The Ayers Smear Against Obama Is Unamerican
Current mood: hopeful
Category: News and Politics

By now everyone has heard of William Ayers, the former Weather Underground member who's been associated with Barack Obama. Sarah Palin in particular has been going after Obama, saying at one point that he "pals around with terrorists" because years ago, he sat on a charity board with Ayers and got some early campaign help from the '60s radical, who is now an education professor at the University of Illinois. But even if Obama were good friends with Ayers today (which he almost certainly isn't), it is flat-out unamerican for the McCain campaign to say that Obama exhibited a lapse of judgment by associating with Ayers.

First of all, are Palin and company seriously suggesting that if a person has any political ambitions, it's his or her responsibility to conduct a background check on everybody with whom they might share a board table? I'm trying to imagine how this would go down: It's the mid '90s, and a then-unknown Obama is asked to be on a board that oversees grants. The Clinton Whitewater scandal/impeachment hasn't happened yet, but Obama is insightful enough to know that anything in a politician's history can be uncovered and used against him. So he personally interviews each potential board member, and upon finding out that one belonged to a domestic terrorist group over two decades earlier, Barack declines the invitation. (Mind you, this is also before 9/11—but the future senator has enough foresight to know that people would be sensitized to the spectre of terrorism when he finally decides to run for president.)

So that's what a young Obama didn't do at a point in his political career when he hadn't yet launched his Senate campaign, let alone his presidential campaign. As a result, apparently, he should not be president.

Here's what really bothers me, though: The implication of this charge is that if you have a dark period in your life, particularly a criminal period, you are marked forever. You are untouchable. Even long after you've gone through the criminal justice system (as Ayers did), re-entered society, and started a new life, anyone who willingly associates with you is ethically soiled and must not be president. So, even though Barack Obama didn't meet Bill Ayers until 20 years after Ayers gave up his life of crime, it was a lapse of judgment to associate with him in any way? I'd like someone to explain to me why. Oh, right: More recently Ayers was photographed standing on a U.S. flag and was heard saying this and that. Again, the country we live in is the United States. We have the right of free speech. Just because someone avails himself of that right, he is not somehow damaged for life, and he certainly is not so virulent that he damages everyone with whom he comes into contact. (That goes for Reverend Wright, too.)

If this issue comes up in the last debate (maybe it will -- I appreciate that Obama has publicly said, "Say it to my face!" about the Ayers smear), this is how I'd like to hear the senator from Illinois respond -- not to McCain but to moderator Bob Schieffer:

"Bob, I think the American people have heard just about enough of this. You know, this isn't India in the 1800s. We don't have a caste system in this country, and in America, a person can work to improve his or her station in life. To imply that someone like Mr. Ayers with a dark past or a criminal past is somehow marked for life, a toxin to anyone he encounters decades later -- Bob, quite frankly, I think that's unamerican. America's Promise is that even if we start from the most destitute or even criminal beginnings, we all have the opportunity to shed that past and work to become valuable, honorable members of the community. So to level this charge in a cynical attempt to distract people, at a time when they are losing their jobs, their homes, and their retirement accounts ... Bob, I'm sorry, but Senator McCain should be ashamed."

8:27 AM - 9 Comments - 8 Kudos - Add Comment

Why Time Appears To Move Forward
Current mood: contemplative
Category: Life

I've been working on the following essay for a while. Eventually I'd like to adapt it into an animated YouTube video, so please comment if you have any counterarguments or if anything isn't explained clearly.

We think of time as something that's in constant motion. Unlike anything else we can imagine, time could never stand still: It must always "flow," passing us by (and passing through us) at a constant rate. Even if we remain completely motionless, time passes inexorably, like water in a river -- and once a moment in time passes, it's gone. Much has been written about this phenomenon, as well as the question of why there is an "arrow of time." Why does time move in a specific direction, and only one direction? We can remember the past, but the future is a total mystery, a void of darkness. Why such a marked difference between the past and future?

In pondering these questions, I prefer to think of time as something that actually does not pass by, but rather is a unified whole, like a sheet of fabric. However, for reasons I'll explain, we cannot perceive more than one thread of this sheet at once.* The fact that we perceive a seemingly endless march of these threads, one after another and always coming from the same direction, is why we think of time as something that moves even if everything else is remaining still.

Try to imagine, hypothetically, a person traveling through space, at a constant speed, in a ship that rides on a giant stationary ruler. There's one narrow window on the ship, through which the only thing the traveler can see is a sliver of the ruler, and there is nothing he can do to change his speed or how much of the ruler he can see. In this imaginary scenario, it would seem to the traveler that inches, feet, and miles are passing by outside the window at a constant rate, while he seems to remain more or less at rest. He can't see the inch marks and mile marks coming, but from experience, he knows that they will come eventually. It would also seem that once a mark passes, it's gone; it no longer exists.

But because I have described this hypothetical ship to you, from your outside perspective, you know that the traveler's perception is an illusion. In fact, the ruler represents merely a dimension of space -- length -- and when seen from outside of the traveler's hypothetical spaceship, it's clear that the ruler is a constant and unchanging thing, with static inch, feet, and mile marks all along its length. This is beyond the traveler's ability to perceive, however, since he can see only tiny, successive slivers of the ruler and nothing else. For the traveler, the sensation is that the length markings are moving in a specific direction -- toward the ship and then past the ship -- and disappearing. But in truth, those markings aren't disappearing or even moving anywhere. The traveler simply can't perceive them anymore.

We can think of our existence on Earth as being like the traveler's, only we're "seeing" seconds, hours, and years passing by our narrow window of perception rather than inches, feet, and miles. From this perspective, outside of our earthly perception, time is like the unchanging ruler: It's fixed and unmoving, comprising all of its units (seconds, hours, years) along the whole of its dimension, even though none of us can see more than one of its unit markings at once.

This fixed, "non-passing" view of time is essential to understanding why time seems to move forward. It all starts to make sense once you accept two postulates:
1. The history of the universe consists of events.
2. Some of these events are causally related to one another.

By "event" I mean something that exists at a specific place and at a specific time. Any event in the history of the universe can be defined in terms of its location along four dimensions -- three of space and one of time.** For example, the first human reaching the summit of Mt. Everest is an event that can be defined by its three-dimensional location in space and its one-dimensional location in time (May 29, 1953). Time doesn't need to actually pass by in order for a date to help define an event, any more than miles need to "pass by" in order for New York to be described as being 100 miles northeast of Philadelphia. And by "causally related," I mean that the existence of one event, earlier in time, is a prerequisite for the existence of another, later in time. For example, the explosion of a massive star is necessary for someone on Earth, at some later time, to observe a supernova. Without the explosion event, no supernova would be observed, so we say the explosion event caused the supernova-observation event. The events are causally related.

What is it that links any two causally related events? Information. In the case of the supernova, the causing event (the star explosion) creates information about the event, in the form of light and other radiation emanating outward. The resulting event (the observation of a supernova) occurs when that information reaches humans on Earth. This same principle can be seen on the human scale (causing event: I drop a hammer; resulting event: floor gets dented), as well as on the scale of the very small (causing event: photon reaches atom; resulting event: electron changes energy state). In all cases, the resulting event happens later in time than the causing event, as information flows from one place to another. How much time elapses between events? That depends on the speed of the information. Information can travel as fast as the speed of light, or much slower, as with the falling hammer. But as far as we know, no kind of information can travel faster than the speed of light. So, causally related events cannot occur simultaneously; there always has to be a time interval between them.

I like to imagine the history of the universe as a "stack" of events, like a silo full of grain. If you like, you can think of the flow of time as water trickling downward through this stack. Toward the top of the stack are events that happened earlier, and those farther down happened (or will happen) later. In this stack, a causing event must be located higher than an event that resulted from it. In other words, the events in the stack aren't arranged randomly; in terms of vertical placement at least, all events are arranged in a specific order of causation, with every resulting event located somewhere below its respective causing event.† Causally related events are connected by a line representing information about the causing event. This stack, therefore, is an unimaginably complex web of events along with the information that connects them.

Now, as a thought experiment, put yourself in the place of one single event in our stack. You are frozen in both time and location; above you in the stack are "previous" events, and below you are "future" events. From this position, what would you be perceiving? You would perceive only past events -- the ones above you. This is because perceiving any event has to be a result of the event, the event being exactly the thing that caused the perception. Causation can never come from the future, because we've defined a cause as something that must occur earlier in time than its result. However, from your spot in the "event silo," where you're frozen in time and location, you wouldn't perceive all past events. You'd only perceive events that are at the proper distance and time, relative to you, for their information to be reaching you at that precise moment.†† What about future events? They would all be hidden from view, owing again to the very definition of cause and effect. So, some past events could be perceived, but most of them wouldn't be. And all future events would be imperceptible.

In the real universe where you and I live, existing is like sitting in a movie theater: From the direction of the screen, all sorts of information is coming at us, and this information changes depending on the time indicated on our wristwatch. From the back of the theater, though, there is always darkness. Naturally, the seats in the theater are positioned facing the screen, so that we can watch the movie. Similarly, our brains must process information as it reaches us -- information that always comes to us from the past, and comes to us relentlessly, always from this one direction. Different bits of information reach us at different points along the one-dimensional timeline of life; at one o'clock you can receive an e-mail from your mother, and at 1:01 a friend may call. The result is the distinct sensation that time is advancing relentlessly forward, just like the action in the movie, or the slivers of the ruler in the first example. But we could never find out what the future is in advance, because information does not travel in reverse; that would require inverting the very definition of cause and effect. The future will always reveal itself only as fast as we can receive information about it. Meanwhile, the frames of that movie, or the marks on that ruler, continue to tick by.

One thing I like about this view of time is that it solves things like the "grandfather paradox" -- the question of whether you could go back in time and kill your grandfather when he was a youth, preventing your parents from meeting. This would require information (you with a knife) coming to your grandfather from the future, and causation does not allow information to go from the future into the past; causation allows information to go only in the past-to-future direction. As a result, in our universe, you can never successfully travel into the past, at least not to participate in causation in any way. You can travel into the future, however -- in fact, there's no way not to -- and as Einstein demonstrated, if you also move through space, you'll increase the rate at which you travel into the future, relative to someone who isn't moving.

Interestingly, the idea suggested in this essay -- that of a timeless, eternal universe that "knows all," including every event of the past and future -- sounds something like the traditional idea of "God." However, nothing here calls for a sentient being that can direct or change events, listen to our prayers, or judge us after we die.


* I recognize the tautological problem of using a time-dependent phrase such as "at once" when discussing time itself, but it's the best our language can do with this difficult topic.

** Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity stitches the one dimension of time into the three conventional dimensions of space, resulting in what physicists refer to as spacetime.

† Where does the Big Bang fit in? Can there be an event that does not require a causing event? Actually, nothing in my hypothesis forbids non-caused events. The Big Bang would merely be an event located at the uppermost extreme of the history-of-the-universe stack, and therefore would not have an associated causing event.

†† Physicists use the terms "light cone" or "plane of simultaneity" to describe the set of events perceivable from a single point in space and time. Hermann Minkowski (1864-1909) was a leading theoretician in this field.

1:10 AM - 9 Comments - 11 Kudos - Add Comment

"Just An Average Hockey Mom"
Current mood: determined
Category: News and Politics

In every speech she has given since being chosen as the Republican Vice Presidential candidate, Sarah Palen has described herself as "just an average hockey mom." Certainly, the GOP knows that this is a compelling element of their narrative: an "average" or "real person" (whatever that means) who rose to run for the second most powerful position in the land.

"Just an average hockey mom." And that's a good thing...why?

The idea of the "real person" having unexpected political success is at least as old as Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, and the broader idea of the little guy making it big is part of the fabric of American culture. But I don't think it became a dominant political mentality until Ronald Reagan came along. America fell in love with the idea of the cowboy president, the folksy, non-intellectual communicator who talks "plain" and isn't too into the idea of book learnin'. Bill Clinton won in '92 and '96, in part, because he seemed to be a regular, relatable guy, and certainly George W. Bush benefited in 2000 and '04 from the same thing. (You'll recall that Gore sighed and Kerry windsurfed.) "Who would you rather have a beer with?" became a resonant question in both elections, and it remains on the table today.

A couple of months ago, one of the newsmagazines (I think it was Newsweek) had an austere cover depicting a mug of beer, a bunch of arugula, and the headline THE OBAMA GAP. In other words, Obama might have a problem because "regular, average" people drink beer, while he eats arugula.

The question I have is, where did this idea come from, and and why is it so entrenched? What is the evidence that a "regular guy" in the White House is a good thing? Don't the last eight years, in fact, suggest exactly the opposite? Keep in mind that image aside, both Reagan and Clinton were in fact well above average in their global knowledge, decision-making, and governing abilities, whereas Bush II actually is average, at best, in these areas. To me, the results speak for themselves.

I'd like to ask Sarah Palin why she loves to remind us that she's "average." Because I'd much rather have a leader who isn't afraid to say, "You know something? I'm not average. I have ideas on where this country needs to go, and I have the drive and tenacity to accomplish them. Above-average ideas, drive, and tenacity. An average person blends in and doesn't rock the boat. That's not me."

But that probably wouldn't cut it, would it? After all, we've been taught that if a person is too confident about themselves, they are seen as arrogant, haughty, or as Georgia congressman Lynn Westmoreland unfortunately described Obama, "uppity". One CNN commentator spoke about the problem of Obama's "chin-thrusts" when delivering a speech. Somehow, if you present yourself as self-assured, sharp, and smart -- without excusing yourself by insisting that you're merely "average" -- then that means you are an elitist, plain and simple.

Whoa. Somebody, somehow has managed to morph the words "elitist" together with "elite." To remind, gentle reader, something that is "elite" is "good" -- exceptional, at the top of its class, superlative. An "elitist" person, on the other hand, is someone who discriminates on the basis of some kind of position or stature. John McCain was an elite soldier, meaning he was exceptionally good at doing what soldiers do. But in today's political climate, I'm pretty sure he wouldn't hesitate to label himself a "regular guy."* Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but a president should be good -- elite -- at leading the country and making informed decisions. Someone please explain to me the downside of having an exceptionally smart, educated, confident person running the Executive Branch of the U.S. government! Why is it more important that a candidate downplay their station as a leader by doing shots in a bar and speaking from the bed of a pickup truck (as Hillary Clinton had to do this year)? Why must a candidate demonstrate that they blend in, by wearing a flag-pin lapel and ending every speech with "God Bless America" (which Obama had to start doing)?

You know, there's a reason why "elite" and "elitist" are spelled differently: They're two different words that mean very different things. But as a result of their inexplicable conflation, Barack Obama must shy away from the fact that he and his wife went to Harvard Law School, instead playing up the "community organizer" angle. Because an Ivy League background is considered "elitist." And America doesn't want an "elitist" leader. They want a leader who's average. Someone who sees the world in simple, everyday terms, such as good vs. evil (which McCain directly referenced in his acceptance speech -- how average is that!). Call me an elitist, but I want a leader whose vision includes a bit of nuance. And you have to be a little better than average for that.

This average-minded mentality has got to change, or the United States of America will soon become "just an average" player on the world stage, or worse. I am hoping the 2008 general election will be a first step in this direction.


* Stephen Colbert joke: Unlike Obama, McCain "could be the guy next door. Literally. He owns a lot of houses."

11:49 PM - 12 Comments - 19 Kudos - Add Comment

My Problem With Christianity
Current mood: calm
Category: Religion and Philosophy

(This is an expanded rewrite of a previous post called "Why Do I Bash Christianity?")

Viewers on YouTube ask me, "Why do you feel the need to bash Christianity? Why not just let people believe what they want? If you don't believe in God, why do you talk about him so much?" I understand these questions; looking at it from the opposing perspective, making dozens of religious satire videos may seem like a strange pursuit. It's not because of some church-related trauma; actually, I was raised in a secular household and allowed to make my own choices. (I think I decided to not believe in God around age eight.) Instead, I'm trying to embolden atheists, agnostics, and "apatheists" to stand up against what I consider a cancer in the United States: the willful, collective ignorance of Evangelical Christianity, which is weakening the nation intellectually and bringing it closer to the Dark Ages, instead of forward into the future. And I'm trying to do it through comedy.

First of all, I do not "bash" a specific group of people, but rather, a set of beliefs that people may choose to have or not have. Just as I could become a born-again Christian tomorrow, so could a born-again Christian let go of their faith tomorrow. It's not the same as ridiculing someone for their race, disability, or anything else they can't change; that's an entirely false analogy. Also, I pick on Christianity because it's the religion that personally affects me the most, and it's the one I know the most about. I'll let someone else bash the other religions if they're motivated to do so.

Fully acknowledging that not all Christians believe the same things, certain beliefs are worthy of ridicule, in my opinion. These are:

1. The idea that whatever force or entity responsible for the creation and order in the universe (if there ever were one) is a conscious being that watches over us earthly humans today, and can interact with our consciousness in a way that measurably, unambiguously affects the real world. This is a huge leap supported by nothing that has ever happened in reality. Biblical accounts of miracles, or other dubiously witnessed events or personal testimonials, are not evidence of anything; we have video cameras now. Show me a video of a person praying for her shotgun-victim brother and his brain tissue spontaneously growing back, and we'll talk. Show me a form of prayer that can reliably, repeatably do anything outside of one's own mind, and we'll talk.

2. The idea that after we die, our souls persist and are judged according to what we believed when we were alive, those beliefs then determining the eternal fate of our souls. This claim is beyond baseless; it's rife with problems of logic and morality, given the large numbers of people on earth who don't subscribe to the Christian faith. This tenet of Christianity (and some other religions) has been used as an instrument of fear and coercion for millennia.

3. Most ridiculous to me is the idea that because of what the beginning of the Bible says, the scientific method must be fatally flawed -- that evolution could not have happened on earth, despite 150 years of unsuccessful attempts to discredit evolutionary theory. This topic has been dealt with in many places, including other blog posts of mine.

4. Other beliefs (shared by some Christians) worthy of ridicule include: Adam and Eve having been real people who ate a fruit that caused the fall of an otherwise perfect world; the Flood and Noah's Ark; the idea that the Bible's predictions of events that appear later in the same book are evidence of anything "miraculous" or "prophetic"; that humans have a soul that dogs and dolphins and chimpanzees absolutely do not have somehow, even in a more primitive form; and that the Creator's plan includes a final apocalyptic event, at which time all nonbelievers will be swept into a lake of fire while Christians ascend to Heaven.

If that were all, I probably wouldn't ridicule these beliefs openly. But they are part of a larger organized system that keeps millions of people in a perpetual state of intentional ignorance. The popularity of "intelligent design" is the most obvious example. It kills me that so many people -- we're talking about something like half of the United States! -- doubt that evolution ever actually occurred, just because it's a difficult concept for them to understand, even though their information on the topic may have come from their church, their home-schooling parents, and/or Christian websites, all of which have obvious and blatant biases. So, science education in public schools must then change and include religiously motivated "alternatives"? As a science enthusiast, I am appalled that this was (and still is) promoted, and seriously considered, by some. I fear for our culture's ability to advance and thrive when a great many of us lack the intellectual tools to distinguish science from magical thinking.

Whenever "God did it" becomes an answer, it's the tragic death of an intellectual pursuit. If a religious way of thinking becomes legislated and affects everyone (see: stem cell research, abortion, gay marriage), it is catastrophic.

But the willful ignorance also manifests in subtler ways. Christians believe that God has a plan for us, and that everything happens for a reason (i.e., things don't occur randomly or in a manner indifferent to humans, collectively or individually). In my opinion, this paralyzes a person's ability to navigate the world rationally and with a clear vision of reality. I can't imagine what it would be like to go through life fulfilling or not fulfilling a "cosmic plan" depending upon how righteous my own actions were. And while prayer may have some value in terms of contemplating the self and one's own life, or in some cases, self-healing, it is a colossal waste of time when it is believed prayer will affect the real, physical course of events beyond one's own mind and body. ("Please pray for the return of Baby Jennifer.") The time spent engaging in this kind of prayer costs the world an incalculable amount of productivity, every day.

There's no doubt that we can learn from Christianity; the New Testament sermons of (the character) Jesus are cornerstones of early Western thought. But "love thy neighbor" isn't what I have a problem with. It's all of that other stuff that doesn't quite work in a post-Enlightenment era of reason and discovery. If all Christians practiced in solemn privacy and their faith impacted no one outside their personal sphere of inner influence, I'm sure I never would have made these videos. But that's not how it is.

I also probably wouldn't make videos if they weren't being watched. But they are, and as someone who's been trying to attract creative recognition for decades, I find this highly motivating. So, although my inspiration comes from a deeper place, the primary reason why I create videos is to make people laugh -- not at other people per se, but at beliefs that I would very much like to see disappear. As of this writing there are 8,684 YouTube subscribers who want me to continue. Can you blame me for trying to help make the future a little brighter, while getting people to laugh along the way?

----

I touch on some of the above concepts in my satire videos. Some links:

People should believe whatever they want:
"People's Religion Should Be Respected!"

Prayer is a reliable and effective way to affect the external world:
"Who I'm Praying For Today"
"Proving The Power Of Prayer"

Our soul is judged after we die:
"An Atheist Meets God"
"The Lord Will Not Be Mocked!"

Evolution could not have happened:
"People Are Not Animals!"
"Science Is Wrong ... Only God Knows The Truth"

I.D. is a legitimate alternative to evolution:
"Intelligent Design Really Is Being Expelled!"

God has a plan for us:
"God Knows Absolutely Everything"

10:46 PM - 26 Comments - 37 Kudos - Add Comment

Intelligent Design Isn’t Science
Current mood: focused
Category: Religion and Philosophy

Sometimes people watch my religion satires and ask why I never get serious and actually state my position in a "mature" manner. Well, for one, because I don't want to be the comedian who started taking himself seriously and therefore stopped being funny. But I do enjoy writing, so this blog is a good place for me to do that without making unfunny videos. The following is adapted from a message to a YouTube viewer who engaged me in a discussion about evolution.

---

The basic premise of science is rigorous observation and testing. Even if God exists, his presence and influence cannot be objectively observed and tested, and therefore God (or an intelligent designer) cannot factor into any form of scientific inquiry. It has nothing to do with whether or not scientists believe in God; that's not the issue.

You mentioned that oxygen and the wind cannot be seen, so how do we know that they exist? Because oxygen (like another gas, hydrogen) has specific measurable properties that allow it to be identified in the laboratory. If you determined in this way that two gas samples are hydrogen and oxygen, then that determination can be tested: Combine them and add a spark, and they will react and the hydrogen will burn, producing water. The fact that there's a certain amount of water is a prediction, based on what we know about the chemical makeup of water, that came true (and always comes true). The test confirmed the prediction, telling us that the initial determination was correct. The test is also 100% repeatable; anyone in the world can do the experiment and they'll get the same results. All of this works so well because we have a well-supported scientific theory -- yes, it really is a theory -- about the chemical composition of water.

Evolution is harder to observe than burning hydrogen, because it happens over millions of years, but the theory still makes predictions. Before DNA was discovered, biologists knew that related organisms would have to be related genetically somehow, the similarity being in proportion to their relationship on the evolutionary tree of life. This prediction was found indeed to be correct, as confirmed countless times by biologists all over the world from every culture.

Humans have one fewer chromosome than lower apes. This was initially a mystery, but evolutionary theory predicted that two chromosomes must have combined at some point in our distant past. And today any biologist can look at human chromosome 2 and see the structures of two separate chromosomes that somehow combined. This can actually be seen under a microscope, in the tissue of any human (even a creationist), and it's one of many lines of evidence that have supported evolutionary theory for 150 years.

You can't do this kind of thing with an intelligent designer -- not even close. Intelligent design can't make any predictions, and there are no testing schemes that result in objective, repeatable results. I.D. is therefore unable to offer anything useful or practical, the way evolutionary theory helps scientists at the CDC come up with vaccines for rapidly changing pathogens, or the way the chemistry of gases helps engineers design hydrogen fuel cells. I.D. is an attempt to explain something, but without testable or predictive qualities, the plausibility of that explanation cannot be determined. That makes I.D. scientifically useless.

There's a reason why open-minded people like Judge John Jones III,* when presented with arguments by people on both sides who know their fields well, come to the conclusion that I.D. does not qualify as science.

It's fine if you believe that God created the world. It's even okay if you don't believe what evolution says (although I'd argue that's merely because it's complex and difficult). But you can't say that intelligent design is a scientific alternative, because it really isn't.


* The conservative federal judge, appointed by George W. Bush, who heard the 2005 case Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Board, and wrote unequivocally in his opinion that "I.D. is not science." This case was profiled in the excellent episode of PBS's Nova titled "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial".

9:10 PM - 11 Comments - 20 Kudos - Add Comment

Confirm My Identity? Fuck You
Current mood: aggravated
Category: Life

For years I've hated spammers worse than anyone else in the world. But I'm starting to wonder...I think I've found a type of person I hate even more: People who sign up for a "spam arresting" service, wherein when you send them an e-mail, the e-mail is rejected and you have to follow additional steps to confirm your identity -- specifically, click a link, read bullshit, and then type bullshit into a box.

I understand why some people would do this. Spam is a nightmare, and not everyone has the tools to fight it on their end. And it kind of makes sense when they're receiving an e-mail out of the blue and you've never communicated with them before. Except that I think every time I've seen this happen, it involved either someone who had contacted me first and asked for a reply, or someone I had recently exchanged e-mails with. When it happened today, I was delivering the manuscript for the second edition of my book Guerrilla Home Recording to my contact at the publisher. Of course, I had to comply and follow the steps. But it was the first time -- in every other case, I've just figured, "Hey, guess what? For all you know, my spam filter just zapped your confirm-your-identity message. I guess you'll just never get that e-mail. Sorry! I tried!"

This "solution" to spam is rude, thoughtless, and arrogant. It puts the onus on the sender, who has acted in good faith, to take care of the receiver's problems, with no effort at all on the receiver's end. It tells the sender, "I'm too busy to look through my trash folder, enter your e-mail address on a safe list, or give you the time of day for that matter. Now, who the fuck are you again?"

I mean, imagine if you wrote on the envelopes of the Christmas cards you received this year, "Return to sender. Must confirm identity before I open." (If only I had gotten a Christmas card from someone who had blocked my e-mail in this way.)

Another reason why this annoys me: The "confirm your identity" message is, itself, spam. It is an unsolicited e-mail generated automatically, sent by a commercial business with an e-mail address I don't recognize. Worse, when I did confirm my identity, I received *another* automated e-mail from the spam blocker, this one announcing that webmasters can earn big buck$ by publicizing the service. Yep, folks, that is a real, true piece of spam -- no doubt about it. (My spam filter actually blocked that one, but I saw it in my trash folder. Which I do go through before emptying, by the way.) And now this company has acquired my e-mail address without my permission. Do you think they'd ever fatten their bottom line by selling it (along with the millions of other active addresses they're acquiring) to a mega-spammer in China or Russia? No......

I still hate spammers. But it would be highly gratifying if the people who signed up for these services started getting *more* spam in their inbox as a result. So, I guess if I had to root for either spammers or lazy, inconsiderate people who won't lift a finger to receive e-mails they actually want, then I guess I'd root for the spammers.

4:33 PM - 6 Comments - 9 Kudos - Add Comment

Dumb Move: Accelerating Through a Red Light
Category: Automotive

We've all seen someone "gun it" when they approach a light that's changing from green to yellow or yellow to red. It dawned on me that among the many stupid, knee-jerk things that people do, this has got to rank as one of the stupidest.

When someone is approaching a changing light and they decide not to stop but to step on the gas, they're doing it so they'll get through the intersection faster, thereby perhaps making them less likely to get a ticket. I can't think of any other explanation; they aren't doing it out of kindness, to get out of the way of the people waiting to go. But let's think about this. Assuming that accelerating increases your speed by 10 MPH (say, from 30 MPH to 40 MPH), and even assuming that you're able to achieve this acceleration instantly just before you reach the light (which of course doesn't happen), stepping on the gas will get you across an 80-feet-wide intersection less than a half a second sooner. In reality, accelerating through the intersection, it's probably more like a quarter of a second. Now, I ask: If a cop is watching this, is a quarter of a second or a half of a second really going to make a difference whether or not you get pulled over? Also ask yourself: If you're a cop, which driver would you more likely go after -- one that coasts through a changing light, or one who conspicuously, noisily guns it? In terms of getting a ticket, there's a small chance you could elude a camera-generated ticket by getting through a blink of an eye earlier -- but if a real human is writing the ticket, he or she will go after the roaring, accelerating car first, every time. Guaranteed.

But there's a more important reason why this is a stupid move. Any golfer will tell you that if you accelerate the club through impact, applying force the whole time, you'll hit the ball much farther than if you accelerate only during the downswing and let the club "coast" through impact. Similarly, if you hit another vehicle as you go through an intersection, you'll cause more damage if you're accelerating through the impact than if you're coasting or deaccelerating. And of course, if accelerating makes your car go faster (as it tends to do), this will make the damage far greater. In other words, you're much more likely to kill someone at the precise moment that you're most likely to broadside another car -- when you're going through an intersection.

There's also the issue that if your foot is on the accelerator, it will take you that much longer to move it to the brake in the event of an imminent collision -- hence, a delayed reaction and more damage.

Finally, if your car has air bags, it also has a device called an Event Data Recorder that will reveal to investigators not only the speed your vehicle was going at impact, but also whether the brake or the accelerator was being applied, and for how long prior to impact. There are numerous cases in which EDR data have been used in court to increase criminal penalties due to recklessness of the drivers involved. If you find yourself in court after killing two kids in a broadside crash, it's not going to look very good for you if the prosecutor can prove that you were flooring it when you hit them.

If you're going to clip a red light, just let the car coast, keep your foot on the brake, and be alert. Accelerating through a red light is stupid and dangerous. Don't do it anymore.

3:56 PM - 4 Comments - 6 Kudos - Add Comment

Why I Am Not An Agnostic
Category: Religion and Philosophy

I am an atheist, and I often meet people who consider themselves agnostics. "How can you be sure God doesn't exist?" they ask. I answer that I call myself an atheist not because I'm certain that God doesn't exist, but rather because, given the information that we have, the most likely scenario is that there is no God.* And I always say, if God came and clearly announced his presence tomorrow, I would switch from a non-believer to a believer in an instant.

But for now, I am a definitive non-believer. And given that certain prominent political figures -- such as the horrible Sam Brownback -- want more God in government as opposed to less, I am not ashamed to declare my unequivocal secularity, and wish to fight against that which I believe is threatening our society: organized religion gone wild.

To help explain why I choose the term "atheist" rather than "agnostic," I'll use an analogy. Imagine you are out dining with friends, and while leaving the restaurant, you are conked on the head by a falling flowerpot from an apartment window above. You are knocked unconscious but are otherwise okay. The next morning you wake with a headache; the last thing you remember is leaving the restaurant. Opening your eyes, you look around. Ahead you see your television. To the left you see your clock-radio on your end table, and to the right you see your reading glasses, where you last left them. Under you is your bed. Given this information, within the first five seconds, what do you conclude?

The simplest and most reasonable conclusion would be that you are in your bedroom.

Yes, there are other possibilities -- unlikely, but possible. For instance, you could be in someone else's bedroom, and by sheer coincidence, their room looks exactly like yours. Or, you may have been unconscious long enough for someone to build a museum in your honor, complete with a perfect full-scale replica of your bedroom, and that's where you woke up. But neither of these possibilities is likely to cross your mind. You'll simply assume that you're in your own bedroom, based on what you see, because anything else would be, well, a stretch of the imagination.

This is exactly how I see the God question. We have certain information about the size, age, and structure of the universe, on the grandest scales as well as the smallest. We have discovered certain physical laws, and there isn't a single reliably recorded case, in the history of the world, of those laws being violated by an external influence, whether in the form of a "miracle" or otherwise. There are stories and speculations about purported miracles happening, but when was the last time one was scientifically observed? It's just never occurred. Which is interesting, because if the laws of physics ever were observed being violated, I don't think the scientific community would want to cover it up or ignore it. That's the kind of thing that wins people Nobel Prizes.

Given what we know, then, the simplest, most reasonable, most rational conclusion is that God does not exist. To wake up in our bedroom after a minor head injury and conclude that we're in a museum built in our honor would be the height of delusion. So it is that finding ourselves on earth, and concluding that just because we're here, an omnipotent external power must have created it all (and perhaps even that it was created all for us, as some zealots believe), is equally delusional. Yes, it is possible, but highly unlikely, given what we know.

Furthermore, I just don't buy the notion that even though something is remotely possible, it should be considered a real possibility, to the point that it affects our worldview and behavior. To make another analogy, yes, it is remotely possible that a bridge could collapse at any minute -- but if I then refuse to cross that bridge, based on this remote possibility, most people would consider that an irrational decision, a delusional take on reality. Generally, people accept the risk of bridge collapse because it is astronomically small; they don't cross the bridge "uncertain" that it will hold up; they don't say "the jury is still out" on whether the bridge will stand; they don't call themselves "engineering doubters." They just go on the damn bridge! Is it a form of faith to believe the bridge will hold up? Yes -- but it's faith that the most likely outcome will prevail, based on the history of the bridge and the tradition of bridge-building. Unless you see metal sagging and cracking, or the span swinging back and forth in the wind, or a van marked "Al-Qaeda" driven by a guy holding a detonator button, you'll operate based on what you know: the bridge was designed and built by professionals and has held up for years, so, most likely, you will be safe to cross it. It's a simple conclusion based on simple information.

Some will argue, then, that the simplest explanation for the universe's existence is that God created it. But as Richard Dawkins and others have pointed out, there's nothing simple about that explanation at all: It assumes the universe began with immense complexity -- as any omnipotent, creational God would have to be. And then of course there's always the old saw, if God created the universe, what created God? It is astronomically, mind-bogglingly more likely that the universe had simple beginnings, and that the complexity we now observe is due to the fact that it's had some 15 billion years to get that way.

The problem is, as a being that stands roughly six feet tall and lives 80 or so years, humans have a difficult time comprehending scales of time in the billions of years, or scales of size in light years. It's so much easier to think small and say "God created the universe" -- or even, "Maybe God created the universe" -- and leave it at that, rather than contemplate the vastness of time and space and our insignificance in it. And that was a hell of a lot truer millennia ago, when organized religion took root.

So, here's to the advancement of reason and rational thought, and the drawing of simple conclusions about the world -- however difficult they may be for our limited brains to wrap themselves around.

Signed, an atheist. For now.


* A definition is important here. By "God" I mean any sentient entity that created the universe with some kind of intent aforethought, and/or that can (and does) influence the course of events at will universe-wide.

5:31 PM - 41 Comments - 56 Kudos - Add Comment