http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005-2007 by the authors Sun, 10 Jul 2005 11:40:55 EDT http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/ Phillip WinnSunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we're sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable. Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren't favorable to duplicate content, and don't always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds. We hope that you'll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it's only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding. Administration0@blogcritics.org Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/07/10/114055.php Randy KirkFor the most part, I'm pretty practical. Sure, since I dabble in some artistic enterprises, invent things, and start businesses, there is an outside the box, risk perverse side to me, too. But, I'll stick to the first observation. Most folks would probably see me as practical first.So, I wonder, what are the practical advantages to being an atheist? If I were to give up my faith today, what would I gain? What would I lose? Agnostics are often pretty similar to atheists, even to the point where some of the one, when pushed, turn out to be the other. So, to broaden the discussion, if I were not ready to adopt the POV that there is no God at all, and not even a remote possibility of there being one, but I just can't come to a firm conclusion either way, what advantages and disadvantages would attach?When offering this question on another occasion in another environment, one response was that being an unbeliever allowed for free thinking. One would no longer have their analysis of how the universe works clouded by theology. I wanted to diffuse that argument early. It is actually those who don't believe in God or things spiritual who are limited in the scope of what they consider in reaching their conclusions. While believers may have a bias (as do nonbelievers), that bias in no way stops believers from considering the full range of possible approaches. In fact, it is the rare believer (at least Christian believer) who can even escape the secular arguments on every important issue. On the other hand, it is quite easy for the unbeliever to have almost no input on issues related to theology and its impact on personal philosophy or daily living.Obviously, I can't stop anyone from taking their best shot at free thinking as a benefit, but after that, what would be others?Edited: bhw Culture32332@blogcritics.org Sun, 10 Jul 2005 11:40:55 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/07/03/125912.php Randy KirkIt was right where it usually is. Lying flat in the middle of my driveway, wrapped in plastic, in every way it appeared to be my Sunday Los Angeles Times. I've been considering dropping the subscription because of their slanted writing, but you need to hear the other side.So, I took my usual journey. News first, then funnies, mags and other fun stuff. Finish off with Business and Opinion. Everything seemed perfectly normal until I reached the lead op-ed piece. I checked the masthead of that page, and it still said Los Angeles Times. You can read it for yourself here, but the main points were:Economists and others are worried about the Chinese hoarding dollars and now starting to use them to buy American assets. We have seen this concern before with the Japanese 15 years ago. They were wrong to worry then, they are wrong to worry now. This seemed a bit odd for the Times, but I wasn't shocked yet. The article went on:1. If there is a problem the fault is not theirs, its ours. We're the ones doing the spending on their goods.2. Free trade is good, even if its unilateral. Every American, especially the poor, benefit from inexpensive goods.3. Globalization means that we own stock in Chinese companies, and our companies own production facilities in China that make much of the stuff that comes back here.Therefore all of this is good for America. WOW! The only thing they forgot was the natural order of things that will see increasing wages and decreasing interest in doing "dirty" work as China emerges.I'm just curious though. What paper did I receive this morning, and where is my Los Angeles Times? Politics31979@blogcritics.org Sun, 3 Jul 2005 12:59:12 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/07/02/160616.php Randy KirkSkeptic Magazine on line has posted a book review worth noting. James N. Gardner reports on "The Big Bang's Steady State: The LIfe and Science of Fred Hoyle." He concludes his review with this:"But if (Andrei) Linde and his colleagues are correct, the process of continuous creation (lots of big bangs) operates at a scale utterly beyond our capacity to physically envision it -- not mere atoms but entire new baby universes are continuously created in an eternal process with striking parallels to (Fred) Hoyle's discarded steady-state cosmological theory."Glad to see that the origins of the universe are clear to all leading scientists. Personally, I think it will soon be proven that there are micro organisms that fill every void in the universe. They are all a part of one intelligent organism who is but one such organism. There are millions of these, and they live, breed, communicate, with one another. Culture31944@blogcritics.org Sat, 2 Jul 2005 16:06:16 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/06/29/215414.php Randy KirkFinally!! A major study by an expert in self esteem commissioned by the American Psychological Society to study the benefits of self-esteem, and the finding is "disappointing." Professor Roy F. Baumeister of Florida State writes in the Tuesday Opinion Section of the Los Angeles Times:1. Does not produce better grades 2. Does not produce better work habits or quality 3. Does not result in more friends or better relationships 4. Does not produce better leaders 5. Does not keep people from becoming bullies 6. Does not keep people from cheating, stealing or experimenting with sex or drugsOther findings suggested that1. Humility was better predictor for leadership 2. Kids told to suck it up were more likely to get better gradesSome benefits may be that those with self-esteem are happier, bounce back from problems faster, and exhibit more initiative. It is not clear that these benefits can be derived from trying to build self-esteem. It may be that these individuals think well of themselves because they are predisposed to, or that they are actually doing well.The author suggests discipline and self control are more likely to produce the results that the self-esteem movement only promised, but didn't deliver.In an e-mail exchange with the professor, I suggested that unconditional love resulting in feelings of being valued or having worth might also produce the results that the self-esteem folks hoped for. The only source of such unconditional love is God. He responded: " as for feeling valued rather than esteemed, this is an interesting distinction i had not thought about. boosting self-esteem for its own sake probably contributes to narcissism, and the christians among my friends seem refreshingly immune to becoming narcissistic, so they must be doing something right!"Once again the Bible of the ages trumps the scientists of our times. Culture31795@blogcritics.org Wed, 29 Jun 2005 21:54:14 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/06/28/205231.php Randy KirkAfter reading the book that was the "Evolution versus Intelligent Design" Post yesterday (or did it start several days ago), all kinds of new questions came to mind. If you'll allow me, here is one in several parts.There are 6,450,000,000 of us humans on earth right now. There have been at least that many who have already come and gone. Maybe a lot more. We are supposedly the most advanced species. Under theories of evolution, we should be seeing various kinds of mutations that would result in better humans, who would generally take over for the lesser humans. Ultimately, there would be some new species, identifiable as such, that would be a super human, I suppose.If those postulates are reasonable interpretations of current thought, I wonder why we don't see aberrational humans on even minor skill sets. For instance, we don't have any 100 m dash folks beating the record by a full second, or milers taking the best mile down by 20 seconds. The new bests are always only fractions of seconds better than the last. I don't personally follow every sport and every record in all sports, but I can't recall ever having seen someone completely devastate an old record.This lack of mutation seems to be true across all aspects of our human capabilities. No big brain that eclipses the talent by a huge gap, no musician who can play a song so much better than another that it just changes everything, no writer who just sways people so easily that everyone else runs and hides.Why do you suppose this is? I know we have our prodigies, but I don't recall any that would fit the bill like a calf being born with a leg out of its back.A similar question is why don't we humans use the techniques of animal husbandry to develop super humans. We do it for dogs, horses, chickens, cows, etc. Why aren't we trying to mate really outstanding athletes with other outstanding athletes over several generations to come up with a breakthrough.I'm not suggesting the opposite, eugenics, or the idea of keeping the less successful from having any or many kids, but surely there can be no ethical reason why we don't try to develop super brains or super athletes. In fact, one would think that we would naturally do so. But it seems that our progress as humans (such as it is) comes from better engineering (better food, medicine, housing, etc.) than it does from a better gene pool. Culture31739@blogcritics.org Tue, 28 Jun 2005 20:52:31 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/06/26/234253.php Randy KirkThirty killed in car bombings. Today's news? Yesterday's? A month ago. Iraq? Algeria? Spain? Israel? I'm trying to figure out why the constant carnage in Iraq has not resulted in some kind of massive response. If the daily bombings were happening in any of the other countries listed above, or in let's say, any US city, the response would after a few days would be substantial. After a few weeks, if the government had not taken action, the people would. To either send the government packing, or take up their own arms.I'm trying to figure out why the difference in Iraq. So far I have the following list.1. The insurgents have no cause, other than to be anti something. There is nothing to unite against. 2. Even though there are religious and ethnic divisions in Iraq, the bombings don't appear to be specifically targeting any of those groups. 3. The Iraqi people are used to death. Twenty citizens and policemen here, 30 there is not as big a deal as it would be in other places. 4. The Muslim faith is more accepting of death. It is not as tragic as it is for Christians. 5. There is a very deep wellspring of hope that if they keep going forward, there will be a completely new way of doing things and the insurgency will fade away. 6. The people think it is just part of the war, not aimed at them as people.It is also of no little amusement that the left and the liberal media seem far more upset about the loss of Iraqi lives than they do. If they are willing to keep moving forward in this great experiment, why wouldn't we be willing to keep giving a bit of our blood and our cash to help them get there? Politics31632@blogcritics.org Sun, 26 Jun 2005 23:42:53 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/06/21/000815.php Randy KirkI have four questions that no one else seems to be asking about the salacious statements of Senator Dick Durbin (DEMOCRAT) of Illinois. To be complete, Sen. Durbin read a report of an FBI agent who gave an eyewitness account of a prisoner at Gitmo being ill-treated. He was bound, hand to feet, and lying on the ground in a fetal position. The room was alternately very cold and very hot. He was lying in his own excrement. They were playing rap music very loudly.Senator Durbin suggested that if the description had been read without describing where it was taking place, we would have thought it was in a prison camp of the Nazis/Stalinist/Pol Pot.Those who have been upset with Sen. Durbin have primarily argued that it is ridiculous to compare this incident or any similar incident with the treatment of the Nazis, Stalinists, or Pol Pot. Of course they are right, and it is an outrageous hyperbole. However, the comparison fails at several other levels that I've not seen mentioned.1. In those regimes, treatment such as this and much worse was policy, and would not have been of concern to anyone in the ranks. Obviously, to Americans, even this level of handling was seen and reported as too much. Isn't this an American Distinction that bears noting?2. There would not have been a free press to report it, or free speech to debate it. Isn't this part of our uniqueness as Americans that should be reported?3. In no way does this treatment rise to the level of torture. If someone read it to me, and I didn't know what is was describing, I would have thought of the "hole" in some jail, a crack house in downtown L.A. (except for the chains), or an S and M parlor. I wouldn't have thought of Nazis. There I think of gold removed from teeth, scientific experiments on children. I wouldn't have thought of Pol Pot. There I think of wholesale slaughter. I wouldn't have thought of Stalin who would have never sent anyone to a place that had heat. Does anyone think that this rises to the level of torture?4. These men are not innocents. The vast majority of those who were killed by Nazis, Pol Pot, and Stalin were innocent. The men we are holding are guilty of being part of a plan to kill innocents. We aren't killing them, but treating them quite well. Wouldn't this be an even more important moral distinction? Politics31349@blogcritics.org Tue, 21 Jun 2005 00:08:15 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/06/11/190217.php Randy Kirk1. Is it likely that most women in committed relationships would be unhappy to very unhappy to learn that their partner was using porn or even viewing porn on a regular basis? Would it depend on the type of porn?2. Is this a reasonable position for these women to take? Or should they just get over it?3. If a man is using or viewing porn that he suspects or knows that his wife would disapprove of, should he tell her? If it is affecting his interest in her, and she asks why, should he tell her? 4. Is it likely that many men who use or view porn even one hour per week become disenchanted with their flawed wives or feel frustrated because they know or suspect that their wives will not do the things they see in the porn?5. Is it reasonable for parents to want their children to not view porn? Is it reasonable for society to take those parents desires into consideration?6. Should the overall benefits of porn to some be weighed against detriments in deciding how to legislate how it gets into commerce.7. Many divorce lawyers are pointing to Internet porn for men and chat rooms for women as a major contributor to the cases that are coming through their doors. Would this be a good reason to raise some alarms? 8. With declining populations in the most industrialized nations (Europe, Japan, Russia, do we need to be concerned if porn is diverting young men from having families in these cultures? (Obviously there are other reasons at the root of these declines, including general hedonism and cultural bias against the world population explosion.) Culture30882@blogcritics.org Sat, 11 Jun 2005 19:02:17 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/06/10/203130.php Randy KirkJust enjoyed a nice chat with my liberal neighbor discussing various aspects of policy. I was curious what he thought about Hillary care. The reason was the following from Hugh Hewitt:"Speaking of Clinton, clip and save today's stories on the decision of Canada's Supreme Court to strike down Quebec's law against private insurance against the day of Hillary's announcement of a presidential run. The Los Angeles Times and the New York Times both have good write-ups, but the key is that the Court, by a 4 to 3 majority, found that the single payor system put people's lives at risk while increasing the suffering of others:"For the whole story, see http://hughhewitt.comOur health care system is in need of a fix. The free market will adjust over time. The government will, if given a chance, break it completely. Politics30855@blogcritics.org Fri, 10 Jun 2005 20:31:30 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/06/04/163830.php Randy KirkBack in college, before blogs, we used to sit around for hours and know that we had the answers to the worlds problems. One of the things that we were feeling good about with regard to society at that time was our disdain for freak shows. A quick history lesson for some. Carnivals, circuses, and traveling tent shows used to employ or enslave "freaks" for the purpose of selling tickets to look at these oddities of life. (Some of the freaks were frauds, but some were real.)We of the cultural elite at that time felt pretty superior by virtue of our having no interest in laughing or staring at such folks. We were also pretty proud of our enjoying the company of people of every color, nation, and creed. We were quick to include the deaf, blind, or wheelchair bound in our groups, too. Surely society had advanced in a major way for us to be so inclusive.Now, here is the question. Were we right? If we were right, our society must be in decline at this point since much of our most popular television is now watching the weirdest of the weird get some attention. If we were right, should we be concerned about this turn of events? If we were wrong, and it is perfectly ok to amuse ourselves by gawking and laughing at human oddities, I'd like to hear why. Culture30565@blogcritics.org Sat, 4 Jun 2005 16:38:30 EDT