It’s Happening! My Starbucks is Closing!

Actually, 3 of my Starbucks are closing. I never thought this would happen to me - ME!! Sure, 600 Starbucks stores are closing, but I felt a certain satisfaction knowing their world domination would be checked.

Don’t get me wrong, of many of the strong corporate cultures out there, I have felt Starbucks led in the ethics department. Subsidizing college tuition, health benefits, not supporting the war in Iraq (please do not confuse this with not supporting the troops; this idea was suffered by many of the peeps I met while suffering the unfortunate fate of living in Oklahama for a year and half).

While visiting London in 2000, however, I first understood the expansion intentions of Slutbucks (I LOVE this new nickname some religious yahoo gave the coffee shop because of their naked mermaid symbol. Apparently, the Christian genius thought her tail was actually her legs splayed. He’s now a poster-boy for the need for college education, if you get my drift). I had not seen a Starbucks in an international setting during my junior year abroad (Strasbourg, represent!) and I spotted the coffee behemoth on a street corner directly across from a lovely mom and pop café that had begun closing procedures. Sniff.

My body doesn’t like a lot of coffee. I haven’t figured out if it’s the acid levels or what, but I’ve always been able to drink Starbucks (especially their Breakfast Blend freshly ground) without too much trouble. So, I’ve developed quite an entrenched loyalty to Starbucks.

When I read that 600 Starbucks were closing, truthfully, I thought nothing of it. Really, we hardly ever actually go to Starbucks. It’s the psychological comfort of knowing my warm, caffeine injection was right around the corner awaiting a dog-on-the-leash, husband-at-my-side stroll.

No longer.

The only thing that could repair the damage to my American-consumer-convenience state of mind is if a walk-up tamale/taco/queso place opens in the stead of Starbucks. There’s already a dive-bar, liquor store, old-school burger joint, donut/jalapeno-pig-in-a-blanket shop, and Walgreens within walking distance of my home. If I can’t have my coffee, give me my tamales. Baby jesus, can you hear me? I swear I won’t play BINGO for a whole month if you let me have my tamales. And when I have children, I won’t give them sleeping pills and just spend the whole day at the BINGO parlor. Probably. Maybe.

Have a great weekend, everybody! And if you can get Sessions beer in your neck of the woods, buy it. Cause it’s some gorgeous stuff served from a stubby, brewed by Full Sail out of Hood River, Oregon.

You can click on this link on The Huffpo if you want to see if a Starbucks near you is closing.

Did Obama Just Lose My Vote?

This is serious. I’ve been saying for quite a while that Obama has not yet earned my vote and I am quite happy voting for Nader to help strengthen efforts toward a multi-party system. However, I voted for Obama in the primary here in Texas and was excited to vote for the first viable African-American candidate in the U.S.

Also, this is the most important election in years, if for no other reason than the necessity to populate the Supreme Court with judges who will protect civil liberties unlike those Bush has appointed or McCain would appoint.

While I have continuously lambasted the lack of character Hillary Clinton and her husband have shown during the primary season, I would not say I have been sipping “Obama Kool-Aid.” I understand that his “Change We Can Believe In” slogan is only as effective as his ability - to put it simply - to get things done. And politicians have to work together to accomplish progress. (Unless you’re President Bush, in which case you use the 9/11 attacks and existence of terrorism to scare Americans and politicians alike into marching behind your efforts to make the U.S. more of an authoritarian regime than ever before. Ugh, the thought makes it difficult to keep my coffee and chocolate granola cereal down.)

Obama is a politician first. With a degree in Government, I never lose sight of this. While Democrats fall in love (and Republicans fall in line) we must not forget that politicians must operate within the existing confines of the Washington Dance. This will inevitably lead to widespread disapointment with Obama, when he’s president, because he simply cannot please everyone and will have to compromise in order to accomplish certain goals. A president must make decisions when no option is the right one. It’s a hard gig - the hardest one in the world; I thoroughly recognize this.

However, much of my free time this week has been spent trolling the internet for a reasonable justification for Obama’s approval of the new FISA Act of 2008. Of course, I already have my fair share of underlying bitterness because the Democrats have performed disgracefully since taking control of the Congress. They are inexplicably banner ankle-grabbers again and again despite Bush’s record disapproval ratings. Yes, they do not want to seem weak on national security, but they are greatly underestimating the American people’s desire to have their civil liberties protected in this era of heightened danger.

Congressional members have far more concern with the length of their federal careers than casting the appropriate vote - rendering them impotent in the areas of war profiteering (Diane Feinstein’s husband is a defense contractor and why she still enjoys support in California, I have no idea. BTW, she vote AYE on FISA as well), criminal activity at the executive level (erasing emails, Karl Rove and Harriet Miers refusing to testify, Valerie Plame, fixing EPA reports and much, much more), reforming health care and national energy policy, policing unfair lending practices and allowing the establishment of a credit industry that works against the American people, not for them. It inexplicable that Congress has utterly failed to inhibit Bush’s harmful activities when the majority of Americans do not favor his policies in the slightest. It is frustrating and goddamned ridiculous.

So, Obama is Change personified, right?

Apparently, not so. Yes, I have read his blog on The Huffington Post regarding his FISA vote, which proffered no substantial logic for his approval of the bill. A few gems from the piece are:

Given the choice between voting for an improved yet imperfect bill, and losing important surveillance tools, I’ve chosen to support the current compromise. I do so with the firm intention — once I’m sworn in as president — to have my Attorney General conduct a comprehensive review of all our surveillance programs, and to make further recommendations on any steps needed to preserve civil liberties and to prevent executive branch abuse in the future.

Democracy cannot exist without strong differences. And going forward, some of you may decide that my FISA position is a deal breaker. That’s ok. But I think it is worth pointing out that our agreement on the vast majority of issues that matter outweighs the differences we may have.

The problem with our agreement on the vast majority of issues is that his vote on the FISA bill illustrates his inherent weakness and willingness to compromise when no comprise is needed simply to prove (which he fails to do with this vote) that he is strong on national security. This “aye” was unnecessary, dangerous, wrong, hurtful and potentially, yes, a deal breaker. Especially when assessing the guts of the bill, along with those who voted against it. On The Huffpo website, David Bromwich provides a very concise, yet in-depth look at the governmental powers granted with this legislation. I strongly recommend reading the blog and the readers’ comments below.

Among the senators who opposed the vote are Biden, Boxer, Dodd, Clinton, Byrd, Durbin, Feingold, Harkin, Kerry, Leahy, Reid and Levin.

The bottom line is that political agreements with a candidate are moot if the candidate does not have the political strength or fortitude to operate in accordance with that agreement.

Of course, Obama’s folding on FISA was a political calculation - that’s practically consensus. And I wish he could offer an honest defense of his vote; but, alas, this theater of election season would lead any such candor to damage the candidate.

Obama will be elected president barring any unforeseen, intensely damaging and highly unlikely circumstances. Though the media portrays the presidential race as close - it is a facade. McCain’s chances of succeeding in November, in my opinion, are around 1 in 5. Incumbent parties do not win when the economy is in the tank - mentally or not (and it’s not mental, Phil, when milk, bread, cereal, gas and all other necessities are more and more expensive and the dollar is weaker and weaker). McCain is not galvanizing and voter trust of most election issues points toward Obama. I wish Obama the best and will be hopeful as he takes his oath of office.

Furthermore, I applaud Obama’s willingness to work across the aisle and understand there will be areas in which he will break with Liberals. Support of faith-based community initiatives, for one (and this coming from an agnostic).

The FISA Act, however, is so detrimental to democracy itself, my respect for not just Obama himself, but the very idea of Obama has been irreparably damaged. I would encourage hardcore Obama supporters to keep this particular vote of his in mind when daydreaming of the days to come as he takes on the heavy mantle of President of the United States of America. Perfection at this level does not exist and any romance with a candidate will certainly abate over time.

I would never cast a vote for McFlip-Flop, nor would I ever stay home and waste a voting opportunity. Also, I am a thorough, complete supporter of a multi-party system. While I wanted to vote for Obama - and was excited to vote for him - my decision was not cast in stone. It still is not cemented. However, the odds I would pull the lever in support of him this November are greatly diminished. Truthfully, I am ever more looking in Nader’s direction.

If Obama’s political contributions continue to decline, I encourage him to address his FISA ‘08 support with increased seriousness. This is no small issue for those of us who follow politics and government activity.

This weekend, I plan on purchasing Obama’s two books and will begin reading them with a large grain of salt. Perhaps this will allow me some insight behind this recent mind-boggling decision of his.

As of this point, Obama is not Hope and he is not Change We Can Believe In. He is merely Better Than Bush, but isn’t everybody else?

Anti-Intellectualism Half a Century Ago

History repeats itself - an oft-repeated proverb warning us that the the lessons of the past are once again the sins of today. Certainly, I found myself mentally saying a church-worthy Amen! to this proverb as I began reading the Pulitzer Prize-winning Anti-Intellectualism in American Life by Richard Hofstadter, published in 1962, 1963.

Let me just say that if this weren’t a library book, I’d be highlighting the hell out of it. Instead, I’m reduced to tearing post-it after post-it to mark all the points of interest. And I haven’t started Chapter 2. My consumption of this work is a result of research I’m conducting for my own respective book, but Hofstadter’s observations have already shocked me into open-mouth disbelief as his descriptions of the anti-intellectualism of the 1950’s readily apply to today’s culture clash between the learned and the petrified. The author does assert that anti-intellectualism suffers cyclical fluctuations and will never fully abate to the netherworlds of silly history, with other theories such as “the sun revolves around the Earth” and “the 2008 election will be between Giuliani and Hillary” (yeah, that was my own Nostradamus endeavors into electoral predictions).

So, please forgive the length of this blog as I indulge myself by providing a few (a bunch?) unusually relevant excerpts from Chapter 1, with my intensely insightful commentary to follow.

…the launching of Sputnik by the Soviets precipitated one of those periodic surges of self-conscious national reappraisal to which the American public is prone. The Sputnik was more than a shock to American national vanity: it brought an immense amount of attention to bear on the consequences of anti-intellectualism in the school sysytem and in American life at large. Suddenly, the national distaste for intellect appeared to be not just a disgrace but a hazard to survival. Pg 4-5.

Perhaps I’m overreaching in my cocoon of progressive political theory, but I view global warming and the rise in fuel prices as the space race of our day. Before you emit a Moe-esqe, “Whaaaa?”, allow me to explain. While there are untold quantities of hydrocarbon beneath the surface of the Earth in not only the U.S., but also Iran, Russia, the South China Sea and other areas, global energy demands - especially of India and China - are helping fuel the rise petrol prices and will continue to do so.

The U.S. must focus on a transcendent energy policy today in the same manner we did with the space race in the ’60’s. Scientific ambitions aiming at a forward-thinking fuel-efficiency and alternative-energy development will help the U.S. maintain a technological and, thus, economic advantage in global markets. If we can me be a maverick in this area, we just might hold on to our hegemony a bit longer - though that need not be the main goal. We need to ride the wave of motivation high gas prices are providing toward cleaner energy and end our reign as Pollution Bastards of the World (especially as China will pick up the slack and more).

The labels of Intellectuals and Anti-Intellectuals were thrown around in the 1950’s in much the same way Liberal and Conservative are today. They were used as bad words by those who hurled them against their opponents and worn as badges of honor by those they described. Obviously, Hofstadter was an intellectual and the examples of anti-intellectual rhetoric he presents are laughable in this day and age - hopefully in the same manner Creationism and Intelligent Design will be laughable in another half century. If you haven’t chuckled today, allow me to send some historical fodder from Anti-Intellectualim your way that will surely entertain:

Novelist “of the right-wing persuasion,” Louis Broomfield, pg 9:

Egghead (euphemism for intellectual): A person of spurious intellectual pretensions…Fundamentally superficial. Over emotional and feminine in reactions to any problem. Supercilious and surfeited with conceit and contempt for the experience of more sound and able men. Essentially confused in thought and immersed in mixture of sentimentality and violent evangelism…

President Eisenhower’s definition of an intellectual, pg. 10:

…a man who takes more words than are necessary to tell more than he knows.

The disdain for intellectualism opened education and the education system itself up for the attacks from the more conservative commentators of the day as well.

Billy Graham, pg 15:

You can stick a public school and a university in the middle of every block of every city in America and you will never keep America from rotting morally by mere intellectual education.

[In place of the Bible] we substituted reason, rationalism, mind culture, science worship, the working power of government, Freudianism, humanism, behaviorism, positivism, materialism, and idealism. [This work of ] so-called intellectuals. Thousands of these ‘intellectuals’ have publicly stated that morality is relative–that there is no norm or absolute standard…

Arthur Bestor, junior-high school principal in Illinois, pg. 17:

When we come to the realization that not every child has to read, figure, write and spell . . . that many of them either cannot or will not master these chores . . . then we shall be on the road to improving the junior high curriculum.

(This is the best part) Between this day and that a lot of selling must take place. But it’s coming. We shall some day accept the thought that it is just as illogical to assume that every boy must be able to read as it is that each one must be able to perform on a violin, that it is no more reasonable to require that each girl shall spell well than it is that each one shall bake a good cherry pie.

I’ve never made a cherry pie, but I can make a mean cherry cobbler. Does that count?

Jack Schwartzman, of the Freeman, pg. 13:

Our universities are the training grounds for the barbarians of the future, those who, in the guise of learning , shall come forth loaded with pitchforks of ignorance and cynicism, and stab and destroy the remnants of human civilization…

If you send your son to the college of today, you will create the Executioner of tomorrow. The rebirth of idealism must come from the scattered monasteries of non-collegiate thought.

Does it get any better than that?! This quotation thoroughly tickles my funny bone because I have a close family member, who recently turned 70, who continually blames my political viewpoints on the fact that I attended “one of those liberal universities.” I had no idea the University of Texas was a cesspool of left-wing larva ready infiltrate governmental policy-making (don’t tell the frat boys!). In fact, he repeats that these “liberal colleges” are why young people tack liberal and why this world is going to hell in a handbag. I continually try to remind him that I retained nothing from college classes. Especially French.

And perhaps to close, this final quotation from Hofstadter himself that proves yet another proverb: the more things change, the more they stay the same. Pg 12 - and keep in mind, he wrote this in 1962:

Far more acute and sweeping was the hostility to intellectuals expressed on the far-right wing, a categorical folkish dislike of the educated classes and of anything respectable, established, pedigreed, or cultivated. The right-wing crusade of the 1950’s was full of heated rhetoric about ‘Harvard professors, twisted-thinking intellectuals . . . in the State Department.’

Am I the only one who feels like they’re in the Twilight Zone? George Bush thinks the jury is still out on global warming AND evolution. Hillary Clinton somehow warped into the working man’s candidate (talk about shape-shifting) and decried “experts” who opposed her gas tax holiday. Schools across the country are peppered with teachers who want to assert Intelligent Design as a scientific principle when it’s the absolute antithesis to the definition of science itself.

When will these perverted objectors realize that science, math, literature - EDUCATION - is what provided them their military weaponry, their computers, their energy capabilities, every day conveniences, “free market” dreams, and overall U.S. success and domination. It is a shame that people have to suffer when factories close and the jobs that require less education go overseas. As it is natural for species to go extinct in biological evolution and so is the case with jobs during economic evolution. Would the laid-off factor worker rather keep his job, yet amputate the very tools with which the U.S. retains its global position and military domination? Well, that would be unpatriotic.

Anti-Intellectualism is an embarrassment that has enjoyed many a decade hindering the development of humanity. For some inexplicable reason, Americans tend to wallow in more than their fair share. I suppose fear of change and development is at the heart of the matter, though it is hard for me to reconcile the “Great American Dream” with this entrenched detestation of progress and reason.

I do, however, think we’ve come a long way since Hofstadter penned his academic opinions. College education is ever more the norm and I’m sure 50 years from now we’ll laugh at the crazy old people who didn’t want the gays to marry and thought someone having a college education was a clear indication of an elitist in their midst. And I appreciated a sentiment by James Carville (who has stoked some of my ire during the current primary season) who said on AC 360 the other evening, “Competence is patriotic.” Well, halle-freaking-lujah.

I can tell I’m really going to enjoy the rest of this book. In the meantime, let’s get-to on those alternative energy sources!!

Holy Shit - and I’m back

I just returned from a week-long jaunt to Vegas, newly married and found this on my television screen:

This is the “Teen Princess Dress” from the FLDS Dress website. That’s right. They’re selling their freaky 19th-century cult garb. Wow.

I mean, part of me wants to buy one. I already have an Islamic chador my friend got me from a market in the UAE and a beautifully embroidered Indian wedding sari I used as window drapery. I suppose I could start a collection of religious garb, but that would be creepy. Still, the idea of wearing one of these FLDS dresses for Halloween is almost irresistible. However, no dreams of once again taking first prize in the costume contest will convince me to place an order (last year, I took home the gold by dressing up as Chris Farley in the Lunch-Lady SNL sketch. I rocked it hard).

First of all, the smallest size they have is 8A. Now, I have no idea how freaky-cult 8A compares to the Real World size 8. Secondly, size 8A runs a cool $72.53. I don’t think if there is a god that it would want anyone to spend that kind of dough just to look chaste. Not with these gas prices. I mean, buy a sheet, cut a hole in the middle for your head and put a belt around it, for chrissakes.

Lastly, and most obvious, I take voting with the dollar seriously and will not support an intolerant, closed cult that practices sexual abuse and tax evasion (among many other crimes, I’m sure), refuses to educate the female members properly, is secretive and follows the late psychopath Joseph Smith. Not for any Halloween prize even if it’s really, really awesome.

Why Does Baby Jesus Hate Iowa?

Pat Robertson, referring to the 9/11 attacks said, “We have allowed rampant secularism and occult, et cetera, to be broadcast on television. We have permitted somewhere in the neighborhood of 35 to 40 million unborn babies to be slaughtered in our society. We have a Court that has essentially stuck its finger in God’s eye and said, ‘We’re going to legislate you out of the schools, we’re going to take your Commandments from off the courthouse steps in various states, we’re not going to let little children read the Commandments of God, we’re not going to let the Bible be read — no prayer in our schools.’ We have insulted God at the highest levels of our government. And, then we say ‘why does this happen?’ Well, why its happening is that God Almighty is lifting His protection from us.”

Jerry Falwell said to Pat Roberston on the 9/11 attacks, “And, I know that I’ll hear from them for this. But, throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal court system, throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way — all of them who have tried to secularize America — I point the finger in their face and say “you helped this happen.”

John Hagee said, in response to Hurricane Katrina, “All hurricanes are acts of God because God controls the heavens. I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God and they were recipients of the judgment of God for that.”

Okay. Big bad things happen to bad people. Gotcha.

My question is, why is god mad at Iowa? A very Christian state, I find it surprising that Iowa is experiencing record floods following a plague of tornadoes. Johnson County Emergency Management spokesman Mike Sullivan said, “This is our version of Katrina.” Psalm 148:7-8 says, “Praise the LORD from the earth, Sea monsters and all deeps; Fire and hail, snow and clouds; Stormy wind, fulfilling His word.”

So, Iowa, what’d you do? Perhaps Robertson and Hagee will speak up and give us some insight into this matter since they seem to be so insightful. Alas, Falwell cannot share with us his opinion cause he’s already with Baby Jesus.

Now Baby Jesus is mad. Mad at Iowa. But why?

A quick Google search offers up some ideas:

• Ethanol subsidies (Huffpo comment by jsarets)
• Giving Obama an early lead in the primaries (Google Groups)
• Punishing the scouts for their homophobia (Yahoo India - have to click on the hidden answers)
• Birthin’ up Tom Arnold (Craiglist comment)
• It’s just the weather (Rachel Griffiths on Daily Kos)

I don’t think we’ll truly know the answer until one of the esteemed men of god who have such a direct connection with the almighty ask Him to give them the 411. You can email John Hagee Ministries here and ask him, like I did, why god hates Iowa and maybe that will help focus his discussions with god on this topic (you have to fill in your phone number and, fyi, 968-7825 translates into “you suck”).

In the meantime, let’s just hope that Baby Jesus sees fit to let those 36,000 naughty people back into their homes.

Hall of Shame: S.C. Approves “I Believe” License Plates

I make no bones about my disappointment with the rise in religious fundamentalism in this country and how detrimental such developments are, mostly having to do with failed abortion-only policies, the rise of anti-intellectualism, the accepting of intolerant and unconstitutional bans on gay marriage, and the promotion of power of men like George W. Bush, Pat Robertson, John Hagee and the late Jerry Falwell. Though, the rise in fundamentalism likely portends its downfall as progress is an unstoppable force, a law in South Carolina took effect yesterday that expresses the deep inability for many Americans to reconcile the brainwashing of their childhood with the reason and common sense their adulthoods.

South Carolina now offers “I Believe” license plates at $4 to $6.

Such a license plate is an example of a governmental endorsement of a religion and a shameful illustration of the domination of unfounded mythology on our society.

Ask yourself whether the South Carolina state legislature would support a license plate expressing support of Islam, Judaism, Atheism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Scientology or Wicca. Right.

The ACLU and American Jewish Congress are considering action over this huge legal disappointment in South Carolina (which, by the way, failed in Florida in April). Here at politicalmpressions (which is just me), we wholemindedly support their efforts to have this state-sponsored endorsement of Christianity revoked.

Had this happened in Texas, I myself would raise my voice to its greatest heights to help preserve the separation of church and state.

Silver Lining: Marcus Aurelius points out in his comment on Think Progress, “It’s nice to know who the morons are when you’re out driving.”

Here We Go: June 19, Americans United for Separation of Church and State “asks a judge to stop the state from making the plates and rule that the law allowing them violates the First Amendment.” For more, read here. Aaaahh, I love the smell of progress and common sense.

I Am Not An Astrophysicist, But I Play One Online

In response to the piece by ABC news that 16 percent of American science teachers believe in Creationism, I posted this comment on The Huffington Post:

ME:

Creationism is in direct opposition of the Law of Conservation of Mass-Energy and is not founded scientifically, therefore should not be taught in science class.

Good source: Atheist Universe by David Mills

Shame on the rise of anti-intellectualism in America. As we allow these attacks on science, the U.S. will suffer economically, technologically, culturally and globally. It’s these conservative christian isolationists that are dooming America and causing America’s loss of hegemony that the isolationists so fervently believe in.

My comments led to the following debate:

Myshkin57: Eh… conservation of mass is not a good reason to reject it. A good reason to reject it is that there is no reason to accept it. Further, the problem with creationism being taught as science is not its inconsistency with other scientific theory; most scientific theories were inconsistent with the scientific theories at the time they were first proposed. The problem is that it is not science (i.e. not testable, falsifiable, verifiable, etc.)

Delvin McGee: by that notion so does the Big Bang Theory

TMAN: Except that those laws or better yet, the particular laws of the Universe we inhabit were a product of the particular vacumn fluctuation as part and parcel of the Big Bang. Should another fluctuation occur within our Universe the Laws of Physics we observe now would be gone as would we.

Many of the most important elements of the Big Bang are “theory” in name only and have been supported, verified by rigorous scientific research, experimentation and testing.

ME: Big Bang does not defy the Law of Conservation of Mass-Energy:
Currently, all matter in the universe is expanding and will continue to do so until it exceeds critical density, at which point gravitational forces will cause the universe to collapse on itself, called the Big Crunch (you can wiki it). As all matter returns to a single contiguous point, the theory suggests that our universe of mass energy will explode in yet another Big Bang.

Therefore, mass-energy was not created. It has always existed and has most likely always been expanding and contracting.

TMAN: The increased rate of expansion has nothing to do with the Universe “exceeding critical density”. In fact the exact opposite is proposed as one “hypothosis” where matter/energy continues to expand and cool thus dissipating, for “eternity” “the BIG FREEZE”

Visable Mass-energy and the laws pertaining to them (they are the same) are a product of this Universe only, initial conditions sets the “laws”

You are aware that the expansion of the Universe also includes (though not often mentioned) the creation of the “new” space it is expanding into, as it expands, arent you?

ME: ah, excellent debate.

let me proffer that as the universe expands, space stretches - which contradicts the idea that new space is created.

TMAN: “let me proffer that as the universe expands, space stretches”

-Into what?

When I used the term “space” into which the Universe expands, I mis-used the word. My bad. Outside the “boundry limit ” of the Universe is nothing. The Universe (which contains within itself all of “space” and time, expands into that nothing that the Universe has expanded its boundry limit to. This is next to impossible to visualize or comprehend but mathmatically thats what is said to be happening as we speak.

ME: i see what you are saying, but what about the multi-universe hypothesis?

outside our universe is simply another universe, perhaps contracting, and that our universe is not simply expanding into nothing. the number of universes could be indeterminate.

So far, I have yet to receive another response from TMAN. Seeing as how I pulled most of what I asserted out of my ass (aside from the information I picked up from David Mills), I’m curious if anyone out there has any thoughts or corrections or suggestions.

UPDATE: TMAN finally answered my last response: Yes, thats possible or even the latest rage, “vibrating, interacting Branes”. At that point it’s a little over my head.

But, it’s magnificent isn’t it? And the thing is, it appears that it’s set up to give us exactly what we ask for. So it’s imperative that we learn and understand all that we can then take responsibility for our actions within the known and understood Universe. One doesn’t need fables if one is intellectually and physically engaged with it.
Thanks, TXpastafarian, for the dialogue.

To which I answered: I agree. It’s the discussion and quest for knowledge that matters. Anytime!

SHAMEFUL: 16 Percent of US Science Teachers Believe in Creationism

According to ABC news, 16 percent of U.S. science teachers believe human beings were created by a god in the last 10,000 years and one in eight teach creationism or intelligent design as a valid alternative to Darwin’s Origin of Species.

This correlates directly with my recent post of the rise of anti-intellectualism in the U.S.

What a ridiculous set of circumstances in which we have allowed fundamentalist religion to place our country. The lack of appreciation for math and science is largely due to the attack on science by christian leaders and churches across the U.S. It is shameful and is leading to the deterioration of the U.S. stronghold on technology and innovation. This, in turn, will lead to the further slowing of our economy and continued reduction in our influence globally. Can the rest of the world really take us seriously when so many Americans, including the president, take the bible so literally and as the irrefutable word of god and source on all relevant matters??

I reference Atheist Universe in which author David Mills asserts that creationism is in direct opposition to the scientific Law of Conservation of Mass-Energy. While there is no scientific evidence whatsoever to support creationism or intelligent design, there is in fact much evidence to dispute it.

There is also a mountain of historical and scientific evidence to refute the accuracy and truth of the bible. And yet, the ridiculous notion that it is a true text worthy of belief continues to permeate our society. Perhaps this can be attributed to the lack of reading, increase in video game play and television-watching by our children, or rise in the influence of religious leaders. We even had a serious presidential candidate this year who said we must bring the Constitution in line with the bible!

Make no mistake, unless we recognize that the privilege we have given christianity and other religions has led to the educational, and thus economic, downfall of this country, we will continue to see our global position deteriorate. Researches are scrambling to find out why our math and science scores are crumbling; until they look into the effect of religious fundamentalism on our educational system, I doubt they’ll find the true source of the corrosion.

Related articles:

U.S. Teens Trail Peers Around the World on Math-Science Test (Washpo, 12.5.07)

Study Compares States’ Math and Science Scores With Other Countries (NYT, 11.14.07)

Math/Science Education in a Global Age (InternationalED.org)

Anti-Intellectualism Syndrome and The Growing Smart Gap

The wealth gap in America isn’t the only growing dichotomy in our melting pot of various demographic slices. An intellectual gap is asserting itself in dangerous levels as these demographic slices form battling coalitions over differing priorities. While the Internet is a fascinating equalizer, providing information and education to those who seek it, the increasing vilification of education and intellectualism is alarming. And the 2008 Election, with its record-breaking participation, has brought illustrations of the growing smart gap to the forefront of mainstream media - even if the media doesn’t understand or acknowledge exactly what they’ve got their hands on.

The most recent example of the degradation of education in America is the difference in voter groups in the Democratic Primary. We are continuously reminded that educated Americans lean more toward Obama and blue-collar (they hardly ever say “uneducated”) voters side with Clinton. In an effort to celebrate these blue-collar Americans, the media and the candidates repeatedly refer to them as “hardworking Americans” - which should seem offensive to white-collar workers who undoubtedly work just as hard whether it’s in the operating room or on the trading floor.

Obama’s opponents readily reach for the “elitist” attack, however, simply because educated voters choose him more than any other candidate. How ridiculous. How backwards. How indicative of the anti-intellectualism that seems pervasive even in our most top levels of government.

It is not far-fetched to assume that educated voters are more informed, know more about current events, and are more familiar with the global effects of our national decisions and, thus, can apply critical analysis - even in the voting booth - better than their uneducated counterparts. This is not to say that a college-educated voter will always make a better decision than an uneducated voter. Intellectualism has more to do with the seeking of knowledge than the attaining of a piece of paper in the form of a degree. Smarter, more educated decisions, however, lead to a better - even longer - life and benefit not just the educated, but society as a whole.

Hillary Clinton began to solidify a political base as she began to pander to the uneducated, as Republicans do in most of their campaigns. In a fantastic blog entitled “In Defense of Being Educated” on The Huffington Post, Robert J. Elisberg writes that Hillary Clinton thinks she should be president because her voters are less educated than those of her opponent. He’s simplifying for effect, but the message is clear. The uneducated, potentially poorer-decision making voters who have always been courted by Republicans, are being celebrated and lauded. Yes, this may just be a political tool to get ahead, but the message it sends to America is a very dangerous one indeed.

I’m reminded of the 60 Minutes Report “All Eyes On Ohio” during which Kenny Schoenholtz, a worker at the Glatfelter paper factory (which was shutting down) told Steve Kroft about Obama, “Well, I’m hearin’ he doesn’t even know the National Anthem, you know. He wouldn’t use the Holy Bible. He’s got his own beliefs, got the Muslim beliefs. Couple issues that bothers me at heart.” Now, I don’t know anyone who saw that report and were not - too put it lightly- gobsmacked by the stupidity of such a person.

Now, that may seem a harsh judgment, but it is difficult to watch as voters just like Schoenholtz are routinely courted as the Holy Grail among voting blocs. He is the perfect constituent for Republicans or Clintons, who salivate at the opportunity to use unreasoned and illogical attacks. He is the audience for Willey Horton ads and Swiftboat campaigns. He is the voter to whom it will matter that Barack Obama’s middle name is Hussein. He is the voter who most likely voted for Bush a second time.

Why is he this type of voter? Because he is uneducated.

The pat-on-the-back for those who opted out of higher education or choose not to seek information and enlightenment will have grievous results beyond the quality of our elected leaders. With the diminishing appreciation of education - specifically science and math (largely due to religious fundamentalism) - the U.S. will continue to lose its stronghold as hegemonic power and falter economically, technologically and culturally. I recommend reading Susan Jacoby’s “The Dumbing of America” on The Washington Post for further statistics and examples of our rapid intellectual back-sliding. Jacoby has also recently written published “The Age of American Unreason“.

As the media and political parties request audience with uneducated voters using sugar-coated labels of importance, one must remember that lack of education and information encourage crime, teenage pregnancy, poverty, obesity, disease and more. Autocratic regimes and dictatorships prevent instruments of knowledge from reaching the masses as a tool with which to construct their oppressive governments.

I know many people who have not had access to a college education, yet are still very much intellectuals. The seeking of information, arming oneself with the ability to make enlightened decisions and the understanding of the importance of knowledge are all that is required to be intellectual.

As a nation, however, we glorify the rejecting of education to our own detriment.

There a fewer shames I can think of that the anti-intellectualism movement has produced than those presented by Nicholas D. Kristoff of The New York Times in his Op-Ed “With a Few More Brains…“:

“A 34-nation study found Americans less likely to believe in evolution than citizens of any of the countries polled except Turkey.

President Bush is also the only Western leader I know of who doesn’t believe in evolution, saying “the jury is still out.” No word on whether he believes in little green men.”

Kudos: Saudi Arabia Holds First Gender-Mixed, Public Concert

Saudi Arabia, a country in which women have few, if any, rights, held a concert of classical music, presented by a German Quartet. What’s amazing is that the concert is the first-ever public gathering of a mixed-gender audience for musical enjoyment. You can read more about the event at MSNBC.

While the audience was mostly an expatriate audience, I’m always pleased to see progress in a country dominated by religious law that contravenes a vast majority of civil liberties.

ABC 4/16 Democratic Debate: An Exercise In Absurdity

Who caught last night’s debate on ABC? If you did, you are probably feeling like I am this morning, thinking I’ll never get those ?@#! 90 minutes of my life back. My sentiments are loudly being echoed across morning cable news, the blogs, commentary and news websites. Let’s just say that Democratic peeps are angry this morning.

As well they should be.

Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopolous didn’t what I would call “moderate” the debate. It’s more like they TMZed the debate, avoiding important, substantive topics that will actually factor in the candidate’s abilities to govern the nation. Instead, all the “manufactured issues” - as Barack delightfully refers to them - were hurled again and again at BO and HRC in a clear effort to humiliate them, catch them off guard, or somehow lead them into a gaffe that will be played on loop across all media in the Western Hemisphere until the Pennsylvania primary. It was disgusting - like they were political paparazzi. If it wasn’t for the wonderful distraction of Top Chef airing a few minutes afterward, I would have finished that bottle of Chianti in an effort to dull the shock and awe of the evening.

Let me also bring up the fact that George Stephanopolous worked for the Clintons. Closely. For a long time. And while, he wrote a tell-all after his departure, doesn’t his previous employment kinda serve as a conflict of interest? I know we’re all adults here, but I thought that was in poor taste. And for me to say something is in poor taste is really hanging it out there. Plus, Charlie Gibson is very capable of shaming ABC’s reputation on his own.

I think the first time I actually stopped and said, I cannot believe they are asking these types of questions was when Georgie asked of Obama, “Do you think Reverend Wright loves America as much as you do?” Now, if that’s not the most fucking retarded question a moderator can ask of a presidential candidate who has very good chances of actually ending up in The White House, I don’t what is. Perhaps the boxers vs. briefs inquiry Bill Clinton received in 1992 can compete, but that was on MTV. By a kid. This was George Stephalopolous. On ABC.

The debate continued on, unhindered by much relevant discussion on topics with which the next president will grapple. Lightly touched were gas prices and the economy and the Iraq War and education, but that generally happened when the candidate could steer their answer away from some idiotic question about bitterness and Bosnia.

Furthermore, all the analysts this morning are talking about how poorly Obama did or how Clinton won the debate. Which is odd when every poll I’ve seen indicates the majority of those polled think Obama won the debate. HRC quickly jumped on the attack wagon whenever the moderators brought up a “manufactured issue” against Obama, including the whole William Ayers topic (read Obama’s bio, people - if for no other reason than he will probably be the next president of the US). Obama repeatedly defended HRC right along with himself, saying the two are speaking a lot and campaigning hard and of course there will be some verbal missteps.

I thought he handled the issues well and was genuinely surprised to see all the negative reaction the analysts were having today. I think that largely stems from their desire to see a beat-down and want Obama to get in there an mud-wrestle Hillary and his unwillingness to stoop was disappointing to them. To the rest of us “every day” folk who can see the forest for the trees, he did well and we like that he’s not treating the primary like a bar-room brawl. That’s why all the polls are showing people thought HE won. These anal-ysts need to take a few or go on vacation. Out of touch doesn’t even describe it anymore.

Lastly, and this point really has nothing to do with the debate, but Charlie Gibson said he was sure every American said a prayer for Virginia Tech as it was the anniversary of last year’s massacre. Not a big deal. However, in an effort to please the masses and ensure rating, news organizations are forgetting on a large scale, that over 20 million Americans are atheist or agnostic. We don’t run around waving flags and brainwashing new recruits or sending disciples to tithe to our organization or they’re going to hell. We’re not organized. That’s the whole point. I would also almost guarantee that there are quite a few more closet atheists and agnostics who fear repudiation and being ostracized from their family and community where they to admit their disbelief.

I remembered Virginia Tech and held the deceased in my heart for a moment. I did not pray. The sentiment that “every American said a prayer”, while not wholly offensive, is indicative of an ignorance that atheists and agnostics are the fastest-growing sector in the faith, or lack-thereof, segment of our society. Most atheists and agnostics are educated and watch debates and watch news and are growing disgusted more and more with the assumption that everyone is Christian, a sentiment which IS offensive to A LOT of people.

I understand news organizations need to appeal the masses and already-brainwashed group-thinkers are more likely to buy the products advertised during the commercials. I would advise news organizations (especially CNN), however, in their efforts to dumb-down their programming, to remember that some of us have progressed beyond the culture of fear that our afterlife is determined by faith in the words of men from long ago who sought to control the masses and succeeded beyond their wildest imaginations. It is embarrassing and appalling to watch, so I will continue to garner the majority of my information from the Internet - which I suppose is what we should all do anyway.

In the meantime, we can only watch as humanity progresses, some more slowly than others - as demonstrated by mainstream news organizations, Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopolous.

Prosecuting the Bush Administration

This morning is a beautiful morning, if a little chilly. And it only improved when I clicked on The Huffington Post and read the headline “Obama Would ‘Immediately Review’ Potential Of Crimes In Bush White House.”

The HuffPo basically provided an excerpt from The Philadelphia Daily News’ Will Bunch’s Attywood column in which Obama said:

What I would want to do is to have my Justice Department and my Attorney General immediately review the information that’s already there and to find out are there inquiries that need to be pursued. I can’t prejudge that because we don’t have access to all the material right now. I think that you are right, if crimes have been committed, they should be investigated. You’re also right that I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt because I think we’ve got too many problems we’ve got to solve.

So this is an area where I would want to exercise judgment — I would want to find out directly from my Attorney General — having pursued, having looked at what’s out there right now — are there possibilities of genuine crimes as opposed to really bad policies. And I think it’s important– one of the things we’ve got to figure out in our political culture generally is distinguishing betyween really dumb policies and policies that rise to the level of criminal activity. You know, I often get questions about impeachment at town hall meetings and I’ve said that is not something I think would be fruitful to pursue because I think that impeachment is something that should be reserved for exceptional circumstances. Now, if I found out that there were high officials who knowingly, consciously broke existing laws, engaged in coverups of those crimes with knowledge forefront, then I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law — and I think that’s roughly how I would look at it.

Now, there have been plenty of crimes committed by the Bush administration, whether it was illegal domestic spying, no-bid contract assignment in Iraq, torture, the illegal destruction of mountains of documentation and more. It would give me untold satisfaction if Congress or the next administration conducted effective investigations of the goings-on under Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. I have little faith that such investigations will proceed as most politicians are in the re-election business and obviously care more about the preservation of their careers than carrying out their fundamental duties as lawmakers and designated check-and-balancers.

Furthermore, I have not allotted my general election vote as of yet and am seriously considering marking the box next to Nader’s name. If Obama gives serious commitment to investigating criminal activity in the Bush White House, he will greatly increase the odds I will vote for him. But, he wants to be a uniter and that probably entails glossing over most of the illegal activity or going after smaller potatoes than those at the top of the administration. Also, Bush will most likely strategically hand out pardons, as he did with Scooter Libby, that will help prevent investigation of his activities the way his father did at the end of his term regarding his participation in the Iran Contra affair.

It’s enough to make me want to win the lottery and buy an island in the South Pacific on which to live and wear a sarong for the rest of my days.

You know what else makes me want to go native among palm trees? This comment on The Huffington Post:

“In the end, elitist liberals are impotent and embittered by that fact. They cling to fantasies such as prosecuting righteous, upstanding American patriots. They fall back on empty rhetoric such as “I’ll fight for the common man, because they know in their own feeble, prejudiced minds, that they don’t have the courage to fight anything evil or anything with the capacity to fight back.

They denigrate core beliefs such as Christianity, because they are empty vessels, devoid of any faith other than weak dependence on the wished-for power of twisted liberal government to FORCE their will upon those made of real and stronger stuff. They are deathly afraid of true faith because they have none. They are terrified of tools such as guns because they generally don’t know how to use them to feed themselves and are too afraid to use them to defend themselves.

They are everything in reverse that Obama tried and failed to heap disdain upon with his elitist mumblings in San Fran. No, we know who they are and what they lack; and they know we know, and that’s what really destroys them.”

To which I responded, complete with typos:

“wow. you are seriously living in fantasy-land. and your one-sided, close-mindedness makes me shudder because your zeal presents you prime meat for the those politicians who would take advantage of your brainwashed, sheep-like desire to follow and believe the lies you are fed.

Committing torture does not make you a patriot. It makes you an immoral hypocrite.

We have faith. Faith in reason, logic, common sense. Not unfounded fairytales only constructed as a tool to control. It is a good thing to question everything. And I’m not deathly afraid of anything except profound ignorance.

And I’m from Texas, honey. I KNOW how to use a gun.

Remember, discussion and debate is always a good thing. No one is right on ALL the issues and when you are certain you are right and no one else, it is time to retire. For your mind is petrified, you can progress no more and are no longer useful.”

I should proofread, I know, I know…

Good read: Newsweek Article on Physics and God

Even though those bastards at Newsweek hired evil non-genius Karl Rove, they are still managing to churn out quality pieces. It seems they haven’t received lightning bolts of bad karma or a plague of bubonic-infested rats and have continued publication. Of course, I know this because I’ve received my regular subscription for Festivus and those weekly issues just keep on comin. I vacillate between taking a squiz between the covers and using the magazine for kindling.

This week, they’ve interviewed Physicist Steven Weinburg (hook ‘em, horns) on this huge particle experiment starting in Switzerland this summer. The interview addresses the possibility of physics eventually proving the existence of god and a lot of fun context around the topic.

I recommend reading the interview for yourself, but if you do not have the time or the inclination, here are some interesting excerpts. At least, I find them interesting. Pat Robertson or John Hagee or any others who make oodles of dough perpetuating the idea of “The Almighty Lord” might find it distasteful. Now, because the physicist is speaking in crazy, never-leave-the-lab langue, I’ll provide the best layman translation I can following each quotation. Hope you enjoy.

Quotation: “As science explains more and more, there is less and less need for religious explanations. Originally, in the history of human beings, everything was mysterious. Fire, rain, birth, death, all seemed to require the action of some kind of divine being. As time has passed, we have explained more and more in a purely naturalistic way.”

Translation: The idea that there is some inexplicable superbeing responsible for all the eye can see and the origins of the universe - i.e. intelligent design - is a croc of shiznit.

Quotation: “But religion has evolved along with science. It is something created by human beings, and as human beings learn more and more their religion changes. Today, especially in the more established religious sects in the West, they’ve learned to stop trying to explain nature religiously and leave that to science.”

Translation: Religion and faith are man-made and as humans progress, as they inevitably do, religion and mythology fade into the past. Each time you play Guitar Hero or call someone on your iPod or recycle a plastic bottle and appreciate the progress of mankind in any way, a particle of organized religion dries up and dies. And doesn’t go to heaven.

Quotation: “The more we learn about the universe the less sign we see of an intelligent designer. Isaac Newton thought that it would require an explanation in terms of the action of God to explain how the sun shone. Now we know that it shines because of the heat produced by the conversion of hydrogen into helium in its core.”

Translation: All the peeps wanting “intelligent design” to be taught in schools want to dumbify our children so that we are less and less competitive with emerging technological economies and end up returning to the jungle as the apes we once were.

Quotation: “All human beings, whether religious or not, are caught in a tragic situation of never fully being able to understand the world we are in.”

Translation: Certitude is the luxury of the inherently stupid.

Quotation: “I don’t think that we can ever prove that God does not exist. But if he does exit [sic] it might be possible to prove it.”

Translation: Paging Richard Dawkins! It looks like closure for Atheists is as remote as orgasms for nuns.

Chuck Norris Chops Into Self-Help Author

Now, here’s one good for a laugh. Let me preface by saying I didn’t know Chuck Norris was literate. I mean, I knew he could karate chop some shit, but read? That’s a surprise. NOW, I find out not only can he read, but he can write. Or at least he has an assistant who can write. In any case, he submitted this article to Townhall.com, criticizing Oprah Winfrey’s endorsement of Eckhart Tolle’s book “A New Earth.”

In the article, Chuck laments a gathering with people being held by Oprah and Tolle at the same time as Easter and says “it is more evidence of the paradigm shift in our culture from its moral absolute and Judeo-Christian basis to a relativistic worldview, in which anything goes and everything is tolerated.”

“Like most self-help spiritual texts of this type, it is a blend of half-truths and half-fabrications. One easily could save the purchase price of ‘A New Earth’ — and subsequently avoid its misleading remarks — by reading the Bible, which gives a much more thorough and accurate picture of life’s purpose and the methods for overcoming its obstacles.”

Yeah - because there are NO fabrications in The Bible.

“My battle is not with Oprah; she has her guru (Tolle), and I have mine (Jesus). The real war is between those who assert to be bearers of the truth, such as Tolle and Jesus. And the question is: With contradicting truths, will we believe a mere man or one who claimed to be so much more?” He then goes on to quote C.S. Lewis, one of the only atheists in history to head over to Christianity and, therefore, sort of a folk hero to many of the Jesus followers.

I must say, I do share Norris’ skepticism of self-help books as they require the same credentials as a religious leader - nil. And the certainty they express in their ideas relegates them to the “suspicious” file.

Nevertheless, it’s laughable that Chuckie thinks our culture ever had a moral absolute or that that absolute could be found in a text such as the bible. Are there meaner characters in literature than the god of Abraham? Not bloody likely! I’d never want to be like him. If anyone should be smited or smit or whatever, it’s these religious blindmen who want to assert their beliefs as TRUTH and cage the rest of us with their ignorance.

FYI, if GOD were a god of love, he wouldn’t have sent his only son (and no one would have actually believed Mary was a virgin in those days) to be tortured to “save” everyone while the majority of humankind goes to spend eternity in hellfire. Can we say fable?

What do you think of that, Chuckie? I’ll have a beer for you and your celebrated intolerance. And when I die and I don’t go to hell, I’ll think of you then too. You and Huckachuck really deserve each other, don’t you?

Religion Pendulum Swinging In Iraq

Yes, I do think history is cyclical and the religious extremism in the Middle East can only last so long. Could it be the violence perpetuated by the religious leaders in Iraq is causing disenchantment among the youth? It’s too close to call at this point, but the International Herald Tribune has a really interesting article on this development.

Religious “Unaffiliated” Fastest Growing Religious Demographic

The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life conducted a survey, according to CNN, of 35,000 people and found:

“While much of the study confirms earlier findings — mainline Protestant churches are in decline, non-denominational churches are gaining and the ranks of the unaffiliated are growing — it also provides a deeper look behind those trends, and of smaller religious groups.”

“The religious demographic benefiting the most from this religious churn is those who claim no religious affiliation. People moving into that category outnumber those moving out of it by a three-to-one margin.

The majority of the unaffiliated — 12 percent of the overall population — describe their religion as “nothing in particular,” and about half of those say faith is at least somewhat important to them. Atheists or agnostics account for 4 percent of the total population.”

Many hold the evangelicals responsible (including me) for at least the second Bush term, if not the first, which has left a bad taste in many mouths (especially mine). I also think Atheist and Agnostic numbers are surging and will continue to do so - like I’ve said before, you can’t stop progress!