Go Speedy!

I'm just plain sick of hypersensitivity, and unfortunately this country is full of it. Please don't interpret this as an endorsement of intolerance, racism, or anything like that. But there's a huge difference between aggressing against someone (i.e. taking action to hurt someone) and having a sense of humor. That being said, today's "Get Over Yourself" award goes to the Mexican postal system, which has been the recipient of sharp criticism from America's sensitivity brigades over a new stamp series they've released.

Seems the stamp includes a caricature of a black individual, and apparently all cartoons have to pass the race warlord sensitivity test or they just can't be tolerated (even in other countries). But hats off to the Mexicans, who had the sense to point out that they understand that Speedy Gonzalez is just a cartoon, and they're confident that Americans can make that leap when it comes to Mexican stamps. Slam dunk! Good job Mexico!

Next thing you know we'll hear how Bill Cosby's Fat Albert cartoon was "insensitive" because it made light of obesity. Oh, wait a minute .... Bill Cosby has already shown that he's "insensitive" to the black community. He's dared assert that individual responsibility is an essential ingredient for success. How foolish of me ......

Take Me Back

One of the nice things about several of my friends is that they send me stuff that I usually wouldn't find on my own. Today I got a really novel list of things that differ between America in 1905 and 2005. While much of it focuses upon how (relatively) underdeveloped America was in 1905 (i.e. technology, infrastructure, etc.), there were a few things that were just too good to pass up commenting upon:

"Canada passed a law that prohibited poor people from entering into their country for any reason."

Oh for shame! Imagine anyone wanting to keep their country affluent and reasonably crime-free. Imagine anyone wanting to preserve a common culture and not throw the doors open to any vagrant who just happens to wander in. Imagine not wanting your provided social services to become overburdened. Aren't you really glad we don't think that way today .... especially along our southern border?

"Marijuana, heroin, and morphine were all available over the counter at the local corner drugstores."

Wow ... and you mean life went on without the Imperial Federal Government wasting billions of dollars fighting a War on Drugs (a.k.a. The War on the Bill of Rights)? Impossible.

"Eighteen percent of households in the U.S. had at least one full-time servant or domestic help."

Cool. That means people who had limited job skills could still support themselves even without flipping burgers. Moreover, it means 18% of US households could afford domestic help.

"There was no Mother's Day or Father's Day."

Now that's hitting below the belt! No Hallmark Holidays to guilt people into spending money for schlock and kitsch? Astounding!

"With a mere 1.4 million people, California was only the 21st most populous state in the Union."

What a pleasant thought. A state of California without the fruits, nuts, and massive government that they just can't stop themselves from exporting at every opportunity. How did the nation survive?

Of course, no list is complete, and so I'd like to add 5 things that were right about 1905 but may seem shocking and alien today:

1. There was no income tax. That's right -- none. Every dollar you earned was yours by right.
2. The federal government was, especially by today's standards, tiny. It also followed the Constitution much more closely than it does today, although Teddy Roosevelt was starting to ignore it when it suited his purposes.
3. Federalism still existed. States were different, laws were different, and if you didn't like the way one state ran its affairs you were free to move on to another one that suited your tastes.
4. People were held accountable for their actions. If you were too stupid to be safe, it was your problem. If you invested unwisely, none of your neighbors were forced to subsidize your poor judgement.
5. Private property meant "private property". It was yours by right, not because the government graciously allowed you to use it as long as they didn't decide to take it. [BTW -- a pox those 5 Supreme Court justices who ruled today that municipalities can use eminent domain to seize private property so that private developers can build better tax-producing projects. Our founders are no doubt spinning in their graves.]

To be honest, though, 1905 was too close to the beginning of the end of liberty in America (a.k.a. the FDR years) to be really appealing. Given the opportunity, I'd rather go back to 1805. That would have really been the time to address the bad things about America (i.e. slavery, racism, excessive reliance on religion) while keeping the good.

If anyone develops a time travel system, please let me know. I'm not too busy these days .....

Devilish Faith

A friend of mine sent me this story today about a Romanian nun who was crucified by a priest and other nuns, and I just had to share it. This was supposed to drive out a "devil" that was "possessing" her. More evidence that deep religious conviction and schizophrenia are probably one in the same. Unfortunately, someone had to die in this case.

Perhaps one day humanity will grasp that "spirituality" is at best irrational, and at worst deadly.

High on Spirits

It never ceases to fascinate me how people can rationalize virtually anything that happens to fit their needs. No doubt this is some kind of evolutionarily useful development. After all, the ability to ignore what appears to be hopeless and press on can have certain uses. No doubt many successful inventors, researchers and investors can look back at a time in their lives when they pushed ahead with something that seemed utterly hopeless, and yet they managed to find a way around the bottleneck and ultimately succeed. In retrospect, we can even see what exactly it was that they figured out and marvel at their vision and determination. Of course, this process of learning through experience requires a certain respect for empirical evidence if it's going to yield objective results.

Two recent stories in the news have led me to think about this: the autopsy results for Terri Shiavo, and some of the comments made by the mother of the girl who has disappeared on the island of Aruba.

Shiavo's autopsy report rather clearly shows that her brain was about half the size it should have been, that she was blind, and that her brain damage certainly was sufficient to result in a permanent vegetative state. Case closed, right? Nope. Her parents, no doubt fueled by their belief system, are still insisting that their daughter could "interact" with them. Does it ever cross their minds that their perceptions could be flawed? Could their lack of understanding of profound brain damage have led them to misinterpret things? Of course not. Theology and rationalization trump scientific fact.

Then there's Beth Holloway Twitty of Alabamastan, mother of Natalee Holloway. While I would love to see it turn out that Natalee is healthy and happy somewhere else (perhaps she chartered a boat one evening to escape from her overly religious mother and is now enjoying a new life elsewhere) -- I have my serious doubts. She's probably dead, perhaps murdered by some combination of the three kids now in jail. Hopefully, they'll be identified and punished.

But what I find so interesting is how Beth falls back on the ill-tempered and vindictive "god" of the Old Testament --- and the fact that no one in the media is even a little tempted to point out how irrational this is. Two comments that I've really liked are:

"I have no choice but to stay strong. I was somehow chosen for this [situation] and I've got to see it to the end."

Then, just a few minutes ago on the news, I heard her being quoted as having said that until "god" told her otherwise, she was going to assume that her daughter was alive.

Earth to Beth!: If your "god" would orchestrate this kind of hellish experience, perhaps you ought to seriously think about whether or not this "god" is as good as his press releases claim. What could possibly be more sadistic than taking a child from a mother, letting the mother suffer for weeks, and then ultimately informing the mother that the child is dead? If any living being did this, we'd consider this criminal behavior. Yet the faithful can somehow twist their minds to believe that their loving "god" has a good reason for doing this. In fact, they can point to other stories of "god" in a mood (i.e. the stories of Job and Abraham/Isaac in the OT) to "prove" that events like this are to "test" their faith or some other such flapdoodle.

I have no doubt that the faithful (perhaps even someone reading this -- assuming anyone does) could come up with a splendid rationalizations for any of the above-described behavior. Maybe it's a psychological defense mechanism that makes it easier to get through life. However, if we're going to continue to not only allow but also publically glorify this kind of irrational thinking, I think we should - if only out of fairness - end the war on drugs (a.k.a. the war on the Bill of Rights). After all, if one can legally warp reality with religion, how is that substantively different from getting high?