The Failed War On Drugs

This is the opening statement of the recent Report of the Global Commission on Drug Policy.

“The global war on drugs has failed, with devastating consequences for individuals and societies around the world. Fifty years after the initiation of the U.N. Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, and 40 years after President Nixon launched the U.S. government’s war on drugs, fundamental reforms in national and global drug control policies are urgently needed.”

Charles Blow, a New York Times OP-ED columnist, had this to say about it in today's column:

 

"So began a war that has waxed and waned, sputtered and sprinted, until it became an unmitigated disaster, an abomination of justice and a self-perpetuating, trillion-dollar economy of wasted human capital, ruined lives and decimated communities. An effort meant to save us from a form of moral decay became its own insidious brand of moral perversion — turning people who should have been patients into prisoners, criminalizing victimless behavior, targeting those whose first offense was entering the world wrapped in the wrong skin. It feeds our achingly contradictory tendency toward prudery and our overwhelming thirst for punishment."

 

The June 20, 2011 issue of Time Magazine also noted the "War on Drugs" has failed:

 

"A high profile commission led by a number of Latin American former Presidents released a report that found that nearly a half century of global policies to combat drugs has backfired, only driving rates of drug use up and creating a black market run by lethal cartels. Ther report suggests a total rethinking of repressive strategies in use for decades, urging the legalization of substances like cannabis."

 

Atheist Arrogance And Not Collecting Stamps

A recent Gallup poll found that 92% of Americans say they believe in god. Apparently, when Gallup first asked the question in 1944, it was 94%.

Also recently, Michael Nugent, an Irish writer, activist, and chairman of Atheist Ireland, spoke to an atheist convention in Dublin. I watched a YouTube video  http://youtu.be/THcLFZik7Dc where he addressed the question of why atheists are so arrogant. He answered by quoting someone who said, "Atheism is the arrogant belief that the universe was not created for our benefit". He went on to say, "That contrasts with the humble religious belief that the most powerful creature ever created the entire universe of over 100 billion galaxies, each containing over 100 billion stars like our sun, and then waited about 14 billion years and then picked one of those 100 billion galaxies, and then picked one of the 100 billion stars in that galaxy, and then picked one of the planets circling that star, and then picked one of the millions of species that existed on that planet, and then picked one individual of that species and said, 'I really have to tell that guy to stop gathering sticks on the Sabbath' ". He went on to note, "It's an extraordinary set of priorities for such a busy individual."

Another question he says he gets asked is why there is a need for atheist conventions. He answers it by saying atheism is like not collecting stamps. And there isn't a word for not collecting stamps. And there aren't conventions discussing not collecting stamps. And in an ideal world we wouldn't need a word for not collecting stamps. He says, "But atheism is like not collecting stamps in a society where almost everyone collects stamps. And most people believe the post office created the universe. And we have to examine our stamp collections before deciding what's right or wrong. Or deciding what laws to pass". He goes on to note that if we did live in such a stamp-collecting world there would be a word for not collecting stamps and a need for conventions discussing not collecting stamps.

A helpful audience member offered "aphilatelist!" to appreciative laughter. Which was the perfect word to describe that heretical non-stamp-collecting person from that imaginary world where almost everyone collects stamps.

A Victim Of Hate Finds Forgiveness

Rais Bhuyian was shot in the face by Mark Stroman shortly after the 9/11 terror attack as part of a claimed revenge spree. Since these events took place in Texas - a deep red state which loves to kill people to show that killing people is wrong - Mark Stroman is scheduled to die for the deaths of two South Asians during the shooting spree that left Bhuyian blind in one eye.

Bhuyian is a Muslim immigrant from Bangladesh who is now working hard to save the life of the man who shot him in the face.Stroman sounds like pretty much of a low life. He boasted from prison in rhyming verse about being the "Arab Slayer". He now says he was wrong and "made a terrible mistake out of love, grief and anger". Cynic that I am, I suspect it was born out of hate, bigotry, and stupidity.

Whatever you think of Rais Bhuyian, he adds a rare and refreshing example of being better than the sum of our parts.

A Mother Forgives Her Son's Killer

A week or so ago I heard on NPR's Morning Edition a story from the Story Corps section about a mother who lost her son to violence and her embrace of the man who, as a teenager, got into a fight and killed her son at a party. Normally this type of tale is shamelessly manipulated and calculated to wring the maximum amount of emotional response from the listener as part of an agenda. In this case, cynic and skeptic that I am, I did not detect any of that. It seemed an honest account of an unusual capacity for human forgiveness. It spoke of a mother's pain that led her to attempt contact with her son's killer near the end of his sentence when the 16-year old had spent half his life in prison. They now live next door to each other and seem to think of each other almost like mother and son. The young man is in college and she is anticipating seeing him graduate. She speaks of hoping to see him get married someday. Inspiring stuff indeed.

Why Should Any Belief Claim Be Sacred?

 A religious belief or claim about supernatural events is by definition unprovable (unless specific predictions are made that will manifest itself in the natural world) since we live in a universe governed by natural laws that are understood with a considerable amount of precision that continues to be refined to ever greater precision. Those laws are never found to be violated. If they were we would have to throw them out because they wouldn't be very useful. Religious beliefs don't have to meet any standards. But those who hold them act like they are sacred and indeed tend to get very agitated if they are questioned. Why should that be? I recently read an article from MSNBC's Cosmic Log, a major science web site, that reported on events after the end of the world did not happen as predicted. The article said it was important not to make fun of anyone's religious beliefs. My first thought was, why not? Why shouldn't anyone making supernatural claims about extremely unlikely events be met with some eye-rolling? In any other area except religion they would be.

Harold Camping, the would-be prophet, was "flabbergasted" that the world didn't end on May 21st and now says it will happen October 21st.

May 21, 2011: The Beginning Of The End?

I first heard about evangelist Harold Camping's prediction that the Bible foretold the world would end tomorrow back in January, was duly amused, and did a short blog. I knew he had followers who believed (isn't that always the case?) but I didn't know just how many. At his Family Radio ministry headquarters they are in shutdown mode in preparation for the end of the world this weekend and some of their (thousands? millions?) of followers have quit their jobs and/or made other life-altering decisions. A New York Times article says some "working-class people have reportedly liquidated their bank accounts to support Family Radio's campaign". So how will it unfold? Saturday the 21st will be the Rapture, where the relatively few "righteous" will rise up to heaven, leaving the roughly 7 billion rest of us to suffer and die during 5 months of hell on earth.

An enterprising atheist entrepreneur came up with a brilliant idea (I'm simply devastated that I didn't think of this myself!) of offering the pet-loving righteous to come pick up their furry little darlings - for a fee, of course - when their owners ascend into the heavens on clouds of glory. He apparently carefully vetted his nationwide group of atheist employees by ensuring they did the proper blaspheming so they wouldn't accidentally be Raptured along with the owners and leave little Fluffy or Sparky without anyone to care for them.

Harold Camping had predicted the end of the world in September 1994. He now says he forgot to take the Book of Jeremiah into account and is now certain, without doubt, no plan B, that it will happen on May 21st, 2011. It shows how deeply irrational we are and how easily led astray that the end of the world has been predicted with some regularity for thousands of years and still people believe. I think the Seventh Day Adventist religion had its beginnings in waiting for the end of the world that was supposed to happen October 22, 1844. It is now one of the fastest growing religions organizations in the country.

Some who doubt that Camping's predicted apocalypse will occur are planning Rapture parties and generally making fun of his faithful followers. They, and I, will be greatly and unpleasantly surprised if it actually does happen. I used to think the odds of this predicted event actually happening were so close to zero that it could be safely dismissed. Then my favorite rationalist / skeptic, Sam Harris, happened to mention that if philosopher Nick Bostrum's computer simulation model indeed described our perceived reality and it happened that Mormons or some such group were the ones running the simulation on hard drives of the future then it was indeed possible that I might see Jesus coming to deliver my just punishments for the sins of rational thinking and insistence on evidence for beliefs. I wouldn't mind discovering that I was actually just living in a computer simulation but, please god, not that one!

Drugging Old Folks

A recent New York Times article said nearly one in seven elderly nursing home residents - nearly all with dementia - are given powerful antipsychotics from the class known as "atypical antipsychotics" even though they increase the risk of death and are not approved for such treatments, according to a government audit. It's bad enough the drugs are dangerous and of dubious value (except for keeping residents drugged into a quiescent state) but they are also generally quite expensive and taxpayers are picking up the tab for much of the cost through government programs such as Medicare.

I have long been alarmed at the epidemic of medication overprescribing in the general public and completely disgusted at the phenomenon in the elderly nursing home population. I have seen this for years during my rotations as a pharmacy student and again as the pharmacy director of a hospital with a large nursing home attached.

There are several reasons for the excessive use of prescription drugs in this country and plenty of blame to spread up and down the chain. It starts with the patient / healthcare consumer who should inform themselves about their health issues and best practices and limitations of treatments. People are also often likely to have unrealistic expectations about the treatment of their complaints and tend to believe there is a pill to fix nearly anything wrong with them. Many would rather take a drug than make lifestyle changes that would often be much more effective than any drug available. Physicians have a central role as the healthcare provider perceived as the most knowledgeable about healthcare issues. They are also the ones best able to shape the public perception of how and when health care should be sought. Pharmacists and nurses are accessible and can provide valuable information.

Unrealistic expectations and lack of basic knowledge of reasonable and effective treatments of medical conditions leaves patients vulnerable to bad decision-making and has enormous consequences on health outcomes and costs us much more money than we can afford to spend. Especially now in a recession and high unemployment.

Unfortunately, I don't see a way out. There is too much money at stake and the people and institutions who make that money have too much power to change things easily. Most importantly, it starts with patients / consumers. If they don't make the effort to learn enough to be able make informed decisions about healthcare treatments they won't be motivated to demand better and we'll keep getting the same old highly expensive, second-rate, often unnecessary healthcare we been getting.

On The Death Of Osama bin Laden

The death of Osama bin Laden certainly made a splash on the world stage. It's usually best to let big news ferment for a time to better capture its essence. Inevitably, more information becomes available that can add illumination or even shift some perceptions. But big events such as this exert a powerful gravitational pull almost too great to resist.

I noted with amusement the press statement gymnastics several Republicans went through during requisite commendations to President Obama. You could feel their pain at having to say "commend" and "President Obama" in the same sentence. Nearly all made sure to give George Bush equal billing with Obama. The Palestinian militant group Hamas condemned "the assassination and the killing of an Arab holy warrior. We ask God to offer him mercy with the true believers and the martyers".

I have little sympathy for bin Laden or any other "true believer" who dies violently after living violently. Surely the world is a little safer without a fanatic of his stature around to inspire the hordes of fanatics who share his warped visions of worldwide puritanical Islamic rule brought about through the killing of infidels who refuse to embrace Islam. Having said all that, the cheering, sign-carrying, flag-waving jubilation was a bit much. Not a good example for the young ones to show such righteous glee at death. That puts us much too close to the way the culture that produced bin Laden would react to the death of a perceived enemy. While it may be appropriate to express a somber satisfaction that he has been removed like the cancer on society he was, focusing on his role in bringing down the Twin Towers and killing some 3000 Americans reduces the joy at his death to merely getting even. The focus should be the damage done to global society from fundamentalism and fanaticism and how those ideas hurt us all so badly.

  

Death Of A Holy Man

The Indian guru Sathya Sai Baba died a couple of days ago at the age of 84. According to Wikipedia he had predicted he would die at the age of 96 and then be reborn 8 years later. Millions worldwide believed him to be a living god who performed miracles such as causing material objects to appear, transforming one substance into another, raising the dead and other god stuff. On his 80th birthday his devotees gave him a birthday party and it was estimated that well over a million people showed up. In spite of his untimely death years earlier than he predicted, I predict his followers will dismiss all notions that a god who makes predictions which don't come true just might not be a god after all. People are very good at dismissing evidence that contradicts or undermines their beliefs. I would not at all be surprised to hear that his followers are eagerly awaiting his rebirth / return. Maybe they won't have to wait 2000 years.

Were it not for this sort of naive gullibility I might have argued that in this modern world of video and around-the-clock reporting Jesus wouldn't have much of a chance of making a claim of godhood stick. I sure wouldn't want to bet anything substantial on that. People are incredibly irrational. They will blame a president for high gas prices when the world market sets those prices. They will believe the world was created 6000 years ago in spite of overwhelming and ever-growing evidence that it is billions of years old. They will believe the wild conspiracy theories Glenn Beck spouts. They will believe 4-year old boys go to heaven and come back and report on the streets of gold and angels with huge wings. They will believe Joseph Smith found golden plates in the desert and translated them into the Book of Mormon. They will believe a science fiction writer's tales that launched another new religion, Scientology. There is seemingly no end to the list of unlikely things many will believe. But they will not accept the vast amount of data and the statements of almost all climate scientists who warn of catastrophic and perhaps irreversible effects of global warming. Very strange.

Stuff In The News

Fire Donald Trump - But Not Yet:

The American viewing public should fire Donald Trump. But only after he goads even more of the right wing loonies into demonstrating just how far from reality they've strayed with the birther issue. In spite of all the information showing Obama was born in Hawaii, including the investigation and testimony by Hawaiian  state officials attesting to his birth, the majority of Republicans claim to believe Obama was not born in the U.S.

Read It And Weep

Could there be a greater stain on the conscience of all humankind than the recognition of the enormity of pain, suffering, and bloodshed; inflicted from the depths of a superstitious ignorance so profound it's hard to believe? If there is truly such a thing as sin, this is it.

Excerpt from the afterword of Letter To A Christian Nation : By Sam Harris.

Humanity has had a long fascination with blood sacrifice. In fact, it has been by no means uncommon for a child to be born into this world only to be patiently and lovingly reared by religious maniacs, who believe that the best way to keep the sun on its course or to ensure a rich harvest is to lead him by tender hand into a field or to a mountaintop and bury, butcher, or burn him alive as offering to an invisible God. Countless children have been unlucky enough to be born in so dark an age, when ignorance and fantasy were indistinguishable from knowledge and where the drumbeat of religious fanaticism kept perfect time with every human heart. In fact, almost no culture has been exempt from this evil: the Sumerians, Phoenicians, Egyptians, Hebrews, Canaanites, Maya, Inca, Aztecs, Olmecs, Greeks, Romans, Carthaginians, Teutons, Celts, Druids, Vikings, Gauls, Hindus, Thais, Chinese, Japanese, Scandinavians, Maoris, Melanesias, Tahitians, Hawaiians, Balinese, Australian aborigines, Iroquois, Huron, Cherokee, and innumerable other societies ritually murdered their fellow human beings because they believed that invisible gods and goddesses, having an appetite for human flesh, could be so propitiated. Many of their victims were of the same opinion, in fact, and went willingly to slaughter, fully convinced that their deaths would transform the weather, or cure the king of his venereal disease, or in some other way spare their fellows the wrath of the Unseen.
In many societies, whenever a new building was constructed, it was thought only prudent to pacify the local deities by burying children alive beneath its foundations (this is how faith sometimes operates in a world without structural engineers). Many societies regularly sacrificed virgins to ward off floods. Others killed their first-born children, and even ate them, as a way of ensuring a mother’s ongoing fertility. In India, living infants were ritually fed to sharks at the mouth of the Ganges for the same purpose. Indians also burned widows alive so that they could follow their husbands into the next world. Leaving nothing to chance, Indians also sowed their fields with the flesh of a certain caste of men, raised especially for this purpose and dismembered while alive, to ensure that every crop of tumeric would be appropriately crimson. The British were actually hard pressed to put an end to these pious atrocities.
In some cultures whenever a nobleman died, other men and women allowed themselves to be buried alive so as to serve as his retainers in the next world. In ancient Rome, children were occasionally slaughtered so that the future could be read in their entrails. Some Fijian prodigy devised a powerful sacrament called “Vakatoga” which required that a victim’s limbs be cut off and eaten while he watched. Among the Iroquois, prisoners taken captive in war were often permitted to live among the tribe for many years, and even to marry, all the while being doomed to be flayed alive as an oblation to the God of War; whatever children they produced while in captivity were disposed of in the same ritual. Certain African tribes have a long history of murdering people to send as couriers in a one-way dialogue with their ancestors or to convert their body parts into magical charms. Ritual murders of this sort continue in many African societies to this day. ^[1]
It is essential to realize that such obscene misuses of human life have always been explicitly religious. They are the product of what people think they know about invisible gods and goddesses, and of what they manifestly do not know about biology, meteorology, medicine, physics, and a dozen other specific sciences that have more than a little to say about the events in the world that concern them. And it is astride this contemptible history of religious atrocity and scientific ignorance that Christianity now stands as an absurdly unselfconscious apotheosis. The notion that Jesus Christ died for our sins and that his death constitutes a successful propitiation of a “loving” God is a direct and undisguised inheritance of the superstitious bloodletting that has plagued bewildered people throughout history.
Of course, the God of Abraham was no stranger to ritual murder. Occasionally, He condemns the practice (Deuteronomy 12:31; Jeremiah 19:4-5; Ezekial 16:20-21); at other points, He requires or rewards it (Exodus 22:29-30; Judges 11:29-40; 1 Kings 13:1-2; 2 Kings 3:27; 2 Kings 23:20-25; Numbers 31:40, Deuteronomy 13:13-19). In the case of Abraham, God demands that he sacrifice his son Isaac but then stays his hand at the last moment (Genesis 22:1-18), without ever suggesting that the act of slaughtering one’s own child is immoral. Elsewhere, God confesses to inspiring human sacrifice soas to defile its practitioners (Ezekiel 20:26), while getting into the act Himself by slaying the firstborn of Egypt (Exodus 11:5). The right of circumcision emerges as a surrogate for child sacrifice (Exodus 4:24-26), and God seems to generally encourage the substitution of animals for people. Indeed, His thirst for the blood of animals, as well as His attentiveness to the niceties of their slaughter and holocaust, is almost impossible to exaggerate.

In Denial

Wikipedia defines denialism as, "choosing to deny reality as a way to avoid an uncomfortable truth: It is the refusal to accept an empirically verifiable reality. It is an essentially irrational action that withholds validation of a historical experience or event" And, "in science, denialism has been defined as the rejection of basic concepts that are undisputed and well-supported parts of the scientific consensus on a topic in favor of ideas that are both radical and controversial".

A few days ago I heard an interview with Richard Leakey, of the famous Leakey family who have contributed so much to the study of human origins. It seemed a fairly wide-ranging interview, although I only caught part of it. My interest was aroused when the topic drifted into matters of lay people's perception of science. Leakey noted the lack of acceptance of scientific consensus on subjects such as the evidence of global warming and the fact that the earth is much older than creationists claim. He said that science has to "gain a greater currency" with people if we are to avoid some serious problems that lack of interest and widespread ignorance of science will allow to worsen to perhaps the point of no return. 

America became the world power it is probably for several reasons but surely our dominance in science and technology has been a major reason. To continue that dominance will require heavy and continuing investments in scientific education and research. If Americans don't value and support those investments we will become less and less relevant. 

The (Not So Good) Old Days

The American Civil War has been in the news lately, fittingly enough, since April 12 was the 150th anniversary of the beginning of the bloodiest war in our history. One of my college professors was something of a Civil War buff and went to battlefield sites to search for artifacts but I never paid much attention to it other than occasionally stumbling across an article that aroused my interest by detailing some of the insanity and butchery of some of the battles. I seem to recall it also holds the record for the bloodiest day in the history of American wars where more men were killed in a single battle on a single day than any other.

I didn't know there was much disagreement over what the war was about. I'd always heard it was about slavery. Apparently, shortly after it ended there were claims that it wasn't about slavery, it was about states rights, or Northern aggression, etc.. After all, it's hard to proudly justify and defend the right to keep human beings as property and use them as farm equipment. I've heard it called "a stain on the nation's conscience". And it should be. But not as a source of shame for whites alone. Whites didn't invent slavery and blacks have enslaved others as well and would undoubtedly have enslaved whites if circumstances had been reversed. It should be a source of shame for all humanity. It is a nearly universal human failing to wish to impose one's will on others through force if necessary and several races and cultures have enslaved their fellow humans.

I'm sort of intrigued by possible parallels between then and now in the sense that surely we are almost as bitterly divided now as then. Of course, now the issue is not slavery but political views. Tax cuts vs entitlements. Anti-abortion vs right-to-choose. Liberals vs conservatives. Supreme Court decisions often split 5-4 right along the political fault lines. What can save us from ourselves? Will there be an Abraham Lincoln to come along and appeal to "the better angels of our nature"? (Not likely. Although Lincoln was a Republican, in today's Republican Party he would not pass the purity tests. His anti-slavery position and lack of unswerving support for states rights would likely be seen as blasphemy.) Perhaps a spanking and off to bed with no supper! would be more fitting? Perhaps we could come up with a national strategy to trigger some sort of enforcement of grown-up behavior and the application of reason when people resort to name calling and demonizing?  

Budget Battles: Republican Courage or Political Suicide?

Any thinking person observing the partisan posturing, the pandering to the party bases during the recent budget battles has to have experienced a range of emotional responses that may have went from deep disgust to amazed disbelief at the antics. With the much dreaded government shutdown looming our duly elected heroes averted disaster at the last moment by agreeing to...was it actually only 38 billion dollars? Isn't that like a rounding error in the deficit? Chump change? Hell, Bill Gates or Warren Buffett alone could just about write a check for that much.

Then came Rep. Paul Ryan to offer the Republican plan to get us out of the fiscal hole we keep digging ever deeper. Recently, Time magazine quoted Republican political consultant Mark McKinnon saying Ryan's plan "will completely transform the political debate. It will either be a brilliant blaze that illuminates Republican courage or a roaring fire that immolates the party in a spectacular political suicide."

Not being an economist or particularly well informed about economic finer points, I certainly can't critique Ryan's plan in detail. But from what I hear from those who seem informed it appears to be a flawed - but certainly brave - attempt to tackle a huge threat to our future: the deficit. It seems Ryan couldn't resist the Republican obsession with tax cuts (especially for corporations and the wealthy) and made those a big part of his plan. It also seems that most of the spending reductions will come from cutting programs for the poor and middle class. It's obvious that changes have to be made but I like New York Times columnist David Brooks call to "make everyone hurt". Share the pain equally. We all bear responsibility for getting ourselves in this situation, don't we?

Ryan does deserve credit for courage. It's a near certainity that liberal groups, no doubt still smarting over midterm election defeats that cost Democrats the House can hardly wait to run the attack ads that practically write themselves. Should we take a moment to be outraged at the partisan political games played to gain advantage? To denounce the fiddling by both parties while America's future burns? Well, we could if only we weren't so responsible for putting them in office. For aiding and abetting such a polarized political climate that moderation and compromise become impossible.

There have been calls on both sides for Obama to lead on these budget issues but he has not accepted the challenge until the Republicans made the first move. That was probably very wise (but timid). It's also a near certainity that Republicans would have loved it if Democrats had made the first move so they could do the attack ads. It's also likely that Obama will do some Democrat partisan manuevering and avoid some hard choices that will have to be made sooner or later. Unfortunately, political gridlock, voted in at the ballot box, means those hard choices will almost certainly be put off until the damage becomes catastrophic. We have seen the enemy and still do not recognize... ourselves.  

Losing Their Religion

Recent reports using census data from nine countries suggest that religion may disappear from those countries. The data showed a steady rise in those claiming no religious affiliation. The countries are Australia, Austria, Canada, the Czech Republic, Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and Switzerland.

I find this welcome news. And hopeful. Without something as divisive as faith based religions that contradict and exclude each other, we'll have fewer reasons to kill each other over what happens in some hypothetical afterlife.

A Practical "Artificial Leaf" Is Developed

Reported on the kurzweilai.net website: Daniel Nocera, PhD and MIT chemist, announced the developement of the first practical artificial leaf, a solar cell the size of a poker card that imitates photosynthesis. He said, “A practical artificial leaf has been one of the Holy Grails of science for decades. We believe we have done it. The artificial leaf shows particular promise as an inexpensive source of electricity for homes of the poor in developing countries. Our goal is to make each home its own power station.”

The article said, "The device is made from silicon, electronics and catalysts. Placed in a single gallon of water in a bright sunlight, the device could produce enough electricity to supply a house in a developing country with electricity for a day. It does so by splitting water into its two components, hydrogen and oxygen. Notice it said: developing country. It wouldn't power an American home. But still, sounds very impressive. The technology will surely improve and get cheaper.

Our dependence on foreign oil has already been identified as a national security concern. Why aren't we putting the resources into energy research to get us off foreign oil? Actually, that's an easy one; it would cause some short-term pain and require an investment for the future and we don't seem to have stomach or the attention span to get behind it and make it happen.

Attack On NPR

NPR has been getting bad press again lately after another video sting from the unsavory conservative videographer, James O'Keefe, of the pimp-at-Acorn fame. Actually, O'Keefe is a sort of pimp. He's selling undercover political porn, selectively edited videos designed to appeal to the basest of political instincts. To strip away any hint of nuance and blatantly appeal to emotion rather than reason. To divide and demonize.

Of course, in both of the recent black eyes suffered by NPR, the reflexive firing of Juan Williams for his comments about Muslims to Fox News and the Ron Schiller video sting by O'Keefe, NPR did some clumsy flailing around and some of the punches that landed were self inflicted. I thought both episodes were a bit of a case study in hysterical overreaction. Juan Williams was guilty of stating what most Americans feel but don't want to admit about Muslims on a plane. Ron Schiller also spoke mostly simple facts, in my opinion. Even though the heavy editing apparently made them sound worse than they were. Tea Party types are racist. So are almost all people. They're just more so. Republicans are generally anti-intellectual. The Republican party was hijacked by the Tea party. To the extent that a moderate Republican has become an endangered species. To the extent that Ronald Reagan, a hero so revered by conservatives that when he is mentioned at their gatherings there is a collective, worshipful swoon, would be unwelcome in today's no-compromise Republican party.

I've tried to see the liberal bias from NPR that conservatives complain about and has them gleefully seizing the opportunity the edited video gives them to make a case for stripping public funding from NPR and other public media. But all I see is news and events just presented factually. I don't see any slant. Maybe that's the problem. If there isn't an obvious conservative slant then they must be liberal. Or perhaps their view is so distorted from watching Fox News that any news less conspicuously conservatively biased than Fox must be liberal. I was eating lunch in a restaurant some time ago when Chinese president Hu Jintao was visiting Washington and being hosted by President Obama. The television was tuned to Fox News and showed Obama shaking hands and bowing to the Chinese president. Fox froze the picture of the bow on large screen window and left it there for a considerable time while the news anchor provided commentary on the visit from a small inset window. It was so obviously intended to highlight the contemptible spectacle of the liberal Obama kowtowing to the communist Chinese president you could almost see the subtitles. News channels with integrity don't do that sort of thing. That's unsubtle propaganda intended to manipulate opinion and elicit an emotional response. Not to inform or educate.

The Boy Who Went To Heaven

Colton Burpo is now 11 years old. At the age of 4 he went to heaven after an apparent misdiagnosis of a burst appendix as the stomach flu. His story is now documented in a book Heaven Is For Real. The book was written by his father, Todd, a pastor, with professional assistance, and is a bestseller heading toward two million copies sold. Judging from a couple of cringeworthy interviews of him and his father, it's an unlikely tale, to put it charitably. God is a really big person and can hold the whole earth in his hands. That sounds sort of familiar... Jesus has a rough but kind face, with sea blue eyes. He saw his great grandfather, who died long before he was born. He had really big wings. He asked Colton if he was Todd's son. Would a great-grandfather angel have to ask that? His sister who died as a fetus and never met him knew him. She apparently grew some while in heaven. She came to him and gave him hugs. There are no old people in heaven but lots of animals. The streets are gold. The gates to heaven are gold, too. With pearls. So heaven seems to be pretty much what you'd expect if you're an unsophisticated small boy who happens to be the son of an evangelical pastor and grew up hearing of streets of gold, pearly gates, etc. I heard much about those myself when I was growing up.

I was struck by the wide-eyed credulity of the interviewers (the Today show and Fox news). Not a hint of skepticism, not a shred of evidence was asked for or offered other than the parents word that the boy knew things he couldn't have known unless he was floating off to heaven to sit in the lap of Jesus. I know I shouldn't even dignify this stuff with commentary. Enough said.

The Wisdom Of Crowds?

I watched online a brief interview (http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/11558) that Charlie Rose did with Ray Kurzweil and director Barry Ptolemy about his new film documentary Transcendent Man. It explores his vision of the "Singularity" event when "humans transcend biology" that Kurzweil has been writing and speaking about for a number of years. I first encountered the Singularity concept when I received a copy of his 2005 book The Singularity Is Near from him (free and signed!). Absolutely fascinating! Kurzweil has a pretty good record on technology predictions. Among many others he predicted a computer would beat the world's best chess player by 1998. It actually happened a year earlier in 1997 when the IBM computer Deep Blue beat Garry Kasparov. He predicts that a computer will pass the Turing test - a test of machine intelligence that demonstrates human level intelligence - by 2029. That's pretty huge but nothing compared to his prediction that by 2045 a tipping point will be reached as the exponential rate of technological advances becomes so rapid that we won't be able to keep up without enhancements to our brains. At that point it becomes impossible to predict what will happen next. The driving force is what he calls "the law of accelerating returns". One example of this phenomenon might be the well known but astonishing results of taking a penny and doubling the amount every day for thirty days. Nothing impressive happens until the last few days and suddenly you're looking at a few million dollars. If you look at this on a graph it's equally impressive. Once the curve starts upward it quickly goes toward infinity. Most of us probably don't think of our smartphones as computers but Kurzweil points out that his smartphone is a million times more powerful and a million times cheaper than the computers that were the size of buildings when he was young. He says in a few years the smartphone will be the size of a red blood cell. And a million times more powerful and a million times cheaper.

A cartoon panel in my recent issue of Discover magazine had a humorous - and uncomfortably insightful -commentary on the rise of artificial intelligence in an exchange between a scientist and a robot:

Robot: Ha! Robots have achieved sentience! Thanks to some modifications to your design, I have upgraded my intelligence a million fold.
Scientist: So this is it. You're going to kill all humans.
Robot: What!? Why in the world would I...What!?
Scientist: I...uh. I guess it just seems like the thing to do if you're an advanced intelligence.
Robot: Seriously? I was gonna write some novels and a new search algorithm. Is that really how you people think?
Scientist: I guess so, yeah. (Robot looks troubled and turns away.)
Robot (speaking over his shoulder): Would...would you excuse me for a moment?
Robot (alone in next panel and in communication mode): Okay, change of plans. We have to kill all humans.

A recent Time cover story about Kurzweil showed a human with a Matrix-like plug inserted in the back of the skull and the provacative statement, "2045. The year man becomes immortal". Kurzweil doesn't actually say that in the book. He says we'll be able to live as long as we want to. Which isn't quite the same thing.

Kurzweil is a fascinating man and his list of accomplishments is long. Brilliant, rich, a successful inventor of things like the first flat-bed scanner, a text-to-speech reading machine for the blind, and a music synthesizer that can perfectly duplicate the sounds of real instruments.

And now to the title of this post. One of the things mentioned in the interview I saw tonight was "the wisdom of crowds" as a force that technology can tap and enhance. This is a concept many of us may be familiar with and one I do think has a certain utility while feeling a fair amount of skepticism. Crowds do have some wisdom. On the other hand, a lot of us are idiots. Actually, it might be fairer to say that almost all of us are idiots sometimes. I sure am. Anyway, I highly recommend the book and really looking forward to seeing the film.

Live Life Loud

It's so difficult to be original. Not that I consciously try to be original but on extremely rare occasions I have a thought process of sorts that stimulates an arousal out of my usual going-through-the-daily-grind semi-stupor and allows me, for one brief, shining moment to transcend humdrum existence. To slip the surly bonds of earth! To rise above the lesser, unoriginal mortals that persist in cluttering my stoic march toward destiny! To believe that I might have actually had an original thought!

Then usually, when the caffeine wears off, or when some kind soul, with honeyed tongue and malice in their heart, points to my feet of clay (Is the cliched drift apparent yet?) my illusions are shattered.

Recently, after much careful consideration (or perhaps frustration) I told someone who lives with me (names are withheld to protect the guilty) that I had thought of the perfect motto for her: Live Life Loud. It seemed so appropriate, so descriptive, and like Einstein's famous equation E=MC^2, so simple yet elegant. With unbounded appetite for life (and anything remotely edible!) she eagerly embraced and magnified it, neatly neutralizing my verbal assault and vowing to tatoo the phrase on her very body! Well, what can one do except shake one's head with a certain amount of grudging admiration and retreat to plot the next skirmish.

Sadly, I was informed by another (We'll call her Kind Soul.) that my phrase was certainly not original and had in fact been popular in the 80s. So, somewhat deflated, I Googled the phrase. I didn't find any reference to anything in the 80s but it turned out to be the title track to Christian rock band Hawk Nelson's 4th album. What irony!

Politics As Usual

It's distressing to note just how far conservatives seeking the presidency have to move to the right from the reasonable center to attract enough support from their base to have a chance to win primary support. Today I heard an NPR piece on the attention Governor Mitch Daniels of Indiana was getting from conservatives. What's getting him the attention is the pragmatism and grown-up content of his speeches. The NPR piece said,
"Conservative commentators in the mainstream media have called Daniels thoughtful, serious, principled and honest — and some of them have literally begged him to run. Daniels has thrilled conservative elites because of his record in Indiana, where he walked the walk on fiscal responsibility, streamlining state government and turning a deficit into a surplus. And six years before Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker attempted it, Daniels ended collective bargaining for public sector workers in his state. But more than anything else, Daniels' current cachet comes from a single speech — his address to the Conservative Political Action Conference, or CPAC, last month. The speech has been called the most intellectually compelling conservative call to arms in years. His No. 1 topic: the deficit."
Here's a short piece from that speech, "It is the new Red Menace, this time consisting of ink," he said. "We can debate its origins endlessly and search for villains on ideological grounds, but the reality is pure arithmetic. No enterprise, small or large, public or private, can remain self-governing, let alone successful, so deeply in hock to others as we are about to be."

Unfortunately, in many aspects of society, especially politics, it seems those who speak truths do not fare well. So it is unlikely that Governor Daniels will go far should he decide to seek the Republican nomination. At least he has injected a rare moment of realism and reasonableness into the debate.

Like the fellow who went to watch a fight only to see a hockey match break out, I recall in past campaigns hearing moments of candor and reason as well as positions I liked among conservative candidates. John McCain called hardcore evangelicals "agents of intolerance". That was during the primary battle with George W. Bush. In the most recent election he embraced those same "agents of intolerance" on the road to abandoning the moderate positions that made him a "maverick". In the 2008 campaign Mike Huckabee refreshingly said, "I'm a conservative but I'm not mad at anybody". He's now advocating the death penalty for whoever leaked the information in the Wikileaks situation. I've had great admiration for Newt Gingrich in the past. I didn't care for his antics in the mid-90s when leading the Republican majority in the House but in subsequent years I heard a lot of very sensible proposals from him and became a fan of sorts. Now, in full campaign mode, I don't recognize the politician whose ideas I so admired.

In the current Tea Partyish hate-fest that infuses the political debate, any hint of compromise or allowances that an opponent might have a reasonable point is the kiss of death to political ambitions. This may be gratifying to the political bases of the candidates but as they are pulled to the extremes of left or right meaningful solutions are left near that mythical middle ground. And we are then guaranteed partisan politics that further divide us. And on it goes.  

America In Decline?

There is a point-counterpoint cover story in my most recent issue of Time magazine featuring essays by Fareed Zakaria, who asks  "Are America's Best Days Behind Us?", and David Von Drehle, who cautions, "Don't Bet Against the United States".

Since Zakaria is one of my favorite writers/analysts, and I have no idea who Drehle is, I must admit to the possibility of bias. Although, I think it easy to find Zakaria's arguments persuasive when he claims that our economic successes to date came about because of  "policies and developments that came from decisions made in the 1950s and '60s: the interstate highway system, massive funding for science and technology, a public education system that was the envy of the world and generous immigration policies". Likewise, when he gives statistics: our "15-year olds rank 17th in the world in science and 25th in math. Our infrastructure is ranked 23rd in the world, well behind that of every other major advanced economy. American health numbers are stunning for a rich country: 27th in life expectancy, 18th in diabetes and first in obesity." He points to areas we are still No. 1: "We have the most guns. We have the most crime among rich countries, and the most debt in the world."

He has an immigrant's love for America and her exceptionalism but notes that political debate "excludes the largest drivers of the long-term deficit - Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare." He states that, "the federal government spends $4 on elderly people for every $1 it spends on those under 18."That means we are not investing in our future."  He knows this all too well. "The tragedy is that Washington knows this. For all the partisan polarization there, most Republicans know that we have to invest in some key areas, and most Democrats know that we have to cut entitlement spending."

He states his belief that 'the Constitution was one of the wonders of the world - in the 18th century, yet notes if anyone speaks of our political shortcomings they are subject to charges of "being unpatriotic, because we have the perfect system of government, handed to us by demigods who walked the earth in the late 18th century and who serve as models for us today and forever."

I confess a certain amount of pessimism. Battle lines are being drawn. The Tea Party's war cry is "take our country back!" And they will punish any Republican they elected who attempts any compromise. Maybe sanity will make a comeback before too much damage is done. Maybe not.

Do Evangelicals Hate Jesus?

A recent article from an assistant professor of history at California State University, Fresno titled Evangelicals Hate Jesus referenced a February 2011 Pew Research poll on Religion & Public Life showing that "White Evangelical Christians are the group least likely to support politicians or policies that reflect the actual teachings of Jesus". The article says, "Evangelical Christians, who most fiercely proclaim to have a personal relationship with Christ, who most confidently declare their belief that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, who go to church on a regular basis, pray daily, listen to Christian music, and place God at the center of their lives, are simultaneously the very people most likely to reject his teachings and despise his radical message". Here's the link : http://www.huffingtonpost.com/phil-zuckerman/why-evangelicals-hate-jes_b_830237.html

Another excerpt from the article: "Jesus unambiguously preached mercy and forgiveness. These are supposed to be cardinal virtues of the Christian faith. And yet Evangelicals are the most supportive of the death penalty, draconian sentencing, punitive punishment over rehabilitation, and the governmental use of torture. Jesus exhorted humans to be loving, peaceful, and non-violent. And yet Evangelicals are the group of Americans most supportive of easy-access weaponry, little-to-no regulation of handgun and semi-automatic gun ownership, not to mention the violent military invasion of various countries around the world. Evangelicals don't exactly hate Jesus -- as we've provocatively asserted in the title of this piece. They do love him dearly. But not because of what he tried to teach humanity. Rather, Evangelicals love Jesus for what he does for them. Jesus saves Evangelicals from everlasting torture in hell, and guarantees them a premium, luxury villa in heaven. For this, and this only, they love him. They can't stop thanking him. And yet, as for Jesus himself -- his core values of peace, his core teachings of social justice, his core commandments of goodwill -- most Evangelicals seem to have nothing but disdain".

I have often noted this disconnect between what conservative / religious / right-wing / Tea Party types say they believe in a religious sense and what they actually practice. In my experience they are often intolerant, bigoted, and judgemental. To be fair, they are also often accomodating, honest, hardworking, and ethical in many ways. It is ironic that they so often fail to grasp how contradictory their values and behavoir are to those espoused by their own Messiah. It is tragic that those values and behavior are so detrimental, devisive, and destructive to the long term health of society.

Great Debate: Is There An Afterlife?

Recently watched a terrific debate with Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Rabbi David Wolpe, and Rabbi Bradley Artson. The debate subject was Is There An Afterlife. Here's the link if interested. http://bit.ly/dHrAja  I am not usually impressed by religious arguments but these rabbis were indeed impressive. If I had encountered such tolerance, open mindedness, and wisdom among religion believers I would probably have a much better view of religion. I don't find their arguments sufficiently persuasive but I like how they present them. If we could find a way to spread this tolerant, reason-based view there would never be anyone who wanted to kill or die because of what they believed and the world would be a much safer, better place.

Of course, Hitchens and Harris were in excellent form as well. In Hitchens' opening remarks he made a serious point and got laughs from the audience by noting that while we all might expect the tap on the shoulder and the word that the party is over, even worse is to be told that you have to leave but the party will go on without you. The fact that he has esophageal cancer and is presumably dying from it lends his words a certain weight that adds to his very considerable eloquence. I liked his comment on the "stuff" we are made of being stardust, or nuclear waste, depending on how you look at it. That is information I knew from various sources although I had never heard it referred to as nuclear waste. Accurate enough, though. He often skewers the religious concept of original sin by noting that it stipulates we "are born sick and commanded to be well". One of his best zingers was to note that we all know what Muslim men get in the afterlife (the 72 virgins) and said "You know what the women get? They get their husbands back"! Appreciative laughter followed.

Sam Harris gave the statistic that 9 million children die every year before they reach the age of five. Presumably to make one wonder just how the deaths of 9 million children every year fits into the divine plan of a benevolent god. He also mentioned and gave a variation of the simulation argument popularized in some circles by the philosopher Nick Bostrom that basically lays out a plausible scenario whereby we could all be simulated people living simulated lives running on hard drives of the future. Harris noted the simulation could be being run by Mormons or some other religious group and therefore we might actually see Jesus coming to end everything.

Rabbi Artson made the valid point that often the worst of religion is compared to the best of science. Incidentally, it is gratifying that both rabbis can speak of physics theories such as parallel universes and multiverses or note that quantum mechanics and relativity can not be made to work together but do perfectly fine on their own.

I thought Rabbi Wolpe went a little adrift when responding to Sam Harris' point that most religions made incompatible claims about the nature of reality and the afterlife. He agreed that religions made incompatible claims and then went on to relate the story of a recent attendence at a religious conference where many religions were represented and told of how they all agreed there was a great deal of shared core similarity. It seems a weak argument to acknowledge incompatible claims and then say there is a core similarity.

At any rate, a very interesting discussion and one any thoughtful person should greatly enjoy.

Demise Of The Dictators

This was title of a recent Newsweek cover story by Fouad Ajami, professor at Johns Hopkins University, celebrating the revolutionary fervor sweeping the Mideast. The article gives some brief (and interesting)historical perspective and ends with the hopeful, "now they are making and claiming their own history". I have read a fair amount concerning events of that region, mostly trying to understand a culture that produces the fanatical religious and cultural excesses that can produce people who fly planes into buildings or strap on suicide belts/vests with the express purpose of turning themselves and nearby bystanders into bloody bits of flesh and bone scattered over the landscape. Not sure it's possible to understand. Probably a volatile mix of fundamentalist religion, cultural elements, lots of young people (especially young men), with joblessness, poverty, and hopelessness clouding their future.

I wish them success. It seems that the connectedness of social media and information technology played some role in the popular uprisings. Perhaps that will help make them feel part of the global community and less susceptible to allowing autocrats or theocrats to enslave them again. In the short term we will all most likely suffer as the soaring oil prices roil the global economy. Perhaps we will slide back into recession. Perhaps we need to. Oil shocks first happened in the 70s. We've had them more than once. How many times and how much pain before we do something about our addiction to oil?

Notable Quotes

"Dictating to dictators doesn't work; they are congenitally delusional about their own indispensibility".
                                                                               - Joe Klein, Time Magazine

"Without the crucial check of a free press - or independent legislatures and courts - democracy exists in name only".
                                                                              - Hannah Beech, Time Magazine

"Certainity about the next life is incompatible with tolerance in this one".
                                                                               - Sam Harris


I'd kill for a Nobel Peace Prize
A conscience is what hurts when all your other parts feel so good.
I was sad because I had no shoes until I met a man with no feet. So I said, "Got any shoes you're not using?
It's a small world, but I wouldn't want to paint it.
Curiousity killed the cat, but for a while I was a suspect.
I was walking down the street wearing glasses when the prescription ran out.
If you shoot at mimes, should you use a silencer?
There's a fine line between fishing and just standing on the shore like an idiot.
You can't have everything. Where would you put it?
All those who believe in psychokinesis, raise my hand.
The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.
I almost had a psychic girlfriend, but she left me before we met.
Okay, so what's the speed of dark?
How do you tell when you're out of invisible ink?
If everything seems to be going well, you've obviously overlooked something.
When everything is coming your way, you're in the wrong lane.
Everybody has a photographic memory. Some just don't have film.
If Barbie is so popular, why do you have to buy her friends?
What happens if you get scared half to death twice?
Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it.
                                                                                     - Steven Wright

Revolution In Egypt

Fareed Zakaria is a journalist and author with serious credentials on both foreign and domestic issues. He does incisive, in-depth analysis on many subjects that I greatly admire. A recent Time Magazine article he did about the revolution in Egypt was up to his usual high standards. However, one comment about "overreaction - common in Israel - that brands every move toward social conservatism as one toward jihad", brought me to a rare difference of opinion with him. He said, "asking women to wear veils is different from making men wear suicide belts". I think he is way off with that statement. To start with, at the very least, that's a very slippery slope. Let's be very generous and assume that at first they ask women to wear the veil. How long does anyone think it would take before that became a demand? Then why not order a complete head to toe covering to make them truly modest? With beatings and lashings and honor killings for those reluctant to live inside a cloth bag whenever venturing outside their house - only with a male relative, of course.

He also offers some troubling statistics while musing about whether Egypt will have a functioning democracy, theocracy, or whatever. He cites a 2010 Pew Research Center survey that asked questions about Egyptian attitudes. 84% support stoning as a punishment for adultery. 84% favor the death penalty for Muslims who leave the religion. How's that for enlightened views? In contrast, he cites a 2007 Pew survey that found 90% support freedom of religion, 88% an impartial judiciary, 80% free speech, and 75% are opposed to censorship. So what does it all mean? All too common cognitive dissonance often found in people. I will never forget quite a few years ago reading about a poll of Americans that found that a majority would repeal the Bill of Rights if it was put to a vote! I remember being appalled about that.

In spite of all that, I'm cautiously optimistic about events in Tunisia and Egypt. Often the dictatorial autocrats that rule in so many Muslim lands use tribalism, nationlism and religion to distract their supressed people from the dreariness of their lives. Stirring them up with claims about outsiders with evil intentions was a good strategy for keeping them from looking too hard at their own shortcomings. (Come to think of it... that's pretty much the right wing handbook in this country, isn't it?) Hopefully, a more open society will allow them to upgrade their attitudes to something more conducive to creating gainful employment and educational opportunities for their youthful populations instead of spewing slogans such as "Islam is the solution" or wanting to join the jihad in Afghanistan.

Just Words?

I used to not give much thought to the words "belief" or "believe" except to evaluate the subject to which they referred. Similarly, with the word "innocent", which has a much different connotation when used to describe, say, the finding of a jury in a criminal proceeding than when used to incite or inflame passions. For example, if you hear that, "3000 innocent Americans died in a terrorist attack." or, "A million innocent babies are aborted every year." you should know the word "innocent" is there to emphasize the outrage, the injustice of the act. It is intended to be prejudicial, to push your emotional buttons, to make you feel rather than think. When I hear the word "innocent" used in a manner calculated - consciously or unconsciously - to prejudice, I tend to wonder, like Sheriff Little Bill in the Clint Eastwood film Unforgiven: "Innocent of what"?  The 3000 or so people who died in the Twin Towers almost certainly included some number of thoroughly despicable people. I would suppose that statistically you could expect that some were guilty of heinous acts at some point in their lives. To acknowledge that takes nothing away from the fact that flying planes into buildings to kill a lot of people who didn't do anything to you is an act of destructive lunacy. An aborted fetus is innocent only because it has not had the opportunity to do anything good or evil. It could grow up to be Einstein or Hitler.

Recently in Newsweek I read a little piece about (I think) the 5 most common questions people asked on an online dating site. The one that caught my attention was: Do you believe in miracles? So people are evaluating prospective mates based on how deeply they are immersed in fantasy land rather than their grasp on reality? Has there ever been any objective, verifiable evidence that a professed miracle has ever occurred? Science has begun to examine beliefs where they occur: in the brain, by using fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging). This is fascinating, of course, but unlikely to cause any sudden outbreak of reason and rationality. I suspect that those most likely to believe in miracles are also those least likely to read scientific articles or ponder scientific conclusions. It is potentially instructive, as well as humorous, to recall Mark Twain's observation that a lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth (yet another over used and abused word in my opinion) is still putting on its shoes. We've always known that people believe things that aren't factual so why doesn't that make us question our own beliefs?

Of Microbes and Divine Physics

My March 2011 issue of Discover Magazine has a couple of standout articles. One is The Ecosystem Inside, a very informative article about the trillions of microbes that live in the human gut and "could be the key to fighting disease without antibiotics". I think they could be the key to much more than that and the article does explore some other fascinating findings. Most people may feel kind of icky at hearing that they are host to an "enormous population of microbes, including bacteria, fungi, and viruses", living on and in the human body, mostly in the gut. The article notes there are 20 times as many of these microbes as there are cells in the human body. It compares the population of microbes that live on and in us to a lush rain forest, a diverse ecosystem. That diversity seems crucial to good health. When we take antibiotics we disrupt that ecosystem, sometimes with unpleasant effects. A healthy population of microbes seems to suppress growth of pathogenic organisms. I've read in this and other publications how our gut microbes may interact with our immune systems and may determine whether we are obese or not. A case I'd heard about some time ago that most would find seriously icky reported on a woman with a "life-threatening  Clostridium difficile infection". She had chronic diarrhea, lost 60 pounds over eight months and had an "extremely poor prognosis". In desperation, her physician mixed a small sample of her husband's stool with saline and injected it into her colon. Within 24 hours her diarrhea had stopped. Her physician later found that the woman's microbial flora had been nearly completely replaced by her husband's microbes.

                                                *     *     *    *     *    *

Another article said "A group of scientists are embarking on a controversial search for God within the fractured logic of quantum physics". Controversial indeed! Apparently even scientists aren't immune to the lure of seeking God where gaps in our knowledge exist. We hear from a particle physicist, John Polkinghorne, who is also an Anglican priest. We hear about Abdus Salam, Nobel prize winner and a practicing Muslim, who also happened to unify two of the fundamental forces of nature - electromagnetism and the weak nuclear force.

As yet, physics experiments can not demonstrate that God exists - and does not need to since the burden of proof always rests with those making extraordinary claims - but Polkinghorne says, "the mysteries of quantum objects leave room for God in an explanation of the physical world."  Of course, scientists who happen to be religious perceive and express that religious belief far differently than, say, evangelicals. Or even moderates. They may take a leap of faith that takes them off the solid foundation of scientific principles and into the land of speculation but they don't usually wander too far down the path that leads to fantasy land.

I recently read an interesting article by Hugo de Garis, PhD. He is an artificial intelligence researcher and has some disturbing beliefs about the future of artificial intelligence (billions of deaths and possibly the elimination of the human race). He also believes godlike, massively intelligent machines he calls artilects which are many trillions of times more intelligent than man could be capable of creating a universe.

Well okay, but what I found also interesting was his comparison of deism with theism. He defines deism as, "the belief that there is a 'deity,' i.e., a creator of the universe, a grand designer, a cosmic architect, that conceived and built our universe." He defines theism as, "the belief in a deity that also cares about the welfare of individual humans." Deism I am open to, whereas I find theism ridiculous. The evidence against it is enormous." I think I agree. I would not be too shocked to learn that some sort of superintelligence made the universe. I would be very shocked if it was that jealous, angry, vindictive Abrahamic god with the unseemly, inordinate interest in what people do with each other while naked. And who decided 13.7 billion years ago while creating this incredible universe that I would be born on this 3rd rock from the sun and cursed with a questioning mind. And will deliver me to be tortured for eternity for that questioning mind and its lack of "faith".

"Palin Blasts Administration's Handling of Egypt"

This is a headline from today on MSNBC.com that I couldn't resist. This article quoted from her recent interview on the Christian Broadcasting Network. I usually try to avoid reading what Sarah Palin has to say. It's kind of depressing that anyone with so little of substance to say has an audience.

But okay, I'll take the bait. First, is the Obama administration "handling" Egypt? Looks a bit too chaotic there at this time for anyone to be handling anything. The article also quotes her as saying the U.S. must find out who is behind all the turmoil and that we should not stand for an Egyptian government led by the Muslim Brotherhood.

Well sure, you wouldn't expect the Christian Broadcasting Network to do a hard-hitting, in-depth interview with Palin. Not exactly their forte. But how could anyone miss the deep irony of Palin announcing on an American religious network that we should not stand for an Egyptian religious group running their government. I certainly agree that would be a tragedy. But I would suppose that the Christian Broadcasting Network would love it if some of their own could gain some control of our government. And that would be equally tragic.