Home schooling does not mean Parent schooling

In recent news here in California, there is a case in the courts now that is reinforcing California state law which basically says "persons between the ages of six and eighteen" are to be in "public full-time day school," or a "private full-time day school" or "instructed by a tutor who holds a valid state teaching credential for the grade being taught". This has been state law for a very very long time. Yet now, we have scofflaws that claim they have a right to teach their own children whatever they want. Homeschooling is legal in California, as long as it is conducted per state mandated curriculum and by a licensed instructor. The excuse used by the scofflaws? "Parents should not have to attend a four-year college education program just to teach their own children." It's the old argument, "Oh my god, this is too hard to do right, so I'm just going to do it wrong and be happy!" Lazy, lazy, lazy. Oh and cheap too! You don't care enough about your child's education to pay for it yourself (since you don't want the state to do it)! Mr and Mrs Long, in my opinion, you are lazy, selfish, and cheap jerks who obviously don't do enough reading into anything to know what is the truth. You have no business trying to pass on your ignorance to anyone's children! That said, it is important for parents to teach their children about their own experiences, beliefs, hertitage, etc. Parental schooling does not mean home schooling. It is not a replacement for a formal education. It is something that should be done in conjuction with a formal education. Home schooling is just a place to do it if the law is followed. Parental schooling is not the same thing. If you don't agree with something taught in the classroom, then discuss it with your children. It is as simple as that.

Herostratic fame of Mass Murders

I’m not expert on suicide. My life has been touched by it only vaguely (though I do have one direct encounter with a person who later committed suicide). I do know suicide happens all the time.  People seek this path for various reasons. Given this is a touchy subject; I will focus my comments on the fame seekers, particularly those who commit mass killings and then take their own life.

As morbid as it is, there are people who seek posthumous fame. Sometimes this happens by copycats in certain social circles (such as schools) after the suicide of one person gets a lot of attention. Other times there is an act to get back at society for some perceived wrong. These people seek herostratic fame (fame by doing something horror).

The first great example recorded in history was committed by Herostratus the Ephesian in B.C. 356 when he burned down the Temple of Artemis at Ephesus. His name is from where the term herostratic fame comes. When tortured, he confessed he did the deed to immortalize himself. The Ephesians then passed a decree condemning his name to oblivion in order to discourage further such fame seeking attempts. We only know of Herostratus because an ancient historian did mention his name.

Of course in modern times, we have what are called mass murders. These are individuals or groups that typically kill a lot of people in a suicidal attack. There is usually some sort of fame being sought by such people in one fashion or another. In the case of the recent attack by a shooter in Omaha, the killer wrote a suicide letter that specifically expressed his expectation to be famous after committing his heinous deed.

With this incident, mass media is finally questioning the action of publishing the names of these mass murders. A recent AP article sited a media analyst who stated that the media enabled the mass murderer to get his fame posthumously. Additionally, recent articles also have talked about the fact that the new generation growing up right now places much more importance on fame than any previous generation in America.

I personally think it is time for the media to show restraint. It is important to report horrendous events. However, I don’t know the killer. Knowing his name doesn’t change what the killer did, nor does it help me to come to terms with the event. So, why give that person the attention they crave? Why encourage further acts by other persons who are borderline. Right now, someone contemplating a similar act is emboldened by the reporting by the press about the Omaha killer.

Don’t give immortality to individuals who think it can be achieved by committing horrible deeds. One more advantage is that denying immortality to such individuals actual shows respect for the victims and their families. Giving fame to the killer is a bit like dancing on the grave of their victims.

Now, there a disadvantages to keep the name from the public. We live in the Information Age. Speculation would run rampant if names were withheld from the general public. Also, this wouldn’t discourage killers who are more interested in the act of killing rather than fame from it. So, I’m not suggesting mass murders should be completely nameless in the public forum. I suggest that the mass media itself should not name them. I think it is foolish to try to completely expunge a person’s name from the record. If someone wishes, they could look at public records for the name. If a blogger wishes, they can publish the name themself. Either way, only someone who is interested need find the information. There is no sense in feeding the information to everyone, to which knowing the name is pointless. I think this would help discourage people from seeking herostratic fame by the committing of suicidal mass murders or other gruesome deeds.

EWWWWWW! (Now I know who does this!)

He just ate ear wax!!! Eww Eww Eww Eww Eww Eww Eww Eww Eww Eww Eww Eww Eww Eww Eww Eww Eww Eww Eww Eww Eww Eww Eww Eww Eww Eww Eww Eww Eww Eww Eww Eww Eww Eww Eww Eww Eww ...EEWWWWWWWWW!

Two stories, a bit funny and odd

It's not often that two news stories catch my attention, and never that this causes to write a third blog entry in one day.

First is the report that a society representing blind persons was conducting a protest today against hybrid cars because they are so quiet. Unfortunately, I can say that I think this is one of the most ridiculous protests I've seen in a long time. This is one group that is kinda missing the point. We all hafta adapt to the ever changing world. Things change. Paradigms of the past become out moded. This protest strikes me as a bit underthoughtout. Instead of protesting the quietness of a new car (which is preferred since it reduces noise pollution, among other reasons), they need to start working with cities about better city management of crosswalks and driveway entrances onto public streets. Also, discuss this matter with technology groups to get people to start investing in portable motion or metal detectors, or some other proximately alert system. Protesting the advancement of technology? Can anyone say "Amish"? It would be much worse to implement some arcane artificial function that would create stigma against the blind.

Another story that seemed a bit odd was recent industry comments regarding the Northwest Passage which will likely be opening up during summers within the next 20 years. It is the much fabled passage through the Northwest Territories of Canada that would shorten trips between Europe and Asia by several thousand miles. The route is currently frozen over most of the time. I'm commenting on an article that was highly critical of the idea of using the Northwest Passage once it opens up yearly during the summer months. The article made several points about its danger and unpredictability. The conclusion of this "news" article was that any use of the NW Passage would be unlikely. To this I say, what complete nonsense! The nature of industry is to take risk in the effort to make money! The more risk, the more money to be made. The challenge of the NW Passage isn't going to scare everyone away. It's going to be a magnet for profiteers looking for a new way to make big money in the shipping industry. Some of these dissers quoted in the article would likely be the first in line to take advantage of the NW Passage if it were to open up today.

Yup.

There is no Santa Claus, Timmy

I feel bad, but not in a bad way. I had to burst some one's bubble yesterday in the soul crushing sort of way that wakes someone up and forces them to change their life plans.

One of the engineering interns at my company mentioned to me that his boss asked him if he was interested in staying on, becoming a regular employee. He didn't specifically ask me how much money he should expect, but the conversation moved in that directly quickly.

It turns out, by listening to braggarts and what not in informal society settings, he was under the impression that an Engineer makes 80 to 90K a year right out of school. Man, the next words out of my mouth really changed his ideas and plans after school. I just made it clear he could expect maybe 40 to 50K a year upon getting his degree.

Seeking confirmation of this soul crushing realization, he asked one of the other Engineers. That Engineer didn't answer right away, but asked "What do you think an Engineer should expect?" After waiting through the awkward pause, I piped up for him, "80 to 90K". To which he laughed through a dry spit take. A couple of the nearby Engineers then quoted their starting salaries, in the 35 to 45K range.

Without getting in to personal details, I'll just say that the intern was a little concerned about his post graduation prospects at that point.

To give him some perspective, I quoted off some general wage levels, such as Senior Managers are in the 80 to 90K and Directors may push into the six digits. Even in Silicon Valley, people aren't making astronomical wages. Besides that, the cost of living is so high here that it negates much of the wage advantage we have in this area.

He then told me what a couple told him at some party. He said they had just graduated with degrees in EE and got picked up at some local company for 90K a year. To which I simply replied, "They lied. People lie about what they make and what they do all the time, especially at society gatherings like parties where they want to make themselves seem more important. It just happens."

Well, I'm sure he will figure out how to adjust based on more realistic expectations, but it just sucked that I had to be the one to tell him there is no Santa Claus.

Disabled

I do not use the word disabled lightly. It is a word that shows there is a very real difference between some and the rest. I am also for anything that diminishes discrimination, including against those who classified as disabled. However, I cannot find myself in support of the idea that people who require assistance from a mechanism should be able compete on equal footing as those that do so with their natural bodies. The story of Oscar Pistorius is a prime example of someone trying to compete unfairly. He is a double-amputee with mechanical legs. It is ludicrous to allow him to compete in a race with people using their natural legs.

The problem is that mechanisms can be modified by simply changing out materials and improving design. They are no representative equal with that of the human body which is allowed. In fact, efforts to unnaturally improve human body performance is specifically against the rules in most sports. Yet, here is someone trying to replace entire body parts with machines! Where is the equal footing here? There is none. If this is allowed and accepted, what is to prevent someone from volunteering to amputate body parts to replace them with machines that might perform better than their nature body? This is less ridiculous than it soudns. One only has to look at some of the unnatural lengths people go through to try to improve their bodies right now with steroids, blood replacement therapy, etc. There's no difference beteen that behavior and that of using mechanisms in place of human limbs in sports.

Economy America

It seems a lot of Americans really don't understand economy nearly as much as they've been told they do. Many seem to confuse economy with government, falsely believing that Free Market is intrinsic to Democracy. Of course, many Americans are under the false belief that America's economy is Free Market. America has a Mixed Economy based on Free Market principles, it does not have a pure Free Market.¹

Although government and economy work together, one particular type of government does not require one particular type of economy. It is possible to have a free society yet have an economy based on the sun worship. That's not an ideal mix, but it's not outside the realm of possibilities.

Free Market has its place in our country. It is necessary to regulate that Free Market to prevent abuses. Anti-trust, monopolies, rigging or hording of necessary supplies are examples of possible abuses that hurt both the individual and the market overall. However, redundancies in a Free Market can also lead to inefficiencies. Examples of these are if a city privatizes services such as water piping, garbage collection, electricity routing, and other infrastructure services without a central contract giving one entity the sole right and authority to provide such services. For example, it is OK to have more than one source for water, but it is bad to allow one property to be serviced by 4 separate pipes that bring that water in from the outside. In such as case, the city is responsible to regulate infrastructure services efficiently to prevent wasteful redundancies that can drain the overall resources of the city.

More on this some other day. :)

Pray for our Schools

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

I witnessed a lie just now. While channel flipping, I caught a preacher talking about the "Wall separating the Church and State" (in the context of a discussion about our schools and government buildings) and how the First Amendment of the United States Constitution does not mention a "wall", a "separation", the "Church" or the "State". Those words themselves do not appear in the First Amendment. So, how is this a lie? Well, yes, there is no mention of a wall. That was a metaphor created to Thomas Jefferson regarding a specific proposed Bill in his day. However, there is a statement that prevents the Congress (the "State") from making laws establishing or prohibiting (a "separation") religion (which includes the "Church"). There's the lie. It means that the government has not right to force someone to worship; it does not endorse any form of worship; and it does not prevent anyone from worship.

Of course, there is some leeway inheritant to this separation. It is wrong for a public school to endorse prayer on its premises because prayer is a form of worship. However, where some have taken this to far is that they feel the school has to prevent worship in order not to endorse it. This idea is also a lie. It is a lie that fuels Churches in their lie. "See, they don't allow us to worship in schools!" Both positions are extreme. The interested parties on both extremes of this issue feed off of each other.

There is no wall. But there is designated limits on the authority of our government to impose its will upon the people. This is one of several cornerstones built into the Constitutional Amendments that prevents the majority of our population from oppressing any minority.

It also serves as a rule against the supporting of religion by public deeds or use of public funds. Again, some have taken this too far. Some have interpreted this prohibition of support to mean prohibition of religious activities on public school premises. They don't understand the difference between endorsement and equal access to public properties. As long as a Church pays the same as any other similar group renting a school auditorium, there is be no prohibition against that Church from renting it. If the school gave some sort of special "Church discount", then that would be an endorsement. The discount itself would be unconstitional, not the Church using the school facilities. This applied misunderstanding is more fuel for Churches to preach about how our system is being used to oppress religion. It gives them the opportunity to propagandize their lie about the First Amendment.

Environmentalist

Environmentalism awareness has increased in recent years. For better or worse, much of this is based on common Media coverage which focuses more sensationalism than on actual useful information. This tends to encourage emotional responses over reasoned action, even by supposed scientists.

I
It is true that each of us does contribute to the overall effect that humans have on the environment. It is not so true that individual actions taken by each one of us can have a counter-effect. We act as a force collectively. For us to counter our negative impact on the environment, we must collectively act.

II
The term "Invasion Species" is use to describe a species that somehow arrives and often thrives in an area where it did not previously exist (non-native). Invasion species can be animals, plants or other types of lifeforms. In the past few decades, scientists and other conservationists have taken upon themselves to somehow magically know that all invasion species must somehow be stopped. Conservationists often feel that every remaining natural environment must be absolutely preserved in the manner in which they believed it originally was prior to human influence. This is pure human arrogance and is not based on factual examination of nature. Who's to say that humans are not playing a natural role by introducing species to new areas or adjusting the environment (intentionally or accidentally) to allow some species to expand into new areas? Who's to say that humans have any role at all in some cases, to protect, prevent or be the cause of such movement of species populations? Why is it that nature must be preserved in the exact way it was when we discovered it? The answer is in nature itself. Survival of the fittest is the only rule applied. Anything else is human emotional response to things we truly shouldn't try to control. I once saw an interview with a local county park ranger. The ranger discussed plans with the news reporter to destroy some trees that had grown on a previously bare hill. What harm did the trees cause? They where supplanting native species. But, as mentioned, the location they grew was previously bare, so which native trees were being displaced? Additionally, this world is about survival of the fittest. Why should humans interfere with that process when humans are negligibly impacted?

III
What if new species where to suddenly appear? With the current conservationist's mindset, new species would need to be destroyed in favor of the current state of things. Crazy? It's already happening. A newly discovered type of ocean based alga has been growing just off shore in Southern California and in the Mediterranean Sea. Granted, this isn't an actual new species (yet) and it has the potential to become a pest to human interests, but as it stands now, it appears that evolution is taking its course through survival of the fittest. Humans have a two part role in the spread of this species. First, we have been warming Earth's environment for many years, and new species are likely to emerge to adapt to the new environmental realities. Second, we are very effective as transporting species from one ecosystem to another very quickly, giving old species the chance to become something new, as in the case of this alga.

IIII
Two humpback whales (presumably a mother and its calf) have recently swum up the Sacramento River in Northern California. There's been a ton of sensational Media coverage. The first thing interested scientists start talking about? "How are we going to rescue these poor lost whales?" What rubbish! Almost everyday the news reported a new reason why the whales must be rescued.

1. "They are lost and need to find their way back to the ocean before they starve!" This is nonsense. Adult humpback whales fast at this time of year, feeding off of their own blubber. The mother feeds the calf with milk sourced from the same.

2. "It appears that one of the whales was catch in a fishing net and needs help getting back to the ocean!" To the best of my knowledge, fishing nets of the size needed to snare a humpback whale aren't even allowed in the Sacramento River as they would likely interfere with industrial shipping, which has the right of way in all waterways. Not only that, both whales have been swimming freely since they arrived.

3. "It appears that the mother has a huge gash caused by a boat propeller and needs help finding her way back to the ocean so the salt water could help naturally heal the injury." Within the same news report, the reporter admits that the injury couldn't be deep enough to adversely impact the whale in any way (didn't even cut through the outer layer of blubber). Not only that, both whales have been filmed over and over in recent days swimming along the surface, and no such gashes are even visible.

All of these were excuses that some interested parties have been trying to propagandize in order to have public support for trying to remove the whales from the river. Some of the efforts have been ill-thought out. The first attempt was to use male humpback whale songs to lure the duo out of the river. Umm, correct me if I'm wrong, but this humpback mother has already mated and is raising a calf. Why would she swim to a male humpback song? Also, each whale comes from particular groups that sing in different dialects. Having a song from a male singing in the wrong dialect is exactly like trying to talk to an English speaking person by showing them a newscast spoken in Japanese. Needless to say, the two humpback swam away from the recorded whale songs that were piped into the river waters.

What if humpbacks are starting their way towards a fresh water river dwelling evolutionary path and we humans are interfering with that natural progression? I hinted at the real reason people wanted to remove the whales above. It's not because they have the whales' interests at heart. They are using Conservation as a cover story to their real intentions.

These are anecdotal tellings of recent events of environmentalism out of control, being used by a select few to support their own hidden agendas. 1. We are all told we can make a difference individually. There's a budding environmentalism technology industry starting up. They are trying to create the need for their existence so they can get support from the government via public funds and investment money. 2. The park ranger needs justification for his job, so claims to have a need to protect native trees against supposed invading trees that aren't actually growing anywhere near the natives. 3. New species can potentially become pests that interfere with human interests, so when they do appear, only the ones that adversely affect us get attention. 4. Conservation is used as a cover story for business related agenda when it suits industry.

I'm for environmentalism tempered by reasoned thought. Human population on Earth is expanding an at ever increasing rate. We have to mold this planet; gearing towards our survival. This involves preserving the environment is some cases, and creating new environments for our habitation in other cases. We need to do what is in our best interests to find a new equilibrium with nature. This is our nature, and it is in the best interests of our survival if we are to be as fit as we believe ourselves to be.

Hell is Home

As I've said before, Earth is Hell. Things are as bad as they can possibly be anywhere else. And if anyone can imagine things worse, they are free make things worse right here!

God Protects Our Children?

Although the bible should sometimes be taken with a grain of salt, it is an excellent source for learning how to raise children. The advice it gives for dealing with a problem child is simple, straightforward, and 100% effective. Here's is an excerpt from Deuteronomy 21: 18-21 according to the New American Standard Bible:

18. If any man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father or his mother, and when they chastise him, he will not even listen to them, 19. then his father and mother shall seize him, and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gateway of his hometown. 20. They shall say to the elders of his city, `This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey us, he is a glutton and a drunkard.' 21. Then all the men of his city shall stone him to death; so you shall remove the evil from your midst, and all Israel will hear of it and fear.

So, according to wisdom the bible, God's way of dealing with a problem child is to have them lovingly stoned to death by the local community. God's loving nature comes through very clearly in this command to his people.

Now, someone may say that I'm taking this text out of context. To such a defensive comment, I gladly suggest such a person should read whole chapter of Duet. 21. It is a list of commandments on when to kill cattle for murder, how to properly rape a woman captured during military conquests, and when to stone people to death for various deeds; among other things. This commandment to stone a problem child to death is simply one commandment from among that list, similar to the famous Ten Commandments.

This brief expose on the Bible's consideration of children was triggered because I recently ran across a request by a person looking for a scripture in the bible that showed God protects children from harm. Being the good former pseudo-fundamentalist that I am, I immediately felt inclined to clear up the issue on just how God treats children in the bible. Deut. 21: 18-21 is just one of a hundred examples where children are treated with disdain, as afterthoughts, and as property. The bible isn't the best place to look when trying to learn how to raise children. It doesn't really give any practical advice at all. There's nothing on how to change a baby's diaper, how to burp a baby, how to deal with bully's in school, how to read and write, how to teach a child about sex, etc etc. It does have a commandment about how one's hair should be cut, but if we followed that, we'd all look like a bunch of nappy hippies. More to the point, the bible promotes physical abuse and murder of our children. This more than offsets any supposed scriptures in the Bible that do offer mildly useful advise if interpreted in a particular way.

Agnosticism is false

From my view point, the word agnostic is a Christian-centric term use to describe something that is foreign to Christianity; that is something which Christians cannot understand. In the Christian mind set, an agnostic person isn’t sure whether their God exists are not. They are a person that doesn’t necessarily believe in the bible, but doesn’t really believe that the Universe came about by some random chance. In other words, a person who is agnostic is someone that hasn’t made up their mind as to whether they believe that God exists or not.

It seems that this is a false belief on the part of Christians. Also, it seems that this is why there really is no such thing as an agnostic person. When someone doesn’t have evidence as to whether or not there is a god or gods, this isn’t the lack of making one’s mind up about the matter. This is a statement that person does not hold to beliefs that cannot be proven about gods or otherwise. They are open to whatever can be proven with regards to reality, and are not held down by some ancient beliefs.

For example, by the Christian use of the term agnostic, a person would say, “I don’t know whether there is a God or not.” However, for myself, I know enough to know that-I-don’t-know. What does this mean? Well, I know that the idea of God is simply a metaphor for what is unknowable. At issue is the fact that I also know the idea of God comes with a ton of cultural baggage. For me to say that I don’t know the reality of God is itself an acceptance of society’s ideas about God. I know that God is an over used metaphor. I don’t need the God metaphor to make me comfortable about what I cannot know, that is the unknowable. Again, I know enough to know that-I-don’t-know. That is to say, I’m comfortable with not knowing what I don’t know. Another way I’ve said this before is, “I’m confused, but I’m comfortable with that confusion.”

So, because the term agnostic is used by Christians to define that which they don’t understand regarding the lack of belief in their god, it seems that the term doesn’t describe any person, but is only describes a phrase that people go through when they are losing their faith in Christianity, before they give up on the Christian metaphor all-together.

What are people called when they don’t have beliefs about gods, but also don't hold to the traditional ideas of atheism? The term freethinker comes to mind. However, freethought is also heavily loaded with history in which the average person just isn’t interested. I don’t care, for one. At this point, I contend there is no term coined as of yet which describes the average person who just doesn’t have god beliefs.

Why am I not an atheist? Well, this is a whole other topic. Let me just say my personal experiences and traditional atheism are mutually exclusive.

Jesus is Alive!

The rediscovery of Jesus' family tomb has sparked a lot of debate. No one has seen all of the evidence yet, yet everyone is piping up with criticisms. So far, none of the criticisms have been scientific in nature. "Jesus family was too poor for a tomb of such luxury". Umm, for starters, there is no statement in the bible about Jesus' wealth! In fact, it is unlikely that anyone with so much influence was poor! How unscientific can one get? It's just funny how everyone is panicking.

Hey Christians, your god was just a man! Not even all Christians look to Jesus as a god. Certainly, he had a life prior to the age of about 34, when we started preaching openly. So, there's nothing odd about him having a family. In fact, there's nothing odd about his family being hidden from history! Perhaps the story of Jesus' death and lack of mention of his family is due to the fact that his followers were trying to protect them from the Roman Empire. Or perhaps the politics within the Christian Church were at play, as groups fought for control of the faith. Maybe Jesus lineage lost power in the group once he died, so their record was expunged to justify the resulting power shift. This sort of activity is evident from within the text of the New Testament. There is obvious tells about the rise and fall of apostles and other leaders within the Church in power struggles where the victor was not necessarily even familiar with Jesus (for example, St. Paul). After all, the Council of Nicaea was commissioned by the pagan Roman Emperor Constantine. If an outsider held that much say over the faith, how much more was the faith in flux from within?

So, do I believe these remains belong to Jesus and his family? No, I don't hold a belief about such things. Do I think there is a possibility that these remains are of Jesus? Yeah. In fact, I think it is likely.

Every House Has a Maker

Did a god make our world? I must admit that I know that every house has a maker. A lot of work goes into making a house. A house is built by humans, using processes developed by humans, with materials discovered and formed by humans. We make houses to serve as shelter for our population. What does this say about how Earth came into being? 

Well in nature, we do not see such an effort being made. In nature, everything is random. Houses don’t just come into being by themselves. 

If this Earth was created by a nurturing and carrying god, one of the main things one should expect is that all of humanity's corporeal needs are directly addressed. For example, if an average person today was dropped into the middle of the wilderness without supplies, most persons would not be able to survive. Another example, people who raise animals feed their animals, groom them, raise them, protect them, provide companionship to them, and even clean up after their dirty business. Imagine what would happen if a cat owner didn’t clean the litter box. Yuk! 

Yet, this world doesn’t do any of that for us. We have to find our own food. We have to cook our own meals. We have to build the houses in which we live and the cars we drive. We even have to wipe our own asses. 

Bottom line, where there is a house, there is indeed a maker. Where there is no house, there is certainly no maker.

Good, bad and the ugly

Although I feel my actions are "good", I don't hold "good" and "bad" are moral standards. Everything that one does is both beneficial and detrimental at the same time. I may buy a loaf of bread for a poor family, but that loaf was made by growing and then killing yeast; it was likely delivered to the store in a truck that consumed fossil fuel that polluted the atmosphere; it was packaged in plastic, also from fossil fuel, that when discarded will be garbage polluting the Earth. Here's a more basic example: every breath we take adds a few seconds to our life, but also takes us one breath closer to our last.Something good is something we perceived as more beneficial than detrimental; and visa versa for something that is bad. So, from this, how does one presume a moral code? "Experience" is often sited. However, since everything is relative to one's prespective, how is society supposed to trust each individual's experience to steer them towards activities which it feels are more beneficial than detrimental?Once we answer that, then we can toss out religion. Any takers?
For me, my morality is based on my experiences. I do try to have all of my actions within what is preceived as being "good" (more beneficial than detrimental). Is there any way for society to codify this? Yes, through secular law. Of course, then one can get into the duscussion about fairness of certain laws, but that's another topic all together.

Trouble with personal responsibility

Personal responsibility seems to be elusive to some people. It's like, there's individuals that don't really understand or choose to ignore just how their actions directly impact those around them, and their own lives.
If you cut someone off in traffic, you screwed up. Don't go flipping off the person cuz they were so scared they didn't know how to respond. In fact, let me make this broader. The Today show did a segment today where they talked about how parents are feeding their daughters self confidence, like they can do they want, but then don't give them the tool necessary to handle the empowering properly. They aren't taught how to handle failure, or that others need respecting as well. They aren't taught the consequences of their actions. They aren't taught how to take responsibility for themselves when the do something detrimental, such as drugs are teen sex. I think it is because my general (who's having and raising all these brats), took these lessons for granted. How we learned them, without realizing them is somewhat of a mystery. It means that my generation isn't doing a good job of passing this knowledge. The knowledge of personal responsibility. Society doesn't owe us anything other than thangs that make society good, like roads and schools and local police, etc. We are responsible for ourselves. I'm not just talking about in this society, but also Karmically. If you hurt someone in spite, that will come back on you somehow, so don't be all butthurt about it when it does. Anyways, people need to learn to take responsibility for their actions. Many people need to realized just how their own actions directly and indirectly affect themselves. Ok, 'nuf ranting on this topic.

Trouble with Crucifixion

People really do treat each other extremely poorly. The more I hear experts talk about the crucifixion, the more it becomes apparent just how little human well being was regarded in the ancient world. Even for criminals, this treatment was horrific. No matter what one believes about Jesus death, the fact that anyone (be it son of God or lowly criminal) was nailed to anything through their hands and feet is repulsive.
Make no underestimate, these people suffered. Some of the most sensitive nerves in the body where pierced with a large nail and then used to hang up a the body upon a tree, stake or cross, left to suffer agonizing convulsions and nerve shattering pain throughout the body while onlookers gawked. How inhuman does one have to be in order to condone this?
I know this sentiment regarding crucifixion is two thousand years too late, but people still do engage in similar activities in modern times. Even with recent American torture embarrassment, it is not a normal thought for us to accept the inflictation of real torture on the scale of the crucifixion. The guilt of those particular U.S. soldiers in the recent cases amounts to taking hazing a bit too far. There are people in our current world that not only feel real torture is acceptable, they take joy in committing the heinous acts and are rewarded for them. This posting isn’t as random as it may seem.

Unions still have their place

I used to believe that Unions are no longer necessary, but I'm not so sure anymore. As the union power recedes over time, employers are becoming increasing arrogant again. (Enron wouldn't have come close to getting away with their scam with union bosses on their tail.) It's not yet as bad as the 1800's, but we aren't as far off from reliving that nightmare again as some seem to think.
Already, some of the basic protections for workers are being scaled back, being wrongfully labelled as "archaic". We should be pushing world's developing nations to aspirer to meeting the challenge of copying our system of labor. We should not be rolling back our system to compete with them. As someone who is firmly rooted in white collar middle class, I can say the only thang protecting my career is the rarity of my work skills. As the world market becomes more competitive, that rarity will diminish, as with many American jobs. We need to help other countries realize that having a suitable standard of living is just as important as having one or two successful companies in their country. Henry Ford gave us clear examples of how to run companies that benefit the employees and in turn, benefit the company because employee prosperity is spent buying company products. Anyways, we are on a slippery slope that we should back away from.

World of Hypocrites

Hypocrisy is part of the human condition, but it is not part of what it means to be human. We just have a bunch of people in our world that feel they have a right to tell others what to think or how to act while exempting themselves from those same rules (at least in their own minds). This is the classic scenario for over 2000 years since the rise of monotheism. It seems that the belief in only one god inherently creates a breeding ground for hypocrites and liars. 

The world is full of popular people who instruct their believers one thing, then turn around and do the opposite themselves. They are also capable of saying one thing here, but say the opposite somewhere else to appease whatever audience to which they are speaking. Open lying is terribly obvious these days when one does it on TV for an audience of millions, yet the likes of Pat Roberts still do so freely in full view of everyone, and they are never held accountable. Many professed Christians are now getting caught up in possible crimes of their hypocrisy such as bribery, insider trading, stealing, false testimony, treason, violating National Security, etc. These are the same people that just a couple years ago called upon fellow Christians to vote for them because they held the same religious beliefs. Now that all these people are being held accountable for their misdeeds, their proponents are standing by their sides saying, “They are being attacked because of their faith.” Is corruption really apart of the Christianity?

I get the sense that these people are the same that claim that Christians are being persecuted by this world. ::cough:: This world is under the power of Christianity and has been so for a 1000 years. Who in this world is persecuting Christians on a large scale? Other Christians, perhaps? Ridiculous. It’s as though the word persecution really means that a Christian’s misdeeds aren’t being ignored and other people aren’t helping that Christian to commit their misdeeds. What else could it possibly mean in the context of today’s world?

These issues aren’t limited to Christianity. Islam and Jewish faiths also carry this burden, but the Christians are in control, and it is they who must take the lead to stamp out the hypocrisy. Of course, for the time being, they will not, at least in the U.S.