Beautiful, isn't it.

I am often accused of being controversial for the fun of it.  Sometimes, I am.  However, often as not, I am just writing from the heart and my heart is, I guess, full of controversy.  If you are so offended by controversy that you cannot read something controversial to the end, please don’t read this, because I don’t want to deal with the questions and responses of people who only read half.  Also, if you don’t want to know about what I was thinking and doing in regards to sex when I was a teen, again, stop reading, because I am going to be totally honest.

I began looking at online pornography around the age of 12 or so.  Pornography is a available with many themes, and one that intrigued me was orgy themed pornography.  Orgy is a French loan word, which came to France via the Latin orgia, meaning secret rites or secret revels.  (For the not so literate, a revel is big party.) The idea here is a big party where secret rites are practiced.  I’m not clear on the etymology (story of the meaning of a word) but orgy came in English to almost exclusively mean “a bunch of people having sex with each other all at once”.

I wasn’t only attracted to the representation of orgy in pornography, I was attracted to the very idea of it, the concept of it.  This concerned me. As a young teen growing up in a very stereotypically Christian environment I had (obviously) the attendent sexual obsession, but also the attendent homophobia.  Half the people at an orgy were male. Though the men at an orgy were having sex with women, to be in a room where other men were having sex, even with women, seemed gay.  Homosexuality held absolutely no appeal whatsoever, but orgies seemed appealing.  I struggled to answer why.

Around the same time, I took an interest in cults.  I read everything I could get my hands on about cults, particularly ones that included sexual deviancy.  I think I did this because I considered the my desire for pornography, masturbation, sex, and particularly orgy to be a sin in and off it self. (A position, I might add, that the church agrees with.)  To look at porn and to masturbate were, in my mind, bad enough.  That I desired to do these things and to have sex with my female friends, and particularly desired to be having sex in a room full of other people having sex, was appalling to me.  I felt incredibly ashamed.  So, I guess it was natural that I looked for a group of people where everyone was like me, where my desires were not a deviancy to be ashamed off, but a communal value, perhaps, even a virtue.

When I discovered the record of the Oneida Community, it seemed that I had discovered paradise.  The Oneida Community was group of “Bible Communists” who lived in upstate New York.  They believed a lot fascinating things, but the ones of note here are their sexual practices.  Unlike many cults which have achieved infamy for their sexual oddity, the Oneida’s were not primary a “sex cult”, they were a real religious group which positively effected the world around them.  It just so happened they had some unique sexual practices.

The foundation of these practices, was called Complex Marriage.  Complex marriage was a theory.  In theory, every one in the commune was married to everyone else in the commune.  Everyone shared in parenting.  Sex was seen as both physical and spiritual.  They saw nothing sinful in sex as long it was practiced in their unique way.  They were not unaware of the procreative aspects of sex, and this figured into their social norms. They considered the ability to prevent ejaculation as spiritual discipline.  For this reason, young men were paired with post-menopausal women until they had mastered this control.  Men and women who were capable of prolonged and mutually enjoyable sexual encounters were considered spiritually mature.  Immature believers were paired with them until they learned the lessons, at which point they would also begin to rotate through the commune to spread “love”.  Each member had about 3 pairings a week.  All children were planned, wanted, and raised by all.

To me this sounded like the most wonderful state of human affairs on earth.  Of course, it didn’t last.  The values got corrupted and church leaders got the most nubile and young with whom they were not “spiritually disciplined” and had many babies, not all of which were wanted by the whole community.  Aside becoming selfish lovers, they also became selfish about those lovers.  Demanding that the laity share, the clergy refused to share their treasured few.

When I was 18, and looking to move out, I looked at several “swingers’ clubs”.  For the naive among you, a swingers club is often much more than a place where people interested in anonymous sex can meet (that’s what singles bars are for).  Swinger’s clubs have rules.  Often everyone gets together once a week.  In some clubs you can’t refuse anyone who asks, in others, there are certain formalities of asking.  Some clubs require that sex take place in front of all other guests.  Some require that it does not.   The point is, all of them have certain rules and methods of operation to prevent a sex cult from forming.  By “cult” I mean they struggle to make sure that everyone relates as equals, and no one had undo force on any other person, to ensure total consent.

None of them were attractive, and coming to undertand why helped me put two and two together.  The reason that orgy themed pornagraphy had interested me in spite of myself, the reason that the Oneida Community had seemed to call to me so much, the reason that the swingers clubs had so little appeal, was all the same:  What I wanted was the intimacy.  The reason that orgy as a lifestyle intrigued me was the idea of being so loved. To love a community of people, so much, and have that love be returned, to love the women so much that I could make love to any of them, and to love the men so much that I would share the women I loved with them was what I wanted… In short, I wanted to be loved. Not just by an individual, but loved by a whole group.

I wanted it, but I was a conservative Christian.  To me to turn my back on the values of Christianity was a death sentenence.  Once I even took one step on that road, the full consequences would be taken.  I didn’t really want to get into some freaky sex, I wanted to be loved.  I wanted, however, a love the church could not give me.  The church cannot love you for who you are, since you are at worst a sinner and at best a “saint who sins”. If who you are isn’t spiritual, then loving that part of you is sin.  They can love the part of you that prays, but not the part that works on trucks.  However if you pray and evanglize, then they can love the part of you that prays as well as the part of you that works for a living. They must love you because Jesus does.  I didn’t want to be loved out of duty or obligation, I wanted to be loved because I was unique and special.  My love of science is as much a part of who I am as my love of my wife and daughter.  I wanted to belong to a community that loved ALL of me, not just the spiritual parts.

As many of you know, when I was 18 I very seriously considered going to Philadelphia and starting a sex cult.  I never thought that this would be right or healthy.  In fact, even as I considered it, I thought that it would be corrosive to my very soul.  Ethylene glycol was an early antifreeze.  It is so like sugar that it even tastes sweet.  It brakes down into the blood just like sugar, cell by cell.  Then it goes to fuel the muscles just like sugar.  Then it metabolizes into poison, this poison is filtered out by the kidneys. They stop working, and you die.  Sex is so like real intimacy that its easy to confuse the two.  Then at some critical point in your life where you need intimacy to make it, all you have is sex, and a part of you dies.  I knew thats what would happen to me.  But I was so desperately lonely and hungry to be loved by a community of people, that I almost accepted the second best to nothing at all.  I didn’t care about the personal cost, I just wanted to be wanted, not because Jesus said so, but purely because of what I have to offer.

I didn’t go start a sex cult, I tried, instead, another avenue.  I thought maybe I should go into “ministry”.  I went to bible college, I tried campus groups, eventually, I even joined a wild eyed charismatic church who talked big about the coming revolution and change at any cost.  Let me make clear here.  My point is NOT is not about sex.  My point is that I was so desperate to be loved by a group of people that I would have used sex.  I would have done anything, I would have even given my life.  And so desperate was this desire, that knowing full well I counldn’t get it with sex, I was almost willing to to use sex just to feel like I had it when I did not.

None of it worked.  No mater what I did, I couldn’t be loved for what I have to offer, I had to be loved for who I knew, Jesus.  I couldn’t be loved for what I could do right now, I had to be loved for what I could do in some distant future.  And finally, and most painfully of all, I could not be loved for what I loved (science, skeptisicm, and rationality).  The community that I wanted so much was not available in the chuch.

Of late, I have been spending a lot of time in the company of athiests, agnostics, and skeptics.  For the first time in my life, I am loved by a group not because I am pimping Christ, not out of duty, and not because I have potential.  I am loved for what I am, and greatest of all, the things that are most important to me: critcal thought, freedom, and truth, are something that people admire about me instead of tolerate.  That which I am, is loved and respected instead of channeled into things which “support the cause”.

The desire that I have had since adolesnce to be loved by a group for who I am is finally fufilled.  The Oneida Ideal suddenly has no appeal for me as I get what I need from people who respect me.  I don’t to compromise who I am to be loved, I can simply be myself and people seek me out. That which the church denied to me for 25 years I have found in the rebels of the church.  I have that “one thing” and I won’t ever go back.

Now, many of you are aware of my great loathing of the Associated Press.  An acquaintance sent me this gem:

An American life worth less today

WASHINGTON - It’s not just the American dollar that’s losing value. A government agency has decided that an American life isn’t worth what it used to be. The “value of a statistical life” is $6.9 million in today’s dollars, the Environmental Protection Agency reckoned in May — a drop of nearly $1 million from just five years ago.

The first thing I want to bring to your attention is the immediate bias.  “…has decided that an American life isn’t worth what it used to be…” Don’t judge by nationality.  Pollution poured into an American waterway that pours into Canada or Mexico will effect those nations.  Further one presumes that the EPA is tasked with protecting the lives of legal and illegal immigrants as well.  By opening the article this way the AP has already began with with a suspect lack of professionalism.

The Associated Press discovered the change after a review of cost-benefit analyses over more than a dozen years. (Way to be on the ball guys!) Though it may seem like a harmless bureaucratic recalculation, the devaluation has real consequences. When drawing up regulations, government agencies put a value on human life and then weigh the costs versus the lifesaving benefits of a proposed rule. The less a life is worth to the government, the less the need for a regulation, such as tighter restrictions on pollution. Consider, for example, a hypothetical regulation that costs $18 billion to enforce but will prevent 2,500 deaths. At $7.8 million per person (the old figure), the lifesaving benefits outweigh the costs. But at $6.9 million per person, the rule costs more than the lives it saves, so it may not be adopted.

Some environmentalists accuse the Bush administration of changing the value to avoid tougher rules — a charge the EPA denies. Conveniently, for the AP, neither the accusers, nor the defenders are named.  It makes it very hard to check sources.

“It appears that they’re cooking the books in regards to the value of life,” said S. William Becker, executive director of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, which represents state and local air pollution regulators. “Those decisions are literally a matter of life and death.” Dan Esty, a senior EPA policy official in the administration of the first President Bush and now director of the Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy, said: “It’s hard to imagine that it has other than a political motivation.”

Agency officials say they were just following what the science told them. (Man, I wonder which officials.  Its really hard to check sources if the AP won’t name them.)

The EPA figure is not based on people’s earning capacity, or their potential contributions to society, or how much they are loved and needed by their friends and family — some of the factors used in insurance claims and wrongful-death lawsuits. Instead, economists calculate the value based on what people are willing to pay to avoid certain risks, and on how much extra employers pay their workers to take on additional risks. Most of the data is drawn from payroll statistics; some comes from opinion surveys. According to the EPA, people shouldn’t think of the number as a price tag on a life.

“…potential contributions to society, or how much they are loved and needed by their friends and family…” Wow.  I wasn’t aware that an algorithm existed to determine that.  OH WAIT, it doesn’t.  Calling potential income “potential contributions” sorts of muddies the issue a bit, since potential income is mathematically predictable number, whereas “contributions” has no objective value.  “…loved and needed by their friends and family…” There is no algorithm for that.  The money awarded in a wrongful death case is not to pay the loved ones for their lose, it is to PUNISH the wrong doer for their negligence.  The only purpose of this paragraph is to demonize the EPA for doing the job it has been tasked with.

The EPA made the changes in two steps. First, in 2004, the agency cut the estimated value of a life by 8 percent. Then, in a rule governing train and boat air pollution this May, the agency took away the normal adjustment for one year’s inflation. Between the two changes, the value of a life fell 11 percent, based on today’s dollar.

Refer back to second sentence in this piece: “..A government agency has decided that an American life isn’t worth what it used to be…”  How surprising!  The EPA decides economic policy for the Federal Reserve. You see, by saying decided the second sentence says that the EPA acted purposefully with foreknowledge to reduce the value. Yet 3% of the reduction was inflation adjustment, which they have NO control over.  3% out of 11%.  Well, 3 is 27% of 11.  The EPA had no control what so ever over more than a quarter of the reduction.

EPA officials say the adjustment was not significant and was based on better economic studies. The reduction reflects consumer preferences, said Al McGartland, director of EPA’s office of policy, economics and innovation. “It’s our best estimate of what consumers are willing to pay to reduce similar risks to their own lives,” McGartland said. But EPA’s cut “doesn’t make sense,” said Vanderbilt University economist Kip Viscusi. EPA partly based its reduction on his work. “As people become more affluent, the value of statistical lives go up as well. It has to.” Viscusi also said no study has shown that Americans are less willing to pay to reduce risks.

Here, when quoting some one who knows what they are talking about, the AP actually does OK.

At the same time that EPA was trimming the value of life, the Department of Transportation twice raised its life value figure. But its number is still lower than the EPA’s. EPA traditionally has put the highest value on life of any government agency and still does, despite efforts by administrations to bring uniformity to that figure among all departments.

What does this paragraph mean? a - b - c is greater than x + y + z.  So what?  This paragraph is just a chance to say, “trimming the value of life”  When and by whom were these so called efforts undertaken?

Not all of EPA uses the reduced value. The agency’s water division never adopted the change and in 2006 used $8.7 million in current dollars.From 1996 to 2003, EPA kept the value of a statistical life generally around $7.8 million to $7.96 million in current dollars, according to reports analyzed by The AP. In 2004, for a major air pollution rule, the agency lowered the value to $7.15 million in current dollars.

Now, that is interesting.

Just how the EPA came up with that figure is complicated and involves two dueling analyses. (I love dueling analysts!)

Viscusi wrote one of those big studies, coming up with a value of $8.8 million in current dollars. The other study put the number between $2 million and $3.3 million. The co-author of that study, Laura Taylor of North Carolina State University, said her figure was lower because it emphasized differences in pay for various risky jobs, not just risky industries as a whole.

EPA took portions of each study and essentially split the difference — a decision two of the agency’s advisory boards faulted or questioned.”This sort of number-crunching is basically numerology,” said Granger Morgan, chairman of EPA’s Science Advisory Board and an engineering and public policy professor at Carnegie Mellon University. “This is not a scientific issue.”Other, similar calculations by the Bush administration have proved politically explosive. In 2002, the EPA decided the value of elderly people was 38 percent less than that of people under 70. After the move became public, the agency reversed itself.

Again, the AP does OK quoting others.

So the breakdown is this.

(1.) The EPA is trusted to regulate environmental risk.  Life is full of risk.  Death is risk free.  So, the EPA has the very unenviable job of compromising risk for the greatest benefit and least cost for all players. (2.) To prevent fraud, waste, and abuse, the EPA has to have some kind of metric to make these decisions.  The logical metric is to assign a value to human life. (3.) The EPA used a bullshit process to arrive at their current value.  Somehow, the AP manages to make it seem like this the EPA’s fault rather than leaders who can put the squeeze on the EPA top brass.  From the article, the EPA’s own Science Advisor said this was an awful idea.  What did we learn?

(1.) The AP does crappy reporting again.

(2.) The EPA as a bureaucratic rather than elected group.  As such its policies are subject to a greater and lesser forms of control from overhead, in defiance of its own advisors advice.

Possible solutions (Not comprehensive):  Change American Congress to proportional appointment.  Have EPA heads be elected in free nationwide elections.  To the existing checks and balances in the American system add a fourth leg of Welfare, the head of which is elected the same as congressmen and presidents.  The EPA would then fall with the other alphabet soup of federal agencies under an elected head who competes with the other 3 branches of government for resources and approval.   Make the state governours function as the primarmy stock holders of the US, and let them appoint a CEO for the EPA to serve as the head in business fashion.

So, I have some kind of a cold.  My brain is fuzzy and eyes ache, so no posts for my adoring fans. Sorry.  I am putting a large amount of concentration into breathing and sitting up at the moment.

And I am a little blue.  This happens, it is no longer the earth shattering thing to me that it once was.  I just feel a little sad and want to surround myself with my friends.  Except, because I have high standards for my friends, I don’t have any in this craphole.  So I drink a lot of herbal tea and try to talk to my friends online, and call the ones who aren’t at work.

At the moment most are at work….

And I am also trying to write an autobiography.  Eventually this autobiography will be edited and polished into a really great story: How I overcame the false paradigm I grew up, my search for one that worked, and what that paradigm ended up being.

But right now, it is just the early stuff, the story of the brokenness that gives meaning to the putting myself back together.  Its not a fun spot to ponder.

Many things that happened over the years, I told myself that I did not remember clearly.  That surely, these events did not happen the way I remember.  So, calls to my family and friends, questions asked, and lo and behold, it was the way I remember, and sometimes worse.

At the same time, old devils don’t seem quite as evil anymore.  When everything is written out, when you remember in the context of what was happening, instead of remembering int he context of the emotions you felt, the hurtful actions of others make so much more sense.

Just one example will suffice…

My father was a drug addict.  He got high the first time when he was 9 years old on prescription medicine.  From that point forward, getting his next high was an increasingly dominating obsession. Returning from Vietnam, where heroin was cheaper than Budweiser, he thought he might want to quit, but didn’t think it was that serious yet.  Of course, by the time he realized how serious his problem was, he found he couldn’t stop alone.  And thats was a problem.  He had never told his wife he had a drug problem.  When, at 40 years old, he realized he needed support to quite, the one person in the world who could have supported him had been lied to for 17 years.  Every long hour at work, or missed check for 17 years, every odd story or bit of personal weirdness had been but one of infinite number of lies to cover his addiction.

So when he told mom,  she freaked out.  Hardest of all for her to believe was that he had lied to her only about the drugs.  How, was it, she wondered, that he had been so desperate for drugs as to use dirty needles, but claimed he had never touched another woman?  How could she trust a man who lied great and small about everything for nearly two decades?

The conflict came to a head when my father became increasingly active in AA and NA.  My mother was not convinced that a bunch of lairs, manipulators, and drug addicts, all getting together to share a cup of coffee every night was an ideal situation for personal recovery.  She, in essence, gave my father an ultimatum between the Program and her.  She, by the way, was recovering from cancer at the time, and was so exhausted from chemo and radiation that she had trouble walking the 100ft from the car to house at night.

My father had felt enormous guilt over his addictive behavior, often suicidal. To have his wife attempt to take away from him the one thing that could heal him, was to him, like having her try to cut off his legs.

So who was right?  Dad left a broken woman to go play recovery.  Or did mom kick out a broken man desperate for recovery.  Who’s the good guy.  Who’s the bad guy.  The answer is pretty simple to say, though hard to accept.  Everybody did their best.  Mom’s fears and reaction were reasonable.  So were Dad’s.   Did it suck?  Absolutely.  Was there a better way? Not really.

Dad left. For 6 weeks we had no father at home.  When he got back, I wish I could say that everything was dandy, but it wasn’t.  Working through 17 years worth of abused trust takes some time, and for my parents, a lot of yelling, and occasionally throwing things.

In a perfect world, mom would have wanted dad to recover so bad that she wouldn’t care who he hung out with at meetings.  But in a perfect world he wouldn’t lied to her for 17 years.  In a perfect world he would had stayed with her no matter what.  But in perfect world, he wouldn’t have been a drug addict for 31 years. In a perfect world, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH. We don’t live in a perfect world.  We don’t make choices with perfect insight.  We all just sort of muddle through things as best we can.

Sometimes, choices are black and white, but often we must chose which shade of gray is the lightest.

I don’t like it, but I keep finding more of them: Places were I got hurt, and when the layers are peeled back the person who hurt me did it didn’t hurt me on purpose.  They had their own shades of grey to deal with, and their own bagage to carry while they did it.

Peace.

A cynic, a compassionate atheist, a pragmatic Christian, and a fundamentalist Christian, all received an invitation to God’s banquet.  The cynic got there first, wanting the satisfaction of proving its non-existence before anyone else did.  He was disappointed to find a beautiful table set for four and full of all sorts of beautifully presented and delicious looking foods.

The pragmatic Christian, worried about propriety, figured that being too early might be a form of disobedience, but also worried that being late might have dire consequences, arrived merely respectfully early.

The compassionate atheist, fascinated and curious, arrived exactly on time.

The fundamentalist, breathless, arrived ten minutes late.  He had spent the ten minutes interpreting the various possible meanings of the statement “You are cordially invited by God to a banquet” before departing.

“Well,” said the Christian, “Isn’t everything so beautiful!”

“Its lovely,” agreed the atheist

“But what does it mean?” asked the fundamentalist.

“I see nothing!” spat the cynic.

The atheist grabbed a helping of mashed potatoes with a silver spoon, and looked around to see if anyone wanted more.

The Christian looked longingly at the mashed potatoes.  They looked delicious, but should he eat them?

“I see no mashed potatoes!” spat the cynic.

The fundamentalist gasped, “What are you doing?”

“I was invited to a lovely banquet which began at seven o’clock,” began the atheist. “The time is now seven oh two.  I am serving the mashed potatoes.”

“But who are you to serve the mashed potatoes of God?” asked the fundamentalist.

The pragmatic smiled. He had prayed about it and know knew they were to eat the potatoes. “We’re the guests of God, of course we can eat them,” he drawled, holding up his crystal plate.  The atheist dutifully spooned some on, still looking around for more takers.

“I find no pattern of mashed potatoes in Scripture,” the fundamentalist said suspiciously.

“I see no mashed potatoes,” the cynic insisted.

“What do you mean you see no mashed potatoes, they’re right in front of you,” said the atheist surprised.

“Ha!” cackled the cynic, “I thought you’d never ask.  God is an illusion, this is the banquet of God.  There is no God, therefore, there are no mashed potatoes.”  He leaned back triumphantly in his overstuffed and comfortable dinning chair.

The pragmatic Christian and fundamentalist, scandalized together, cried out “That’s blasphemy!”

Atheist, simply shook his head, and took another bit of roast duck.  “Whatever, Cynic.”

“I knew your free thinking would destroy in the end, Atheist.  You share these simpletons’ disillusion,” Cynic sighed happily.

“Cynic, I have always been more concerned with truth than with not believing in God.  I observe that I am in a magnificently appointed room full of delicious food.  To deny the existence of the veritably of the real merely to fit an existing theory is the antithesis of science,” Atheist paused, ” As such it is your department, and not mine.”

“Are you saying that you believe this is not some sort of illusion?  You fool! I’ll blacklist you!  I’ll end you.  You’ll never publish again!”

Athiest smiled warmly. “I’ve no doubt you could Cynic, you’ve alway held more public support than I in social affairs. Still, all the more reason to enjoy this now, while its in front of me.”  Atheist held some green beans out to Pragmatic and Fundamentalist Christian.

“Thank you, kindly” said Pragmatic.

“I’ll take nothing from your fated hands!” cried the fundamentalist. “Your kind are a cancer on this earth!  You have stolen the Holy food of God and you don’t even believe in him!”

Cynic’s bitter eyes picked up at the mention of cancer.  “Yes!  A cancer, thats what man is!  A festering carbuncle on the buttocks of the earth!”

“Oh, I agree, Cynic, I agree,” gushed the fundamentalist. “Man is filth. A disgusting aberration not worthy of this table of God.”

“I see no table,” growled Cynic.

“Nor do I, Cynic.  My mind could never comprehend the beauty of God.  He would never present my filthy sinning carcass with such splender.  This must all be an illusion created by my own mental filth,” said Fundamentalist piously.

“We are all filthy vandals,” Cynic conceded.

Pragmatic Christian had been listening with growing concern to this speech. “Uh, Fundamentalist, we are brothers, so I hate to correct you in front of our enemies, but what you are saying is wrong.  Man sins, yes, but he was created in the image of God. He is full of incomprehensible value and worth as a result.”

Fundamentalist laughed, a single explosive sound. “Ha! You and I brothers?  I share no parentage with you and your secular humanist plop.  The intrinsic, incomprehensible value of man?  The Bible says all men have fallen short of the glory of God. Fallen short, Pragmatic.  Who can comprehend the ways of God?  Clearly, this room is trap of Satan, a trap of pride and vain glory.  Man and all his work are worthless!”

“Worthless!” agreed Cynic.

“Come Cynic, let us leave this illusion of joy and return the true reality of suffering and pain.”

Cynic rose stiffly, offering his arm for Fundamentalist.

Tears welled in Pragmatic Christian’s eyes, “But brother, you haven’t even touched the food given to us by our Father!”

“For twenty minutes I have sat here, and God has not feed me one bite!” said Fundamentalist primly. “Unlike some people, thought I may starve, I will not presume upon God.”

“But,” began Pragmatic, “You cannot sit at a table God has layed in front of you and told you to go to and talk of starving.”

Fundamentalist smiled condescendingly. “Oh, Pragmatic, who are we to presume to take matters into our own hands? God will build what he wishes.  When we try to do God’s work for him, can’t you see we are usurping Him?”

Pragmatic sputtered, “But its right in front of you and He put it there for you to take!” to Fundamentalist’s back as he walked toward the door arm in arm with Cynic.

An awkward silence descended on the banquet hall.

“So,” said Pragmatic Christian.

“So,” agreed Compassionate Atheist.

“I’ve never really talked to an atheist before,” said Christian.

“I don’t often talk to pragmatic Christians either,” said Athiest.

Pragmatic cleared his throat, “I’m a little afraid of you, to be honest.”

“Yup, me too,” said Atheist around a bite of pheasant.

Pragmatic Christian was delighted.  “I am afraid you will corrupt my mind with your evil atheist ways, are you afraid that I will convert you to Christianity?”

Compassionate Atheist smiled gently before answering.  “Well, no.  I’m afraid of other things.”

“Like what,” asked Christian wide eyed.

“Oh,” began Atheist, “say, an Inquisition.”

“Oh, is that all,” laughed Christian. “We don’t do that anymore.”

Atheist nodded.  “Why is that Christian?  If God is the same today, tomorrow, and forever, why is it that you don’t do that anymore?”

“Well, because God never asked for that!  That was evil men who merely used the power of the Church for evil!” said Christian confidently.

“Ah,” intoned Atheist, “and what will keep that from happening again?”

“Well, that would never happen today!  My Christian leaders are working hard to seize political power so they make sure bad things like abortion and homosexual sex don’t happen.  I am sure they could prevent an Inqisition too when they run this country,” he said helpfully.

Atheist choked a bit on his merlot. “Uh, um..mmmm. Uh, Christian, why did the Inquisition happen again?”

Christian leaned back into the velvet chair, ready to tell a story, “Well you see the Church left its position of spiritual power and, pursuing a ends-justifies-the-means school of thinking, seized political power.  This power was used for good at first, but gradually, the level of power the Church had began to attract evil men who eventually…” he trailed off, his face a mask of betrayal and shock.

“You seduced me, Atheist, you used your evil demonic power to make me think evil of the Church!” Christian yelped. “At least I am not responsible for the Nazi’s!”

“I never knew the Nazis” said Atheist quietly.

“You lie, Atheist, you lie like your father the devil!” shouted Christian.

Atheist sighed.  This had happened before.  He mentally counted to ten and then back down. “Christian, Hitler claimed he would bring back traditional family values.  He was supported by Christians, and often used Biblical points of view to justify his position.”

Christian, realizing he was standing, sat back down. “Well, I’ve heard that before, but Hitler did so many un-Christian things, that I sort of forgot it. I’ve never understood how people who loved Jesus could support something so horrible.”

“Well, it has a lot to do with those two characters who just left, ” said athiest with a wry face. “A skeptic, which most Atheists are, would have investigated Hitler’s claims. It takes Cynic and Fundamentalist to manage a genocide.”

“Yeah, I thought you and Cynic were best buddies, but he seems to really hate you,” said Pragmatic Christian, side stepping the second half of the comment.

“Its all about skeptisim, Christian.  I believe in asking why, and trusting what I see over what somebody tells me.  Cynicism are often mistaken for being skeptics like me, but we have less in common than you and Fundamentalist.”

“Really?” said Christian, “I thought all you godless heathens were alike. Uh.. no offense.”

“Not at all.  Cynicism is about being mentally lazy, assuming that conventional wisdom is true.  Skepticism checks everything to make sure it is as true as it can be.  It looks at all the options and chooses the most likely one.  Skepticism never says that God isn’t real, only that he doesn’t seem very likely within the limited parameters that we can test,” said Athiest.

Christian looked puzzled. “But how does that make Fundamentalist and Cynic alike.  Cynic hates God, hates anything religious, anything spiritual, honestly, even hates anything beautiful.  Fundamentalist is convinced in the beauty and power of God. How come they get along so well?”

Athiest smiled. “Cynic believes that he can figure out anything by consulting what people all ready think.  He only uses the powers of his mind to look at established wisdom.  Fundamentalist believes that he can figure out anything by consulting what people think about his Holy text.  He only used the powers of his mind to look at established wisdom.  The only difference between Cynic and Fundamentalist is where they draw their inspiration.”

“I often thought something like that,” admitted Christian. “Fundamentalist is so concerned with what what has been said about the Scriptures, he often gets distracted from the message, arguing about dispensations and translations.  Neither one really thinks about what makes things true or investigates things.”

Now it was Atheists turn to look surprised.  “I didn’t know that you were that interested in asking why or investigating things, Christian.  I guess I sort of assumed that you were like Fundamentalist.”

Christian grinned.  “Well, you can’t interpret scripture without asking why.  The Bible is a very large book and a skilled charlatan can make it say anything.  We always have to check what scripture says against other scripture to make sure it all fits.  When someone says they have some new doctrine you can’t say ‘Ok’, no sir!  Paul compliments a group called the Bereans for being, as you call it ’skeptical’.  In my church we call that ‘Being Berean’ and its a good thing.”

Atheist and Christian shared the last piece of pie.  Christian privately thought he had won a great victory for the cause of Christ with Atheist.  Atheist, in turn, found it delightfully ironic that the best Christians were the most skeptical ones. When the last morsel of pie was done, Christian turned to Atheist.

“Compassionate Atheist, what do you think of this banquet we have had.  Do you still not believe in God?”

“I don’t know, Christian.” He said. “I see a beautiful meal, but I never saw anyone make it.”

“But someone had to make this all!”

“Well,” Atheist said “I admit the mousse was divine, but I can’t say that God made this because with the test methods I have, the most reasonable explanation would not be God.”

Christian looked pained.”But if not God, who made all this beauty?”

“I don’t know Christian.  But I can agree with you that it is beautiful,” said Atheist.

“How? What is the source of beauty if not God?” cried Pragmatic Christian.

“I don’t know Christian, but I will enjoy finding out.  The joy of my life to understand mysteries,” said Atheist solemnly.

Christian looked shocked.  “But that is the joy of my life, to discover the mysteries of God. Surely, Atheist, it cannot be your joy to discover the mysteries of his Creation?”

Atheist chuckled, “Why not Pragmatic Christian?  Did you assume since I have never met your God that I saw all the world as a empty gray?  I love life.  I love to explore.  I found your statements about the intrinsic value of man deeply moving.  We agree on so much.”

Christian spoke quietly “I guess I did assume that about you.  Do you really see the world as thing of great of beauty to be explored?”

“I do,” said Atheist.

Then you are doing the work of God.  To bad you will burn in hell, dear friend, thought Pragmatic Christian.

“Well, I wish you luck, Atheist.  I hope we meet again,” he said aloud.

And I hope your “being Berean” delivers you from this madness before Fundamentalist seduces you or kills you, or Cynicism comes calling on the heals of disillusionment.  You’re much too valuable to lose, dear friend, thought Atheist.

“I’m sure we will, we have so much more to talk about.” said Athiest aloud.

So lately I’ve been thinking of some of my earliest memories.  It’s strange what you remember.  If I actually think about what I remember, I can’t remember anything, but if I just go about my day having made a note to remember my earliest memories, they just sort of come to me randomly. Not long after I learned to read, I remember going to Adventure Land.  Adventure Land is billed as “Iowa’s Largest And Most Compete Family Resort Complex” which is a lot like saying “The Yukon’s Most Productive Pineapple Farm”  or “Vatican City’s Hottest Cabaret”.  It’s sort of a uniquely Midwestern amusement park for people who can’t be bothered to drive all the way to Six Flags.  You know how when you get the 5 pound bottle of generic acetaminophen, it says “Compare to Tylenol” in BIG letters and little tiny letters, “Tylenol is is trademark of the Johnson&Johnson Company, which your broke ass can’t afford.”  Yeah, its kinda like that.

So having just learned to read, I had read a neat, new word scratched into the log on the Log Ride.  I spelled it out: F - U - C - K, thats spells “fuck” just like “duck” and I knew what “you” was. I had a log to ride, so I didn’t think of it again until later, when I was taking a bath.

“Mom, what does ‘Fuck’  mean?”

“That’s a bad word, and not something anyone should say” she said.

I mulled that over.  What made a word ‘bad’?  And why couldn’t one say it?

“Why is it bad?” I asked.

“Well, it’s bad because it hurts peoples’ feelings,” she explained nervously.

I was appalled.

“But why would someone write something bad on the log?!?”

“Um,” she replied “Some people like to hurt other peoples feelings, they think its fun.”

“Why,” I sobbed “why would anyone want to make anyone else feel bad?”

“I’ve never understood it myself, Israel,” she said.

I cried inconsolably for at least another 30 seconds.

Still sniffing, I put on my footed pajamas, and went to bed, the cruelty of the world weighing heavily on my small back.

On this day, the anniversary of the founding of our nation, I want to talk abit about magical thinking and how it applies to law.  I’m sure that all my readers have read me quote Wikipedia’s definition of magical thinking sufficiently at this point.  So, I will just use my own understanding to break it down this time, and skip the quote.

Magical thinking consists of several different basic issues: Correlation equaling causation, contagion, synchronicity, and symbol power.  All of them profoundly rooted in the laws of our land.

Correlation as causation is the idea that related events must cause each other.  People who own homes generally don’t get caught breaking into cars.  Thus, a multi-billion dollar tax write-off (mortgage payments being tax deductable) is foisted upon an unthinking public. (Obviously, owning a home does not cause good behavior, it is merely associated with it.)

Contagion is the idea that things placed near each other share some transfer of identity or quality. From this concept, the voodooist makes a doll of the persons’ clothes or hair, the clairvoyant needs something that belonged to the deceased, and the Catholic church claims healings resultant from holy relics.

Synchronicity seeks to relate a number of random events with unifying cause.  For instance, the charge that California suffers many earthquakes because it is the center of the United States pornography industry rather than because of the San Andres fault.

The power of symbols, is what I wish to talk about today.  Dwight Conquergood said this of symbol power “Symbols instill beliefs and shape attitudes that underpin social structures. The binding force of culture, by and large, is a web of symbols that enables people to control and make sense out of experience in patterned ways.”  Tarot for Dummies has this to say “You may not even realize it, but your life is shaped by symbols that are passed to you or inherited from your culture, your race, your peer and social groups, and your family” and further “The picture symbol of an evergreen tree decorated with lights and other ornaments is an archetype for Christmas. Without consciously thinking about it, you are prompted to think of snow and Christmas presents when you see a picture like this. (And depending on your past experiences, you may feel anything from excitement and hope to depression and anxiety.)”

Symbols have no more power than we give them, but often, as a society, we grant enormous power to certain symbols. Imagine you are lost and need to ask for directions. Think of a small plain building with a flagpole in front. On the flagpole flies Nestle Company flag.  Would you be comfortable stopping there?  Most likely. Now, imagine the same scene, only the building flying a Nazi flag.  Would you stop for directions?  If not (and most people do say “no”) why not?  From a logical stand point, why not stop?  In a democratic society there will obviously be people you disagree with.  Is a historical revisionist, white supremest somehow more evil corporate lawyer? (Turn your attention again to Nestle, it has purposefully marketed infant formula to developing nations’ mothers by having actresses dress has nurses and give away free samples until the mothers milk dries up, then begin charging for it.  They also use child slaves in the processing of their chocolate.)

Despite the fact that both represent oppressive regimes, you would most likely stop for Nestle, but not for Nazi. The greatest absurdity, of course, is that a person’s adherence to bankrupt moral code has little to do with their capacity to get you from 10th Street to Mulligan Avenue.

That is the power of a symbol.  One associates so much with the mere symbol that the instant response is revulsion and fear.  That a symbol of 60 year old failed government induces more concern than the corporate herald of multi-billion dollar corporation that employs child slaves in the third world to make candies for child consumers in the first also shows how the power of symbols can have nothing to do with what is truly being represented, and everything to do with what people feel is represented. Finally, it shows how a group may maintain a symbol and operate under the social protection that the perception of that symbol provides.

How does this relate back to this Independence Day?  The constitution of our country is not the law of our land.  That which is fair and just is rarely simple. The constitution is not the law, but the heart of the law, the principals from which the laws are derived. The real “law of the land” is the United States Legal Code available here.  In a democracy, the law will never be simple.  Different groups and people will require compromise and specification. Which means volumes, rather than pages of law.

You will hear in these United States constant statements such as “The Constitution guarantees certain rights”.  And that, dear readers, is bullshit.  The constitution is lovely piece of old paper.   Next time your rights are being violated, call out to the constitution. See if it sprouts little parchment legs and comes running to your defense, a musty musket clutched to its flat, printed breast.  The constitution is a symbol.  It is not the symbol of justice which makes justice,but just men and women.  Rosa Parks was granted her rights not by the Constitution in a little glass box but by the work of her hands and the bravery in her heart.

The Constitution is the symbol of everything that is right in the country.  I mean it no disrespect.  But let us remember, today of all days, that it is not the symbol of freedom that guarantees our freedom.  It is free men and women, fighting to stay so.  Do not put your trust in the symbol of power, but its source: your own heart.

Ok, so seriously, no one seemed to get my previous blog.

This was the point.

Point (1.) Metaphorically speaking, your mind is an operating system for your brain, the same way Linux is an operating system for a computer.

Point (2.) An Avatar is software construct which allows you to give a face to data, regardless of whether this data is in the form of an executable program, database, or in the head of the person the avatar represents.

Point (3.) Metaphorically speaking, the version of the people you know that exist in your minds eye are avatars.  They are the face of the data you know about that person.  The better you know them, the more accurate the avatar is.

Point (4.) When in an altered state, one can interact with those avatars, rather than intellectualize about the data.  Most animals seem to think.  Many of the “higher” ones (including rats by the way) are capable of thinking about thinking, called metacognition. Humans are capable not only of thinking about the nature of their own thoughts, but the thoughts of others (interpersonal metacognition).  An altered state can be caused by REM sleep, physical, emotional, or social stress.  When in this altered state humans can access all the data they have about a person as if they were talking to that person themselves.  This is my unique application of the avatar concept.

Point (5) The evolutionary benefit to a species with the avatar is increased survival as a extension of the evolutionary theory of altruism.  Some species (such as wolves and sometimes humans) will allow themselves to die to save a member of their species.  These seems to defy the principal of natural selection, because the sacfricee is lost from the gene pool.  Despite the fact that it cost the altruist his life, it ensures the continuance of the species as a whole. This is why many large mammals seem to have a concept of altruism. However, when that member is lost to the species so is all his wisdom or data.  The avatar concept allows much of this data to continue to live after the loss of the person.

Point (6) Being this is ancient and hardwired in, the avatar concept allows for a non-pathological explanation for several human behaviors and beliefs.  Anything that humans are motivated to do from a core level must have evolutionary benefit.  The evolutionary benefit to the avatar is seen above. Yet in modern context many behaviors seem bizarre.  The explanations is usually one of mental illness, but this seems unlikely to me as the other attending symptoms are lacking.

Point (7.) Specifically, the application of the avatar concept provides a socio-evolutionary perspective to one religious belief and several paranormal ones.

A. The soul.  Despite the fact that no one has ever seen any physical evidence of a soul, the belief is almost universal.  I believe this is because the avatars that we keep of people in our minds eye are biochemically as real as the memories we have of the real things they have done.  We invent a concept to explain how when they physical world says they are dead, their files are still alive in us.  This allows the bereaved to be more effective members of the tribe, as it makes death less frightening and more approachable.  At the same time it is still unknown.  If death was too approachable people would be in a hurry to do it, harming the species.

B. Speaking with and dreaming of the dead.  Many people, otherwise very skeptical, believe that they have spoken with or otherwise heard from a dead loved one.  The most common story I have heard is a widowed spouse being told it is OK if they marry or take a lover.  The evolutionary benefits are obvious.  The avatar alows the remaining parent to continue to seek parenting advice for the shared child, as well as telling the spouse it is OK if they either enter a new pair bond (which is demonstrated to make them a better memember of the community) or to further continue the species.

C. Doppelgangers. Abraham Lincoln famously saw his doppelganger in mirror, warning him of his impending doom.  He was under an enormous amount of stress at the time including sleep deprivation. The doppelganger’s warning allowed him to relax and deal with the stress.  This in turn allowed him to be a more effective leader for his tribe.

THAT is what I wanted to say.  That the avatar concept uses a computer science metaphor to explain an evolutionary benefit which explains (among other things) some paranormal phenomena.

One of my favorite concepts about the human mind is the idea of the human mind as an operating system for the brain, just as Linux is the operating system of the computer that I am writing this on.

This concept is a whole mental toolkit, with fascinating rabbit trails relating to almost any issue of the mind and brain. Mental problems, for instance, could be caused by single component hardware failure (traumatic brain injury), system wide hardware failure (biochemical imbalance), operating system failure (neurosis), or application failure (disorders that have limited “system wide” problems, but effect certain tasks deeply, such as phobias.)

Within the framework of popular computing, avatar has different meanings depending on context. The word is borrowed from Hindu, where it means the physical incarnation of a deity. In online forums, an avatar can be something as simple as a picture. This picture represents the user in someway. In 3D online games the avatar is the player’s body in the game’s universe (metaverse). Both of these qualities represent the avatar as a representation of user within the system.

However, unique to advertising, an avatar is a program which interacts with people. Often, avatars in the context of advertising are called bots. If you would like to talk to one, Ikea has famous avatar named Anna. In the first 2 cases, the avatar was a user of the system. Anna, however, is the system, or at least a part of it. So an avatar becomes any human faced set of code, regardless of whether the input and output functions of said code are controlled by a human mind, or a mechanical one.

Today, I was lying in bed after my wife had gotten up. I was not quite asleep, but neither was I fully awake, which, often as not, results in a unique dream state. (I should mention before I explain all this, that I am an extremely lucid dreamer. I often interact with people in my dreams with both me and the person I am dreaming about understanding that I am dreaming. This one was a little weird even for me, though.) I was simultaneously dreaming of speaking with Becky and hearing her real, non-dream voice from downstairs. I found this disconcerting and asked my dream wife what was going on.

“Oh,” replied dream Becky, “I’m an avatar of Becky. The real Becky is downstairs. I represent every thing that you know about Becky, accessible through a normal conversational interface.”

“So,” I asked “Technically you are me, in the sense that you are my memories of Becky?”

She frowned. “Yes, technically, I am you, or at least of you, but it’s best if you think of me as Becky, because if you think of me as you, then I cease to be an incarnation of everything you know about Becky and just become the form of Becky. I can’t provide you with her unique perspectives. I become a projection of yourself into Becky’s form, rather than Becky’s form projected onto your understanding of her identity.”

“I get it,” I said “By having you as an avatar of Becky, it gives me a second way to access Becky’s mind when I need her perspective and she’s not available.”

“Right,” said dream Becky “Of course, I can’t give you her real perspective. It’s not telepathy or anything. If she’s available, by all means ask her, but if you are deployed to forward base or something, you can ask me.”

I thought about this for bit. “But if you are the sum of everything I know about Becky, then I already have access to all the information that makes you. To access you, I need to be in a dream state, whereas to access your constituent data I only need to concentrate for a moment when fully awake.”

“Well, first of all, I can provide you the information in a much more intuitive, conversational manner, “ she said. “Further, since a dream state is more relaxed, I can often give you more accurate information. If you deeply desire to do something that you need to ask Becky about, that desire will cause distress. When you access her/my data intellectually, your mind will color how you conceptualize Becky to bias the resulting conclusions to cause less distress. By taking the time to be relaxed enough to be in a dream state you get marginally less data mined information. Thirdly, I offer a unique service if you are mourning.”

“What’s that?” I asked surprised.

She explained, “If something happens to real world Becky that makes her totally unaccessible, ie death or coma, I can provide a way for you to interact with her. In the coma example, I can provide you with the parenting advice you need to raise your daughter without Becky. When you hear of a deceased spouse visiting someone in a dream thats an avatar like me.”

“So what you are saying,” I began, “is that anyone I know well, exists in two states. The real world state and the pretend state?”

She responded, “Pretend isn’t quite right. When you play Star Wars Battlefront you aren’t really a Storm Trooper. There is no reality in which you are a Storm Trooper, but the ones and zeros of the Star Wars Battlefront game are as real as you are. While I am not strictly speaking, real, the biochemical interactions that create and define me are real and objectively verifiable.”

And continued, “More correctly, all human beings react both with real people and with their avatars in their respective minds. When you and real Becky fight about something it is often because one of you does not meet the other’s expectations. I said one thing, Becky said another. You are angry because the real me outside your mind did not respond the same way as the real me in your mind.”

I was dumb founded. “So this explains why humans believe in an immortal soul even though there has never been any evidence of it? If something happened to real world Becky, I would still run into you from time to time. To the non-skeptical this would imply a visit from the afterlife.”

“Exactly, “ she smiled. “It actually explains a whole a whole slew of paranormal phenomenon: ghosts, doppelgängers, messages from the afterlife, etc. And might even offer insight into mental illness. What do you think would happen if your own avatar was based off of a false concept of self?”

I thought about it. I really had no idea, though I agreed it was a fascinating question and worthy of further thought. “I don’t have any idea, Becky.”

Avatar Becky smiled coyly. “Then, I can’t either, silly. Time to get up.”

I woke up, and went downstairs to tell Becky how smart she/I is/am.

So, recently, I’ve been reading military history and tactics again, inspired partly by my nightly reading of the the Air Force PFE study guide (Promotional Fitness Examination).  I’ve run into this gem of a term “asymmetric warfare”.   A quick pursue of the Google News showed 51 entries under the title “asymmetrical warfare”.  All I can say is this:  What a crock of crap.

Wikipedia defines “asymmetrical warfare” as:

“…originally referred to war between two or more actors or groups whose relative military power differs significantly. Contemporary military thinkers tend to broaden this to include asymmetry of strategy or tactics; today “asymmetric warfare” can describe a conflict in which the resources of two belligerents differ in essence and in the struggle, interact and attempt to exploit each other’s characteristic weaknesses. Such struggles often involve strategies and tactics of unconventional warfare, the “weaker” combatants attempting to use strategy to offset deficiencies in quantity or quality.”  This is in turn quoting Robert R Tomes, a Senior Adviser for the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency.  (Say that 10 times fast.)

The Air Force defines asymmetrical warfare this way “Asymmetrical warfare is based on countering an adversaries strengths by focusing on its actual or perceived weaknesses.”

The first problem is the very phrase “asymmetrical warfare”.  Terms have implied meanings that they smuggle in with their overt meaning.  For example: pro-life and pro-choice.  By overt meaning we could also say pro-life and anti-life (or even pro-death) or anti-choice and pro-choice.  But people who identify with the pro-life side resent the heck out of being called “anti-choice”  Just as people on the pro-choice side resent the heck out being called “anti-life”.  So both define themselves with “pro” statements. They say what they are for rather than what they are against.  In this way, both terms smuggle in the idea of what should be, according to their respective believers.

The phrase “asymmetrical warfare” sneaks through the back door an idea, and that idea is that warfare should be symmetrical, a basically fair contest between two basically matched adversaries, much like say, formula racing or boxing.  In some forms of formula racing, every driver races an identical car with identical engine.  In fact, the engines are sealed, and if at the end of the race the seal is broken, the competitor loses the race and may well be kicked out of the racing league.  In boxing, competitors are matched up in narrow and rigidly controlled weight categories. The purpose in both cases is to limit the role which technology, and genetic luck play in victory, ensuring that the contest is between how much heart and skill the competitor has at the expense of any other characteristics.

The problem with applying this to war is: war is not a game. If a race car driver loses a race, or a boxer a match, he remains able to fight again. In fact he will often use the knowledge of his defeat to compete more successfully next year.  Warfare offers no such grantees, quite the opposite actually.  No less a expert on the subject than Genghis Khan said “The greatest happiness is to scatter your enemy, to drive him before you, to see his cities reduced to ashes, to see those who love him shrouded in tears, and to gather into your bosom his wives and daughters.”   And by “gather into your bosom” he meant rape to death the ugly ones keep the pretty ones as concubines. (Other translations of this quote say “ravish” rather than the bowdlerized “gather into your bosom”.)

The second problem is more clear from the Air Force definition.  “…countering an adversaries strengths by focusing on its…weaknesses”.

Um… isn’t that what warfare is all about?  What do you think every successfully concluded war in history was about?  Begin with Alexander the Great.  When he had his point leaders take battle axes (not a common weapon in the middle-east) to attack the enemy’s elephants by severing their trunks and destroying their legs, wasn’t that asymmetric?  When the English decimated the French by striking them with longbows while staying out of French bow range wasn’t that asymmetric? When the Prussians had quick loading needle guns against the muskets of their enemy wasn’t that asymmetric?  When the French had recoil absorbing cannons (they keep aim between firings) and their enemy had none, wasn’t that asymmetric?  When the Germans had the Blitzkrieg and the Allies didn’t wasn’t that asymmetric? I could go on with these polemics but I let me get more specific.

The German Air Force was quite good at first.  The Allies could only attack with precision bombing if they were willing to take large causalities.  Studying the nature of modern war, they decided the most valuable possible target would be ball bearing plants.  (Almost all modern machinery needs ball bearings. This was a logical and effective strategy.) Well, by the argument of symmetrical war, the British should have left those ball bearing factories alone.  They should have stood by their guns, stayed on the battlefield and lost in gentlemanly and symmetrical way.

So this carping about asymmetrical warfare is totally bogus.  In fact, I think its pretty much clear that the way wars are won is by achieving asymmetry.  Let me say that again for clarity.  The key method of victory is discover and exploit asymmetry. Only a fool or a mad man would fight a war in such a way that gave his enemy a fair chance at victory.

In fact, I put forward this idea: The greatest single impetus to the evolution of warfare is the desire to achieve asymmetry.

So now I need another explanation of where this asymmetry BS comes from.  I think it comes from xenophobia.  Its not labeled “asymmetric” when we use semi-autonomous robotic planes to shoot bearded goat herders on camel back.  But when they use cell phone bombs to hit our trucks, well that’s just plain un-American.

Now, let me add my usual qualification here, I’m not saying that the terrorist are right, or that we are wrong.  I don’t want to live in a world with terrorists.  I may not always agree with the way we fight them, but I agree whole heartily that they need to be fought, and like any good service member in a democracy’s military, I can put my personal preference aside to fulfill the oath of enlistment that I took.  That’s not with this is about at all.

I am more saying to the American public at large: xenophobia isn’t cool.  Stop complaining about asymmetrical warfare.  Warfare is supposed to be asymmetrical, at least if you want to win, and they want to win as badly as we. The side the finds and exploits asymmetry the best will win. Period.

Once upon a time, Sunday morning was a hectic time for me.  It was a time to get shaved, get dressed, hurry through breakfast, and get to church.   Becky and I gave up on going to a church building Sunday mornings about a year ago.  We still fellowship with people we love, which of course was the point of the commandment, but that is a blog for another time.  The point here is that Sunday morning is a delightful time of lolling in bed, munching toast, and taking the time to really talk to each other.

If there is a better feeling than lying around indolently on a big, puffy quilt with the most beautiful wife in the world, I can’t imagine what it is.  We talked about how things would have been different if only we had met sooner.  We’ve been married for 6 years now.  One of my only regrets about our marriage is we had to wait so long to meet, fall in love, and marry.  If we could have met at 15, we could have gotten married at 16, and then, we would now have been together for 11 years.  Since the last 6 years have been the best in my life, the idea of having another 5 on top of that is very attractive to me.

We’ve talked about this before, but today I said something that hadn’t previously crossed my mind, or at least I hadn’t spoken it to her.  My wife, you see, is quite curvy.  I mentioned to her that when  I thought of her at 16, I thought of how much fun her uniquely curvy 16 year old self would be in bed.  And she said…

“Really?  When I think about being in bed with you at 16, I mostly think of you not knowing what the hell you were doing.”

That, ladies and gentleman, is the difference between men and women.