On November 26th, Jim made an entry over at Stonekettle Station about the government demanding repayment of enlistment bonuses of those no longer able to serve due to combat injury.
Naturally I was quite incensed at this news, and immediately contacted both my senators, my representative, and the President to express my displeasure and demand action. Action, I say!
Well, what should appear in my mailbox this afternoon but a form letter response from my representative, whom I'm embarrassed to say is Tom Tancredo (hey, don't blame me. I didn't vote for the whack-job).
Well, guess what, Tom? I'm not even a little impressed with your response. Do you want to know why? Your dumbass staff sent me a form letter reassuring me what a stand-up guy you are regarding veteran's health care.
Well, gee, I'm so glad to hear that, Tom. Too bad my own correspondence was only tangentially related to veteran's health care. For your next correspondence, should I expect a note about the importance of using zip codes?
What a tool.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Dumbass politicians tend to hire dumbass staffs. Lucky me.
A Matter of Faith
This time of year, there tends to be a lot of discussion surrounding the holidays and the separation of church and state. Some of it is legitimate (such as prayer in schools), some of it is retarded (such as whether or not a government employee can have a Christmas Tree on their desk). All of it gets me to thinking about matters of faith.
To my mind, there are two kinds of people who live lives of faith.
The first kind believe what they believe, and understand that their leap of faith is just that - a leap that cannot be empirically proven. They understand their faith really isn't subject to the scientific method, they understand that this may be considered a limitation in the eyes of the skeptics, and they're okay with that. They're also okay with the skeptics who believe that matters of faith are subject to the scientific method - they just don't apply it themselves.
The second kind believe what they believe, and understand that their leap of faith is based on Truth. Their faith isn't subject to the scientific method, and are deeply offended when someone attempts to apply it to their Truth. In their minds, the depth of their own belief exempts their faith from examination by others, and also implies other people have an obligation to believe in the same Truth they do as a matter of faith.
Well.
You will never hear me say a disrespectful word about people of faith that fall into the former camp. I have a number of friends and family members who live their lives by religious principles. For the most part, they understand the limitations of faith relative to science, and have made a conscious, faith-based decision to believe. That's not the decision I've made, but I understand and respect their decision, as they understand and respect mine.
The folks in the latter camp are a different matter. These people can range in intensity from "Annoying Pest" to "Freeze-Dried Whack-a-Loon" to "Freeze-Dried-Whack-a-Loon with Access to Nuclear Weapons."
That last group scares me down to my toes, but the ones I'm going to talk about today are the ones that play both ends against the middle. Obviously, the Young Earth Creationists fall into this category.
In my mind, matters of religion and faith are academically categorized as a "humanity." This is because religion is a huge part of the human condition, and like most humanities, is really a matter of opinion. It's not subject to the scientific method, and its academic study is not pursued to establish its veracity.
This differentiates it from the sciences, where empirical proof, experimentation and repeatable observation are the hallmarks of academic achievement.
Both disciplines are worthwhile, and both add to the understanding of the human condition. But you have to choose which category your discipline falls into. If it's a humanity, it's not subject to the scientific method, and as such, is a matter of opinion. If it's a science, it's subject to the scientific method, and open for challenge. (Yes, I realize this is an oversimplification).
So you don't get to say your religious views cannot be challenged because "you have to respect someones religion" out of one side of your mouth, and then say your view of the world is a valid scientific hypothesis out of the other. Either your worldview is scientific, and subject to the same rigorous standards as the rest of science, or your worldview is faith-based, and should be categorized as such, i.e., a matter of opinion that cannot be proven.
Now some people do a very good job of reconciling their world-views between the empirical and the religious, mostly by keeping their faith a private matter and their science a public one. An example of this is the idea that evolution is the mechanism by which a creator god created life.
While I feel I have an ethical obligation to be respectful to persons of faith that fall into the first category, I have no obligation to do so in the second case. Their bad science and zealotry is laughable to me, and it gets the respect it deserves.
To my mind, there are two kinds of people who live lives of faith.
The first kind believe what they believe, and understand that their leap of faith is just that - a leap that cannot be empirically proven. They understand their faith really isn't subject to the scientific method, they understand that this may be considered a limitation in the eyes of the skeptics, and they're okay with that. They're also okay with the skeptics who believe that matters of faith are subject to the scientific method - they just don't apply it themselves.
The second kind believe what they believe, and understand that their leap of faith is based on Truth. Their faith isn't subject to the scientific method, and are deeply offended when someone attempts to apply it to their Truth. In their minds, the depth of their own belief exempts their faith from examination by others, and also implies other people have an obligation to believe in the same Truth they do as a matter of faith.
Well.
You will never hear me say a disrespectful word about people of faith that fall into the former camp. I have a number of friends and family members who live their lives by religious principles. For the most part, they understand the limitations of faith relative to science, and have made a conscious, faith-based decision to believe. That's not the decision I've made, but I understand and respect their decision, as they understand and respect mine.
The folks in the latter camp are a different matter. These people can range in intensity from "Annoying Pest" to "Freeze-Dried Whack-a-Loon" to "Freeze-Dried-Whack-a-Loon with Access to Nuclear Weapons."
That last group scares me down to my toes, but the ones I'm going to talk about today are the ones that play both ends against the middle. Obviously, the Young Earth Creationists fall into this category.
In my mind, matters of religion and faith are academically categorized as a "humanity." This is because religion is a huge part of the human condition, and like most humanities, is really a matter of opinion. It's not subject to the scientific method, and its academic study is not pursued to establish its veracity.
This differentiates it from the sciences, where empirical proof, experimentation and repeatable observation are the hallmarks of academic achievement.
Both disciplines are worthwhile, and both add to the understanding of the human condition. But you have to choose which category your discipline falls into. If it's a humanity, it's not subject to the scientific method, and as such, is a matter of opinion. If it's a science, it's subject to the scientific method, and open for challenge. (Yes, I realize this is an oversimplification).
So you don't get to say your religious views cannot be challenged because "you have to respect someones religion" out of one side of your mouth, and then say your view of the world is a valid scientific hypothesis out of the other. Either your worldview is scientific, and subject to the same rigorous standards as the rest of science, or your worldview is faith-based, and should be categorized as such, i.e., a matter of opinion that cannot be proven.
Now some people do a very good job of reconciling their world-views between the empirical and the religious, mostly by keeping their faith a private matter and their science a public one. An example of this is the idea that evolution is the mechanism by which a creator god created life.
While I feel I have an ethical obligation to be respectful to persons of faith that fall into the first category, I have no obligation to do so in the second case. Their bad science and zealotry is laughable to me, and it gets the respect it deserves.
My Charities, They're Stalking Me
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
I believe in charitable giving. Whether you donate your money, your time, or your goods to some worthy cause, you're balancing the inherent evil in the world with some inherent good.
Over the years, I've given to a variety of causes such as the The Women's Bean Project, Puppies Behind Bars, The Navy and Marine Corps Relief Society, Doctors Without Borders, The International Rescue Committee, The American Red Cross, Fisher House, Planned Parenthood, Kiva, and a variety of homeless shelters, food banks and "adopt-a-family" efforts. At the time of my donation, all met my requirement of using a minimum of 85% of donations to accomplish the mission to which they were dedicated, and fulfilled some need that I thought was important.
Unfortunately, with a few notable exceptions, they also now stalk me like a bad prom date.
Some of these charities no longer receive my support, either because their operating expenses exceeded my maximum threshold, or my interests lie elsewhere, or my donation was a one-time thing in honor of someone else. Some of them still receive my support, in the form of a percentage of my charity budget each year. But I continue to be bombarded by requests for additional money via phone, e:mail and snail-mail. In some cases, I would speculate that they've already reached the point of diminishing returns with me, yet I continue to hear from them.
My grand champion charitable stalker is the Rocky Mountain Planned Parenthood organization. Now I believe in Planned Parenthood. I think they do good work, and I strongly believe in their mission. But I don't think they need to e:mail me constantly, and I certainly don't think they need to call me periodically to inform me that if I don't act RIGHT NOW I'm going to be personally responsible for the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Note to RMPP: I think GWB's appointment of John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the SCOUS may have more of an impact on Roe v. Wade than my failing to donate additional monies to your organization every time you call. I'm just saying.
My current favorite charity is Kiva, a micro-finance organization that allows me to "loan" money to entrepreneurs in developing countries. The money is disbursed through a local financial institution, and when repaid, I can "loan" it out again. Updates on my entrepreneurs are sent periodically via e:mail, and they don't hound me for additional contributions. I like it because I'm more intimately involved in the use of my contribution, and again, they don't hound me for additional contributions. My "lenders page" can be found here if you're interested.
This year for the holidays, I'm also sharing a lender's account with my friend Amy. We're choosing the businesses we want to support together, and we're both contributing to the account. We figured that's much better than giving each other more crap.
So here's a news flash to my charities: STOP CALLING/EMAILING/WRITING ME. I know who you are, and I know what type of work you do. I'm capable of looking up your financial results to determine if you're doing a good job of serving your constituents, and I don't need your PR materials. Save your money, and if I want to contribute to your cause, I will. If I don't, I won't. It really is that simple. Don't make me go medieval on your ass.
Over the years, I've given to a variety of causes such as the The Women's Bean Project, Puppies Behind Bars, The Navy and Marine Corps Relief Society, Doctors Without Borders, The International Rescue Committee, The American Red Cross, Fisher House, Planned Parenthood, Kiva, and a variety of homeless shelters, food banks and "adopt-a-family" efforts. At the time of my donation, all met my requirement of using a minimum of 85% of donations to accomplish the mission to which they were dedicated, and fulfilled some need that I thought was important.
Unfortunately, with a few notable exceptions, they also now stalk me like a bad prom date.
Some of these charities no longer receive my support, either because their operating expenses exceeded my maximum threshold, or my interests lie elsewhere, or my donation was a one-time thing in honor of someone else. Some of them still receive my support, in the form of a percentage of my charity budget each year. But I continue to be bombarded by requests for additional money via phone, e:mail and snail-mail. In some cases, I would speculate that they've already reached the point of diminishing returns with me, yet I continue to hear from them.
My grand champion charitable stalker is the Rocky Mountain Planned Parenthood organization. Now I believe in Planned Parenthood. I think they do good work, and I strongly believe in their mission. But I don't think they need to e:mail me constantly, and I certainly don't think they need to call me periodically to inform me that if I don't act RIGHT NOW I'm going to be personally responsible for the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Note to RMPP: I think GWB's appointment of John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the SCOUS may have more of an impact on Roe v. Wade than my failing to donate additional monies to your organization every time you call. I'm just saying.
My current favorite charity is Kiva, a micro-finance organization that allows me to "loan" money to entrepreneurs in developing countries. The money is disbursed through a local financial institution, and when repaid, I can "loan" it out again. Updates on my entrepreneurs are sent periodically via e:mail, and they don't hound me for additional contributions. I like it because I'm more intimately involved in the use of my contribution, and again, they don't hound me for additional contributions. My "lenders page" can be found here if you're interested.
This year for the holidays, I'm also sharing a lender's account with my friend Amy. We're choosing the businesses we want to support together, and we're both contributing to the account. We figured that's much better than giving each other more crap.
So here's a news flash to my charities: STOP CALLING/EMAILING/WRITING ME. I know who you are, and I know what type of work you do. I'm capable of looking up your financial results to determine if you're doing a good job of serving your constituents, and I don't need your PR materials. Save your money, and if I want to contribute to your cause, I will. If I don't, I won't. It really is that simple. Don't make me go medieval on your ass.
The 80's called. They want their hair back. And their pants.
Monday, December 3, 2007
Yngwie Malmsteen, 2007
Don't get me wrong. I like Yngwie's music. Yngwie Malmsteen's Rising Force was one of my favorite bands of the 80's, and a significant percentage of his discography is in my library. While I don't believe he's as innovative as he used to be, I still think he's a gifted musician and one of the most talented guitarists of his generation.
But dude. Hire a stylist. And be quick about it.
The Evil Machine of Torture
Saturday, December 1, 2007
Yesterday over at Stonekettle Station, Jim posted an entry on the nature of self-denial relating to weight management. This made me think about my own life-style and such.
Now me, I'm in the "eat less, move more" school of dieting. Sometimes, I join the "eat more, move less" school, and the result becomes readily apparent. My genes have doomed me to a lifetime of struggle with my weight once I got past those fabulous, high-metabolism, calorie-burning twenties.
Which brings me to The Evil Machine of Torture.
Allow me to be clear. I hate exercising. I LOATHE it. I firmly believe the only reason to run anywhere is if you're being chased by a giant squid. Sweating is overrated, except in "recreational" pursuits. FUN is not defined as sweating your ass off chasing a ball, or trying to hit a ball, or trying to tackle a ball. FUN involves beer, and Tostitos, and Entemann's.
And yet, five days a week, I can be found on The Evil Machine of Torture, sweating away while watching TiVo or a DVD. Why? Well, because:
- If I become too fat to walk, I will no longer be eligible to be a Sweet Potato Queen.
- I don't want to drop dead of a massive coronary before I have the opportunity to spend my children's inheritance.
Pretty simple, really. Exercise = more life, beer, Tostitos and Entemann's.
Critical thinking can be so enlightening. But I still hate to exercise.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
