This Memorial Weekend was spent with family and friends. Allie has been fighting a cold all weekend. Even still we were a little over booked for the weekend. Friday we got off work a little bit early to catch Pirates of the Caribbean: At Worlds End. On Saturday, we got a little bit of a late start, but did end up in a quaint little downtown of Menlo Park. We then had great dinner at Straits in San Francisco.
On Sunday, we met up with Miriam, her kid and her b/f for a day at the "new" Six Flags Discovery Kingdom. It's really the same as the former Six Flags Marine World, so don't let the new name fool you. The day slipped away. I only got on two rides twice, and saw one short show. Kinda unfulfilling. However, Allie did get a little sicker from being out and about all day.
On Monday, my cuzin and her new husband visited us for lunch at Khans Garden. We then walked around nearby Santana Row. Afterwards, while Allie recovered (still a bit sick with a cold), I spent a couple hours with with couple of other friends at their BBQ. Allie slept. We later met up at her folks place for a BBQ dinner. uhgghghghg, I was so stuff.
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Sunday, May 27, 2007
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.
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.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Friday, May 11, 2007
My cuzins wedding
My cuzin’s wedding was fun. I’ve never been in the wedding party before. One funny story is that the groom was all hella nervous and stressed out. The bride (my cuzin) was running late. I found groom outside in front of the church and was like, “Have your seen her yet?” He stressedly replied, “No, she’s running late!” “Well, your not supposed to see her before the wedding today anyway. Go hide!” Just after he darts back into the church, my cuzin shows up, hops out of the car and runs into the church. She ran over to the bridal staging room. Just as she enters, I hear a couple of exclamations. I look to see groom covering his eyes coming out of the room as the bride enters. He was all, “I didn’t see anything! I didn’t see you!” as he walks right by her with his eyes covered. So basically, when I told him to go hide to avoid seeing his bride, he decided the best place to be was in the very room where the bride was supposed to be!
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Recently back!
Well, I might be getting back into rock climbing. I’ve been wanted to for awhile now. Elvis and I hit up the climbing gym Friday night for a belay lesson. I totally forgot how to make the proper knots for the climbing rope, so it was a good refresher. It seemed to click better for me this time too, for some reason. I remember before always forgetting how to do the knots, but this time, I think I have it down.
After the gym (and me going home for a shower), we meet up with some other friends at California Billiards. It’s been forever since I’ll played pool, and it’s been forever and a day since I’ve been to California Billiards.
On Saturday, I visited Miriam for her daughters birthday. It was a pretty tame crowd. I had a good time.
After the gym (and me going home for a shower), we meet up with some other friends at California Billiards. It’s been forever since I’ll played pool, and it’s been forever and a day since I’ve been to California Billiards.
On Saturday, I visited Miriam for her daughters birthday. It was a pretty tame crowd. I had a good time.
Monday, April 23, 2007
Superstitious metaphor
I am superstition only to the extent that I know thinking about something contributes to making it real to me. The new goal I set for myself is to focus on what I desire, and discontinue thoughts on that which I spurn. I feel this simple truth is nothing new, however. It was expressed by the ancients through metaphor, in the form of stories about gods. In that, I do not hold any beliefs regarding gods. When I do refer to god, it is simply the knowing use of such as a metaphor. Another metaphoric use of gods employed by the ancients was to plainly explain and understand what was then unknowable. As knowledge increases, that metaphor loses value.
However, this does not mean I deny the spiritual or supernatural experience. Too many people from every realm on Earth, in every known time frame, and walk of life have extraordinary experiences that go beyond simple physical world explanation. Too easy is it when someone who is void of such experiences attributes anecdotal recountings to the devil or imagination. I regard these dismissals as silly.
Even after experiencing something extraordinary, it is hard for some to understand the experience properly because they have been so indoctrinated with a system of beliefs. How much less so can someone who has not experienced a thing judge one who has?
The question is why have beliefs? Why not base everything on the self-quest for knowledge? I find that I seek out what others have learned, and augment that with my own experiences. For example, I know that terrestrial life develops over time through the processes of evolution and natural selection, but I do not hold a belief about these. I simply know that discernable and testable evidence makes knowledge about these processes more clear. I don’t try to fit in a god into my understanding of these processes. Nor do I try to use my limited knowledge of these processes to come up with unsupported conclusions that I then rigidly believe. In other words, I do not hold any beliefs about how life got started, even though I have knowledge about how it develops. I am aware of notions and ideas about the origin of life, but I treat these has just that. I do not need to have a belief regarding the origin of life in order to know that evolution is currently the best description of those processes.
My experience is that Christians and Atheists alike are too easy to judge something based on beliefs they hold, rather than on the human experience itself. To a supernatural event, the Christian will say, “It was God’s will” or “The devil did that”. To that same event, the Atheist will say, “It was your imagination” or “You misinterpreted the event; there must be a logical explanation.” To this I say that’s pretty arrogant to assume that they know the answer outright. In particular, this is the one area with Atheist are hypocrites because the general idea behind atheism is the lack of beliefs without evidence. If they have no evidence one way or another, they normally don’t jump to conclusions, except when something supernatural or spiritual is being questioned. Of course, Christians just make stuff up in their heads as they go along, in order to fit everything into their picture of this world created from their overly literal, under-educated understanding of ancient texts.
It’s expected to develop notions about something, and to test those as hypothesis. Most of us are in the wrong profession and/or will simply not live long enough to have the time to challenge every hypothesis or theory for ourselves. So, some bit of trust has to be placed in the works of others. Just as long as everything is understood as not absolute, it’s ok to accept reasonable margins of error in one’s knowledge.
I am not an atheist. I am not religious either. To me, both are contrary to my experiences and gathered knowledge. Both have had value in the process of developing my current knowledge base. They are not useless. They are both stepping stones to gaining experience and knowledge in one’s life. They both have their place, though neither can be used as reason to end the search for new knowledge and experiences.
Focusing one’s thoughts on a god can make that god real to that person. But each of us has the power to create our own metaphoric god. Judging someone’s metaphor is ultimately a judgment of our own. In this, I am also a little superstitious. Do not judge, lest ye be judged. Of course, I’m not perfect. I judge all the time. It’s the effort that counts; at least in my metaphor.
However, this does not mean I deny the spiritual or supernatural experience. Too many people from every realm on Earth, in every known time frame, and walk of life have extraordinary experiences that go beyond simple physical world explanation. Too easy is it when someone who is void of such experiences attributes anecdotal recountings to the devil or imagination. I regard these dismissals as silly.
Even after experiencing something extraordinary, it is hard for some to understand the experience properly because they have been so indoctrinated with a system of beliefs. How much less so can someone who has not experienced a thing judge one who has?
The question is why have beliefs? Why not base everything on the self-quest for knowledge? I find that I seek out what others have learned, and augment that with my own experiences. For example, I know that terrestrial life develops over time through the processes of evolution and natural selection, but I do not hold a belief about these. I simply know that discernable and testable evidence makes knowledge about these processes more clear. I don’t try to fit in a god into my understanding of these processes. Nor do I try to use my limited knowledge of these processes to come up with unsupported conclusions that I then rigidly believe. In other words, I do not hold any beliefs about how life got started, even though I have knowledge about how it develops. I am aware of notions and ideas about the origin of life, but I treat these has just that. I do not need to have a belief regarding the origin of life in order to know that evolution is currently the best description of those processes.
My experience is that Christians and Atheists alike are too easy to judge something based on beliefs they hold, rather than on the human experience itself. To a supernatural event, the Christian will say, “It was God’s will” or “The devil did that”. To that same event, the Atheist will say, “It was your imagination” or “You misinterpreted the event; there must be a logical explanation.” To this I say that’s pretty arrogant to assume that they know the answer outright. In particular, this is the one area with Atheist are hypocrites because the general idea behind atheism is the lack of beliefs without evidence. If they have no evidence one way or another, they normally don’t jump to conclusions, except when something supernatural or spiritual is being questioned. Of course, Christians just make stuff up in their heads as they go along, in order to fit everything into their picture of this world created from their overly literal, under-educated understanding of ancient texts.
It’s expected to develop notions about something, and to test those as hypothesis. Most of us are in the wrong profession and/or will simply not live long enough to have the time to challenge every hypothesis or theory for ourselves. So, some bit of trust has to be placed in the works of others. Just as long as everything is understood as not absolute, it’s ok to accept reasonable margins of error in one’s knowledge.
I am not an atheist. I am not religious either. To me, both are contrary to my experiences and gathered knowledge. Both have had value in the process of developing my current knowledge base. They are not useless. They are both stepping stones to gaining experience and knowledge in one’s life. They both have their place, though neither can be used as reason to end the search for new knowledge and experiences.
Focusing one’s thoughts on a god can make that god real to that person. But each of us has the power to create our own metaphoric god. Judging someone’s metaphor is ultimately a judgment of our own. In this, I am also a little superstitious. Do not judge, lest ye be judged. Of course, I’m not perfect. I judge all the time. It’s the effort that counts; at least in my metaphor.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)