I Could Be Wrong, I've Been Wrong Before

It never ends

2007-04-19T12:39:00.000-05:00

So now the van has died. Alternator as far as I can tell. So basement full of water. Wife's business dead. Van Dead. Other car already in for service. If there's erectile dysfunction today, then I'm gonna need a bell tower and a sniper rifle. Or viagra.. whichever.

SQUISH!

2007-04-18T11:16:00.000-05:00

That would be the sound you don't want to hear at 7am when you run down to the basement to change a load of laundry. Monday morning after calling out of work because of a nearly sleepless night, I get woken up again by my wife because she went downstairs, couldn't turn on the lights, and heard squish.

During the night the GFI that controlled both the basement lights and the sump pumps had popped. Over the course of the evening ground water slowly inundated the entire basement. Two days and gawdawful man hours later, we've managed to get about 100 gallons of water off the floor and sucked out of the carpet. We've gotten all the furniture and whatnot moved. And now I get to spend the rest of the week removing the carpet so we can chuck it.

Ah.. Joy of joys.

Poker Poker Poker Mushroom Mushroom

2007-04-13T11:03:00.000-05:00

So last year was a mess all the way round. Two years ago, I ran $150 up to a $1000 online bankroll and pulled $3000 out. So $150 into $4000 at low limits. Nice. Last year, my bankroll dropped back to $200 and I pulled out a net $100 from my poker accounts. The suck was large.

2005, 20% cash rate on tourneys. And a 50% final table rate of the cashes (I only consider it a final table if I'm also in the money). 2006, I don't think I saw a final table, unless you count SNGs. And cash rate? I couldn't tell you, my carefully built tracking spreadsheet got encrypted, then my PC freaked out and tada.. unreadable.

That's what personal turmoil will do to your poker game.

So now, 2007. I still don't have good tourney tracking stats and lost poker tracker to my PC as well, however, I do have results. This week 5 tourneys, 2 money finishes. The week before that about 10 tourneys, 3 money finishes. Live play, came in 8th of 38 in my first live tourney. Just short of the money. And I had a healthy chip stack when it went south. My bankroll is moving up. My cash game is profitable again (barely). Life is grand, now if I can just my bankroll to a grand I can pretend 2006 didn't happen.

One more time round the horn

2007-04-09T14:30:00.000-05:00

Okay I'm going to try this one more time. The last two times I tried to blog, my life promptly fell apart. Now, this could mean I only feel the urge to express myself when life is already going to pot. However, this could mean that I have bad timing. Only one way to find out.

Three's the charm, right?

Atheism vs. Critical Thinking

2006-06-13T11:33:00.000-05:00

So, my 6 year old got me again. First, she utters a Greater Clausian prayer back in November. Now she's messing with my head on the God front.

About a month ago, she came to sit next to me while I was playing World of Warcraft. When she plopped down she set her copy of the "Precious Moments" bible on my desk. (I'm carefully ignoring the irony of using the phrase "Precious Moments" while referring the that bloody book.) I asked why she brought it in and she told me that she was reading it. I asked her what she thought, and while I don't recall the exact phrasing, I recall getting the impression that she "knew" she was supposed to believe it, but wasn't enjoying the story much. Typical of a child to assess the literary merits of a religious tract.

After hearing her comments, I said, quite simply. "I don't believe in that book." She tried to defend the idea of Jebus as high and mighty muckity muck, but she's six. She hasn't learned to ignore reality while arguing faith. She also hasn't learned to attack anyone who disagrees to deflect the discussion from actual thought. Thus, the conversation ended.

Fast forward 2 weeks. Out of the blue she comes up to me and says. "I don't believe in God." My thought was "Hooray, oh crap!" No, really.

Thing is, I wondered if she was simply mimicking me. So, now I have a crisis. Which do I choose. Do I choose the Atheist side of me and simply say... "That's right, dear! Good Job.", or do I choose Critical Thinking, and demand to know why? And if I ask why, do I correct her logical flaws and potentially make her a believer again? Atheism is easy, parenting is hard.

Ultimately, I chose to ask her why she believed this. Like any good kid, her response amazed me. "How could God be the King of Everything, before there was anything? That's just silly." Nearly broke my heart to point out that she'd misunderstood the script. I told her he was the "King of Everything" because he made it all, according to that book that I don't believe.

She said simply, "Oh."

This is True

2006-04-03T09:47:00.000-05:00

Or, why Randy Casshingham is cool.

Today I was perusing the lastest issue of the e-newsletter This is True, and Randy noted that he had challenged his readers 3 weeks ago, and it resulted in a lot of lost paying subscribers. (The newsletter comes in a free and pay version.) This week he explained why, and it made me want to keep reading his newsletter in perpituity.

I can't quote it, because one of his rules on the newsletter is send it all or send none of it. So, I'll respect that and simply paraphrase. If you want to see the whole thing, to the the This is True website, and read for yourself. It comes down to this, while his newletter seems like a NEWS letter. It's really a LAUGHING AT DUMB PEOPLE letter. So, every once in a while he challenges his readers, because the people who get offended are dumb people that snuck through the cracks and read his stuff. Gotta love it.

Anyway, his other newsletter The True Stella Awards is also worth a look. It takes a look at the state of our legal system by pointing out terrible cases that are clogging our courts, and discussing them. Good stuff. Just got published as a book as well.

Why they believe in Heaven.

2006-03-31T14:10:00.000-06:00

It suddenly struck me why the theists out there, or more correctly some of them, cling to the idea of an afterlife. I was reading at Mass Media Funk (Feb 23rd, 2006) how Sacramento Zoo did a bit on Evolution to combat ID. Outside a fellow was handing out a pamphlet that said this:

Science is neither theistic nor atheistic; it is non-theistic, just as are mathematics and statistics.

Among other things.

I got worked up, as is usual, and started mutter to myself about the english language. How can these morons not realize that atheist and non-theist are the same thing. By definition an atheist is one without religion. They would counter by saying atheism is a religion. And that's when it hit me. This type of individual lacks the creative capacity to even CONCEIVE of a person who doesn't have a religion. Just not possible to them. So, how then can they conceive of dying and there being... nothing. Not darkness, not someplace else, not thought without form, NOTHING. They can't.

Therefore, since they can't imagine nothing, then there must be something. And Heaven sounds awfully nice. So that must be it.

The world would have been such a nice place if we'd never learned to talk.

Howard Stern/David Lee Roth

2006-02-28T11:47:00.000-06:00

Or, Why modern reporting is terrible.

I just ran across and article link on Fark, regarding David Lee Roth's performance on CBS Radio now that Howard Stern has moved to Sirius radio. Now, the bulk of the article is really about how CBS is rebuilding now that it has lost it's main radio draw, but early in the article is this little gem.

In the year's least surprising radio development, morning host David Lee Roth's early ratings at WFNY (92.3 FM) have taken a steep drop from the heights of his predecessor, Howard Stern.
WFNY's parent CBS says this is a valley it expected to enter while it rebuilds former Stern slots and stations, though some people in radio warn that it could signal a more serious problem.
It's also unclear where displaced Stern listeners are going.

See that last line? Okay, show of hands, who doesn't know where the Stern listeners went? Anyone? Anyone? You... you in the back, the guy in the suit in his 50s, you don't know? Here's a clue... Where did Howard go? That's right, Sirius radio. Now where did the listeners go? RIGHT! Sirius radio. What do you know... his listeners followed him and no longer listen to traditional radio.

Sigh. This is what passes for journalism these days.

Anti-Christian Rock?

2006-02-22T16:49:00.000-06:00

More like secular rock, when it comes right down to it.

I was perusing the NPR "All things considered" site and found this article on Jenny Lewis. Who has multiple songs that reference god and basically are saying "too bad there isn't one." Even better, the music doesn't suck. Check it out.

Jenny Lewis: Questioning God on 'Rabbit Fur Coat'

Dancin' Foo'

2006-02-13T15:12:00.000-06:00

True to my word, I took my wife dancing. I would highly recommend it to any married man. The payoff in terms of wifely goodwell far outweighs the embarassment of not being a good dancer. Assuming you're not a good dancer.

FAR outweighs.

I'll keep this brief.

2006-01-24T13:53:00.000-06:00

Why do people begin a conversation with that? Generally, if a conversation starts with "I'll keep this brief," it means I have several hours worth of material that I'll boil down to just one hour.

If you're going to keep things brief, you can start by not saying that. Shaves 4 words right off the top.

My Brother the Spammer, Part 1

2005-12-12T13:38:00.000-06:00

As I mentioned once before, my brother sends me alot of emails. Pretty much everything that is ever sent to him that is a joke, video, political tract, or chain letter. I wade through it, and most of it is amusing. Every so often, he sends me one that annoys the hell out of me. These emails I'll post here. Today's is supposed to be a joke, but it's actually a Christian attack on Atheism. And like many of these, it's pathetic. Here it is...

In Florida, an atheist became incensed over the preparation for Easter and Passover holidays and decided to contact the local ACLU about the discrimination inflicted on atheists by the constant celebrations afforded to Christians and Jews with all their holidays while the atheists had no holiday to celebrate.

The ACLU jumped on the opportunity to once again pick up the cause of the godless and assigned their sharpest attorneys to the case.

The case was brought before a wise judge who after listening to the long, passionate presentation of the ACLU lawyers, promptly banged his gavel and declared, "Case dismissed!"

The lead ACLU lawyer immediately stood and objected to the ruling and said, "Your honor, how can you possibly dismiss this case? Surely the Christians have Christmas, Easter and many other observances. And the
Jews--why in addition to Passover they have Yom Kippur and Hanukkah ...and yet my client and all other atheists have no such holiday!"

The judge leaned forward in his chair and simply said "Obviously your client is too confused to know about, or for that matter, even celebrate the atheists' holiday!"

The ACLU lawyer pompously said "We are aware of no such holiday for atheists, just when might that be, your honor?"

The judge said "Well it comes every year on exactly the same date---April 1st!"

The fool says in his heart, "There is no God."
- Psalm 14:1, Psalm 53:1

I actually decreased the font size a bit, but the rest is as it was sent to me.

As an atheist, I'm offended by this whole thing. NOT, however, because it makes fun of Atheists. If I couldn't handle having my beliefs mocked I'd be a Christian. Oh, I slay me. Maybe Muslim would have been funnier, but I don't want to be shot.

Anyway, I'm offended by this because it insults my intelligence and the intelligence of anyone who reads it. Let's look it over shall we. Let's start with the logical inconsistencies. An atheist wants to claim that not having an atheist holiday is discrimination. Um... Yeah. Once again the Christians just don't get it. Atheists don't have holidays, because they don't have holy days, because they don't have religion. Why would an atheist feel discriminated against for not getting what they didn't want in the first place. It would be like saying the Amish felt discriminated against for not having cars. Or a nudist being discriminated against for not having enough clothes.

Then there's the whole court thing. Officially, the United States doesn't have national holidays. The feds do have 10 days they take off a year, and many businesses have adopted these holidays, plus or minus a few. But there isn't any holiday law. Therefore, if you did want "National Atheism Day", you couldn't go to court for it, and no lawyer would try, even the ACLU. You would go to the president. Over the years the presidents have declared all sorts of days to be important enough to be observed.

Speaking of the ACLU. "once again pick up the cause of the godless" this thing says. Wow, there's a charitable Christian sentiment for you. Luckily for the Christian type that wrote this tripe, the ACLU isn't easily offended, they'll defend your sorry ass when you need them to, Godless or Godmore. Why? Because the ACLU doesn't care about your religion. It cares about CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. You know, that pesky document that guarantees that Christians are allowed to practice their religion alongside the Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, and so forth. And that the atheists are allowed to NOT have a religion. And they defend against ANY breach of the constitution. They're funny that way.

With all that stuff said, the rest of the "joke" falls apart. It's logically inconsistent, like most arguments made by relgious people who haven't really studied their religion. Any Christian worth their salt should see where I'm coming from. This tract isn't about the Christians ideals of charity, love, forgiveness, and peace. Nor is it about religious persecution. Nor is it about discrimination.

Nope. It's a cheap shot at people who aren't like the guy who wrote it. How dare they not believe. I know, I'll call them a big joke. I'll say their holiday is April Fool's day, because they're so foolish. And I'll toss a bible quote in there to show how smart I am. Bwa ha ha. Got you, you atheists! This is exactly the kind of taunting I tell my children not to engage in. Amazing how easy it is to forget what you learned in kindergarten in the name of GOD.

Now, my mother always said, "Don't say anything if you can't say something nice." Perhaps if you agree with the screed, you should think about that. And in that spirit, I'll say this nice thing. It's nice to see a bible quote that is actually what the bible says. A lot of people misquote that particular Psalm to say that only a fool denies God, which isn't what the passage says. If you don't see the difference in the statements, you should look closer.

The Luxury of Philosophy

2005-11-30T14:55:00.000-06:00

Some time back, I heard that the great philosophical societies all had one thing in common. They were rich. There was enough wealth, and food, and labor to give them time to muse about things other than where the next meal was coming from or who was trying to kill them this week.

I set up this blog with the idea of using it as a platform for my musing. My philosophy. Then, as fate is wont to do, I got thrown a curveball. Then a second curveball as I was still drawing my bat back for the next pitch. Then I'm pretty sure someone hit me from behind with a bat.

So, I set this blog aside, and my philosophy while my relationship with my wife, my kids, my job, and every other damn thing rearranged itself. Religion does well under fire, critical thinking doesn't. Luckily, no one reads this, so no one is disappointed.

Sometimes...

2005-10-19T09:00:00.000-05:00

it takes both hands to hold your life together.

So which is it?

2005-10-04T13:49:00.000-05:00

I'm sick of global warming. I'm tired of hearing about how it's responsible for all the worlds woes, and how we're all doomed. Part of the reason why is that I'm not sure I buy it. I haven't read all the studies, but like many medical "facts" reported on the evening news, the studies differ on their conclusion enough to muddy the water. Michael Chrichton does a nice job with the entire subject in "State of Fear". He even makes citations, which is nice. And any story where an actor... oh, I won't give it away. If you don't like activist actors, then read the book.

So, today, I'm reading a story in the Times Science section about moving off the coast, because.. now get this.. building your house on a barrier island in a hurricane zone, might, JUST MIGHT, be a bad idea. Here's the quote from A.R. Schwartz, a reformed Democratic politician who now opposes coastal development. (BTW, that means he made his money, and can now afford a conscience.)

A. R. Schwartz, a Democrat who for decades represented Galveston and much of the Texas coast in the State Legislature, said he now regretted some of the legislation he had pushed that subsidized development on the coast, particularly a measure that provides tax relief to insurance companies faced with wind damage claims.

Mr. Schwartz, whose constituents knew him as Babe, said that measure was "a terrible mistake - in my mind, as opposed to my heart, because the people need the insurance - because it has been an invitation for people to build homes on barrier islands and on peninsulas that are exposed to storms, at public expense."

So, what does this have to do with Global warming, you ask? Well, earlier in the article they talked about what coastal scientists had to say on the matter.

Coastal scientists have been saying for years that global warming will threaten coastal areas with higher seas and more powerful storms, and that a hurricane lull that began in the mid-1960's will eventually give way to the far more dangerous pattern of storms that prevailed in the 1930's, 40's and 50's. Since then, though, development has transformed the nation's shoreline, especially on the east and gulf coasts.

Lets see, first they say global warming will make hurricanes work. Then, in the same sentence, they say that it's all part of what looks to be a 100 yr or so cycle of strengthening and weakening hurricanes. So, which is it?

The thing is, they don't know. How do I know this? Let's see we have about 50 yrs of really solid weather data, maybe 75. Everything before that is kinda spotty, because we just didn't have the technology to get the data we needed.

So here's what we've got:
1) Temperatures may be rising due to humans or they may be part of a temperature cycle, but the cycle is longer than 75 yrs so we're not sure.
2) Modern technology may have caused the warming that may have happened, or it might have been the rise of agriculture.
3)Hurricanes might be more intense due to the warming that might be happening, or it might just be it's normal cycle, but we haven't got data on even one cycle, so who knows.
4)Conclusion, we may or may not have a temperature trend, that may or may not cause other weather to be more severe.

Very conclusive, I'd say.

Ultimately, for me it comes down to this. In my experience as a technical person, fixing problems is a three step process. First, identify problem. Second, identify and verify the cause. Three, find a solution. Anytime, you try to do step 3 before you finish step 2, it all goes to hell. Look at any social reform program for corroboration. The difficulty is that if you don't thoroughly understand what you're trying to fix, you often create as many problems as you fix. When talking about climate, we're talking about trends that take place over centuries. You can't look at the data we've got and come to a solid conclusion, there's just not enough good data about long term trends. Plenty of anecdotal stuff to identify the problem, and come up with testing procedures, just not enough to start getting all worked about about fixing things.

I'll get off my soapbox now. I love science, I just hate it when it becomes a "cause". Especially, when it's not finished yet. Scientists should be more like artists. If you walk up to an artist that's in the middle of a painting, and start critiqueing their work, you get covered with paint.

Xtreme Hatred.

2005-09-30T16:32:00.000-05:00

I hate extreme sports. I hate marketing that panders to extreme sports enthusiasts. I hate the use of the word extreme when the words "risky to the point of being stupid" are more appropriate. But until today, I never really knew why I hated the trend.

I don't hate the people who are involved. Most of the ones I've heard talk about the sports are really free spirits or daredevils. And, because they're successful, and kinda cool, young folks imitate them and break bones, and tear ligaments. Par for the course, I'd say. Kids harming themselves imitating their heroes doesn't make me hate it either. Hell, it's not even the marketing... "NEW EXXXTREME MARSHMALLOWS. OUR BLANDNESS IS OVER THE TOP!" Nope, just stupid and shallow and very normal. So, why do I hate it?

On the way to work this morning, (I do most of my thinking on my commute. I have a long commute.) I was thinking about skinny chicks. (Kate Moss, you know.) I really dislike skinny chicks. In fact, I dislike fat chicks, too. A little less than skinny chicks I think, because they're usually just a bit nicer. In my experience, extremely skinny women, and extremely fat women have issues. Mental issues. Big ones. I'm not saying this is always the case. I know in some cases the issues are medical. I'm talking about generalities. Generally, these women have very extreme views. Skinny women usually have extreme self image issues, or self esteem issues. Large women either have self esteem issues, or extreme problems with self indulgence, manifested in food.

So, then, I thought this... What is the correlation between extreme views of self, of world, of anything, and mental illness. I could make an argument for mental illness in extreme sports. I can clearly make arguments for mental illness in any fundamentalist religion. People who are welfare dependent by choice, not circumstance? Not right. People whose whole lives revolve around accumulating wealth? Just sick.

So I hate extremists. I'm an anti-extremist extremist, if you will. Now if you'll excluse me, I'm going to go wallow in self-loathing.

Dead Silence

2005-09-26T10:42:00.000-05:00

As I was driving to work this morning, listening to talk show hosts go on about open marraiges, I suddenly remembered a story about a Theist with whom I had dinner. This has nothing to do with open marriages, BTW, my mind works in mysterious ways.

I spend alot of time entertaining clients. I work in a technical field and regularly take groups of technicians, engineers, designers, and others out to dinner. Generally, since we're all technically minded people conversation covers one of 5 topics. Shop talk, General Science, Music and show production, Women, and Sports. Well, you know, the last two were a given. So, on the evening in question, I had brought up the topic of Mars and NASAs missions to Mars. We were poking fun at how NASA gets a robot up there and it immediately gets stuck on a rock. I mean c'mon, who knew there were rocks on Mars.. how to do you plan for THAT! And how meters and feet are quite different, which is why there's a rover sized crater on Mars, and so on. All in good fun. At this point, and young fellow brings up a story he heard about NASA and a mistake they made. I'll repeat the story here, and as you read it, know that it was told with great sincerity.

The young fellow says, that years ago, NASA's computers were chugging away on a problem of some sort. He didn't know the specifics, but did know that it involved "looking into the past" and calculating something or other regarding celestial mechanics. In any case, the computers came up with something odd. Based on their calculations a day was missing. (Actually, if you track down the story on the web it was 23 hours and 20 minutes, but he left that out.) The scientists looked high and low trying to find this missing day, before a christian pointed out that in the Bible the sun stood still for a full day for Joshua. So, he concluded, a christain and the bible cleared up NASAs mistake.

Dead Silence.

I'm fairly sure I was the next one to speak. I don't recall, but I think I said, "How about those Mets?"

Clausian Apologetics

2005-09-20T16:11:00.000-05:00

Here are a short list of common questions the Greater Clausian church is requested to answer. If you have any other questions about the Greater Clausian faith, please feel free to email your questons. They will be answered as promptly as can be managed. Send all queries to greaterclausians - AT - arcticmail.com.

"You've stated that Naughty people get 'reminders', don't they get coal?"
Well, years ago coal was a primary form a fuel for many people. Giving a child coal gave them something of little value to themselves, but that still had purpose to the family. These days Santa will often leave kindling, butane lighters, or small propane tanks. The message is simple, even if you've been naughty, Santa won't leave you in the cold. (Note: If no combustible material is appropriate, Santa will often leave a gift that has no value to the receiver. For example, I often received nasty anise flavored rock candy. I hated it, so I gave it away, putting me firmly on the path to Niceness for next year.)

"Isn't Christmas a Christian holiday? Look, they start with the same letters."This is a vicious and unfounded rumor. The Christians stole our most holy of days in an attempt to subvert the Clausian adherents to worship their blood god. They have a long history of this behavior. In fact, they have attempted to adopt all of the Clausian holidays. Some amongst us have chosen to call the holiday XMas to distance us from their beliefs, but the Greater Clausian church rejects this as a failure of our faith.

"How do Clausians view sex? Is it Naughty?"
Children are the most important thing to Santa Claus, it's their magic that makes Santa's great works possible. And sex, especially sex in a loving relationship is the best way to make more children. Furthermore, sex between consenting adults, done properly, brings joy to both partners. So, sex is Nice. Very, very Nice.

"Is the Tooth Fairy real?"
Not exactly. The Tooth Fairy is a slight misinterpretation of the facts. There are no fairies. However, some elves have been granted the same flight powers as the reindeer. Generally, these are elves that are fairly small, so as to save on the magical power. These elves are assigned to collecting the teeth of children. In compensation, they leave a small amount of money. One shouldn't take from another without giving something back, that's Naughty. Unless it was a gift.

"Okay then, what does the Tooth Fairy, uh, I mean tooth collecting elf do with the teeth, and why?"
A very good question. It is well known that children are magical. Ask any new parent. Much of this magic is harnessed through their belief, but for truly powerful magic you would need a piece of the child. For a long time, there was no Nice way of obtaining that magic, so it was wasted. Then, Santa realized children shed their baby teeth. Thus, elves were assigned to collect them. These teeth are then processed and used to further Santa's good works.

Why Rural Radio Stinks

2005-09-16T15:10:00.000-05:00

So, I'm listening to a local radio station the other morning, and they're discussing the latest bid to have "under god" stricken from the Pledge of Allegiance. Now, my opinion on the issue of altering the pledge mirrors that of The Two Percent Co. exactly, so I'm not going to get into that part of the issue. My problem is with the state of critical thinking.. hell, even not so critical thinking, in this state. The DJs outlined the issue, and asked for calls. I heard three different responses that annoyed the hell out of me.

Response 1: "It's been that way a long time, just leave it alone."
When pressed, people making this statement either mean it was always that way, or they mean that it's not worth changing because it's tradition. If we're talking about it always being that way, sorry, that's not the case.The pledge was adopted in 1892, 113 years ago for the math deficient. Two changes have been made since then. In 1924, they made the pledge change from "my flag" to "the flag of the United States of America." Then, in 1954, "under god" was added to the pledge. So, 51 years ago the "under god" part was added. It's not original, and unlike the clarification in 1924 it doesn't improve understanding of the pledge, it just adds what the Constitution forbids... a state sponsored religion. As for the question of it being traditional, let's use an analogy. How would you feel if I said we shouldn't have done away with slavery, because it was traditional, and just not really a problem? Overkill? Try this one. What if every incoming freshman class at the local high school was taken out and painted red from head to toe, then pummeled with soccer balls. Hazing, the hallowed tradition. Just because it's tradition doesn't mean it's right.

Response 2: "Well, it's on money. So, why not in the pledge?"
Well, that's accurate, but also misses the point. Yes, "In God We Trust" is on the money. Guess when it was put there? 1956. It has almost replaced "E Pluribus Unum", our original motto, which means "Out of many one". Original motto: Solidarity from Diversity. New Motto: Conform! Yup, the mid '50s were great times for the religious. So, actually the pledge was first, then money. Let me use another analogy for why this line of argument is so very wrong. Imagine that a new neighbor moves in next door to you. He builds a shed, that you're pretty sure sits on your property by about a foot. So, you go get a surveyor to find out. Before the surveyor gets there he adds a fence that's about 2 feet onto your property, which runs the length of the property. Now when the surveyor confirms that he's encroaching, you wander over and say.. "Neighbor, your put your shed on my property, this is a problem." And he responds, "Well that may be, but there's a fence." Same thing.

Response 3: "This is a Christian country anyway."
This is perhaps the most belligerently ignorant statement yet. First, there's that whole pesky Constitution thing. You know, the first amendment. Let's quote shall we?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
By Definition, this means no state religion, which means this is not a Christian country. Or a Buddhist one. Or a Jewish One. Or an Atheist one. It's a Mind your own fucking business country. Now the MORE ignorant part of it. Modern Christians don't seem to get why a bunch of guys, many of whom were christians would write this in the Constitution. I mean, gosh, if they're all Christian, then why not just make it a Christian country? It amazes me how ignorant of their own history many Christians are. Here's the million dollar question. Why were all these nice Christian folks here in America, risking life and limb away from "civilization" in the first place? Oh yeah, they weren't ALLOWED to be Christians where they came from. Or, more correctly, they weren't allowed to be the TYPE of Christian they were. What modern Christian conveniently forget is that all the piddly little Christians sects don't like each other. They only like each other when there is someone else to hate. As soon as one Christian sect takes power, it starts eradicating all the others. Because, you see, they clearly are distorting the word of god and must be slain.

Ironic isn't it. All the Christians screaming for this to be a Christian country don't ask the important question. If it were, which type of Christian country would it be? Christians, all sects, get protected by the Constitution. Protected from other religions, and their own. Hell, if they ever bothered to think (which they don't because they're trained not to), then they'd be lining up to strike the words from the pledge and the money. Protect thine ass, I say. Or better yet.... when it comes to religion in America...

E Pluribus Unum.

Clausians Rejoice

2005-09-13T17:13:00.000-05:00

Okay, Part One is finished. Articles of Faith, Definitions of key terms, and Holy Days are done. Now we can move on to Apologetics.

This is turning into a major project. I wonder if I can get tax breaks when I'm finished?

A Clausian prayer

2005-09-02T13:39:00.000-05:00

I believe my daughter uttered what must be the first Clausian prayer I've ever heard the other day. Here I am working diligently on the Articles of Faith, and she begins praying.

Here's what happened. We were in an antique store, just looking around, and we saw a shelf containing a number of small porcelain dolls. Without warning, she looked up (seemingly at me), and said "Santa, one of those dolls would be a great Christmas present."

Stunned, I looked at her and said, "Why are you calling me Santa?" As I said, she seemed to be looking at me.

She responded, in her wise 5 year old way, "I wasn't talking to you, I was talking to Santa. I just wanted to tell him what I wanted." She paused, looking at some small chairs nearby and said, "And Santa, one of those chairs would be a nice place for her to sit."

Clearly, she understands that Santa can see us at all times, and just decided not to wait for a mall Santa's lap to put in her request.

Articles of Clausian Faith

2005-08-24T12:16:00.000-05:00

1. We believe in Santa Claus, the kind gift giver, and all his elves.

2. We believe that Santa wants us to be nice at all times, and never naughty.

3. We believe that all behaviors good or bad will be addressed in the form of gifts, or reminders yearly.

4. We believe that by constant reinforcement we can become nicer with every passing day.

5. We believe that a man must be chosen by Santa, or clergy of the church to wear the red suit, and represent him in the holiday festivities.

6. We believe the organization of the church consists of helpers, gift-givers, toy-makers, story-tellers and so on.

7. We believe in Santa's far reaching vision, clear moral sense, affinity with elves, gift of tongues, mastery of space & time, and flying immortal reindeer.

8. We believe in the holy scriptures, The Night Before Christmas, Deck the Halls, How the Grince Stole Christmas, and other songs and stories that create the living tapestry of Clausian belief.

9. We believe that Santa continues to create and inspire new works of literature and music to continue to inspire and direct us.

10. We believe no other supernatural entities exist, other than those Santa has created, but that all men should be able to believe as they choose.

11. We believe in the holy holidays of Christmas and Easter and Halloween.

12. We believe that we should all be giving, loving, kind, true, loyal, honest, and benevolent, as Santa would like us to be.

On Naughtiness:
One of the central questions of Clausian faith is that of the nature of the Naughty. The scriptures clearly point the way with regards to that which is Naughty. For example, the hymn "Santa Claus is Coming to Town." (SCCT) indicates that one should not cry or pout. Since this hymn is directed at children we come to understand that Santa wishes us to not become overwhelmed with negative emotion. Similar thought can be applied to all the scriptures to paint a clear picture of what constitutes Naughtiness. Put simply, adults are naughty when they lie, cheat, exhibit undue anger, and so on. In short, if you do something to another person that you would NOT like done to yourself, you've been naughty. Children, being in their formative years, are also considered naughty if they do not show proper respect to their elders, primarily in the form of compliance to their parents rules.

On Niceness:
With the case for Naughtiness having been made, one might assume that anything that isn't Naughty is Nice. This is hardly the case. Certainly, children who show respect for their elders are being Nice, but for the more general case, the matter is less clear. A Nice individual is expected to engage in acts of charity in the fashion of Santa Claus. Giving is truly the Nicest thing we can do. And we must be giving in all things, not just physical objects. We must give of our hearts and minds. We must provide service and shelter to truly be considered Nice. And for parents, they must provide guidance, and support to their children. It is quite possible to live in the margins, neither Naughty, nor Nice, and be completely out of the light of Santa's love. This is to be avoided.

The Holy Days:
The Clausian faith observes three primary Holy Days (or Holidays). Christmas, Easter, and Halloween.

The first and most important Holiday is Christmas. On this date, Santa Claus makes the rounds to the homes of all people. At each home, he will leave either a reward for Nice behavior, or a punishment for Naughty behavior. Those who are neither Nice, nor Naughty receive nothing. Members of the faith are required to do very little for this Holiday. Adherents should leave out a snack to sustain Santa Claus. In the United States, this is traditionally co0kies and milk, but any snack will do. Adherents will also leave out a stocking or sock in which Santa will place some of his gifts. Children must be asleep when Santa arrives, as is stated in the Holy film "Elf", The Christmas spirit is about believing, not seeing."

The second Clausian Holiday is Easter. On this day, Santa's elves prepare and deliver small baskets of goodies and distribute them freely without regard to the Nice/Naughty list. The purpose of Easter is to remind all people of the wonderful rewards that await them next December should they choose to be Nice. Adherents are not required to do anything to observe the Holiday, but many choose to dye and hide eggs. Those who hide eggs believe that finding the eggs reminds us to find the Nice within ourselves.

The third Clausian Holiday is Halloween. Adherents have the largest burden to carry during the Halloween celebration. Since the elves are very busy gearing up for Christmas, Adherents give candy to children to celebrate the spirit of giving. Children dress in colorful costumes to bring joy to those who choose to give. The phrase "Trick or Treat", while often misinterpreted as a threat from the children to be Naughty if denied, is a verbal reinforcement. Nice children should be given a treat, naughty children should be tricked.

No other official Clausian are recognized by the church. However, many feel that Valentine's Day, Mother's Day, Father's Day, and other holidays of giving can be observed by the faithful to constantly remind themselves of the spirit of giving.

9/2/05: Add Naughty & Nice.
9/13/05: Added Holy Days.

I come to bury Ceasar,...

2005-08-11T12:12:00.000-05:00

not to praise him, says Marc Anthony in Shakespeare's play Julius Ceaser. In high school English class we read Julius Ceaser like so many other classes did, and our teacher impressed upon us why it was Marc Anthony's speech that swayed the crowd and not Brutus'. Stoicism and Intellectualism share many traits, and both speak from logic to sway the hearts of men. Time and again, it has been proven that men prefer rhetoric, imagery, and emotion when it comes time to decide what to believe.

This brings us to today's topic, which is faith in a god. Any god will do. The skeptics, and atheists of the world argue from a standpoint of critical thinking against the belief that god is real and involved in our lives. The closest anyone comes to clarifying the fundamental problem of explaining to a believer why an atheist is... well, an atheist, was put forth by Stephen Roberts who said:

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

The issue is that the believers ignore the second part of the statement, "When you understand why you dismiss all other possible gods", believing that they understand it already. Obviously, thinking critically about that statement isn't a part of their beliefs any more than thinking ciritically about their faith. No amount of logical argument will get most folks to actually examine why they don't believe in other gods. So, like Mark Anthony, we need to take a visceral approach. Illustrate the point, instead of explaining the point. How very Tao.

To this end, I've created a new church, which I will outline in detail in a few posts in the near future. This church will be called the Greater Clausian church, and puts forth that the only Supernatural being in the world that really exists is Santa Claus. I will outline the tenets of the church, and how Clausian apologetics can respond to the attacks of other religious sects.

Some believers may get the point once they are convinced that the Klausian really believes it. They may, just may, realize how absurd I'm being. And may well argue as to WHY it's absurd. That's the goal. Make them argue against it, and use logic to defy me. Once they've turned that corner, I can stop, and point out that they now understand why they reject "my god".

More likely, they won't think at all, and will fall back on their standard tactics. At that point, I feel it becomes my duty to entertain any bystanders. I believe many arguments the believer presents can easily be stopped by using the standard believer tactics. First quote the "scriptures", if this fails, use one of the 3 Ds. Denial, Diversion, Delusion.

Were you nice today?

Edit: Klausian changed to Clausian

Wow.

2005-08-01T10:14:00.000-05:00

Man, I make a post two weeks ago, then BAM my life goes nuts. Not an auspicious beginning. When it finally calms down, I've got a few things I'll be posting on.

First is a response to a creationist article from a philosphical standpoint instead of a scientific one.

Then a series I like to call, "Stories of my Crazy Mother-in-law."

And the soon to be popular, "Crap my brother emailed me."

Edit:8-11-05 I'm not doing the first one.. nope.

No one is innocent

2005-07-14T14:05:00.000-05:00

At least not in court.

There have been three major celebrity trials in California in past years that have tied up the news media for weeks, O.J. Simpson, Robert Blake, and Micheal Jackson. It proves that California can't convict anyone famous, be he black, white, or other. To me, that's sad, but not annoying.

What is annoying, however, is the people around the country and on the news who declared that Michael Jackson was found innocent by the courts. NO HE WASN'T. Nor was OJ. Nor was Blake. Call it a pet peeve, but I can't stand that blatant display of ignorance. I understand that Innocence is the opposite of guilt, and it's natural to want to assume that if you're not guilty, you must be innocent, but it's also wrong.

The fallacy is that you must be on one end or the other of the guilt/innocence dichotomy. But, you don't really have to. Think of this way. Cold is the opposite of Hot. If I say it's hot outide, you think it must be, oh, at least 75 degrees out there. If I say it's cold outside, you think it must be, oh, near freezing. That leaves alot of room in the middle... you know... the days in early summer when it's not hot outside, and the days in late fall when it's not cold outside. Not hot, only means... not hot. Not guilty only means.... you guessed it... not guilty.

In fact, take a look at how you can plead in court. If you're brought up on charges you can plead Guilty, Not Guilty, or No Contest. That's it. If you try to plead innocent, the judge will look at you, and your lawyer, like you're idiots, and make you pick from that list of 3 again.

As long as we're on the subject, "lie detectors" don't detect lies. They detect a variety of physiological responses and report them on a graph. When you become agitated, even if you hide it well, the needles pick it up. And yet, time and again, folks claim that machine caught people lying. Here's an example of a question that would most likely show up as a lie on the "lie detector", "Have you ever raped your mother?" I dare you to not have a response to that. Does it mean you did it? No! It means you're considering beating the examinor with his own equipment, but the equipment will detect a response from you. So, clearly, when you say no, you're lying. Right?

So, remember, you're never innocent in court, and when I'm hooked up to a lie detector and say I wasn't the one that drank all your beer... I'm telling the truth.