Education and Politicians: Politicians Are All Wrong. Surprise!

If it weren't for my Aspergian tendencies, I'd try to become a lobbyist or politician. Or if I knew I could make a good living off of it I'd do it.

I have some relatives that work in public schools, so I get to hear about lovely programs and solutions-of-the-month that are fed into the public schools by administrators and government. Most of the time I'm just left shaking my head, wondering what the politicians are thinking.

I mean...do they actually spend any time in the classroom to see what effect their various decrees are having?

I was thinking about it again when I found a Time article from a researcher who actually studied the effect of "bribing" kids with money in order to increase achievement in schools. The researcher was an economist, which reminded me of a fantastic book I recently finished, SuperFreakonomics. That book continued to build off the first book, Freakonomics, wherein the economist authors provide both entertaining and informative information while reinforcing the idea that people change their behavior based on the proper incentive (well, that's one of the ideas, anyway...he makes several observations and links between various phenomena of people's behavior).

I was thinking about the way the US is currently trying to increase student achievement. The government finds that our population is stupid. Very stupid. As in, on average, we are scientifically, mathematically, and historically ignorant compared to most other industrialised nations. Recent highlight; the NSF hid results of portions of a recent survey of American regarding the big bang and evolution.

Okay, blame schools, they decide. Enter No Child Left Behind, and the ensuing efforts to standardise education. There are lists of what kids must be able to do by certain grade levels/ages, and if schools keep underperforming, they lose funds, and if it continues to happen, schools are shut down or taken over by outside groups. Kids take a series of tests as dictated by various agencies in various state governments at different times of their educational lives.

There are huge numbers of detractors for the way education is attempting to be reformed, but it seems to me that the most fundamental problem is that the onus of "fixing" education is on the wrong entity.

There is no incentive for students to do better. If they perform poorly, the school is punished. Essentially, the teachers are told that if they have students not doing what they're supposed to be doing, then it's the teacher's fault; the teacher didn't "engage" every kid in the classroom to the point where they want to learn.

This places blame for student stupidity squarely on the teachers, as the blame is placed by politicians on the schools which goes on the administrators who then turn around and blame the teachers. And the blame stops there.

The real problem, as I see it, lay in the community. If the kids screw off in school, the school gets punished. Not them. What incentive is there to learn?

The parents of failing kids rarely seem to care. Usually that sub group is just as ignorant as the kids.

The community as a whole doesn't value education. We have a society that wanted to have a George Bush clone for president because he was someone that the "Average Joe" could sit and have a beer with, while "liberal" candidates were overeducated and out of touch with the average American, apparently because they were educated if you listen closely enough to the criticisms. How can you expect students to want to perform well in academia when we pay sports stars millions of dollars while scientists are begging for funding, usually from corporate interests only funding research that they believe with benefit their own interests?

What it comes down to, in my view, is incentive. Students have no incentive to achieve academically. What happens if they fail math or science? They still have their cell phones, ipods, freedoms for the most part...schools can only limit so much. Even things they're not supposed to have the freedom to do teachers will let kids get away with. "It's study hall, it's not worth taking away the cell phone, so if they want to text go ahead..."

Most parents don't care. The helicopter parents are usually the ones in the conferences and emailing about their child's progress and their kids aren't the ones failing or staying home "sick" for thirty days a year.

Since we don't place incentives or punishments on parents and students, and instead focus on schools being punished, of course schools will fail at getting kids motivated to learn. How do you get kids involved when all teachers hear from the students is, "What do these tests matter? It's not like we're graded on them or something."

It's simply another burden for schools to bear. The funny part is that people still think schools are for learning; they're instead a social program for watching kids. Most parents have no idea how much money is spent on so-called IEP's (this may be different depending on what your state has for helping kids) and special-needs. Schools spend tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars a year on purchasing special equipment for kids that will never be able to move beyond the most basic of skills; 18 year olds with the mental development of a five year old. Schools spend resources on counseling kids, sports, and various activities that have little if anything to do with academics. It's disingenuous to label a school as an educational institution when it actually fills a niche I like to call "community spackle;" public schools are expected to fill in all the gaps that parents can't be bothered to perform in raising their kids.


The whole "No Child Left Behind" is simply highlighting the shortcomings that have been cultivated in our society so blame can be allocated onto the schools and politicians are able, for the next several years, to both look like they care about making society less stupid while simultaneously looking like they're doing something about it. What it actually does is add a greater burden to schools, which in turn puts a greater squeeze on their employees, which then makes more qualified educators flee from the field and encourage more mediocre teachers to fill teaching posts, thus lowering education quality even more.

In short:
There's little incentive for parents to pressure students to achieve.
There's little incentive for kids to achieve.
There's little incentive for good, qualified educators to stay in the field.
There's little power given to schools to actually affect any change in the situation. They're simply given a directive, and when they fail, they're punished. Ever been put in charge of something that you have no authority to direct? Isn't that the definition of being set up to fail?

There are several things I've found to be screwed up with public education but until we acknowledge that many of these problems begin and end with the public, our nation will continue to carry a reputation of being among the most mediocre countries for education, per capita, among the developed nations of the world.

Kids Teach Us About Us

I have a nearly five year old son.

The best part about observing my son as he grows and develops is that he has a lot of behaviors that I think we have learned to stifle as we age, so in a way he's a window into our "true selves." Impulse control issues aside, I am constantly admiring how much it seems he can teach about user friendly design issues and the various thoughts and observations that run through our heads that he'll say out loud while we stifle them at some point from being uttered.

The latest thing I noticed is that, like other people, he lives in a magical world. If it doesn't directly relate to something he wants or something he's directly curious about, he just takes it for granted. He doesn't ask questions about most of the things around him, and somewhere he files it away that that's just the way things are.

I can't for the life of me remember how we got directly on the topic, but I enlightened him to the fact that poop comes from food. Apparently he thought poop just appeared.

Me: "Yes, food you eat turns into poop after many hours. Where did you think poop came from?"
Him: "My butt."

We live in a world where you literally have more knowledge available to you than ever before. The Internet, your library, the bookstores...you can learn everything from how Twinkies are made to how to survive in the woods to how to grow your own food. You can learn about World War II and the sex lives of Romans and ancient Greeks. You have access to knowledge that great men and women in history would have killed to know. It's almost laughable the sheer volume of information that we have access to yet take for granted. And yet today we have people that believe the world operates on a set of arbitrary magical rules. Ignorance is almost celebrated in our culture. It's a sad commentary.

For the most part this quick post is little more than a random observation. I was simply struck by the fact that my son had naively never thought to question why he had to go to the bathroom. It just...happens.

Although now he thinks that when he eats food, he's eating poop.

Oops.

Healthcare System Thoughts: Reform

I recently saw someone make a half-headed comment about Democrats "ramming" legislation through congress for healthcare reform that "most Americans don't want" and Independents and Republicans are against.

I commented, only half jesting, asking if she had seen the recent bit on Colbert (or was it Jon Stewart?) where they did a news bit on Hawaii's healthcare.

For the most part she stayed out of the back and forth, probably because she doesn't really have a full idea of what she was whining about. She only clarified that if people were against it then it shouldn't be rammed through Congress.

Which, of course, is bullshit.

Primarily because Congress isn't looking out for the people; they're looking out for the popular vote, money, and politics, THEN their constituents. And I usually think most of the people bitching about whatever issue is on the front page of a newsmag probably do not know what a constituent is.

The bit on the "fake" news program brought up that Hawaii has had, for nearly 40 years, a law that mandates employers to provide health insurance for employees who work 20 hours or more four days a week. This means that just about every person in Hawaii is insured. There are wonderful statistics for the state showing that overall their health is among the best in the country. Of course here are problems to nitpick; employer fraud is on the rise, and some have decided to skirt the law by hiring more people to work fewer hours. It happens, of course. Apparently if something isn't one hundred percent effective then it's a failure in the minds of morons. At the same time, the numbers speak for themselves; the NY Times has an article that states that the health insurance premiums in the state tie North Dakota's for being the lowest and medicare costs per beneficiary are the lowest in the country. Hawaii has the highest incidence of breast cancer in the country, yet the lowest number of deaths.

This, of course, didn't stop someone in the Facebook thread, apparently from Hawaii, from being offended at the comment that they have a "socialized" healthcare systems (her tricorder must be missing a 'sarcasm' setting). Quick tidbit...when Republican spin doctors are spinning the ideas they oppose in oversimplified terms for an ignorant population, they like using words like "socialized" in this case to mean that the government is in control of the healthcare instead of the people; I was using the term tongue in cheek, but the fact remains that your state government is mandating health insurance coverage by proxy through the employers. When the government mandates and agent through proxy, it's still government meddling.

But in this case it seems to be helping.

A quick Google on the topic of "Hawaii healthcare" pops up several articles, most of the recent ones about a failed children's health insurance coverage system and many bouncy heads pointing to it as a failure. "See! They repealed it in seven months! We told you government healthcare can't work!"

Actually reading the information seems to show that there are kids who aren't covered with insurance. To help with that there was an initiative meant to cover the population of kids in need. What happened was that a number of people with  insurance already dropped their kids and moved them to the new system, so the money allotted couldn't handle the influx.

The actual "unworkable" system has been in place for decades for employed citizens.

On another note, I asked a friend and expat living in Australia what the health insurance system is like. He said that, like most of the modern world, it's socialized, and he'd be afraid to return to the States with the nightmare that is our insurance bureaucracy. The thing to remember, he said, is that your insurance companies are for-profit. They aren't there to help you. They have shareholders to please.

Which is true. It's against the law, last I knew, for a company to act in a way contrary to the interests of the shareholders, or the shareholders can sue. Good luck navigating this information, though...apparently big names like Blue Cross Blue Shield are fractured into a number of for-profit and non-profit sub companies in relationships so convoluted that the only thing more confusing is dealing with them as a customer.

I quickly grew tired of the crap spewing from talking heads and ended my contributions with a summary; I don't care. Any changes made not won't have a significant effect until I'm dead. Why?

Simple. Because part of the reason Hawaii is most likely doing well is because they've had it for decades. If you have state-run or federal-mandated health systems, it's going to have a large budget swell the first few decades because we're a population of gluttonous pigs. We're smokers. We're sedentary. We recognize more McDonaldland characters than we do names of astronauts or federal judges. More people can name more sports teams than ingredients in a soft drink or average calories at their favorite restaurant for their favorite meals (for those that actually provide nutrient information). So if you want to help with health issues, there's going to be a tail effect...the youth will need to grow up with better habits and lifestyles. As they become more prevalent, you'll see health effects slink up the charts, but the initial funding will be going towards those of us that have pissed away our lives in front of the television eating fast food and generally making unhealthy choices.

Offensive for some, but once we, the current generation or two, die off, then you'll see effects of a healthier lifestyled generation.

Of course at the point where we put a strain on the budget there will be a large outcry from the morons bemoaning the reform, and steps will be taken to eradicate it. People want it both ways. We want businesses to sell boatloads of frankenfoods...shakes...burgers...sodium-laden but yummy chain restaurant glop...while people just magically stay fit and healthy.

On the other hand, people living longer and healthier means that we'll have a greater population living longer and the health effects that just come from aging, a whole new ball of wax to debate and whine over.

My take? Like I said, I don't care anymore. I can't make a change. What I say doesn't matter. Any change for the better is going to take time and I'll be dead before I could reap any benefits from it (which I truly think is what insurance companies want). I also don't understand the endless debate we have in this "wonderful country" over healthcare when people literally go bankrupt because they have an illness. There's people WITH insurance that go bankrupt because of an illness. That's simply ridiculous, and the only reason I can think of that this is allowed to go on is because the asses actually being vocal about the debate are healthy or already have excellent insurance coverage, so they couldn't really give a damn about other people without voices in the matter, people who actually suffer the ramifications of these debates and political manoeuvrings, suffering because the talking heads that are supposed to be representing the interests of the constituency are more interested in the money from lobbyists.

Sad, isn't it?

Young Kids: It's Black and White

I remember when I was younger (way back in the 80's) I used to love watching cartoons like Transformers and Voltron. There were plenty of other series on like Smurfs, G.I. Joe, Dinosaucers, and many, many others.

I remember as I grew up it became fairly confusing how each of the series seemed to follow the same tropish formula. I don't mean just the examples found in series like Voltron, either, where you have a basic premise of the bad guys coming in and launching an all-out assault against the "good" planet (alway focusing somehow on the good guy's base of operations), good guys get into a scrape (how will they get out of it?) then the whole thing is resolved in the last five minutes by forming Voltron and slashing the bad guy in half with the Blazing Sword.

No, I mean the trope wherein these cartoon worlds were always divided into two factions; the good, and the evil. While in elementary school I began to wonder why the good guys always won. It was boring. We never knew why the bad guys wanted to take over the universe (who would want the paperwork involved? And what do you do once you've taken over the universe? Go to Disneyworld?)

Why were bad guys bad? Sometimes there's some trite backstory involving how the psychotic Bad Guy(tm) feels the world wronged him or the hero of the series wronged him, but there was never a decent reason given as to what motivated this Bad Guy to dedicated his life (and make a living, somehow) off making the Good Guys suffer, or why the Good Guys were dedicated to thwarting the Bad Guy.

It was always so simple, so clear cut which was good and which was bad (why didn't the bad guys just wear white? They could easily infiltrate the Good Guy base just be switching colors, it seemed). For no apparent reason whatsoever the bad guy simply perpetuated every "bad" stereotype out there for being bad. It really drove me nuts. Even in church I never understood why the Devil, Satan, Prince of Darkness, was such a trope...if God was infallible, and was the paragon of goodness, why would Satan have crossed Him? What possible reason would have made him think he could "beat" God? And even if it was just because he was jealous, why dedicate the rest of existence to this endless game of screwing with humanity to anger God? I mean, doesn't it get boring after a thousand years, and why wouldn't God just get tired of it and say, as most parents do when they grow weary of a child's petulance, "That's enough, you've had your fun. Now stop it or I'm going to invert the laws of physics holding your molecular structure intact."

The world didn't seem to play by these simple rules of Here's Good, There's Evil, and Good Always Wins, although we were always told that's how things worked. Certain political parties pandered to the citizenry as holding American values, that we're the Good Guys, that we do what must be done for the good of the world. We are the good guys, over there are the bad guys.

As I grew older I read stories of American warriors sent to other countries to destabilize their governments; we assassinated, we tortured, we killed. We reeled in disbelief at pictures held up by our government of concentration camps created by other countries as examples of their evil intentions and behaviors while simultaneously forgetting that America apparently had concentration camps for Asian-Americans during World War II.

The blinders continue to this day, but I'm not entirely sure anymore it's media that causes this viewpoint. Rather, media simply reinforces this notion that the world is a simple matter of black-and-white, good-and-evil. They're playing to an audience in order to sell more stuff to kids.

I'm the father of a four year old. Thanks to our corporate overlords my son was introduced to Lego Wii games in the form of Lego Indiana Jones and Lego Star Wars. I blew his mind when I told him these were based on movies.

So he watched Star Wars. Yes, even three. I'm a bad parent that way. But what I found interesting was his total lack of comprehension for what he's watching. Yes, he's four, but there are some things he latched onto ("Star Wars people are cool!" he'd say, referring to the Jedi with the lightsabers) and other things that flew over his head (understandably so). But in particular, he needed to divide the movie into "good guys" and "bad guys."

Star Wars is not necessarily a shining example of perfect storytelling. But it is rather complicated. It weaves a story together not just of a man's journey from his own failures and shortcomings to redemption, but of a man who plotted and achieved great power at the expense of a democratic republic, all the while the people of the republic supported his ascension to power. It told a story of corruption and of the apathy on the part of the citizenry that were in a position to do something about these things and didn't.

My son talked of the "bad guy" Trade Federation, the army of droids, in the movie. They weren't bad, I tell him. They were oppressed by taxation that they felt was unfair. Not surprisingly this didn't matter to my son.

He doesn't understand how the Republic ended up putting powers into the hands of Palpatine as supreme chancellor, and how he manipulated the events to eventually make himself emperor, or turn a democratic republic so mired in bureaucracy into a smooth if oppressive empire.

He doesn't understand how the "good guys" in the first three movies become "bad guys", or that Vader became Vader because he was selfish but driven to gain power over life and death itself in order to protect his true love (whom he ended up killing anyway).

As I live to observe kids in different ages I see fewer and fewer differences. We are, by most accounts in ways it matters, sheeple. We follow crowds. We are manipulated by television ads and print media, all the while told the television shows and ads and print media are just giving us what we want. Petulance becomes tempered and expressed in other more subtle forms as we get older, but in observing children I see human behavior in its most raw form. I see what we want, and what we want to do, in the most basic form. Children have no qualms about telling someone they're fat. Or that you stink. Or any of a number of things that we learn are social faux-pas to admit to. They want something, they say so, unlike my teenager that tries to manipulate us into getting something for her through other means.

And one of the things children latch on to is the idea that the world is simple. It's black and white. There's good, there's evil. Grey wavy lines in between are uncomfortable and take thought and critical thinking to work through.

That's why I think Star Wars is actually kind of a nice critical thinking test for my son. He doesn't yet understand what is going on in it, but someday he hopefully will. In it's own way Star Wars is a wonderful analytical exercise for understanding and critical thinking despite the obvious tropes and horrible elements put into the story for seemingly no reason (Jar-Jar? Oh geez...)

There are elements that should give pause. Why were the Jedi revered while so arrogant in their own power? Why was so little emphasis placed on the fear they placed on ordinary people, or is it unethical that children strong in the force were simply taken away for training, whether they wanted to or not? Was the Empire truly bad, when they apparently had done some good for the citizens in the Empire? And the rebels were killing large numbers of people who probably were not inherently "evil"...they blew up a Death Star that probably had many innocent people working and living on it. They killed beings whose only sin was being in the wrong place at the wrong time. And at the same time, the Empire had held the galaxy in order, and by destroying the central government they achieved what? Plunging the galaxy into a system of regional chaos, overseen by regional governors with their own agendas, while trying to re-establish a central Republican (not American political party Republican) government like the one that had become bloated an ineffectual in the first place? The Empire had drawbacks; being xenophobic, killing dissidents, and a small roster of other offenses to what we consider basic freedoms, but the Empire also brought stability and actual governance where the Republic had failed miserably.

On the surface the movies are simple and appeal to people who, like my son, want superficial simple good-is-good and evil-is-evil and rah rah for the good guy action. But there are skeptics and critical thinkers that want more.

I know this because there is now a growing surge in revisiting the 80's. It seems every franchise is having an attempt at a reboot, and in the process storylines are being fleshed out and revamped, some for better and some for worse.

Not long ago I read a story about the origin of Megatron, the leader of the "evil" Decepticons in Transformers (the real transformers, not the Michael Bay productions). I truly enjoyed it. Why was Megatron bad? He wasn't, really. He was a miner whose job was being taken away through the automation of the plant at which he worked, so Megatron and all the other "low ranking" beings were being forced from a job so a corrupt Autobot government would profit. The series showed how Megatron more or less fell into the position of Decepticon leader after leading a rebellion against a corrupt government. The Autobots were not all clean and clear of fault after all, and the Decepticons, despite having a simplistic set of motives in the childhood cartoons (namely, "we're conquering the galaxy because...well, because.") had actually valid reasons for the spark of insurrection.

Other heroes eventually explored the more complicated intricacies of their backgrounds. Batman is a truly screwed up individual. Iron Man faced his ethical demons in the Civil War story arc, one of the best series I've read from Marvel. Even Voltron has had some light shown in darker recesses that question how wonderful and pure he was as a hero when you look at the original, non-Americanized (and non-Disneyfied) Japanese origin story of Voltron.

This gives me some hope that sometime down the road my son will grow to be a critical thinker. There's hope I can interest him in thinking under the initial layers of simplistic thinking, that the Empire, despite Lucas' efforts to show otherwise, isn't just an evil scourge on the universe. There are complicated undercurrents to the story that can be fascinating to explore and in the process perhaps learn more about the world in which we live.

Hijackers and Body Scanners

Whenever some goober gets the itch to blow up an airplane there is a small flare of public interest in keeping the public safe without much thought to the consequences.

After the attempted blowing up of a plane by a moron over Christmas via an explosive banana hammock, the news stations were all abuzz over ways to thwart terrorists in our planes. Nevermind that most of our security enhancements added to airport security amounted to little more than feel-good measures that added a ton of hassle for innocent people and very little actual effectiveness (ask Bruce Schneier) in preventing attacks.

The latest push I've seen in the news is for the deployment of full-body scanners. A quick Google turns up a number of articles on them, but this was the first time I heard our "local news" covering the idea in one of their typical short-attention-span-friendly broadcasts.

They seem like a wonderful solution. Basically using backscatter X-ray technology you can see through someone's clothes, highlighting hidden objects. They also let the TSA agents see breast and penis implants, your genitalia, and essentially remove anything that before resembled modesty or personal privacy.

More effective than pat-downs? Yes, probably they are.

Preferred over pat-downs? That's probably a personal question. Would you rather have a "freedom grope" or a minimum wage barely trained McGoober staring at your nubbins?

The TSA swears that the images aren't kept; they're erased in a short amount of time. Oddly enough, nipple slips and upskirt glances aren't visible after a short amount of time as well, but there's nonetheless a thrill from those who get to see these passing slips of modesty and for most of those who were on the slip-per side of the equation the embarrassment doesn't get conveniently erased so quickly.

Does the TSA promise that leering glances and/or smirks are going to be suppressed?  Does the TSA mind a nice fat lawsuit when some monkey behind the controls snaps a quick picture with a camera phone and circulates the picture online of the MILF that just went through the line? Or if another passenger gets the image on their camera? And what protection is there for the passenger's privacy? My doctor has seen my gross nudity (lose a lot of weight, you'll know what I mean). My wife's had doctors see her give birth, and she has doctors that explore her nether regions on a scheduled basis with a duck-billed device that I won't pretend to understand. But the doctors and nurses we rely on for care are trusted not to abuse their positions. I don't get that feeling from TSA agents that are hardly considered elite law enforcement personnel. I often worry they're one step above mall security guards in terms of training and professionalism or are recruited from Craigs List.

My parting thought to the news story...my daughter is underage and nearly legal. My son is DEFINITELY underage. What's to keep some pervert from leering at her nether regions as one of my kids go through security? It's that tantamount to child porn? Sounds to me like they're saying child pornography is okay for the government to produce but for everyone else it's wrong. I'd like to know how they're keeping perverts from going through their McTraining program just to get their jollies staring at young T&A in the airport, seeing as they have such fulfilling and upwardly mobile professional options working in those positions.

Hearing these arguments the government entities swore that they would be putting some software graphic-scrambling magic in so that you don't have your junk or nethers necessarily clear in the images. So...doesn't that defeat the purpose of the scan? Shove some of your magic exploding powder up the canal or tape it to your love stick and it'll just be part of a blurred algorithm on the screen (assuming this is actually done, or is actually effective).

I'm not entirely comfortable with this crap anymore. Air travel is becoming a bigger and bigger hassle, and now I have some half-trained halfwits staring at my wiener just to prove that I am allowed to get on a plane. I'm not innocent until proven guilty. I'm a cog at the mercy of a group of ineffectual thugs who get their jollies showing they have power over people who really are trying to get from point A to point B. The vast majority of people are innocent, but thanks to a few goobers that committed a heinous act, the innocent must suffer at the hands of knee-jerk reactions on behalf of the government trying to pretend they're actually making a difference with feel-good measures. The real question is how much more of this are we, the traveling public, going to accept before we give up on the idea that we are a country that values freedoms and privacy?

Teen Marriage

I had written about my daughter's friend, Sara. She is the pregnant teen that is going to get married ("sometime")...I wrote more about it here. Read that to get a better idea of the person I'm referring to.

My household of course has people on Facebook. If you're unfamiliar with Facebook then you must not have been using the Internet for more than a month...I'm not saying you need an account on Facebook or actively use it, since I've found it to be useful only in that I've found people I lost track of years ago thanks to Facebook, only to lose them again in a deluge of worthless invites to play some farming game or joining a mafia group and spammed with happy messages that filled time I'll never get back. But I digress.

The point is that Sara has a Facebook account and apparently has her status updates posted online that members of this household see. She recently postponed (cancelled?) her wedding plans. Her mother, also apparently online with Facebook, said that the wedding was being postponed indefinitely (I got this all second-hand, so I'm paraphrasing). They got into some argument and called it off.

That was a few days ago. I asked yesterday whatever became of their canceled wedding plans, wondering what could possibly have caused Mr. and Mrs. All-You-Need-Is-Love to call off their plans.

"Oh, they're getting married now. They think near Valentine's day."
"Huh?"
"Yeah. They made up and they're going to get married again."

Quick time for slow thinkers...if your idea of resolving an argument with your fiance' is to threaten to call off your wedding for a reason short of finding him or her hammering another person in a clear act of infidelity or discovering that he or she will be out of the country or in jail for a stretch of time, and perhaps a few other extenuating circumstances that lead you to a revelation that this person is not the person you thought they were at a deep and fundamental level, you're probably about as emotionally mature as a ten year old and should not be getting married in the first place.

Threatening to call off the marriage because of a spat is pretty much the equivalent to the playground "I won't be your friend anymore!" ploy.

I shudder to think how common this type of idiocy is in our society. It makes me more depressed than I already am having to face the holiday stress.

Teen Pregnancy and Idiots: A Plea for Understanding

I need some help.

I probably don't have enough readers who follow this to give some advice, but hey, doesn't hurt to ask. If you have friends or followers that might be able to offer (constructive) thoughts, please do direct them here to leave a comment.

I need some guidance on a social issue that probably doesn't have a direct "right" answer but I have definite opinions about and I need to find a way to reconcile these ideas. Since you probably read the title, you should have no problem figuring that out.

My daughter has a friend who is a complete moron. I'll call her Sara. And when I say she's a moron, I mean she really is an idiot...ignorant, lacking common sense, and worst of all proud of her ignorance.

She is a senior in high school. I'm not sure she didn't fail a year and have to repeat; she's 18 now. Her boyfriend is in his early 20's. Sara is a sweet girl, kind, and comes off as being a total bubblehead if you met her. She's one of the kinds of people that hangs around and leaves you scratching your head wondering where her head is half the time, but otherwise seems innocent and harmless enough.

Her boyfriend was supposedly going into the military. Her mother works a job that doesn't bring in a lot of cash, and I guess her father is more or less not in the picture (I never hear anything about her father, I think they may be divorced).

The problem is that before her senior year started, she decided to get pregnant. So she did.

Her mother is overjoyed. Sara gave her a granddaughter! Yay! She also was letting her daughter "live" with the boyfriend all summer. She reported that the daughter lived with her so she'd be in the "correct" school district while she was...is?...living with her boyfriend in a neighboring school district.

Did I mention that she's a senior in high school still?

I have a few problems with this. First, it encouraged my daughter to be an idiot. They're friends, and I can't very well just ban her from hanging out with people because they're idiots or she'd have no friends. My daughter saw no problem with her being pregnant because "they're in love". I suppose this partially fits with the theory I have that part of the Twilight appeal to tweens and teens is that it gives some idealized teenager ideal of romantic love, the idea that a true relationship means finding someone that you physically and emotionally cannot live without to the point where you pine away and die because they decide that they, like, want to, like, hang out with someone else, like, ya'know? Be typical teenagers with so much melodrama in your life that every minor blip in your life is a, like, major life-altering catalyst for altering your entire, like, world?

Where was I? Oh, yes, idiot. They're in love. That makes it okay to intentionally get pregnant at 17/18. That is so not the message I want my teenage daughter to get, which I thought she'd know better since she had to live with the consequences of being the daughter of someone who was a teenage mom. It made life hard for them. It seems she forgot about the first 10 years of her life.

Okay. That brought me to the second reason I really dislike this. Their lives.

Sara has no job. No job skills. No prospects. Not even married yet.

I'm not a big believer in marriage for the sake of children or for any religious reasons (imagine that). I'm look at it practically. Supposedly the father is in the military...my daughter thought he was, but for some reason he came home on leave over the summer and simply never went back, and my daughter is too focused on herself to ever wonder why. She thought that he might kind of sorta work at a factory now. In his twenties with a factory job. Okay. It's something.

The teenage mother? Sara apparently got pregnant, got all the back slaps and smiles from her mother, then decided she was afraid of the stigma of being on of "those" statistics at school and decided to take home schooling or online schooling through her school district so she didn't have to face her classmates with the baby bump.

They're not married yet. "They're planning on getting married," my daughter says. "They love each other." Sorry...statistically speaking, this is sooo common a refrain, yet it means jack until it's really done. And until then you lost the primary practical reasons to get married...namely legal benefits. Something happens to mommy or daddy, there's no money or support available to the kid and remaining parent. I know it's common to believe you won't be "one of those people", that "our situation is different." Of course there's a chance things will work out. In families with more wealth, financial issues never figure into the equation.

But this isn't a family of means. Grandma-Mommy makes minimal income. I guess Grandpa-Daddy is barely in the picture. Daddy works at a factory. Mommy is a student with no marketable skills and hasn't even held a summer job. Which brings me to my next problem...

My taxes will be supporting them. It's one thing when someone is raped. Or hits bad times. Has a rough patch in life, etc. etc...I'm all for the government helping. When someone does something that at the time is reasonable, then the situation changes, that's forgivable. But for the life of me I cannot find any situation where you're making minimal amount of money, have no real skills, and it's justifiable to have a child at an age that stigmatizes you and the child. She intentionally did this. She set out to have a baby, and now that child will be most likely raised at or very close to the poverty line, thus statistically speaking creating the same problem when this kid hits reproductive years all over again. What happens when you have someone in that situation? Typically they're on financial support.

I work a job that is literally stressing my health at times. My wife works hard at her job. We forced our daughter to get a job and she's done a halfway decent job of sticking with that McJob. And it pisses me off to have a third of my income docked to go towards people who are in financial straits and decide it's wise to turn around and have another child in that situation on purpose. Not an accident. Have a child that will in turn be put into a disadvantaged situation with the expectation that they're entitled to a wonderful life at the expense of taxpayers because Mommy and Daddy think it's cool to have a kid.

I've been struggling with my feelings on this because before, I didn't mind her being around. She was sweet. A nice kid. Just...stupid as a rock at times. Ignorant of just about anything going on around her. She was bubbleheaded but harmless for the most part...maybe a slight danger to herself, since she had once stuck a lollipop in her eye thinking she was holding her contact lens (which was actually on the finger on the other hand). Yes, that actually happened, and isn't unexpected from her.

Now I don't want her in our house. Ever.

I can't help but see her as a bad example, and I'm overwhelmed with disappointment at the road she's setting down. I know there are exceptions. My wife was someone who led a life where quite frankly she should be probably dead. From her stories she was far more promiscuous than average in her teenage years. She did things she now regrets. What first drew me to her was that she was determined to make up for those things after she got pregnant and finally realized that she was bringing an innocent life into the world that relied on her to be responsible enough to take are of her. She isn't the nurturing type...she'll admit that...but when she got pregnant her senior year in high school, she stuck with school to graduate. Then she moved out of her parents home, got married to the father (another mistake, she concedes, as he was too lazy to hold a job and she was working whenever she could to make the bills), and then went to college over the next 10 years to get a degree with career potential. Ten years of working nights and part time. She beat the odds, and while she'll always be the statistic of being a teen mom, she's also a statistic in that she beat the overwhelming majority that ends up without an education and living in the poverty level as a single parent. She worked to have her kid have a better life, and that struck me as being someone to really admire.

Sara shows no sign of this. There is absolutely no way, in her shoes, I could see what she's done as being a good idea from anyone with a lick of common sense. It wasn't an accident. It wasn't her being a victim. It was her being selfish and self centered and now I have to pay for it. I'm having a lot of trouble seeing through this obstacle.

I was thinking of this because apparently she asked my daughter to go to Twilight tomorrow with her and her boyfriend and some other friend. Ironic. Twilight is supposed to be all about the romance-without-screwing and chastity, but Sara is going to see it. My wife and I just said that as long as she had money to pay her bills (yes, my daughter incurs bills for her driving and cell phone) as well as paying for her trip to the movie then fine. I don't like her hanging out with Sara as I see her as a bad example and influence now, but like I said...don't wan to block her from being friends with people who are idiots or she'd really have no one to hang around with.

I just need...strike that. I want to find a way to justify liking Sara again as that good kid that didn't cross the line from harmless to a tax burden. As it stands I see her as a financial burden, bad example to society and quite frankly I feel a need to punish her for her idiocy. I feel a need to tell her that she's not welcome in our home, around us or our kids. I want her to understand the immense stupidity in her decisions and understand that her actions are bringing an innocent into the world that doesn't have a choice in dealing with her idiot life decisions, and there will be a point where statistically she will repeat those mistakes for others to have to deal with.

The most difficult keyword there is feel. I could find logical fallacies and justifications to appease the rational side of either end of the arguments. But something about this...maybe it was her being judged a harmless but ditzy person previously...makes me feel anger at her disappointing my wife and I. It's not my place to punish her. I've not even spoken to her since she was dancing around with her joyful news, and I don't think my wife has spoken to her either.

Maybe that's it. I'm utterly disappointed and angry that we misjudged her so much. I have an irrational need to make her understand her foolishness and I want her to get her ass on track to becoming a productive member of society, but she's not my kid. And I'm realistic. She has enjoyed her ignorance and stupidity, and she has no aspirations to do anything in life to be productive. I guess that lifestyle works when the Daddy pulls in cash by the fistful, but when Daddy is a military dropout landing a minimum wage job, I'm thinking that is an indication that Daddy couldn't hack the responsibility and discipline of the military's basic training, Mommy already shows she lacks this, and Sara's own family lacks the means to support the children as well.

I've simply seen this pattern play out too often. My wife's sister has kids out of wedlock and lives with her parents, partially supported by them. Technically I guess it is in wedlock since she never divorced her husband, but the children weren't his. Oh boy. That life would take three posts to explain in itself.

The area in which we live is rife with poverty-level income, with a huge population of underprivileged kids according to the government. Now Sara has added another one. Each of these kids is an opportunity to change and live better and do better in life. Sara has effectively flushed her chance down the toilet.

I hope desperately that she will turn this around and beat the odds. I don't see her as being someone for whom it will happen. My wife happened to be too stubborn to not beat those odds once she actually came to her senses and decided that maybe her lifestyle choices were really stupid. Sara is too stupid to come to her senses.

Can someone give ideas on how to "come to grips" with this? How to forgive when I can't get past the idea of punishing her for her utter stupidity? I can't do that, of course, so right now I simply don't want her around at all. My wife can't offer insight on how to do this because she, too, is apparently too angry and disappointed in Sara to endorse her coming to the home as well. I guess that despite my Aspergian need for rational discourse and her irrational emotion-based decision process we both agree that we don't want Sara around.

Consequences of Using Facebook

It's funny how teenagers, and adults, have so many "duh" moments with technology. Working in technology, I tend to be aware of the issues that crop up with lack of privacy and forethought when using said technology as a medium to advertise yourself (on purpose or inadvertently).

That's not to say that I'm not going to be guilty of skirting the line once in awhile. I've posted my religious views on this blog and know that no matter what, most communities in the US will frown upon you being an atheist and it could potentially affect your job. I've posted stories that draw parallels to my work life in my tech blog and if I didn't change certain details I could risk pissing off the wrong person over something silly. These are reasons that I don't use my full name and precisely why I chance details to mask such things and in using services like Twitter and Facebook I have to ask myself whether or not my mother seeing what I'm posting would get me in trouble.

Apparently most teens fail to think about the Mommy Test when using social services. In the news today (CBC News, actually) is a woman that got into trouble with something that I would have thought would have passed the Mommy Test.

Nathalie Blanchard was diagnosed with depression and was on leave from her employer. While on leave she had apparently gone on a vacation and had a birthday party and even a bit of fun watching Chippendales dance around. Then her insurance company stopped paying benefits.

Calling them up the agent described photos of her fun that she posted on Facebook.

Apparently the insurance company decided she was no longer depressed because she was pictured having fun. She's confused because her facebook profile is locked to allow only approved people to see the pictures. In addition (this isn't in the story but rather my own take on it, hoping that Canadian common sense is at least on par with American) diagnosis for a disorder like this is usually left up to a psychiatrist or therapist to determine, not some dillhole spying on your online social web site activities, isn't it?

While on one hand this is an example of consequences to sharing your life online and the need to exercise caution in advertising your activities, I also see this as a rather creepy invasion of privacy by a corporation into your private life. I'm hoping that one of her "friends" ratted her out because if not then the alternative is rather chilling.

If she's careful with her choice of allowed friends and who is allowed to view her social media activities then I wouldn't think the things she posted were an issue. If I were diagnosed with depression (whoops...I was...) and the therapist tells me that I need to take a break, and my insurance company/employer are covering a leave of absence, why in the name of Purgatory would I need to sit around at home for a month to recover when I should be doing something to reinvigorate my life and find a reason to get out of bed in the morning? It's not like the woman was out of work for having a wounded back and then photographed carrying heavy boxes. She was on vacation and trying to have a good time. Oddly enough I would think that this is showing recovery in progress, not a tip off that the insurance company should just cancel her coverage.

I would like to think they would tell her they need updates from a mandatory visit to a therapist who in turn would share his or her evaluation of her status and whether she's fit to work again, not turn around and make an armchair analysis of her status from pictures online.

I have no idea why people would hate insurance companies...

Killing Albinos in Africa for Profit

On one hand, reading this story was shocking. On the other I suppose I shouldn't have been all too surprised given the fact that African nations tend to be rife with superstition, have no currency in science and lack basic education.

The story was about a woman whose daughter, an albino, was murdered in the middle of the night for her legs. Some men broke into the bedroom and held a large machete to her husband's throat telling them to keep quiet and not look at him while in the next room another man slit their 14 year old daughter's throat and hack off her legs while their other two daughters were told to stay quiet or be killed as well.

The husband was later taken into custody for selling their daughter out.

Why? Because witch doctors make potions from albinos for their "magical properties". And it's profitable for the people that get the body parts, whether from graves or people who happen to be unfortunate enough to, you know, not be able to defend themselves from these backwards superstitious animals.

I vaguely recalled that the Sun (a UK new source) wasn't necessarily very reliable. No problem. Quick Google for "africa albino murder" still yielded a bunch of hits, one of which was this one from the BBC.

The initial shock wore away, though, as I remembered that for these people having an epileptic attack was grounds for burning you alive for practicing witchcraft, raping lesbians cures homosexuality, and believe that HIV can be cured by raping kids.

These people are an extreme example of societies that lack science education (or education in general). It's disturbing that the mob mentality is capable of justifying such things but hey...what harm is it to let people hold superstitious beliefs? Just because your neighbor believes that is grounds for hating those people, or that vaccinations cause , or any other belief that flies in the face of facts doesn't mean that it does any harm, right?

But what happens when those beliefs become more and more popular?

I know this is a slippery slope argument. At the same time I can't help but see how easily it could move from, "today it's not believing in your sky wizard that keeps me from winning a school board election or makes me unpopular at the office Xmas party and tomorrow it's a breakout of a disease in some town that kills several kids because these jackarses are too superstitious to get vaccinated." Is it really all that hard to imagine when the nation that prides itself as being superior to any other on the planet is also proud to advocate willful ignorance?

More Drivel Published As Fact-Going Rogue with Sarah Palin

Apparently the AP checked out some of the claims in Sarah Palin's new book, "Going Rogue", only to find that much like her ability to think critically the book is full of crap.

Harsh, I know, but seems according to the AP to be true. It fits with all the other facts that had been discovered about the woman's behavior patterns before and after the elections that it's hard to write this off as confirmation bias.

The article is found here.

From the sounds of it, this is a pre-campaign rally cry and platform builder, laced with distortions and lies. For people who are already pro-neo-conservatives or don't care about little things like facts the book is preaching to the choir. For those who didn't trust her the first time around and prefer facts over rhetoric the book is yet another example of what is wrong with the current Republican party.

(Thought for the day: while skepticism isn't inherently liberal or conservative, I do think that there are certain things that attract like minded individuals, much like you don't find many Amish doing system administration...)

Giving Kids a Leg Up from Your Own Experiences

One of the "near universals" you gain when you become a parent...if you like your kids, anyway...is the desire to give your kid the things you didn't have growing up. If you grew up wishing that your parents had given you more books, you shower your kids with Barnes and Noble gift cards at the first sign that they're interested in flipping pages. If you grew up with parents you felt were oh so restrictive then you try to give your kids more freedoms.

We want to give our kids the benefits of our experiences. We feel we knew what sucked from our childhood and don't want our kids to have to endure the things we did, or make the same stupid decisions we made.

But there's a problem with that thinking.

I thought about this after arguing with someone about the latest fads in education making the rounds in the public schools in the area. I lamented that the politicians dictating and mandating rules for schools to follow had little to no experience dealing with kids (or parents) in the classroom. The mandates are impossible to follow.

I was thinking about this recently when I was pondering what I'd do if I won the lottery (who hasn't dreamed about that?). I thought that one thing I would do is sponsor a deserving student in paying for college. I'd have slight stipulations, small conditions that if they broke the rules they would be on their own in paying for the courses, but if they stayed within the rules they'd get a free education. It would be a marvelous opportunity in a time when four years of college cost as much as my house.

Then I thought about the kids that have everything given to them. Kids that had a free Mercedes or Corvette, and if they wrecked it, Daddy would pay for another. The kids that have cell phones and treat them as if they're disposable...drop it in the toilet? Mommy will pay for another one tomorrow. Hell, if they don't like their phone for some reason, some have intentionally destroyed it so they'd get a new one.

These are kids that treat other people as property because, hey, if they're not of any use to you, why bother talking to them?

These are kids that have all the benefits I lacked growing up (and then some). And because they didn't know what it was like to have to experience some of the suckitude of the world they didn't realize just how good they have it.

I didn't have a bad childhood by any measure. Humans are hardwired to find the shortcomings in their lives and make that the "thing" that would make them happy; my family wasn't poor, but we didn't own a boat. I'd really love a boat. We never ended up homeless, but I wanted a treehouse. Things like that.

So if I made sure my kids eventually had a boat and treehouse, I'm pretty sure my kids would be impressed for all of an hour before wishing we had a bigger boat and a treehouse with outlets.

I extended this thinking to the kids that I had in mind for giving the opportunity for a college education. If I won the lottery. That part is important.

Unless they were kids that truly came from families struggling to meet the middle-class level of life, and truly wanted to have that college education and knew, truly knew that they were on the brink of not getting it, they'd never realize the opportunity they had.

Moreover, part of who I am today came from making stupid mistakes and lacking some of the things I wanted. So by depriving kids of some deprivation, I might not be doing them a favor. They'll end up lacking life lessons from their failures because I handed a success to them, rather than letting them fail and having them pick themselves back up.

I can tell my daughter about the things I ended up regretting in life. I can tell her and warn her and she'll still be the "typical teen". She blinks and stares without comprehension. She ignores what I'm saying, focusing instead on excuses for why XYZ happened rather than listening to the point.

She doesn't even bother reading the blog as far as I can tell. And this is full of lessons and ideas I've pondered and observed. If she wanted to know more about me, I'm pretty open on this website about my ideas. Not everything, of course. Some things are best left to discretion. But there's still a pretty honest baring of who I am here in this blog. She could not care less.

So maybe it's best if you have the means to simply spend that inheritance on yourself. The kids will simply squander it, and if you truly care for your kids you'll dole out the benefit of your wisdom in moderation. Let them make mistakes rather than give them the means to bypass what you recalled as a pain. Give them enough that they can stay out of jail, but not so much that they treat computers and game consoles and cell phones as if they were as disposable as paper towels.

Internet as a Valid Source

I have a kid in school. This child is old enough to do research papers. Said child has had many teachers say that she cannot use Internet resources as sources for papers and projects; she must cite "paper" sources, like newspapers and magazine articles. Sometimes there are particular web sites that they're allowed to use that are "valid" due to being subscription based or have parent companies that are based in the paper world (Time magazine's website, or the New York Times).

Why? Because any moron can put information on the Internet. Supposedly.

I think that teachers that use this line of reasoning clearly don't understand the nature of the Internet. Or their own chosen "Valid Citation" sources, for that matter.

They still think Wikipedia is inaccurate. There was a study done that compared Wikipedia with Britannica; the results were startlingly close. More importantly, if you are researching anything having to do with fringe or pop culture, Britannica was about as useful as a knife at a gunfight. I searched for the name Optimus Prime on Britannica's website and got a nonsense result (with offers to buy one on eBay...huh?). Wikipedia? Full character history, voice actor information, incarnations in various series...the whole shebang.

Wikipedia has also been making changes to help ensure accuracy in their articles as well.

Most sites that have information seem to draw a particular crowd; as such, the users gain a form of currency in reputation. Sites like StackOverflow and Serverfault have created entire communities based on reputation; the more you participate, the more reputation other users will give you as a reward for correct answers, the higher your reputation, the more authority you have.

There's a tacit acknowledgement in this when these luddites allow for "certain" online articles to be cited in research but not others; authority is the currency that matters. Popular sites on the Internet are popular because large numbers of people continue to visit them and use their information. Incorrect information can be separated out by the community.

But these teachers insist that printed sources carry authority because of their oversight; they have editors, while the webbertubes are governed like the wild west!

Hmm...that doesn't take into account incidents like the sheepskin pulled over Oprah's eyes by Mr. James Frey? Or reporters that make their information up completely? Including for big name news media like USA Today? Where was their oversight then?

The Fake Steve Jobs had an interesting article reviewing why mainstream media is dying. He outlines a story on TechCrunch examining a company called Zynga that was selling scam ads online with those stupid games like "FarmVille". The blog basically heavily slammed the company with proof of their scum tactics including a video clip when Pincus, the CEO of Zynga, told an audience of developers all about the things he did to generate revenue through those games.

The New York Times had a story about Zynga that completely neglected to mention any word about the ad revenue and scam tactics being used by them. It was all sunshine and rainbows being blown up Zynga's arse, and it gave Zynga positive press at a point when people should have been alerted that they're being ripped off.

Here, the online resources were more accurate and arguably more relevant than the "authoritative" New York Times.

It can also be argued that our media outlets are too biased to be taken seriously without a heavy dose of skepticism. Even searching for "media bias" on Google comes up with a site near the top of the rankings that "exposes the liberal bias of the media." The entire site is geared towards not giving you facts to interpret, but rather convince you that the media is run by evil liberals out to poison the minds of conservatives.

None of this addresses the real weakness of my daughter's teacher's view in using online resources; in research papers, you're supposed to use reason and research to back up your claims. You can't just cite one source for any fact and expect it to be taken as a given; you need multiple sources that verify the fact, or a line of reasoning that can lead you to reasonably conclude what the researcher concludes. Any idiot can parrot one thing they heard.

Hell...many of the "published" authorities do. How often do you run across the same articles nearly word for word, then realize they're all from the Associated Press? Five sources all using the same Associated Press as their source isn't five sources for your paper.

Even then, there are times when a clearly satirical news story was re-reported by "valid sources" as being true. Where was their authoritative oversight then?

The fact is that when properly researched (i.e., by applying cross-checking and reason to the topic at hand) the source of information is less important than the brains analyzing it. All the news being reported is coming from people and as such is going to be filtered (read: biased) in some way. Straight information is of little use to an audience; it must be interpreted to make sense, and that is part of the job of the researcher doing the paper. By encouraging students to only refer to and lay their unquestioning belief in certain news authorities these teachers are doing a grave disservice. They teach that there are definite authorities who should not be questioned rather than encouraging students to think and analyze information for themselves, and this is in my opinion yet another reason our students in the US are lacking in critical thinking skills.

Movies Sway the Masses?

I was listening to back episodes of the Skeptic's Guide to the Universe when they had a news blurb about UFO sightings in the UK that surge when alien-centric movies are released. I did a quick Google and found this story that basically corroborated what they said; example: Independence Day was released, and that year there were 609 sightings when the year before there were 117.

While at my followup for bariatric surgery I read a mini-magazine published by the hospital with various news reports. It said that a study found that teen smoking is finally going down. One of the reasons attributed? Movies aren't depicting smoking as cool anymore.

Of course, correlation does not imply causation. That doesn't mean there isn't a link. Just that it isn't definitive. You can't see that all the accidents in a small town involved a Ford and from that correlation assume that Ford vehicles are more accident prone.

But there is a trend in society that seems to bear out that people are really @#% stupid, or at least too stupid to think for themselves. I think we have some kind of wiring in our brains that likes to outsource stuff we don't like to think about and gradually it worms into our behaviors and attitudes. And it's scary.

Want people to stop smoking? Remove them from popular movies long enough, kids won't try it (fiercely independent, "You don't know me", etc. etc...kids, you're individuals with your own minds who apparently choose to do what everyone else does.)

Want them to see UFO's? Apparently all you need is a good sci fi movie in the box office.

Television has slowly started making science more "cool". Shows like Mythbusters, CSI, NCIS, Numb3rs, and Big Bang Theory make the geek the hero (finally) so it's okay to be the geek. Gradually...very gradually...like, ice age wall of ice creeping south gradually...is making the geek in school someone to regard with more respect than dirt. I don't see them being more popular than the jock but hey it's better than the old-school science nerd stereotype.

I don't know how to regard this. On one hand it's a great illustration of just how intellectually lazy people can be that they are manipulated by television and movies so overtly and yet they'll deny it when it's pointed out to them. On the other, I wonder if it isn't something with the way we're socially wired in the brain, that we need at some level acceptance of the flock, so when it's popular in a big movie and the people at the water cooler think it's great then maybe it's in our best interest to go along with the crowd as a social survival strategy.

Or maybe it's a good lesson to file away for use as a Future Dark Overlord (you listening to that, Mr. Scott Sigler?? Oh, yeah, I'm talking to you...)

What do you think of this? Social phenomena? Or is it just someone noticing that Fords are causing accidents in the home town?

Why Believe in God?

It's my birthday so I thought I'd post something that was kind of personal. Unfortunately this tends to tick other people off. At least it does in real life if I were to bring it up. I learned a long time ago that religion and politics are two things that people would rather not rationally discuss so I avoid it and pretty much assume it's topica non-grata. I don't get much feedback from the blog on the topic, so I didn't think it would hurt that much to bring it up here. This is kind of an off-the-cuff rant (I think it's called stream of consciousness, or something similar to it) so if the lack of structure is something else that bothers you that's another reason to move on to another day's topic.

I don't believe in a god.

And I don't understand why other people do.

It's a copout to say that perhaps my atheism stems in part from my tendency to value reason over emotion, or the quirk where if I see an inconsistency in reasoning it is something I cannot unsee. I was raised as a methodist but from a very young age I simply couldn't accept Christianity as the answer to all the questions I had.

I have come to believe that people believe in gods because it is simple. If you don't understand it, God did it. And people who profess to believe in a neverending spirit living for eternity will blindly follow whatever religion they feel comfortable with...I don't see them thinking critically about this, they just do it. And it perplexes me. You're gambling on your eternal soul without critically evaluating your religion?

I think this is in part to how complicated things really are and how we're wired to handle complicated things.

People by default use stereotypes as a shortcut for evaluating situations. We assume the guy in a police uniform is a cop. He might be. He might not be. There are stories of women being pulled over by cars with dash lights and a man in a uniform who then proceed to rape them. There are numerous advice columns I've read that say if anything seems suspicious, you should proceed to a well-lit public area to pull over (indicating you are going to pull over and acknowledge the officer) or keep the door locked and window up and demand to see a badge and have them call for another officer to come as well.

We assume things about certain races, situations, uniformed people, and while not true, they often turn out to be somewhat accurate, or accurate enough that we can free our mental processing space for other tasks. People simply aren't willing to ask questions about the universe or take time to understand the scientific method. Unfortunately, our country (the US) is largely scientifically illiterate.

I have heard people say that there's no way for us to know about extrasolar planets (they don't use those terms, though). I don't pretend to know every detail. But I do know that there's multiple ways scientists have verified it. Even if I did, the person that says that probably wouldn't understand lensing, gravity's effects on light, how a large mass moving in front of a star affects the perception of the star from Earth over time, or even how the planetary object of sufficient mass affects light from a star when the object is behind the star. We can even get an idea of the makeup of the atmosphere with very sensitive light receptors and seeing what an analysis of the spectrum of light hitting Earth shows as the planet moves in front of the light source.

See, these are things that scientists cannot make up. they cannot on a whim declare that there's another planet out there. They are using methods and reasoning that can be duplicated by other people. And as of this writing there are over 370 extrasolar planets confirmed using these methods.

Intuitively I cannot follow the religious teachings I have been given. I ask questions and never get satisfactory answers that cannot be rephrased, basically, "Because I said so."

• Why did God create us?
• What does Satan get from an eternity of picking on God by playing with people?
• Wouldn't Satan have something better to do? Or God, for that matter?
• Why do you have faith in a book that has been retranslated many many times over a centuries and is still having some translations in dispute?
• Why should I believe the interpretation of the Bible from someone who may not even know that Jesus' native tongue wasn't English?
• How can the Bible preach love and understanding (which Jesus does, from the versions I have read) be used to justify hate crimes?
• Have you stopped to think about where all the water in the great flood came from, or where it went? (Into the Earth really isn't possible. Do some math to find out why.)
• If there were one small family on the ark, doesn't that mean that everyone on Earth now would be inbred?
• Where is historical evidence of Jesus outside the Bible?
• Why does God have His followers interpret (and according to each other, misinterpret) His word and intentions rather than just make a really big planetwide broadcast of His will?
• Why did God apparently spend a lot of time a couple thousand years ago performing astounding feats and personally interceding in disputes and society affairs, then disappear entirely?
• Why is the Catholic church currently banning sharing a chalice for ceremonies out of fear of H1N1, if they believe that God will protect them in their one true faith?
• Why is it that the Bible is held to be the sacred word of God, but there is still so much "wiggle room" for interpretation, or worse, followers cherry pick what they want or don't want and follow their own version of religion, still believing that everyone else is wrong?
• If God does not want certain behaviors, why does He allow for them to exist?
• If we are allowed to sin because of free will, why would he punish us with eternal pain and torment after spending our entirely lives playing "it was all a test" with my life?
• I hear people say "I have nothing to lose by believing in God and everything to gain." Wouldn't it suck to be a careful practicing Methodist to find out the Catholics were right all along? Take your pick...there's only a couple hundred possible religions to follow here.
• If the only thing getting me into Heaven is knowledge of Jesus, what happens to the mentally retarded, or those that are raised in a situation where they are never exposed to religion? Do they go to Hell because of ignorance?
• If ignorance is allowed...like babies who die young, the mentally retarded, etc...why are you condemning me to Hell by telling me about your religion?
• If we cannot possibly understand the nature of God or his will, at what level of understanding are we deemed fit to enter Heaven? On a scale of ignorance, I mean...
• If there was no physical union with Mary, was Jesus a clone? How could a male have conceived from the DNA material of a lone woman?
• If God loves me, why would he torture me when He won't come down and have a personal chat with me? He surely knows what it would take to have me believe in Him. He can create the universe but not spare ten minutes to say hello without some mediary showing up at my door spouting his interpretation of what He wants?
  

Those are just some of the questions I've had. I think they're legitimate. Other people think I'm apparently just being snarky. but after not having answers to these things for so long, I gave up listening.

Science doesn't know everything. But I've rarely encountered a rabid follower of a major religion who has tried to understand the nature of the conclusions of science. Their eyes glaze over and they start ignoring the evidence...they never understand that what science does explain cannot be simply written off as a miracle or pulled from a hat. And there are things that it explains that contradict what's in the Bible.

"Well, the stories are meant to guide us, they're not literally true," some say.

I'm pretty sure the Bible was meant to be taken at face value. Over time it has morphed into some morpheous blob that is okay to interpret when convenient for many people, probably to try to reconcile those things that contradict in the Bible and real life experiences while still using it as a handy mental putty for filling in gaps of intellectual knowledge or sense.

Besides, if you can interpret the stories as not really happening or being modified or changed over time, what can you believe as being true versus just stories? Why are parts something to gamble your soul on for eternity while other parts are just myths for illustrating points?

When I was younger I decided to follow religion based on the idea that if I were born in a village with no established religion, how would I know what to believe?

Surely a Christian God wouldn't only base his country club membership policy on who has read his book. Otherwise people who were innocent would suffer.

I look around and see a wonderous world of complicated machinations. And there may be a time where I would have thought of sky wizards creating balls of light, or stories to explain the stars.

But science analyzes how these things work. Based on evidence and sound theories (and there's a definition for the word theory as used in science that does NOT MEAN some untested idea I pulled out of my arse...otherwise you couldn't be able to take a course in college on music theory). Based on evidence science sets out to explain the natural world. We learned the nature of stars. We have math and simulations that explain fusion energy, spectral analysis to verify what our star is made of, and the math to predict how long the sun will last. We have dopplar shift to show how stars are moving away (or towards) our position in the universe.

That's the major difference between religion and science. What science establishes must be based on sound reasoning and logic. Religions can say the planet is held up on the backs of turtles, and if you ask where the turtles came from there is little more than dismissive hand waving.

I can't live with that.

Maybe others can. My priorities lay in finding or understanding truths. I may not get those answers in my lifetime, but I know there is a quest to find them. Religion settles for "good enough", with threats of torture if you question too much.

I wonder if other people are simply content with prioritizing comfort over knowing. It's easy to just say God did it. It's hard to understand fancy things like relativity.

I don't know and the more I think about it the more I think I'm wired to not understand why people do this. As long as it's not affecting me, that's okay. You can believe whatever you want. I only have a problem with it when religious folks start legislating their beliefs on me. I hate laws that make no rational sense or are inconsistent. I mean, sodomy laws? I don't care what you do in your home. As long as I don't have to participate and I don't have to deal with it and if others are involved they are doing so voluntarily, I don't have an issue with it. So why do you have to burden our already overburdened and archaic sets of laws with more idiotic paperwork?

In the end, science works. Religion...I've found no evidence of it. Science gives us microwave ovens, CD's, and cell phones with more computing power than the systems that put men on the moon. The same people that denounce the scientific evidence for evolution and all things contrary to their beliefs have no trouble driving cars with laser-welded frames and watching televisions getting images and data from plain old wires in the ground or satellites held up in the sky by more than magic.

In the end it doesn't matter. I'm one voice in the confusion and chaos and I'll eventually die having left little if any footprint in the world. I'm certainly not going to convert anyone into taking more of a reasonable approach to life or existence. But I will still vent on occasion in forums like this. For better or worse. Anyone else have thoughts on this?

It's probably time for me to go out and not have birthday cake...

H1N1 Flu Vaccine Nonsense

I work in a place with a large population of people who have the opportunity-for free-to get the H1N1 flu shot. I was saddened and downright appalled at the amount of ignorance and sheer stupidity being spread about getting the shot.

Like the stupid email scams that keep showing up every few months in my inbox as forwards, these rumors and mistruths are still being spread by the legions of ignorati. The CDC recommends that 80% of our population get vaccinated from the flu. A whopping 40% actually do. (citation)

"The flu shot can make me sick!"
No, the flu shot is a dead virus. It stimulates an immune reaction from the body, but it's dead. It won't make you sick.

"There's mercury in the shot! It'll poison you! It causes Autism!"
No, that ingredient was removed decades ago. And yet autism rates continued to climb. There no mercury in the shot.

The definition of Autism has been expanded so more people are now being diagnosed with Autism (you have any idea how recently Aspergers, part of the spectrum of Autism, was officially made a disorder? Not long ago at all...1992!

Not that a little thing like facts will ever shut some idiot with a platform from decrying the same bull@#$ over and over, the same lies and distortions that will end up killing people. If people actually looked into the background on that flake they might not be so ready to believe what she's spouting.

Worse, there's a concept of herd immunity. Basically there are some people that can't get the shot because of allergy or health reasons. So they rely on you not getting the disease to keep them healthy. People in the US buying the anti-vax rhetoric end up acting as carriers to spread the disease to others.

And it's silly to think that there are children who could die from this simply because you can't be bothered to get a simple shot.

Anyway there are plenty of intelligent skeptics that are rallying to debunk the crap that anti-vaccination nuts are spreading.

http://www.immunizenc.com/FluFactsMyths.htm

http://richarddawkins.net/article,4465,An-Open-Letter-to-Bill-Maher-on-Vaccinations,Michael-Shermer

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=2116

http://www.antivaxxers.com/

http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=444

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=851

Check those links out. No doubt there's always going to be reasons that the fringe will feel justified in perpetuating their anti-science theories, no matter what they're told, but if you're an otherwise reasonable person sitting on the fence after hearing some nonsense about how the shot will end up killing mankind, read those links. They should address your questions nicely. There's no reason to stand by and let others end up suffering because you couldn't be bothered to do something relatively simple.

Is the Bible Outdated? Asperger Observations

This was interesting to me...and it may piss off some others who read it and happen to be religious. If you are religious and prone to getting bent out of shape by someone's opinion, skip to tomorrow's post or yesterday's. If you decide you're curious enough for this post then do us both a favor and read it the entire way through. If you want to respond, go ahead with the comments, as long as they're constructive and preferably have some reasoning to back up and support your view. I'd rather not close comments on the blog because someone wants to be an arse-head.

I mentioned previously that I had a wonderful time reading Look Me In the Eye by John Elder Robison. I really recommend it. I was about to put the book into my sacred storage area where I could have it for reference in the future...a bit of clutter programming in my head, I suppose, wherein I stash things I think I might want later because I really liked them...but instead I passed the copy on to my mother in law (and perhaps father in law) to read in hopes that they may understand me a little better. I believed that while I would love to put it into my storage area the book will be useful only if the words carry on in other people's minds, and the only way to do that is pass it along. So I did.

Moving on...I also mentioned in that blog post that John Elder has a blog. Well, he posted an interesting observation regarding religion. The question seemed to have been posted innocently, but it is one that I've often pondered in my own head and made observations regarding. It's a really touchy subject though. Big surprise. Usually when I've tried to explore it with other people...and I don't personally know other Aspies in realspace, since I'm rather isolated socially (and most Aspies aren't social butterflies anyway, another big surprise) I end up offending people which I find out after the fact. Or right to my face when they get really huffy and start getting petulant or just flat out angry or insulted, thinking I'm calling them stupid. It makes it really difficult to puzzle things out when other people from whom you're trying to get information and understanding aren't cooperative.

He (John Elder) stated that he's spiritual, but not in an organized religion of sorts. He was asked by a researcher why Aspergians tend to not follow religious organizations. On reflection it seemed that other Aspies he's met weren't religious either, and this researcher was actually collecting (or had collected) data regarding this topic and found that apparently most aren't religious. Coincidence?

Here's what I can say:
Aspergers seems to create a predisposition towards reason and logic. We prefer working for results, not warm fuzzy feelings. We prefer working with people we deem effective, not "nice".

I've been told by someone neurotypical and close to me that they have seen the trend where the more educated people tend to be liberal in their beliefs, and the less educated tend to be neo-Republican. The Republican party in the US is famous for their family value platform, Bible values platform, as well as their willingness to murder thousands of foreigners in war (as long as the guys in suits don't have to go and get shot at) and the all too common scandal of yet another affair from Republican figureheads. It's not limited to them, but they're the ones generally telling their supporters they'll burn in Hell on the pulpit...er, campaign platform...before retiring to their office for some alone time with their cute senate page. Have to make it a quickie though...they have to get to the floor in time to vote on the laws they proposed that make what they just did more illegal.

The poor tend to be more religious. Could that be part of the reason that the generally more impoverished live along the Bible Belt in the US?

Religion (speaking of Christian religion in Northeastern USA, since that is the kind I'm personally exposed to) is full of fallacies and contradictions. The Bible is wonderful in that it can justify everything from kindness to strangers and justifying banning abortions for the sanctity of life to killing homosexuals. If you have a view of something, chances are you and someone who disagrees with you will find some way the Bible supports your view.

But Barry! You said religion has fallacies and contradictions, but you talk about the Bible! The above mentioned the Bible in particular, but religion is worse, as it is basically an interpretation of the Bible by people. Many religions are based on the Bible yet there are how many sects you can join? There are the big ones, of course, like the Catholics and Baptists and Methodists. The major religions take potshots at groups like the Mormons for being a cult. But the even The Family is based on the Bible as well. Check them out if you want to see how wild things get.

Hypocrisy is rampant in various organized religions. I've known Mormons swigging caffeinated beverages and downing chocolate. Priests are in the news for turning altar boys into altar men. I know regular church attendees who hate particular people for their features or actions or traits...where's the Christian love Jesus was so fond of? I roomed with a guy in college who refused to utter a single swear word (even though I don't see the difference it made when he simply substituted another word for the curse...other than it annoyed the hell out of me. Frick this, frick that, gosh darnit...I wanted to punch him square in the mouth). This same guy was heard thumpin' the ceiling over the living room area of the common room of the college apartment when his girlfriend visited, and since she lived on campus, it was every, @#%-ing, night. I asked him how he could profess to be so religious when getting more tail than most prostitutes.

"I'm human and have failings. I ask for forgiveness for them."

So it's not religion that has the failings, it's the people...

I've also observed that the religious tend to not understand much of what they're talking about with issues related to their religion. I don't think most have any idea that Jesus, if he existed, didn't speak English. We still have people who every Christmastime insist that "Xmas" is trying to remove the Christ from Christmas. Makes a good headline and riles up the followers, but it's wrong. Wrong wrong wrong. Yet even when shown the proof I've had people insist their view was correct.

These are just some of the issues I had with religion while growing up.

If anything, I became a full atheist when I finally realized that with all the hypocrisy, contradictions, and ignorance I was encountering I simply couldn't live with what I felt were too many inconsistencies in the stories. I couldn't live with the idea that I would be living a lie. It came down to basically a question of would you rather be ignorant of what is happening and be happy, or know the truth and be miserable? It turns out that I'd rather know the truth.

I'm beginning to think this may be partially due to the Asperger's. There may also be a correlation between people being of liberal bias and having higher education, and true atheism and education (true atheism since I wouldn't count the people who have a "falling out" with God and thus say they're an atheist for it; they're just being pissy about something that happened to them, not seeking a higher truth). This correlation does not imply causation, but it does give one pause to scratch one's head a moment for some reflection.

This sounds arrogant. I'm simply stating what I've come to believe after a couple decades of observation and my own studies. Of course there's much more to it than I state here, but this is one facet of my understanding. And it pisses people off.

I don't know how to sugar coat it.

Even reactions to this give me a bit of a curiosity since in some cases it incites a lot of vitriol...when in most Christian sects, I'm supposed to be considered a wayward sheep in need of finding my way back with compassion. Another case of hypocrisy? I don't worry about it any more.

I don't know what the answers are with absolute certainty. But I do know what I've observed, and I know I've had many questions of religions that fail to have adequate answers. In the end people don't want to entertain the idea that they're wrong. They are happy with their beliefs. And I don't care what you believe as long as I don't suffer for what you believe. Myths, sky wizards, doublethink, whatever floats your boat. Just don't bother me unless you're willing to have an actual reasoned discussion. I have enough legislated morality to swim through in my world already.

I'll be interested to see what comments John Elder's blog post receives. I worry that some people will dismiss my opinions more then they already do if they associate my atheism with being "brain damaged" with Asperger's when perhaps it should give some pause to the fact that if there is a strong correlation, maybe they should wonder why people who are wired to see things through a nonemotional filter see religion as a sham, in general. But on the other hand maybe it's another reason to just leave my brain-damaged self alone.

Does Democracy Rely on Free Press?

I was listening to Episode 67 of StackOverflow and heard Jeff and Joel talking about Craigslist. Apparently Joel Spolsky is not a fan. Details are in the show notes if you're interested.

That part that caught my ear was Joel saying that free press is necessary for democracy to work. Countries like North Korea get away with lunacy in part because of state-run and state-controlled press. In the US, he argued, Craigslist was taking away the revenue stream from the press, meaning more newspapers are shutting down and thus are harming our democratic system. At least, I think that's what he's saying. If not he can feel free to comment here and correct me.

I got to wondering about that. What makes democracy work (I should probably note that we're not a democracy per-se, but a Representative Republic or Representative Democracy instead of a Direct Democracy) is participation of the people. If the people care, we find a way to get what we want.

Joel was saying that without the free press, the people aren't informed of corruption in the government. Scandals and atrocities are hidden away.

In my view these things already happen in plain sight. People just don't care. Ever talk to a teenager? They're in many respects not all that different from adults. My own teenage daughter didn't know that the movie Catch Me If You Can was based on a true story. Despite the fact we watched it. And told her that. And saw it in the news at the time.

Oh, sure, one anecdote does not a trend make. The problem is that there are numerous examples. And her friends, too, tend to be on the bubble-headed side. Ignorant of the world around them not just in the stereotypical Americans wanting a familiar McDonalds while touring Japan type ignorance (what the hell is a "mega muffin"??) but rather the ignorance of not having any clue of what's going on right in their home town or in the local news when it's being discussed right in front of them.

There's been a trend emphasized more since the Bush administration was in power (with allegations of his administration being heavily anti-science) that our culture has shifted to having a pride in ignorance. Intelligence was to be mocked; you were "too good" for everyone else if you were proud of having a PhD or being interested in science. What comes of that? Ignorance of what your government is doing, for one.

The fact that most people are struggling now to pay bills and just keep a roof over their heads have taken front seat to caring about how our government is screwing us over. Look at the PA legislature; they've screwed over their budget, still taking vacations and breaks instead of hammering out a budget plan. Schools are taking out million dollar loans with one district saying they may not be able to pay teachers (with the ignorati saying, "So what? They're overpaid anyway" to do a job that you'll notice they themselves aren't willing to do; put up with other people's kids...), government offices are cutting hours, others are cutting staff and doubling up workloads. Strange enough they don't seem to accept my excuse when they want taxes and fees paid that I just didn't have it budgeted right now. Nice double standard.

Yet I've heard nothing of people complaining to their representatives. I've heard no angry protests at this dereliction of duty. No flooding them with phone calls. Worse, come election time, I'm sure plenty of these people will be reelected.

It's not that a lack of free press is necessary for democracy to work. It's the people willing to work for democracy. We've enjoyed a lot of good times and somewhere along the way we gained a sense of entitlement to ignorance that is filtering up to those who are now adults. We willingly give responsibility to think for ourselves up and allow others to think for us. Free press is worthless when the people won't read about the issues unless it's in the form of a textspeak twitterfart online and when anything over a paragraph in length is ignored.

Joel, it isn't Craigslist that threatened people's access to information and democracy. It's the laziness of the people.

But otherwise...keep up the great work, both of you (Jeff Atwood and Joel Spolsky)...