ConnecticutBlue

A note to my conservative friends about SOPA

2012-01-18T08:25:00.001-08:00

Some of you may see the Stop SOPA-PIPA battle and the website blackouts by thousands of personal blogs and commercial sites as a "liberal" movement. But I would ask you to consider the larger implications for free speech and to realize that censorship of the Internet by traditional media companies poses a perhaps greater threat to conservative ideas and values than to liberal ones.

Conservatives have had issues for literally decades with what they perceive to be liberal leadership and control of media; not just with network broadcasting, but also and perhaps more pervasively in entertainment production. My friends, these are the very interests behind SOPA and PIPA. If you believe that there is liberal bias in the media industry, you should be fighting harder than anyone to ensure that those forces are not able to exert arbitrary control of publishing on the web.

Everyone suffers when people are not free to speak. The conservative interests in our country thrive just as much on grass-roots activism and opinion as do liberal ones.

Conservatives have always championed the idea of removing the stifling hand of government regulation and control from small businesses and entrepreneurs. We are experiencing a transformation of our business processes and societal communication through the internet. I can think of no more stultifying measure upon this explosion of innovation than the control and regulation of content, for after all, that's all the Internet really is: a means to create and distribute content.

So I would ask all of you, my friends, to consider expressing your opinion on this threat to perhaps the single most essential freedom we have as Americans: our freedom to express our opinion the way we see fit.

It must be the ball

2011-12-26T12:40:00.000-08:00

Sometimes, when my golf game isn't going particularly well, when I'm struggling to find a swing that works, or to have any feel for how hard to hit a putt, superstition will just happen to drop by on a sales call. "So, I saw that snap hook drive on the fifth hole. Man, doesn't it suck playing out of that wet rough on the left side? And you skulled that chip on four, too. You know, I'll bet it's that ball. It was working ok to start, but something's gotten into it, I think. It's not your friend anymore. I never liked that brand anyway. Must be the ball. Yeah, that's the ticket."

Now experience has taught me that unless there's a substantial physical defect like a cut or some mud on the ball, it's never the ball. It's always me. Golf balls today are remarkably uniform and consistent. There are some actual performance differences between them due to design tradeoffs (e.g., spin vs. distance), but for the average amateur golfer, they're so small as to be inconsequential. Almost all the variations in shot outcomes are due only to how the player hits, or more to the point, mishits the ball.

I endeavor to have no superstitions. Really, none. I don't believe in ghosts or gods, black cats or lucky rabbits' feet. Superstition makes one fearful of imaginary threats and expectant of imaginary help. But it's hard to keep superstition and the perception of supernatural agency at bay. In our imperfectly evolved brains, it's always loitering there in the wings, waiting for a momentary lapse in our reasoning to pounce and intrude anything from the trivial to the apparently profound in our minds.

Superstition, institutionalized as religion or not, is seductive. It's easy. It's colorful, even lyrical. There are no bothersome theorems, experiments or evidence to get in the way. If it doesn't fit, you can ignore it. After all, it's your subjective experience that counts, right? You make all the rules. It's your own private Idaho.

That's the lazy way out, a facile and pat explanation or solution to any problem. When complexity or facts intrude, well, either a miracle occurred or God works in mysterious ways. And miracles and mystery are definitely more intriguing and entertaining than say, Avogadro's Number or Bernoulli's Equation.

But ultimately, belief in supernatural agency is just ducking your responsibility, passing the buck to some imaginary being or cause. "It's not my fault. There's nothing I can do. It's not possible to understand why this is happening."

Reasoning, on the other had, requires work. There aren't any short cuts. You can't appeal to a simple supernatural explanation or agent, declare victory and go home. Reality has this annoying tendency to reassert itself. It exhibits randomness, unpredictability. It's capricious, complicated, stubborn, inscrutable, unyielding to argument or entreaty. It doesn't play nicely with wishful thinking or hand-waving.

Reason doesn't have a back door. You can't throw up your hands when you don't have an answer and say, "Well hey, it must be God's will." But spurning superstition for reason and real work yields far more useful and ultimately satisfying results, because they're real and repeatable not imagined or hoped for.

As Arnold Palmer once said, "It's a funny thing. The more I practice, the luckier I get."

Message to Rep. Joe Courtney, CT 2nd District

2011-12-21T13:58:00.000-08:00

I received an email today from our House Rep. Joe Courtney, that crowed about the wonderful NDAA bill that he "worked on the final language" for and voted for that got more submarine contract work to New London County. I sent him the following message back on his website:

I am in receipt of your email regarding the NDAA bill. Mr. Courtney, I would not be so hasty to attach my name and associate myself with this bill. Its provision for indefinite detainment of US citizens without due process is a travesty of everything this country was built on, and an insult to the thousands of our citizens who fought and died to protect our Constitutional rights.

No sir, I would not be so hasty to take credit for gutting habeas corpus and pushing us one step further toward a totalitarian police state. I can assure you, sir, that I will expend my energy to remove from office you and every other member of Congress who voted for it, and the President, should he not veto it.

Frankly, I find it revolting that you think our freedoms can be bought with a submarine contract. You and every member of Congress that voted for this bill should be ashamed of yourselves.

Mere belief is not evidence and evidence is not mere belief

2011-11-05T16:10:00.000-07:00

The 1st amendment guaranteeing freedom of religion is a marvelous thing. But, it has at least one unintended consequence we must live with.

People I talk to routinely confuse the right to speak and believe with the job of being taken seriously. Yes, you can say or believe whatever you want, but that doesn't make it true or even defensible. That takes work. It takes evidence, it takes logical consistency. It requires you to offer some proof of your assertion, not just your testimony, or objections about someone else's assertion.

No. If you want to challenge a theory that explains the evidence, you have to come up with a better, more comprehensive theory that is backed by evidence explains the data more completely and that makes predictions that can be tested in the real world.

And I would add, pushing back on an assertion you make that I think is fallacious is not trampling on your freedom of speech, it's merely asking you back up what you say. In a court of law, you wouldn't accept a testimony against you that was merely someone's opinion. I'm doing nothing different. I'm sorry, but it's not acceptable to merely say, "Well, that's what I believe, and that's good enough."

And finally, evidentiary proof and reason are not simply an alternative, unsubstantiated belief that can be dismissed as merely individual opinion. The physical, natural world is the same for both of us. As the science fiction author Philip K. Dick put it, "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."

Memorials

2011-09-13T16:24:00.000-07:00

Memorial controversies are back in the news. This AP story, "Small cities struggle to pay for 9/11 memorials", relates how local governments in several states, sometimes with no personal connections to 9/11 victims or responders started out to build memorials but now find themselves in the lurch since the economy went south. This on the heels of the debates and lawsuits about the "cross" going into the Ground Zero memorial in New York and the mosque being built nearly adjacent to the WTC site.

It seems to me that sometimes memorials like this cause more trouble and hard feelings than serve their ostensible purpose, which is to keep alive and present the memory of people who have died in service of the country or as a result of a natural or man-made disaster or tragedy.

While this is a noble goal we seem unable to undertake memorial building without having it become an exercise in controversy and mollification.

Thinking back to the Vietnam War Memorial project in Washington, DC, I remember several controversies. The first regarded the fact that an Asian artist, Maya Lin, won the design competition. This apparently upset some veterans who felt that this was an "insult" to those who died in Southeast Asia. The second issue was that the original design did not have any statues of people in it. This was also found wanting by critics. So the Three Soldiers statue was added later in the process. And then of course, a third debate ensued about what races or ethnicities were to be represented by the statues. This is how there came to be three soldiers, one African-looking, one caucasian-looking and one Hispanic-looking (and lest it be overlooked, no Asian-looking). Finally, a Women's Memorial was proposed and added, which itself went through a controversy about the initial design being a political statement. The Wikipedia entry on the memorial details all of this.

Memorials can serve a purpose of remembrance, surely. But they can also perpetuate grudges that are sometimes better forgotten and in their mere undertaking bring ethnic, racial, religious and political animosity to the surface that otherwise might have never arisen. The last thing we need in our country now is more division. Everyone wants a memorial now. Perhaps if they were all abstract representations with no individuals or groups specifically identified, maybe they could fulfill their purpose of uniting us in remembrance not dividing us in gratuitous difference-seeking.

Sarcasm overload

2011-09-12T10:33:00.000-07:00

I know the feeling, we all do. When you're confronted with a typically prejudiced, logically defective, stunningly uniformed or otherwise ridiculous statement or question ("atheists only care about themselves", "what do atheists have to live for?", "what do you celebrate'?) from the faithful, it's hard not to counter with sarcasm. How can you help but make fun of people, who as Lewis Black says, "watch the Flintstones as if it were a documentary."? (See, I just did it!) And it's frustrating, I'll grant you, to have the same insults, logical fallacies and outright lies re-scrambled with some new spin and thrown in your face again and again.

Yes, sometimes, sarcasm is warranted to make a point, to give people that whack upside the head they need to jump-start their reasoning engines again. But I think that too often my fellow reasoners and non-believers go way overboard with it. As I opined in my last post, I think many times it's best not to engage the closed-minded, the belligerent and the just plain stupid, especially if your tone is just as mean-spirited and insulting as theirs. Reason, intellect and rationality are the high road. We might get a better hearing with people if we took it more often.

Should people of reason debate people of faith?

2011-09-03T07:22:00.000-07:00

As person of reason who thinks it's a good thing to promote facts over faith, I often wonder if we do ourselves a disservice by engaging the faithful in debate about creation or the existence of gods or miracles or prophets or any number of other topics. Lately, the more I think about it the more I think it at least unnecessary and perhaps counterproductive to openly debate people of faith.

First of all, debating is in some sense a sport. It's indulged in or performed as entertainment, especially in law schools and universities. There are well-known strategies and tactics that in the end have little to do with the issue at hand. A good debater can advocate equally well for either side of a question. In fact, there are college courses and clubs that teach and practice the finer points of the sport, again with little regard to the actual matter at hand. This seems to me to make light of a question that is too serious to be taken as mere sport. Moreover, the importance of tactics and rhetorical tricks seems to me to play right into the faithful's strength. In the final analysis, they have no factual or logical arguments that can stand up to serious critique. Rhetoric, metaphor and emotional appeal are the only cards in their hand so they're really good at playing them.

Second, and perhaps more important in my mind, is that I don't wish to dignify or lend credence or publicity to what are utterly unfounded and frankly preposterous propositions. Would a physicist debate a geo-centrist, or a cancer researcher even appear on the same stage with a faith-healer? I doubt it. In fact, Richard Dawkins will not debate creationists for exactly this reason.

What are the alternatives? Lecture, write, inform, meet, educate, advertise, blog, tweet, but don't debate. In particular, don't let religious trolls suck you into playing their game on the internet. Be the voice of reason, literacy and culture. Don't insult, inform. State the facts, leave the name-calling and bad behavior to the pious.

I'm sorry, your free pass has expired

2011-08-23T05:57:00.001-07:00

I saw a news item this morning for a conference at the University of Otago in New Zealand entitled: "The New Atheism - A Christian Response". The program was summarized as follows:

Participants will explore questions such as: How should Christians respond to the New Atheism? Are the central claims of Christianity reasonable? Do the New Atheists have a new case to be answered or are they dressing up old arguments?

The last question about a new case vs dressing up old arguments is worth a few words, I think. Yes, there are some new arguments that come from new research in neuroscience, cognition theory and the study of religion as a natural phenomenon, among others. We're shining the light of science and reason on areas that have hitherto been off limits. We're asking questions that weren't considered proper or polite.

To me, it's really that we've just stopped giving religion and faith their free pass. We're not playing the game on their ballfield anymore. They don't get to sit back as the presumed default world view and demand that we explain ourselves being properly polite and deferential and taking pains not to ruffle anyone's feathers.

No, we're moving ahead with these inquiries whether they like it or not. We're asking the embarrassing questions, we're saying the Emperor has no clothes. The burden of proof is now where it should have been all along, on the faithful and the dogmatic; on those who assert that there are supernatural beings or political dogma that demands not just how they should live their lives, but how I should live mine. We're pointing out that believing in God or Allah is no less preposterous than believing in Santa or Elvis. It's all just human imagination wanting to find an intentional agent, dressed up with a lot of pageantry, rituals and double-talk.

And we're not letting the faithful tar us with their brush, either. Not taking things on faith is not simply having a different faith. We're not playing that little shell game anymore, where it's "just your belief, and my unprovable belief is just as good as your unprovable belief." I'm sorry, but no. Just because I don't believe something you made up out of thin air, doesn't mean I must believe something equally vaporous but just different. Not believing does not equal believing.

I wish we could do this without hurting people's feelings or asking questions or saying things out loud that have to this point always been considered out of bounds, but it's just too bad. Considering your opinion to be off the table of rational discourse because of faith is no longer accepted as a valid move.

But why, you might ask, can't we just let people believe what they want to believe? Why must we upset the applecart, challenge people's comfortable assumptions? If simply believing was all that was in question, I would have no argument at all. It's what people do because they believe that concerns me. When your beliefs start affecting other people, that's where the line must be drawn.

Simply stated, the fate of humanity and civilization is at stake here. When the technological means exist to wipe all life off the planet, we can't let people's imaginations and superstitions pull the trigger. 9-11 was, or should have been, a wake-up call to all civilized people about the liabilities of faith. It's not what you have faith in that's the problem, it's that you take things on faith to begin with.

The natural world, the laws of physics, are not subject to human interpretation or opinion. They are the same for everyone. It matters not a whit to the universe what we think or believe. It spins along blissfully unaware of our presence. That real world, that observable, measurable one, is our only common ground. Let's meet there.

Falwell dead at 73

2007-05-15T14:04:00.000-07:00

Just reading this article on Yahoo regarding the death of Rev. Jerry Falwell.

Personally, I reviled Falwell. He was a hateful, bigoted blowhard who appealed to the worst of ignorance in American culture to inflate his viewership and line his pockets using misogyny, homophobia, and religious divisiveness.

In no small sense, the debacle in Iraq and deaths of over 3000 of our soldiers can be laid directly at the feet of these despicable television preachers.

But strange as it seems to say, we will miss him. In life, Falwell had almost singlehandedly made himself and his sorry crusade against his fellow Americans a laughing stock. By his own words and deeds, he did more to discredit the Religious Right than any critic on the other side could have. As the saying goes, had he not existed, we would have had to invent him.

New, improved legislation on Internet Radio??

2007-05-10T12:50:00.001-07:00

I received this email today from Joe Lieberman, US Senator from Connecticut regarding an internet petition I signed. Seems to indicate there's action to reverse the penal charges that were going to be levied on Internet radio stations.

May 10, 2007 Mr. Joseph Cascio, Jr.

Dear Mr. Cascio: Thank you for contacting me regarding the Copyright Royalty Board's decision with respect to royalty rates for webcasters. I appreciate the concerns you raised about this decision. You may be interested to know that in the U.S. House of Representatives, Congressman Jay Inslee (D-WA) introduced the Internet Radio Equality Act (H.R. 2060). H.R. 2060 effectively voids the Copyright Royalty Board's decision and sets new rates for the royalties to be paid by Internet radio stations. Specifically, H.R. 2060 states that commercial Internet radio stations instead pay one of two royalty rates for the next five years, to be determined by the station itself, as follows: 1. 0.33 cents per hour of sound recordings transmitted to a single listener; or 2. 7.5 percent of the revenues received by the provider during that year that are directly related to the provider's digital transmissions of sound recordings. H.R. 2060 also alters the formula for determining the royalty payments for non-commercial Internet radio stations so that these stations will pay lower rates than those determined by the Royalty Board.

For more information on this topic, I encourage you to visit the federal resources section of my web site at http://lieberman.senate.gov/issues/resources/, where you will find a "Congressional Research Service" link to a collection of informative and research documents prepared by the Library of Congress. A report entitled "Statutory Royalty Rates for 'Small' Webcasters: Decision of the Copyright Royalty Board" has been made available, which I hope you find helpful.

A companion version of H.R. 2060 has not yet been introduced in the Senate at this time. However, please be assured that I will keep your views in mind should legislation on this subject come before the full Senate for debate. To keep track of actions on specific legislation, you can go to the "Bill Tracking" service at http://lieberman.senate.gov/issues/resources. My official Senate web site is designed to be an on-line office that provides access to constituent services, Connecticut-specific information, and an abundance of information about what I am working on in the Senate on behalf of Connecticut and the nation.

[...]Thank you again for letting me know your views and concerns. Please contact me if you have any additional questions or comments about our work in Congress. Sincerely, Joseph I. Lieberman UNITED STATES SENATOR

"Monumental Ignorance"

2007-04-09T20:12:00.000-07:00

An AP story published on Yahoo news today underscored what many Americans have believed for months. The report by an Iraqi government insider, Ali A. Allawi, uses the terms "monumental ignorance", "rank amateurism" and "swaggering arrogance" to describe the American invasion and occupation. How well all of these descriptions characterize the Bush administration in general, in particular the "swaggering arrogance" so typical of the right wing. I'll never forget Bush, and his ridiculous, highly affected John Wayne walk across the lawn of the White House at one of his first public appearances after being inaugurated. What a buffoon.

Claptrap from Ben Stein

2007-01-12T14:21:00.000-08:00

A friend of mine who is an Episcopal priest forwarded an email to me today which was a transcript of a Ben Stein piece on CBS Sunday Morning. Frankly, I'm quite surprised to get this from him if it means he subscribes to the ideas put forth in it. He and I seem to agree on a lot of issues, especially about the Iraq war and how monumentally stupid a blunder it was, so I was surprised to find he might (emphasize might) agree with the utter claptrap that Stein is spewing. Let's take them in order.

I have no freaking clue who Nick and Jessica are. I see them on the cover of People and Us constantly when I am buying my dog biscuits and kitty litter. I often ask the checkers at the grocery stores. They never know who Nick and Jessica are either. Who are they? Will it change my life if I know who they are and why they have broken up? Why are they so important? I don't know who Lindsay Lohan is, either, and I do not care at all about Tom Cruise's wife.

Ok Ben, no argument from me here. I couldn't care less about these vacuous twits either. High fives on that one.

Next confession: I am a Jew, and every single one of my ancestors was Jewish. And it does not bother me even a little bit when people call those beautiful lit up, bejeweled trees Christmas trees. I don't feel threatened. I don't feel discriminated against. That's what they are: Christmas trees. It doesn't bother me a bit when people say, "Merry Christmas" to me. I don't think they are slighting me or getting ready to put me in a ghetto. In fact, I kind of like it. It shows that we are all brothers and sisters celebrating this happy time of year. It doesn't bother me at all that there is a manger scene on display at a key intersection near my beach house in Malibu. If people want a creche, it's just as fine with me as is the Menorah a few hundred yards away.

Ok, not much to disagree with from me on this either. "Christmas" is a Christian holiday by definition. Now, let's also keep in mind that that time of year has been celebrated for millenia because it's right after the winter solstice. Ancient people who kept a keen eye on the sunrise and sunset could tell roughly a few days after the solstice that the days were really getting longer again. Whew! The sun wasn't going to completely go away after all. The Romans celebrated the Saturnalia for mostly the same reason. But, I'm not going to throw cold water on the Christians for wanting to claim Christmas. I'm ok with it, really. It's when they start extrapolating that I get annoyed. Keep reading...

I don't like getting pushed around for being a Jew and I don't think Christians like getting pushed around for being Christians.

I can sure appreciate his not liking being pushed around for being Jewish. I don't like being badmouthed for being an atheist. People say things about atheists that they wouldn't dare say about a Jew, a Christian or a Muslim. But atheists are fair game, I guess. Ok, fine. Let's keep going, though.

I think people who believe in God are sick and tired of getting pushed around, period. I have no idea where the concept came from that America is an explicitly atheist country. I can't find it in the Constitution and I don't like it being shoved down my throat.

Here's where Ben and I part company. People who believe in God are in no way, shape or form pushed around in this country. In fact, they enjoy special treatment in innumerable ways. Their problem is that they are offended when they don't get special treatment. Tell me one, just one way in which a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim, a Hindi, a Buddhist or any other religion is prevented from practicing his or her religion. The problem is that they're not satisfied with practicing. They want to harness the government to make everyone else practice their religion, too.

And the bit about you can't find it in the Constitution? Duh, Ben... it's called The First Amendment.

Or maybe I can put it another way: where did the idea come from that we should worship Nick and Jessica and we aren't allowed to worship God as we understand Him?

I guess that's a sign that I'm getting old, too. But there are a lot of us who are wondering where Nick and Jessica came from and where the America we knew went to.

Oh, give me a break. How are you not allowed to worship God? This is the same crap that the Jerry Falwells and Pat Robertsons of the world have been handing us. You are absolutely free to worship any way you want AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T INFRINGE ON ANYONE ELSE'S FREEDOM. But that's the bit they don't understand, isn't it? They aren't satisfied to pray, they want me and my kids to pray their prayer. They want my government to believe what they believe. Sorry, Ben. I used to think you were a pretty smart guy. Now I see you're just another rhetorical snake-oil salesmen like the rest of the right wingers.

Vloggers are voters, not reporters

2006-12-30T05:31:00.000-08:00

Steve Garfield posted an interesting entry in Off On A Tangent today about his experience with the John Edwards campaign in a special "bloggers only" meeting that had been arranged in New Hampshire. I think part of difficulty he encountered was that the campaign, and to a certain extent the bloggers themselves consider bloggers to be essentially reporters. Different clothes, maybe, smaller cameras, but still, reporters. The good part to this is that at least some of them enjoy access and time with the candidate that the general public doesn't get. The bad part is that they are perceived as "the press" - a channel through which to deliver the message, rather than (and this is my big point) a voter to be met and to be shown the candidates up-close personality, and to be perhaps persuaded to vote for the candidate and to tell their friends (i.e., all their readers) that the candidate is a good guy, and maybe they should consider voting for him/her, too. To me, a blogger is less a reporter than a voter with a lot of friends. A candidate doesn't try to charm or convince a reporter like they do a voter.

There is a lot of conversation in the blogosphere lately about how objective bloggers should be when posting about political topics. Well first of all, there's room for a lot of different approaches. We're experimenting here, right? Let's throw some stuff at the wall and see what sticks.

If I was going to vlog about a campaign event or candidate, though, I wouldn't try to be like a professional reporter. The message of the video blog medium is personal connection. I'd act and want to be treated like a voter not a reporter. I want to get to know that candidate as a person. To let my instincts inform my decision. If I was a campaign manager, I'd think of vloggers as a way to make a personal connection between my candidate and the voters. Unless of course, my candidate is an ass, in which case, I'd want to keep them at a distance. Hmmm, could the access or lack thereof of a candidate to vloggers potentially be one metric for measuring the personal character of a candidate?

This will really disappoint the Holy Rollers

2006-11-21T04:28:00.000-08:00

The New York Times recently published an article about evidence for a possible meteor impact in the Indian Ocean that caused a mega-tsunami some 4500 years ago. Part of the evidence is what the investigators call "chevrons" of displaced earth near the shore in Madagasgar. These valleys are theorized to have been carved out by a 600 foot high tsunami. By examining the direction of the chevrons, the investigators have found solid evidence of a large impact crater at the bottom of the Indian Ocean. Further, silt deposits in the chevrons contain ocean-bottom minerals fused to deep water micro-fossils, which are characteristic of impact events.

Other researchers have correlated multiple flood myths with known astronomical events (a solar eclipse) and found agreement with the geological age data. Torrential rains, weeks of darkness (oh, say 40 days) and of course, tsunami floods would all have been coincident with such an event.

This is certainly a credible explanation of flood myths and end-of-days prophecies. Unfortunately for the Creationists and other holy-rollers it has nothing to do with the supernatural.

There go those scientists again, taking all the fun out of make-believe.

Clean sweep, baby!

2006-11-09T17:33:00.000-08:00

So, I went to bed Tuesday night, after writing my last entry, thinking that the Republicans were ahead in the Senate tipping point races. But, lo and behold, I awake to find that the Democrats have won! WOO HOO!

So we Blue Staters now control both houses of Congress. In my dreams, I couldn't have imagined this wonderful an outcome. It really restores my faith in the American people. We're really not a bunch of dirty tricks, mean-spirited holy rollers. We really can think.

Now, Madam Speaker, and Mr. Majority Leader, please don't spend this valuable and hard-won political capital unwisely. It won't be hard to do a better job than the bozos you're replacing, but you can do much better. Let's show them how it can really work.

Damn, what a country! :)

Thank you!!

2006-11-07T20:11:00.000-08:00

It's just after 11 pm on Tuesday night and CNN has projected that the Democrats will win back control of the House. The Senate is still a toss-up, but my guess is that the Republicans will maintain a slim majority.

Thanks for voting today and helping to turn a lot of the US map BLUE once again! Way to go!

I am very encouraged by the tide turning away from mindless, unthinking "belief" and its hollow flag-waving and back to real patriotism. Patriotism that is thinking, reasoning and rational has much more depth and power than shallow jingoism, which is what we've been enduring for the last 6 years.

Well, surprise, surprise....

2006-11-03T07:25:00.000-08:00

Rev. Ted Haggard, outspoken leading opponent of gay marriage discovered to have paid man for sex. Ah yes, the religious right at their finest. "Out"spoken indeed. I can't help but giggle, then be furious beyond words. How many of these flaming hypocrites do there have to be before America wises up?

And I'd like to personally thank the Rev for bumping Mr. Foot-in-Mouth, Sen. John Kerry off the headlines.

The one good thing from Kerry's incredible brain-fart this week is that he's now clearly out of the running for the Dem. nomination for president in '08. We need someone who can win. If, after all the inept bumbling of W and his masters for the past two terms, the Dems can't win the White House back, then frankly they don't deserve it.

Outed...

2006-10-09T20:32:00.000-07:00

Today was another great bonus golf day. When it gets to be October, the weather can get rather chilly and wet. But today it was warm and sunny, not a cloud to be seen. I had my best round of the year today, an 88. On the back nine, we were about to tee off on 13, when we heard a commotion on the 12th green. One of our lady members had just made a hole-in-one. So we had a free drink to look forward to when we reached the clubhouse. Although it was a Monday, it was also the Columbus day holiday, so the bar was open. Unfortunately the Long Trail keg was empty, sad to say, so we had to make do with Corona.

One of the foursome again today was Fr. Tony. I told you about him in this previous post. After a couple of beers, I'm afraid my tongue got a little loose and I "outed" myself as a political blogger. Something about Tony makes you want to confess, I guess. Hope he's still speaking to me after reading my rants....

Local maxima and minima in religion's decline

2006-10-06T17:16:00.000-07:00

Over at EvolutionBlog, Jason posted this interesting entry today, in response to a piece in the NY Times about teenagers leaving evangelical churches in supposedly large numbers (we can only hope!).

I left the following comment.

I think that in general, in the long view, it's abundantly clear that civilization is becoming less religious. If we look back 100 years, 500 years, we see that the prevailing wisdom always tends toward fact over superstition.

However, along this long historical decline there have been local maxima and minima. Certain religious movements gain favor and adherents for (relatively) short periods of time. I think the current swell of Christian fundies and evangelicals is basically a reaction to the experimental excesses of the Sixties, which, and I speak from experience here, were a reaction to the stifling conformity of the Fifties. It is also, I think, a long-wave backlash to the civil rights movement. Lyndon Johnson, upon securing the passage of the Civil Right Act, told the then young Hubert Humphrey something to the effect of, "Son, I believe I have just given the South to the Republicans for my lifetime, and perhaps yours." How true. I think the rise of Muslim fundamentalism is similar in nature. In many ways I think it reflects a panic that American culture is inundating and submerging traditional Middle Eastern (not necessarily Muslim) culture.

So I suppose I'm saying, "don't worry, it won't rain forever". However, when the river's at your doorstep, it's hard not be worried.

What flaming hypocrites...

2006-10-04T16:16:00.000-07:00

Let's all raise a glass to Rep. Mark Foley for showing the nation what flaming hypocrites the Republicans and the right-wingers are. They rail against gay and lesbian people and at the same time are soliciting same-sex teen-age pages.

Damn y'all, could it GET any more obvious? It's hypocrisy at its finest.

If this isn't enough to get the bastards thrown out, I don't know what is.

I can't wait to see how they try to turn this around...

Vlogging and blogging vs. Old Media

2006-10-03T17:27:00.000-07:00

Check out this entry on AmandaAcrossAmerica. Ed Cone is interviewed about the effect of blogging at a local level. Excellent piece, Amanda!

Ed’s comments on local blogging bring home the major difference that I see with blogging vs. Old Media.

“This time it’s personal!”

Individuals talking to individuals is how opinions get changed, action gets started and movements get created. It’s the personal connection aspect of blogs and particularly vlogs that make them so powerful.

The other really significant aspect of blogging and vlogging is exactly what OldMedia castigates it for. It’s NOT objective. Personal media require the reader or viewer to engage their brain and critical capabilities to decide, “Does this person know what they’re talking about?” “Are they persuasive, do their words have the ring of truth, or are they just blowing smoke?”

Gee, vlogs make people think. What a concept!

The Church Lady

2006-09-25T10:18:00.000-07:00

Remember Dana Carvey's hilarious SNL character "The Church Lady"? I was reminded of something she used to say today. I was reading this news article just now, and I could just hear The Church Lady saying, "Wellllllll, isn't that conveeeeeenient?".

Just before the midterm elections, when the Republicans are getting the tar beat of them in the public opinion polls, suddenly gas prices go down, and W's approval rating goes up. Convenient indeed.

Personally, I think it's the oil companies deciding they can stand lower profits for a few weeks to keep their buddies in office, rather than the Republicans making a few phone calls to make it happen.

Mere circumstance? You decide.

Out of state for the night

2006-09-17T12:23:00.000-07:00

Saturday night, I was fortunate enough to attend a bomb-ass combo launch party in Manhattan for 1) Amanda Congdon's new project AmandaAcrossAmerica, and 2) Blip.tv's new offices. You can check out the photos here. It was worth the three-hour drive to NYC, the outrageous hotel and parking prices (ouch) to get to meet the glitterati of vlogging (video blogging). You will remember Amanda as the former host of RocketBoom. Blip.tv is a great no-strings-attached video hosting site. I met the developers there, and I'm hoping I may get to contribute to their work. Funny how all the coders somehow manage to find each other. Also there were Rudy Jahchan and Casey McKinnon of Galacticast who drove all the way down from Montreal to support Amanda and her new gig. Watch Amanda's blog for more details. Also The Father of Vlogging, Steve Garfield and his wife Carol (of The Steve and Carol Show fame) came down from Boston.

It was hotter than a Dell laptop battery in those offices (old NYC building, no A/C) but there were so many interesting people. Of course, with one exception, I was the oldest person there. But if you were a twenty-something guy at this party, you were in the right place at the right time. Groups of girls kept coming in the door all night. Reminded me of my old fraternity days. :)

Technorati

2006-09-07T14:53:00.000-07:00

Technorati Profile

Katherine Harris, unifier...

2006-09-06T11:44:00.000-07:00

I got a real kick out of this article by Leonard Pitts, Jr. on Chron.com. Here are a couple of excerpts.

Harris has brought this nation together, done a more effective job of uniting people than any prayer breakfast, sensitivity class or Benetton ad I've ever seen. Thanks to her, Christians and Jews, Muslims and atheists, Republicans and Democrats, are now standing as one and saying, "That Katherine Harris, what a moron."

Really warms the heart.

Harris, GOP senatorial candidate from Florida, produced this united front by doing an interview with the weekly newspaper of the Florida Baptist State Convention. In it, she pronounced the separation of church and state a "lie" and warned that if Christians don't stand for election, we will end up "a nation of secular laws." The coup de grace was this bon mot: " ... If you're not electing Christians, then in essence you are going to legislate sin."

And later on...

The forces of Christian fundamentalism have made terrific inroads in the Republican mainstream over the last quarter century. Some would argue they are the Republican mainstream. At the very least, they hold a position in the party roughly analogous to that held by blacks in the Democratic Party. Namely, they are a core constituency that sometimes demands, as a price of its loyalty, that the party adopt positions that are politically risky.

Where blacks are concerned, that usually means affirmative action. Where the GOP's putative Christians are concerned, it means theocracy, it means Vote God, it means just what Harris said: a nation where only Christians can be elected and where the Bible supersedes all federal, state and municipal codes. Just like Iran, except with crosses instead of crescents.

This last bit about Iran resonates with me. One of the most frequently heard complaints about the West and the US in particular is that our culture is smothering the Islamic culture of middle-east countries. But the irony is that the danger to America and its values, i.e., our culture, is really that the right-wing wants to make it more like Iran. A theocracy where, as the above notes, the Bible trumps the Constitution.

Don't be surprised...

2006-09-04T15:43:00.000-07:00

On the ABC evening national news tonight, the lead story was about the mid-term elections. Basically, the story said, if the issue is the war in Iraq, the Democrats will prevail. If the issue is terrorism, the Republicans still have a chance.

So, don't be surprised if there is another "terrorist" attack before the elections. The Republicans can't afford to do without one.

Ref: Reichstag fire

Consider this...

2006-09-03T14:54:00.000-07:00

In the past week, Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld have gone on a fresh offensive against any critic of their failed policies in Iraq and against terrorists. The new line of attack is to label the critics as appeasers, comparing the Islamic terrorists with the Nazis.

Invoking the Nazis isn't a great strategy for these guys, if you ask me. Consider this quote:

"All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for their lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country."

Hermann Goering

Testing my RSS feed

2006-09-02T06:12:00.000-07:00

You'll notice the new Feed icon on the right hand column. Click on it to subscribe.

Democratic vs Republican religion

2006-08-29T18:00:00.000-07:00

Over at EvolutionBlog Jason has a wonderful piece on the difference between Democratic religion and its Republican counterpart. This is very well-written, I think.

Democratic religion is very different from Republican religion. Democrats instinctively see religion as a private matter. It seems obvious to them that there should be a solid wall of separation between church and state. Religious Democrats like Paul Begala and Jimmy Carter represent a reflective, intellectual sort of relligion. They don't mindlessly rail against science or cite Bible verses in public policy debates. They understand that there is a big difference between hostility to religion on the one hand, and hostility to the government endorsement and support of religion on the other.

Not so with the Republicans. For them religion is a cudgel used to distinguish those who think as they do from the vile enemies that must be destroyed. Their's is not a religion that values calm, rational argumentation. It prefers instead dogmatic statements it is deemed illegitimate to challenge. Republicans appeal to devotees of the mindless, “God said it, that settles it” sort of religion.

So why do religious voters tend to prefer Republicans? Because the mindless version of religion is far better represented in this country than the thoughtful version. The relentless Republican media machine certainly has an effect on public discourse, but in the end it is successful because it is selling a message people want to buy.

The time when vague talk of the common good could persuade religious voters to support progressive goals is long past. The sort of religion that holds sway in much of the South and the Midwest is not the sort that gets out of bed for the common good. Instead it is the sort that sees itself as a tiny island of righteousness floating in an ocean of secular evil. The sort of people who like that sort of religion are going to find Republican simple-mindedness more appealing than Democratic nuance.

The nature of religion in this country has changed dramatically over the last thirty years. Today's religious voters support Repbulicans because they like the sorts of things Republicans do when they have power. It's that simple. The most media-savvy Democrats in the world will not change that fact.

Democrats might have better luck going after the tens of millions of voters who currently don't vote out of disgust with the whole system. Instead of trying to put a religious gloss on their party's message, they would do better simply to state, forthrightly and unambiguously, that theirs is a party that values science and rationality. It's a party that believes that religion can be a wonderful thing in the lives of individuals, but is universally lousy when used as a basis for public policy. Alas, that would probably take more courage than most of today's Democratic politicians possess.

Well said, JR. Unfortunately, there are millions of people who don't want to be troubled to think. Just give them something you can fit on a bumper sticker, and they're happy. But I guess I'm a little more optimistic than Jason about the prospects for reason winning out over dogmatism. When I hear people in this bastion of patrician Old Money talking trash about the war and Republicans, I have hope. Remember, we only need sway one or two percent to throw the bastards out.

By the way, Robert Reich devotes a whole chapter to the difference between public and private morality, which is basically the difference between the parties that Jason cites above.

Cool weather and elections

2006-08-27T16:10:00.000-07:00

It was very cool here today, in the low 60s. I wore my sweatshirt almost my whole round of golf this morning. After the round, I ran into our club manager and she said, "You're wearing shorts? Brrrr!?" We finished just as it started to rain. And it's been raining, sometimes heavily, since then. Cool and rainy. Fall is coming. Damn.

It's been a wonderful summer this year, here by the shore. We've had periodic rain which has kept the foliage very green. This bodes well for the fall foliage. It means the leaves will have drunk up a lot of water and be heavy with the minerals that make the brilliant colors of autumn. The irrigation ponds at the club are full again, which is unusual for this time of year.

Although autumn means the end of summer and the coming of winter, this year it also means the possibility of throwing the conservatives out of congress in the mid-term elections. I can only hope that the results here in Connecticut augur a more widespread revolt against the appalling incompetence of the Republicans and their ill-advised war. It has has de-stabilized the Middle East, and put us even more at risk of a terrorist attack than we were before. What a bunch of idiots, honestly.

Good friends, good weather, good golf

2006-08-24T16:13:00.000-07:00

Today was absoultely wonderful. I am semi-retired and put in about 25 -30 hours a week consulting for the company where I was fomerly CTO. This summer, I've been taking Thursdays off pretty regularly to play golf. Well, today was about as good as it gets. It was in the low 70s, dry with sun and clouds. I played with three other members that I know well. One is a doctor, one a retired schoolteacher, and the third a priest. We played a two-dollar Nassau, the schoolteacher and I played the priest and the doctor. Sort of sounds like the beginning of joke, right? "A priest and a doctor are playing golf...." We halved the Nassau, although my partner and I ended one huge dollar up because he had an extra "dot". (A "dot" is an extra point you earn for a natural birdie, a "sandy" or a "greenie") I shot 89, which is pretty good for me, and I left at least three shots our there due to bad putts. But, all in all, a great day.

Afterwards, I sat in the bar for a couple of hours talking with one of our foursome, who happens to be an Episcopal priest at a local parish. He's an absolutely wonderful guy that I've come to know over this year. All you intolerant born-again types could take a lesson from Fr. Tony. Be thoughtful, humble and rational. Practice what you preach and don't be so damned full of yourself.

Here's to ye, lad.

Back at ya...

2006-08-23T19:00:00.000-07:00

Thanks to ConnecticutBlog for linking here. It's a great resource for Connecticusians (pronounced "ConnecticKewshins". I made that up. It's better than "Nutmeggers" don't you think?).

Lamont gaining

2006-08-23T15:34:00.000-07:00

This article on Yahoo confirms what people have been predicting. Lamont is gaining on Lieberman just as he did in the primary. Again, it seems to be "news" that people are fed up with the Cheney/Bush administration and won't countenance sycophants like Lieberman.

Last night, I spend an interesting hour or so talking politics after my weekly golf league. I don't know everyone's politics in the group, but it was amazing how many people, regardless of their opinion of Lamont or Lieberman are four-square against the war in Iraq. There was general consensus amongst a group I would have expected to be conservative that the war will continue to tarnish and degrade the reputation of our country in the world and that it was a colossal mistake, born of an appalling but typically chauvinistic, myopic and uninformed view of other cultures by the right-wing flag-wavers. Oh yes, said Rumsfeld, we will be welcomed with chocolates and flowers thrown at our feet.

Yo, what are those homeboys smokin'? I want some!

The attack on science

2006-08-23T03:53:00.000-07:00

One of the primary things that got me back into politics is the right-wing's assault on science. The most visible and clearly drawn offensive by the right on science has to do with their denial of evolution. I'm thankful that the creationists are in retreat for the moment, due to a stunning court decision in Dover, PA and recent elections in Kansas where the right-wing state school board was thrown out. It kind of gives you hope when, even in a bastion of religious conservatism like Kansas, a majority of people realized they had become the nation's laughingstock and voted for reason again.

You'll note that one of my links is to EvolutionBlog, which is written by Jason Rosenhouse, a math professor at James Madison University. Science needs more people like Jason, who are patient and diligent enough to put up clear and accessible counters to the senseless and disingenuous tactics of the creationists. They're a pretty slimy lot, in my estimation, that engage in little more than rhetorical misdirection, although their creativity for ingeniously specious arguments is remarkable. I'm amazed at how much patience he has with listening to their drivel and calmly pointing out what unrefined bullshit it is. Pardon my French. Anyway, give it a peek if you have the chance.

But creationism, although it generates a lot of noise, is a less direct and present threat to our quality of life and planet (IMHO) than other of the current regime's attacks on science and scientists. Global warming, for instance, is another case of incredible denial on the part of the administration and the right in general. The manner in which they loose the propaganda and talk-show dogs to defame honest scientists is really deplorable. But I'm flaming now, aren't I? Sorry, I didn't sleep too well last night. Must have been the meat loaf after golf.

Reich book

2006-08-21T16:00:00.000-07:00

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I'm reading Robert Reich's book "Reason - Why Liberals Will Win the Battle for America". Here are a couple of quotes I've found so far that I like.

On why radical conservatives obsess about pre-marital sex and the "decline" of marriage.

"Radcons embrace a simple, facile solution to a problem - one size fits all, when of course it doesn't".

This really resonates with me. The right always seems to want yes/no, black/white absolute answers to everything. They see unquestioning belief as a virtue while viewing subtlety and nuance as moral laxity.

"To believe that the best and only way to prevent poor single women from having babies is to instruct young people not to have sex before marriage is like thinking the best way to prevent your house from leaking is to stop the rain."

I love that one. Yes, our roof is leaking, so let's outlaw rain. Great analogy.

This whole business of trying to outlaw sex outside marriage brings me to the anti-abortionists. My take on this is that they care less about unborn children than preventing women from having and (heaven forfend) enjoying sex. Basically, I think they believe that the child is the "punishment" for having sex outside their narrow boundaries of what's proper. Great way to see your child, huh?

More to come...

Some good stuff

2006-08-19T21:28:00.000-07:00

From a really good post at DailyKos, here are some great idea nuggets for Dems from adguy. I really like the one about dividing the nation to strengthen their power.

The Republicans have brazenly stated that they will sell terror as their political strategy for the November elections. Makes sense. They're all about selling things. Like their influence. And our government. And the future of our children. And now, our national security.

So while they're busy selling terror, we're busy solving the problems that breed terror.

While they work to keep you captive to fear, we work to free you from the causes of fear.

While they're dreaming up ways to exploit threats to our security, we're busy working on ways to eliminate those threats.

While they see themselves as successful at fighting terrorism, we see having more terrorists now than ever before as the definition of failure.

While they seek to divide us in order to strengthen their power, we seek to unite us in order to strengthen our nation.

While they're telling you that only their ideas will keep you safe, we say that more ideas--not fewer--are needed to secure our safety.

While they say our enemies have changed and so should we, we say accommodating our enemies is not the American way.

And while they say that those who voice opposition to their policies are aiding our enemies, we say that those who seek to vilify dissent give our enemies just what they desire.

You see, we Democrats don't think of Americans as being fearful. Americans are too smart, too hard-working, too committed to our constitution and the liberty it bestows on us to be fearful. In fact, when we faced one of the most evil and powerful regimes ever to exist, it was a Democrat who reminded us that, "the only thing we have to fear, is fear itself." And we came through with flying colors.

So you have a choice this November: Return to our traditional American ideals, or remain headed down the dark road to a lesser America.

Common ground

2006-08-19T06:00:00.000-07:00

Every once in a while, we can get together on something. Here's an example. It shows that when some typically horrid Bush policy really adversely affects people, they can and will oppose it, even if they're Republicans.

That people will still stand up for their own economic and health interests is a hopeful sign. Maybe enough people will stand up for their own interests and reality to dislodge the conservative stranglehold that feeds on fear and the subsequent trampling of individual rights in order to "keep us safe".

You can't make up stuff like this...

2006-08-19T05:19:00.000-07:00

All the more funny because it's true.
Christian sex products. Need I say more? Enjoy...

A pleasant walk

2006-08-18T10:05:00.000-07:00

Just a quick post to say what a particularly nice walk I had this morning back to my house from the mailbox after getting the newspaper. This because the headline on the New London Day's front page announced that a federal judge had ruled W's warrantless domestic wiretaps illegal, and has ordered the NSA to ceast and desist. Here's hoping the ruling sticks.

Books I'm reading or have read recently

2006-08-18T06:23:00.000-07:00

Conservatives without Conscience - by John W. Dean

Yes, that John Dean of Watergate fame. This is a very convincing explanation of the right-wing personality type. Ultra-short version: they're followers. I saw Mr. Dean on CSPAN talking about his book at a book-tour event, I'm guessing. I was fascinated by his analysis of authoritarianism in modern conservatism. Conservatism has come a very long way from Goldwater and even Nixon. Google "John Dean conservative conscience" and you should find a link to an NPR interview on WBUR a month or so back, which is very entertaining. One thought that Dean brings out early in the book that I find very compelling is that if it were 1776, the neocons and right-wingers would all be on the side of King George. Revolution is anathema to the authoritarian mind set.

Although the right-wingers are notoriously immune to facts, truth and reason, I can only hope that there are a couple of percent of the voters that can still think, see what's going on and switch their vote. This is a good book with very insightful message and, I think, a lever to apply.

What's the Matter with Kansas? - by Thomas Frank

This is less a theoretical explanation of how conservatives have managed to get such a stranglehold on our government than it is a practical or empirical look at the strategies and techniques. Frank analyzes how the Right has been able to take a place like Kansas, once famous for fringe left-wing and crackpot political movements, and make it into a place where low-income people vote to cut the taxes of millionaires at the expense of their children's education. F'ing amazing, isn't it? All the Republicans have to do is trot out the same-sex marriage, or evolution, or abortion boogeyman, and these folks flock to the polls like lemmings to elect people that send their jobs offsore, close their factories, and make cannon fodder of their sons and daughters in Iraq. It really ties in quite nicely with Dean's authoritarian theory, I think.

Reason - by Robert Reich - Just started it, opinions later. My wife just finished it and liked it a lot.

I can highly recommend both of the first two titles. Throwing some light on the "whys" of the conservative take-over of the country is the first step toward reversing it. I dearly hope so, anyway!!

Damn, we're a political bellweather

2006-08-16T04:51:00.000-07:00

I'm very happy to have been part of the upset of Joe Lieberman by Ned Lamont, even if it's only that I registered as a Democrat and voted. It's been fun to see our little corner of New England talked about so much. Now, of course, the spin begins, but more on that later.

In this election, I was fascinated to see how bloggers right here in my backyard, like CTBob could make such a difference. I've been studying blogs, especially vlogs (video blogs) for a while and they are a real phenomenon in grass roots politics and New Media. Lots of folks in Old Media world and Old Politics are seriously not getting it.