuss the "money" scene, as it were.

-----------------------------------------

In real life, Ralston, to save his own life, cut off his own arm. How to portray that on screen had to have been an interesting problem for Boyle, but I believe he did it perfectly. It has both technical fidelity and emotional fidelity. Considering the graphic nature of the dismemberment, you would think it was gratuitous. But, because you are so invested in the story and Ralston's fight for life, you not only want to see him do it, you NEED to see him do it. That's a a remarkable achievement by Boyle and Franco.

127 Hours is not a depressing movie, despite what has to happen. It is funny, sad, and uplifting without being a Hollywood "happy ending" cliché. I love the effect that the most successful foreign directors have had on the film industry (Boyle, Cuaron, Guillermo del Toro, Paul Greengrass, etc.). Grade: A

Also, check out Reel Fanatic's great review and discussion: Review: Danny Boyle's exhilarating "127 Hours"

Thursday, December 09, 2010

In Her Defense, I'm Sure the Moose Had It Coming


By screenwriter Aaron Sorkin (A Few Good Men, The West Wing) at the Huffington Post

"Unless you've never worn leather shoes, sat upon a leather chair or eaten meat, save your condemnation."

You're right, Sarah, we'll all just go fuck ourselves now.

The snotty quote was posted by Sarah Palin on (like all the great frontier women who've come before her) her Facebook page to respond to the criticism she knew and hoped would be coming after she hunted, killed and carved up a Caribou during a segment of her truly awful reality show, Sarah Palin's Alaska, broadcast on The-Now-Hilariously-Titled Learning Channel.

I eat meat, chicken and fish, have shoes and furniture made of leather, and PETA is not ever going to put me on the cover of their brochure and for these reasons Palin thinks it's hypocritical of me to find what she did heart-stoppingly disgusting. I don't think it is, and here's why.

Like 95% of the people I know, I don't have a visceral (look it up) problem eating meat or wearing a belt. But like absolutely everybody I know, I don't relish the idea of torturing animals. I don't enjoy the fact that they're dead and I certainly don't want to volunteer to be the one to kill them and if I were picked to be the one to kill them in some kind of Lottery-from-Hell, I wouldn't do a little dance of joy while I was slicing the animal apart.

I'm able to make a distinction between you and me without feeling the least bit hypocritical. I don't watch snuff films and you make them. You weren't killing that animal for food or shelter or even fashion, you were killing it for fun. You enjoy killing animals. I can make the distinction between the two of us but I've tried and tried and for the life of me, I can't make a distinction between what you get paid to do and what Michael Vick went to prison for doing. I'm able to make the distinction with no pangs of hypocrisy even though I get happy every time one of you faux-macho shitheads accidentally shoots another one of you in the face.

So I don't think I will save my condemnation, you phony pioneer girl. (I'm in film and television, Cruella, and there was an insert close-up of your manicure while you were roughing it in God's country. I know exactly how many feet off camera your hair and make-up trailer was.)

And you didn't just do it for fun and you didn't just do it for money. That was the first moose ever murdered for political gain. You knew there'd be a protest from PETA and you knew that would be an opportunity to hate on some people, you witless bully. What a uniter you'd be -- bringing the right together with the far right.

(Let me be the first to say that I abused cocaine and was arrested for it in April 2001. I want to be the first to say it so that when Palin's Army of Arrogant Assholes, bereft of any reasonable rebuttal, write it all over the internet tomorrow they will at best be the second.)

I eat meat, there are leather chairs in my office, Sarah Palin is deranged and The Learning Channel should be ashamed of itself.

The language is a bit harsh, but so is the offense. I'd go even further and say that the comparison to Michael Vick is unfair ... to Michael Vick! Michael Vick served his time and by all accounts is remorseful, humbled and genuinely apologetic. Sarah Palin will never be remorseful, humble or apologetic about anything. And instead of going to jail (or at least back to obscurity), she makes us serve time by having to witness her tired and disingenuous act daily.

"Cruelty and fear shake hands together." -- Honore de Balzac

"One of the ill effects of cruelty is that it makes the bystanders cruel." -- Thomas Fowell Buxton