Bigotry

I don't understand bigotry. I figure it is an inherited genetic trait and the bigot has no choice but be a bigot. Education doesn't seem to help; they just rationalize and go to web sites produced by other bigots for reinforcement.

Skepticism about God

Skepticism (non-belief without evidence) of anything important is the default.  It is the burden of those who assert God to prove there is one.  Otherwise non-belief is the only rational way to go.

I don't think there is a God because of the massive amount of suffering in the world, and because assertions about him lead to self-referential contradictions (if you don't know what I''m talking about here then your belief is indeed shallow and based on sand).

However, as I said, is someone asserts something important, they have the burden of proof.  "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

By the way, I would not demand proof of God, just good evidence and an explanation of the problems with his existence I mentioned above.

Evil atheists

That Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot were Communists we know, and therefore they were atheists. I'm sorry if it is so that not all atheists are moral saints.

It is true that they were also politicians, and did allow a certain amount of religious freedom (in fact a good deal more than Western propaganda likes to say) but this was all for pragmatic reasons. They were and repeatedly said they were atheists.

I am an atheist too -- in the "hard" sense that not only do I not believe in any gods, but that I am as convinced as it is possible to be that there is none. Okay? Do I lose my credentials just because I tell the truth about atheism? Were the whole world atheist, the world would be no better than it is. There would be other frauds and superstitions and so on. In fact we see more and more of this as religion fades out in countries like the States.

Moral or ethical standards (goodness versus evil) are not related in any way I can see to belief about God. Just as it is stupid for theists to claim that their belief makes them more moral, it is also stupid for atheists to say that their non-belief does.

Why Mars is small

Yes the Martian atmosphere was stripped by the solar wind, which was a consequence of the planet not being large enough to keep its interior from cooling off, which caused it to not have a magnetic field, which allowed the solar wind to hit the planet directly. I'm sure you know all this: I just clarify for general benefit.

The theory seems to be that Jupiter and Saturn did a little dance early on, preventing Mars from reaching proper size and preventing the formation of a planet where the asteroids are. Bode's Law is largely thought now to be just coincidence, but I suspect the scientists have jumped the gun a bit, since the idea that the planets would space themselves, all else being equal (which in most cases it probably is not) makes sense.

The universe's purpose

 I don't think the universe has a purpose. It just is as a result of natural processes; we just are for the same reason.

I look at all the "wasted" space in the universe -- not just the vast distances in space, but the immense void that is the typical atom, and another that is the typical nucleus (if the nucleus were the size of the solar system, the "particles" in it would be no bigger than a few asteroids, if even that (they may be dimensionless points). Why does the universe waste all that space? It doesn't need a "reason" for what it does, it just does what it does.

If we need purpose in our lives, we have to provide it. This I think we can do without going too deep (go too deep and you defeat yourself).

Supreme Court nomination and confirmation process

There was a time when the President nominated and the Senate restricted its review to the nominee's qualifications and judicial experience.  Now it is how they will vote on issues.  Of course a nominee cannot answer such a question, but they still try to find out.  America is going downhill into a political morass.

I think provided the nominee is qualified and excellent, the nomination should go through without a political storm.  I suspect the American people may punish a Senate and a party that is seen to do otherwise.  I would hope they would.

A possible reason "they" may not be out there

I think the most common event to happen to life is for it to be wiped out within a few million years of its beginning. We have the moon stabilizing our orbit, we have our magnetic field. protecting our atmosphere (which is probably why any life on Mars met its doom). we have been lucky to not have volcanic episodes like the one that resurfaced Venus a quarter billion years ago, and have been lucky that colliding objects have been not quite big enough to sterilize the earth (although a few have been almost there).

There also seem to be several specific events in evolution where the probabilities are extremely small. Now that it happened is plain, so we know it is possible, but I think that is all we can safely say. Actually I rather like the idea of our being essentially alone -- it will make for a safer universe and one we can do what we want with.

Some political philosophy

I've seen at first hand how one party systems work, and they aren't too bad and are getting better (cleaning up the nepotism and corruption that they started out with). In these systems nowadays pretty much anyone who is willing to put in the time and who graduates college or does military duty successfully (and of course has a clean nose) can become a member of the party. The members are in a hierarchy, each selecting from among themselves who is to represent them higher up, and so on. They periodically purge certain types, mostly the corrupt. It seems to work and avoids the ugliness of campaigns and parades of idiotic voters.

On the other hand, there is an obvious potential for dictatorship. The system needs, I think, balances on police and other enforcement agencies that it doesn't now have. I personally experienced this.

So now I'm living under a long-term dictator, of a most benign sort, in a liberal society where there is very considerable tolerance, and economic progress every bit as good as in China or Vietnam -- Cambodia -- without censorship and prudery (except children) and a more easy going economy (you can actually use American dollars). So I conclude that so long as the dictator is popular and rational and not brutal, it can be a better government too. I do hope he has made arrangements for a peaceful transition when he passes. It is also a monarchy, and the king does have some influence -- not legally, but ethically -- he can speak out against things he doesn't like -- the British monarch wouldn't dare.

The biggest problem with the American electorate, besides their stupidity, is their venality. They don't vote for the person best for the country, they vote their pocket book, and see nothing immoral about that. The politicians even encourage it, by bragging how much "pork" they can get for their district (or how they will get them special tax breaks). This is utterly corrupt -- worse in my mind than the cop demanding a bribe.

Monarchs who stay out of politics and keep a dignity and stature the people can be proud of can have great influence and help the country a lot. They can also be the focus for resolving a constitutional crisis, which otherwise can lead to violence. The States have the Supreme Court for that purpose, but they are slow to act and have become politicized since Bork.

All told, it depends on the quality of the person. Hence systems where choices are made by people who already have long connections with each other seems to me the best route.

Elections are a farce and legitimacy an illusion

Something is needed to give the government an illusion of legitimacy, since we no longer think the first-born son is the only legitimate ruler. It is an illusion. Your vote can be and far more often than people imagine is stolen. I have seen close elections and inevitably they end up with the guy from the party that controls the election bureaucracy winning. I remember in particular a whole ballot box of Democratic votes in a close Gubernatorial election in Seattle showing up where the local judge force them to be included even though it meant more people had voted than had been listed as voting.

Now of course this is only possible in close elections, but they can be extremely significant -- look how Bush won in Florida and thereby got the Presidency, or how Kennedy won in Illinois with the same result.

The biggest problem though is the electorate itself. They vote based on impressions they get from a debate, with little if any knowledge of the candidate's voting record, and no sense at all of what the person is like. At least in things like Congressional leadership contests, the candidates are personally known to the voters, and so more sensible people usually win.

I can't think of how many times one or another candidate has won an election simply because he or she came out with a particularly effective campaign add. Why do you think so much of political advertising is so negative -- when everyone says they don't like them? It's because if you can tarnish your opponent with something, even though untrue or not the whole story, you win. 

I repeat -- elections are a farce and the ensuing legitimacy an illusion. If I could think of something better I would be all for it. As it is, the process needs radical reformation.

About lawyers

I have a few things to say about lawyers. First. they are intelligent. You don't get into law school, let alone get the degree, without smarts. However, think about all the smart kids in their last years of undergraduate work. Some will become academics or scholars of some sort, some will become teachers, others will become engineers or work on computers or architects or doctors. Then some will go to law school. Why do they go to law school? Being a lawyer is a prestige although not very well liked profession, and it is extremely remunerative. If you are even reasonably good at it you can make hundreds of thousands, and lots of them make millions. Also, since the legal system is designed and enacted by politicians who are mostly lawyers, the system is tilted in your favor in all sorts of little ways. Now, then, the other professions also usually make good money (except scholars and teachers -- the two society needs most). They all contribute to society except lawyers, and generally those who enter the other fields have altruistic and idealistic reasons. The only reason a young person enters law school is with the aim of making money. I suppose there are a few exceptions, but I never met one. The US is particularly infested. Most countries still prohibit legal advertising and ambulance chasing, and under Code Napoleon there are no juries easy to fool and confuse, and the lawyer has a greatly diminished role even in criminal cases and particularly in civil cases. In America, as we have seen, if you have enough money and can get really good lawyers, it is not that hard to get away with murder.  That is the main reason things like health care, education, municipal governance, and even law enforcement are so much more expensive in the States, with only average and sometimes below average outcomes.

A problem I often run into is that some people just assume their "common sense" concepts are right and anything else is nuts.

I must admit having "common sense" problems (or at least I use to -- I don't now) with the idea that matter has the effect of "warping" the space-time around it, so that the earth orbits the sun because of geometry, not force.(Of course there is the alternative quantum particle exchange view, but I only mention this so as to keep someone from "correcting" me).

The common sense view is of a force -- an invisible hand that reaches out from the sun and holds the earth in place. I can see why Newton was criticized -- what is this hand that does its thing through the vast emptiness of space?

Something people won't admit is that the universe was not designed, and if it was designed, it was not for our benefit in understanding it. That we can't understand something -- even if it seems outrageous and we can't see how it could possibly be -- is not grounds for dismissal. It may be grounds for demanding extraordinary evidence, but even here we need to have the humility to accept the verdict of the experts.

Gay, queer, and the dictionary

When writing, the author does not dare use the word "gay" or the word "queer"in any context except reference to homosexuality. To say, "We had a gay time at the party," or, "That house gives me the creeps -- it makes me feel queer all over," just cannot be done without the reader being distracted from what you want to say onto the idea of homosexuals being around.

In short, the old meanings have been destroyed by the new ones, even though we still find the old ones listed first in the dictionary.

Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, and no country on the planet has it. They all have institutions that temper the will ("tyranny?") of the majority. Hence elected representatives rather than direct votes on all issues, hence courts who can overturn things, hence a Constitution, and so on.

The problem with government is choosing who governs, and obviously inherited aristocracies and strong monarchies are really bad ideas. So Churchill didn't like democracy because he saw how foolish it was and ended up letting Hitler get much further than he felt should have been allowed. Still, he realized he could not suggest a better solution.

There is a tradition in political philosophy begun with Plato that says only a small and carefully selected few should govern. The problem is who decides who is to be in that small few and who does the selecting, and how do you prevent the choices from becoming corrupt or inherited. Still, my inclinations are toward that sort of system, seeing the stupidity with which most people cast ballots.

I think lawyers and politicians are by definition unqualified to make political decisions, yet we find in most countries that they are the ones in power. You have to have known a few of them personally to realize that they are (at least the politicians -- there are lots of good lawyers). Most of us like power and have opinions, but we don't have the drive to power that motivates politicians -- indeed, we don't even understand it -- it is a form of sexual drive that most of us either lack or only have a bit of.

The problem with faith

The problem with belief (faith) is that doubt is inevitable. This causes the thing psychologists call "cognitive dissonance" and it is not pleasant. It leads to guilt and fear. 

I try to maintain a distinction between opinion and belief, although I know the language is against me a lot of the time, still the distinction is a real thing. I find that by meditating on something I very much want to believe but have problems with, I can flip a switch in my mind and bring about real belief, so that I no longer think the thing is probably true but am sure it must be true -- I believe it.

Then there arises the unpleasantness of doubt, as some thought or maybe some event shows me that my belief might not actually be right.

The way to avoid all this is to take the attitude of the Buddhists, that nothing is certain, that belief is foolish, that the best we have are opinions, supported by good reasons, that we can hold with varying degrees of confidence, but never absolute confidence. 

All memes (systems of thought typified by religions) have ways and tricks whereby they protect themselves, and faith is one of the worst of these. They make it a sin to doubt and a virtue to forget one's doubts and return to the fold, which is then followed by the brain giving one a flood of chemicals that we experience as joy and peace and misinterpret as God's spirit. This is one of the ways religions keep going in spite of their absurdity in the modern world.(Of course they also use propaganda (emotional appeals), indoctrination (especially of children), peer pressure, and violence here and there.

AIDS and gay men

A large portion of men would be womanizers, going from woman to woman to woman, if the women would permit it.(Nowadays this is somewhat the case in colleges, but still women have a different agenda).

Now put such a man in an environment where the women have his agenda, and assume he is young and good looking. He will be like a kid let go in a candy shop.

This is a characteristic of maleness, not gayness. Female gays are not promiscuous, but a lot if not most male gays are, and they are in an environment where everyone around them has much the same agenda.

Now come a virus that dies instantly when exposed to air, so the only way it can spread is through sex (and a few other ways where no exposure to air happens). Give the virus a good long gestation period so people can have it and spread it a lot before they know they have it.

Put together typical young male in the gay environment and the evolution of such a virus, and you have a recipe for the disaster that happened. There are a lot of diseases that young gay men get out of proportion to the rest of the population. They are young and eager and full of hormones and really quite uninformed.

Skepticism versus cynicism versus faith

Skepticism should, to any intelligent, thinking person, be the default. Unless you have good reason to think something is true, then it probably isn't. The burden should always be on the person claiming the truth of something -- the doubter has the right and intellectual duty to doubt.

Distinguish skepticism from cynicism. The former is the healthy, correct attitude, the latter goes too far and won't accept truth even when there is good evidence for it.

This is the problem with the concept of "faith," which the religions make a virtue of but which is really a vice -- a way people have of excusing their believing what they want to believe and avoiding the intellectual responsibility of questioning and always doubting.

Freedom from religion

It seems to me a claim to freedom of religion doesn't mean much if there isn't also freedom from religion, by which I mean the ability to not have a religion and suffer no political or legal consequences. Protecting this liberty seems to me one of the most important functions a court can have.

The idea that public property be used to celebrate religious events, such as posting the Ten Commandments on a courthouse wall or celebration of Christmas in a public school, are violations of the First Amendment, regardless of whether atheists exist or not, as there are other religions that this sort of thing also offends. Private property should be used for such things, and government should not pay for it.

I have to remark on an aspect of this -- the Buddhists and the Roman Catholics have a running competition in Vietnam as to who can erect the most grandiose and remarkable statues (icons) all over Vietnam. The government doesn't allow proselytizing, but somehow the erection of these statues is not seen as proselytizing, so they do it everywhere. I must say the happy fat Buddha (Maitreya) and the beautiful, peaceful Quanyin on her lotus blossom are more pleasant to the eye than all the bloody Jesus statues and all the Mary's with bleeding hearts. Catholics seem to be a religion of blood.

Still, they both distract from the scenery and despoil a lot of beautiful views.