Berlzebub's Inferno

10 Christian Questions Answered by an Atheist

2009-12-10T13:46:00.010-05:00

Hemant Mehta of The Friendly Atheist found a list of 10 questions asked of Christians by David Hayward. As an exercise, Hemant posted the same questions and asked them of atheists. You will find the questions [in italics, and with a '*' at the end to denote those asked by Mr. Mehta] and my answers to them below the fold.

Do I truly believe that everyone has the right to their own beliefs or lack thereof?

Can I respect the person, even though I may not respect their ideas?

Do I have the capacity to recognize my own fallacies?

Will it kill me if I were wrong?

Am I able to hold what I believe is truth lightly in the interest of dialog?

too important

Can I overlook and maybe even appreciate the idiosyncrasies of others in order to hear what they have to say?

Am I willing to discern the deeper currents rather than being distracted by the surface ripples?

deepity

Can everyone play? In other words, will I not ostracize someone because of their beliefs or lack thereof?

Is personal harm to others the only prohibition I am willing to make?

Do I love all beings, and if not, am I willing?

At what point is being right more important than being approachable/likable?*

Is there any time it’s ok to cede “points” to the other person just to keep the relationship strong?*

I'm hoping someone will develop a similar set of questions without the esoteric meanings that are in this one. While I agree that getting both sides to answer questions is a good way to get a dialog going, if the questions aren't clear to both sides then they are all but useless.

Dove Deepity #2: Thank Those You Love

2009-12-09T12:45:00.005-05:00

I got another Dove chocolate, today. This time Princess had put it into my lunch, but I still opened it with slow trepidation. What I read wasn't as "Wait... What?" as the last time, but it still leaves me feeling glad that there was at least real chocolate.

Express your gratitude to those you love.

This one didn't have an attribution, so I expect that they just included it because it's a common enough saying in our culture. Still, there are a few reasons why I consider it a deepity.

Excessive Purple Prose:
Notice my title compared to what the quote actually was. Sometimes, to make something seem deep and insightful people will use a string of 50 cent words where a penny word will suffice. Such as "express your gratitude to" instead of "thank".

It's too limiting:
Instead of "those you love" what about "everyone who has helped you". I would expect that means you would thank those you love, and those you meet sometimes just in passing. The message they are giving implies just thinking those you love instead of everyone who's aided you in some way.

Why not "love" instead of "gratitude"?
Instead of thanking them, shouldn't you actually tell those you love that you love them? If all you ever do is show gratitude then you would have to assume that they know you love them. I have actually seen people who have difficulty in expressing affection, and instead "thank" those they love. Sometimes they do so without using words, such as giving gifts. However, if they were to actually tell someone they loved them, it would mean even more since it is so difficult for them to admit.

I've actually submitted something to Dove, but I'm going to see if they actually accept it. I'll keep you posted, and if they do you can decide if it's a deepity.

Xmas Ideas

2009-12-08T14:26:00.003-05:00

Since I know Princess reads this, I'll put up some ideas for (tongue in cheek) Xmas gifts.

Here's the first one:

From Blog

The only thing better would be having Summer Glau to recite:

"We'll have to call it early quantum state phenomenon. Only way to fit 5000 species of mammal on the same boat."

And here's another one:

From Blog

Isn't this much more thought provoking than that other version?

Greed as a Tool

2009-12-07T16:45:00.017-05:00

A few years ago a few coworkers applied for a job that had been posted online. When they told me about it I knew what the result would be, but none of them seemed to care. More recently, an elderly husband and wife, Patricia and Jerry Tackes, used up all of their savings, to the tune of more than $78,000, in an attempt to accomplish the same thing.

With my coworkers it was more mundane. For a $5 "processing fee" they could get a job compiling spreadsheets provided by some big name companies. Each of the spreadsheets would take a relatively short amount of time, less than 8 hours a week, but they would receive a $5,000 paycheck for their work. When they told me about the amount they would make flags went up in my head, but when they told me about the processing fee blaring alarms started going off.

Each of them blew it off, saying that it would only cost them $5 which wasn't much. They tried to convince me to join, but I just shook my head and told them I wasn't going to waste my money. The day came when the spreadsheets were supposed to be emailed to everyone, but nothing came. I managed not to say "It was only five dollars" when they started complaining. Apparently, several of them had been making plans for how they were going to use the 5K that they now would never get.

The monetary investment had only been five dollars, but they had an emotional investment that went along with it. Some planned on paying off their houses and other bills using the money, others planned on buying a house or replacing a car, and still others planned on going back to school.

My coworkers used "It's only $5" as reasoning to justify their greed. The couple in the article?

"We're honest," she said. "We were raised Catholic, and we just believe everybody. It's just torn up our whole life."

Yes, I said that even the 83 year old and her husband were being greedy.

Websters defines greed as: "a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (as money) than is needed". However, I think there's more to it than that. Greed is not only wanting more than you need, but also getting it in a way that requires less effort. Why work a few years of 40 hour weeks to get $100,000 in installments when you can rob a bank and get the entire amount in a few minutes?

With my coworkers the $5,000 a week carrot dangling in front of them made the $5 "processing fee" less questionable. The woman who'd been organizing the work disappeared that day and took the money with her. It's unknown how many people had given her $5 for the fee, but she was supposedly looking for 500 employees. I'll save you the math and tell you that's $2,500, but you also have to wonder if she actually stopped if the list reached 500. Some how, I doubt it.

With the Tackes, the end payout of millions made them less questionable of the mounting fees that they were being asked to pay to get it. However, it didn't seem to occur to them that they were being conned until their savings was entirely cleaned out. This was even after a Moneygram employee told Mrs. Tackes that it was a scam.

In each of these cases the tactics used were illegal, but there are even legal ways of using our greed against us. Casinos are able to make the big payouts to small groups of people because the majority loose more than that amount to the casinos. Everyone playing is trying to get the big payout, but the loosers are paying the casinos and the winners. Every lottery and raffle their is works on the same principle. The intent is to offset the amount that the winner makes by taking the money from the loosers. The additional money goes to those organizing the gambling.

Have you ever noticed that high volume sale items, such as milk, are located towards the back of a grocery store, or that those end cap advertising sales in grocery stores have items that you wouldn't normally think about buying? When you walk in just to grab a gallon of milk you have to walk by all of those other items that you weren't thinking about buying, and you may start wondering which of those you need at home or remember something that you would have waited to buy later. When you're doing your regular shopping they put the low-volume items on sale where they are the most visible, which is at the end of every aisle. Normally you wouldn't give them a second glance but now they're very visible and on sale. In both cases the grocery store is angling for an impulse buy, and this goes back to my proposed addition to "greed".

In the case of the additional items while you're just picking up the milk you may think "I'm already here anyway", even though you may be able to find it cheaper somewhere else. In the case of the end-caps they're hoping for you to think "hey this is cheaper than it normally is". In each case it's a way of preying on our inclination to put forth less effort for a greater result.

Now the question is what causes us to be greedy? If you include my proposed aspect of putting forth little effort it could be an evolutionary trait. Many predators go after weak prey, and that's their best option. If they go after a healthy and strong one they'll get better meat, but a fit prey is more likely to injure or elude the predator.

Being "greedy" is a good survival trait. An early human hunting with a spear has a much higher likelihood of providing a meal and much lower likelihood of injury than a human trying to take the prey bare handed. Trapping is even a way of using the greed of other animals for our own ends. Unfortunately, this trait can be used against us, too. Get-rich-quick schemers, swindlers, and businesses employee quite a bit of psychology when developing their ideas. In essence, their greed entices them to use our own against us.

Another thing I've noticed is that the "greed" trait is dominate as long as the carrot is being dangled in front of the person. As long as the $5,000 a week paycheck, or the millions in lottery money were still possible the people reasoned away the idea that they were wasting their time and money. However, after it became completely clear that they'd been conned they felt angry and hurt. They refused to listen to anyone trying to tell them they were being had, but then expect sympathy when it's all over.

My coworkers seemed irritated that I didn't give them any sympathy. When they first told me about it, I explained why I thought it was a scam. When they finally lost all hope that it wasn't a scam (the woman disappeared with their money) they couldn't believe that someone would do such a thing. They tried to play on emotion to develop sympathy for their stupidity. They only lost $5 to the woman, but they wanted something emotional reciprocated from someone for their feelings of betrayal.

Mrs. Tackes is apparently surprised that people would do such a thing.

"We're honest," she said. "We were raised Catholic, and we just believe everybody. It's just torn up our whole life."

PZ thinks that this implies that she was raised a victim, but I'm not so sure. I wonder if it is a way to generate sympathy. Perhaps by identifying herself and her husband as Catholic other Catholics will take up a collection to help alleviate the financial impact? This is purely conjecture, but would anyone be surprised?

Also, there's another thing that she said that raises a flag:

"We were going to move into (a) retirement home, but now we don't have the money. I just want to help other people who are in the same predicament."

Patricia is 83 and I'm assuming her husband Jerry is about the same age, they had enough money to move into a retirement home, and I'm also assuming that their intent to move into the retirement home meant they had enough that they could live there comfortably for a time. Why did they risk all of that in order to get more?

Their pleas of innocence (or gullibility, depending on how you look at it) just doesn't seem to fit. Perhaps the Tackeses (sp?) are as kind and innocent as they make themselves out to be, but being a person who actually knows about 419 scams I'm skeptical. It seems that they had enough money before the lottery offers came in that they could have lived out their lives comfortably, but now they're going for sympathy.

In both cases those who were looking to make the money used their trust in the kindness and honesty of others as an excuse (notice it's not a reason) for their gullibility. Since I didn't join my coworkers, and I've ignored and laughed at hundreds of lottery and 419 email scams does that make me a cynic?

No. I used the trait that we've evolved to balance our greed. Skepticism.

In the case of the job opportunity, I questioned why anyone would have to pay in order to work. I've worked for companies that will find you jobs (headhunters), and even they take the money from the company that they lease your services to. You don't have to pay a dime. Also, the $5,000 a week for 8 hours of work raised a flag. Our economy is based on supply demand. I'm sure that the companies the woman was supposed to get the work from could get the work done cheaper by those who actually worked for them, and it would have allowed them better control of their own information. Plus, every question I thought about the woman had supposedly answered in her email. Everyone was gung ho to accept her explanation, but to me it was as vague and evasive as a newspaper horoscope.

Now, how has skepticism kept me from trying to get the millions (or perhaps billions, by now) of dollars promised to me by international lotteries, people overseas who's money is being held up by their governments, or the inheritance that comes to me from a distant relative in Nigeria?

I know how lotteries and such work. If a person who never entered can win the lottery then the lottery is either very badly thought out, or a scam. Add to that the request for money in order to pay out, and it moves directly into the scam category.

Requesting my help in getting money out of a governments hands while I only have a pay a few thousand in order to get millions is a little shady. Why? Anyone who has a few million they are willing to share would probably know someone more wealthy than me who could help them out, and sending out a random email (with multiple misspellings and bad grammar) to someone named Berlzebub makes me really question your intelligence.

I have a large family. It's large enough that I still have to explain to my wife how I'm related to some even after she's been involved in my family gatherings for a decade. Further, where I grew up relations have a form of bragging rights. Thanks to that I found that I'm related to a hero of WWI. By related, I mean that he's so distant that the amount of heredity I share with him might as well be homeopathic. Still, if someone that distant from me in geneology is known to be my relative I'm pretty sure that a rich uncle in Nigeria would be big news among the family. If not, then it would be much more likely that he would email closer relatives first. And why don't they contact me through a lawyer? Again, sending the email to Berlzebub does not inspire any confidence in your intelligence or honesty.

Oh, and add to all of those that I have the fucking internet and I WASN'T RAISED IN A COMMUNE!

Around us are all sorts of cautionary words about our greed. Edgar Allen Poe wrote the poem Eldorado concerning someone searching fruitlessly for promised riches, you'll often hear something like "the safe way to double your money is to fold it over once and put it in your pocket" and "if something's too good to be true it probably is", and see news articles about people who have been swindled. However, we still have people such as Mrs. Tackes who fall for the cons, and give the swindlers a reason to continue the cons. Until people start to practice their trait of skepticism, the greed trait will remain. That also means that the greed trait will continue for the con men who utilize it in others.

This is yet another reason to endorse critical thinking and skepticism. As long as there are those who's greed makes them easy prey there will be the greedy who prey on it. The harder it is for the greedy to find targets for the scam, the less lucrative the scams will be. Granted, this just means that the swindlers will probably adapt to another scam, but critical thinking can help overcome those, too.

Also communication can play an important part. The communication has to go two ways, though. My coworkers told me about their job opportunity, and I explained why I thought it was a scam... they didn't listen. When the Tackeses tried to wire money through Moneygram an employee there blocked the transfer and told her it was a scam, but she continued the effort anyway. In both cases the parties being had were told by someone that it was a scam, but they continued on with it, anyway. They ignored the alarm bells that anyone who uses their noggin for something beside a hatrack would have going off.

While I feel bad for those who are the victims of these crimes, I have difficulty in feeling sympathy. If someone ignores the "BRIDGE OUT AHEAD" signs, the worker screaming at them to stop, and then sails into a river I'm not going to give them any sympathy over loosing their car.

Atheist Analogy #6: Prayer

2009-12-07T08:16:00.005-05:00

This atheist analogy is about prayer. Prayer is the way that some address their deity. Most often, it involves asking the deity to intercede in some way. It can be asking the deity to directly influence an outcome, or give the person strength or insight to resolve a situation.

Since I see no reason to believe in the existence of a deity prayer is no different than thinking of, wishing, or meditation. I have never heard of a prayer being answered in a way that requires a bonafide miracle. That is where the only possible explanation is a supernatural action.

Thinking of
Since I recently had two friends die and often heard or read "You're in my prayers" or "I'll be praying for you". If you change those to "You're in my thoughts" and "I'll be thinking of you" it becomes the same thing. Something I did notice is that in very few cases was the prayer the only thing that was offered. In both cases a collection of money was taken up to help the families until they could get things straightened out. In the case of my childhood friend he didn't have any life insurance so the family was going to have to absorb the cost of the funeral and burial. In the case of my mentor it takes time for the paperwork to go through so that the family will get the supplimental finances coming in to help with the bills.

Wishing
It's football season, so you'll no doubt hear about the deity of choice supporting one team or player over another. Some teams even have pre-game prayers asking for the deities help in winning the game. Of course, there are also those who pray for help in curing, or alleviating the symptoms of, their disease. When the outcome coincides with their prayers they conclude that their training and determination takes a backseat to their deity of choice when it comes to the outcome of the game. The doctors expertise and the advancements in the medical field are largely ignored and the result is claimed to be an answer to their prayers when it comes to their medical condition.

Meditation
A few months ago a coworker told me that she prayed for something, and then found that what she was praying for had been before her all along. She attributed it to the prayer being answered, but if what she had been looking for was right in front of her why did it take the prayer for it to be shown to her? Meditation is a calming technique. It's used to relieve stress and as a way to clear you mind when you're trying to seek answers. The difference in mediation and prayer is that meditation doesn't seek a supernatural influence. I do find one similarity, though. The answers that the people get always come from themselves. It's the little voice inside their heads that everyone has when they seek answers from themselves. In the case of those who pray, they attribute the voice to their deity of choice instead of their own ability to find answers when they calm down and actually think the problem through.

People often cite instances where they believe a prayer was answered, but ignore the more mundane natural explanation for the result. Instead they claim that it was an intercession from their deity of choice and give it all of the credit. In the process they ignore the efforts of those who actually caused the outcome that the praying person had wished for. This can include doctors, friends, colleagues, and even the praying person themselves. They also ignore the prayers that don't get answered and only point out the ones that they think have been.

Phil Plait once wrote something that I liked.

"One pair of hands grasping a shovel will do far more good than a thousand hands closed in prayer."

For the faithful, praying or being prayed for may make them feel better, but it does nothing to actually help. Instead, take action, because that can have a real effect on the world around you and the people who live on it.

Dove Deepity #1: Fall 7, Get Up 8

2009-12-04T15:18:00.004-05:00

You know those annoying deepities I was talking about yesterday. Well, my coworker and friend gave me a Dove chocolate during lunch today, and I couldn't resist the urge to see what wisdom the wrapper held. Getting ready to read the wrapper felt similar to holding a lottery ticket. You hope for the best outcome, but the odds are you will be disappointed.

So, I popped the chocolate into my mouth and then smoothed out the foil wrapper to read Dove's version of deep thoughts.

Before my eyes was one of the finest examples of a deepity that I've ever come across.

If you fall down 7 times, get up 8.
Deborah - Crown Point, IN

If you had to read that twice, don't feel bad. So did I... And I still didn't get it. Hell, it still makes no sense to me.

Are we supposed to fall down one more time, on purpose, and don't count it just so we can make the effort to get back up again? Are they considering that we'll "get up" out of bed in the morning, or "get up" from a seat at some point? Hell, I don't fall down seven times a day anyway, or even seven times between moments when I sit down.

Are they trying a variation on "giving 110%" (although 8/7 is 114%)? It's still a fail. If that was what they were getting at, they could have said so.

You want to know something even worse? What Deborah sent in isn't even original. It's an "old" Japanese proverb. According to that website:

"Basically if you fail 7 times, you should recover from those events and be prepared to rise an 8th time. This is also applies if it is the world or circumstances that knock you down seven times...
...just remember that you have the ability to bounce back from any kind of adversity."

Hmmm... Sound familiar? I'll give you a hint to get you started.

Everybody Now!

If at first you don't succeed...

Good grief. It's like the Golden Rule. It seems that every major philosopher who ever existed has posited it at one time or another, they all just said it in slightly different ways.

However, with the "7/8" someone decided to make it more complicated and add a logic loop. If they want to make something uplifting, make it uplifting. This is like Chicken Soup for One Hand Clapping.

But do you want to know what's really irritating? The next time I eat one I'll still look inside the wrapper, hoping that the next one I read will actually say something meaningful.

The Annoyance of Deepities

2009-12-03T10:24:00.011-05:00

There's a new word that's possibly going to become an integral part of skeptical, and even atheist, vocabulary. The word is deepity. It came to my attention when Daniel Dennett gave a presentation at a recent AAI meeting. According to Jerry Coyne's coverage of the speech a deepity is:

"a statement that has two meanings, one of which is true but superficial, the other which sounds profound but is meaningless."

(You can watch -and I highly recommend- the hour long presentation by Mr. Dennett here)

I have to give a huge thanks to Mr. Dennett for giving a term to describe something that annoys the shit outta me. Ever since I let go of religion and started working out describing my own personal philosophy I've become more aware of what others say concerning philosophy. Periodically, someone will say something that they think is deep and profoud, but when I play it back in my head it comes off as shallow and evasive. Dennett calling it a deepity is perfect for me, for that very reason. The statement is a characiture of a deep thought, but only superficially resembles anything substantial.

I've seen and heard numerous deepities that range from the standard "God is Love" to some of those annoying quotes that come with Dove Promises (I recommend using LIST VIEW). I end up feeling like the wiseass kid in SMBC and have to find something to get the bad taste out of my mouth.

The most recent deepity I heard was from a coworker. Admittedly, it might have been a bad idea but I had a discussion with the coworker who sent the recent evolution email. My response to him clued him into my trust in evolution, and that led to a slightly more in depth discussion on philosophy.

During the discussion I said (paraphrased) I see no reason to use a 2 millenia old book as a moral guide, or base my philosophies on a being that very well may not exist. Admittedly, he didn't say something as stupid as "God is love" or some other cop-out. Instead, he said something that he apparently believed to be profound. I'll have to paraphrase from memory, but it's close enough:

I believe your worldview is horizontal, but mine is vertical. I look up toward God for my morals.

Make no mistake, this pissed me off. I had to take a few seconds to calm myself before I made any response at all.

After my silence, I gave a little smile and said "I look up all the time. At the blue sky, clouds, stars and moon." Whether he got my subtle insinuation that by looking up I'd never seen God, I'm unsure but he was unable to come up with a response.

However, it doesn't end there. Since having verbal discussions on such things, at work, are difficult I asked him if he would be interested in an email exchange. I thought it might be a way to clear him of some false misconceptions of atheists that he seemed to hold, because I seriously doubt that either he or I are going to be swayed toward holding the others belief.

He accepted, and I wrote a small essay of my views on various things. Perhaps later I'll publish the complete essay, but for now I'm going to give you what I wrote in the Miscellaneous section of the essay.

"During our discussion the other day you said something about thinking of my view as a horizontal worldview and of yours as a vertical. Personally, I think that description is too limiting in both cases. Both of those adjectives describe being linear and as such one dimensional."

Granted, I may be giving him too much credit, and he may base his entire morality on the words supposedly written by his imaginary friend. However, it was insulting for him to insinuate that my philosophy and worldview is one dimensional. I've drawn on many sources to figure out my views of right and wrong. I just haven't used a being that I don't believe exists as a starting point.

Now, back to the subject of deepities. My impression of those that say such things are that they haven't delved into why they actually believe the deepities they utter are insightful. As with the infamous Edward of the now defunct Christian Cross Talk, they put forth these statements that they find irrefutable. Then, they have to tie themselves in knots (or drop the conversation altogether) in order to defend themselves when others point out how badly thought out their ideas actually are.

So thank you Mr. Dennett for giving me an appropriate word to describe something that irritates me so. However, I'd also like to submit a layman's definition for it.

Deepity (noun): The irritating answer you get when someone hasn't thought the question through before you asked it.

Feelings of Loss

2009-12-01T11:44:00.005-05:00

This past weekend I lost two people who were close to me. One was a childhood friend who I ran around with for a decade named James. The other is a coworker who I've known for about a decade named Gary. Mama called on Friday to tell me that James had died of a heart attack, and my friend and coworker called me on Saturday to tell me that Gary had died of a heart attack.

James and I became best friends not long after we first met. I was in the seventh grade. He lived just up the road from me, and we got together quite often to do things together. Some things were the mundane that boys do, and others were those that boys do that I won't mention just in case either of our parents ever read this.

He was a year younger than me and a grade behind me in school, but even during my first year of college we still hung out together. Then, after he graduated, he joined the Air Force. It's at that point that our commonality diverged. By the time he'd served and returned home I'd moved away from home. Our interests no longer overlapped as much as they did, and we didn't have anything to talk about. We grew apart.

Gary and I both started at around the same time with the company I currently work for. I was a drafter and he was a product designer. When I showed interest in becoming a product designer he instructed me in the programs and eventually my title changed. During that time some shuffling of management occured and Gary became a manager. More important to this story he became my manager.

Unfortunately, at the same time the company wasn't going in a direction that coincided with the direction I wanted to go. I got a job offer from another company and ended up taking it. Gary wanted me to stay but the offer was too good for me to pass up.

Eventually, I realized that what I'd been told by my new employer and what was actually occuring weren't coinciding. It was at that point that I was contacted by Gary about coming back. After a little back and forth I was rehired by my present company.

This time things were different. Gary and others had set up a plan and were sticking to it. It would give the designers and others a chance to grow and be challenged. It was exactly what I was looking for.

Even better was Gary's role. He was arguably the best boss a person could ask for. He stood behind you when he thought you were right, and stood beside you if you made a mistake. He was understanding and supportive while Princess and I were going through IVF, and was willing to give me and others a flexible schedule in order to help our personal lives.

Now they're both gone.

All I'll ever have of James are the memories of him and the times we shared. We'll never be able to see if we can find those common interests we once shared that made us so close.

I last talked to Gary on Wednesday before Thanksgiving holiday. He was excited that his son was coming home on leave from the Air Force for the holiday. We wished each other a good Thanksgiving and said we'll see each other Monday. But we didn't. I'll never be seeing him alive again.

Now I'm working through my grief. I missed the funeral of my childhood friend because of timing (I didn't find out it was on Monday until Sunday evening), and tomorrow I'm going to the funeral of a friend and mentor. Perhaps the funeral will bring me closer to closure in both cases.

I Wish it was 2013

2009-11-24T08:51:00.003-05:00

A couple of weekends ago Princess and I went to see the new movie 2012. I went to see it with two things in mind.

They would get the science wrong.

The effects will probably be awesome.

I was right on both counts. They twist the science in knots in order to further the plot, but the special effects were freakin' awesome. Major geologic events culiminating in the eruption of the Yellowstone Caldera, and tsunamis of unreal proportions. Entire countries even turn into vast lava fields.

When we left the theater I wasn't disappointed, but I also wasn't wondering if what was shown could happen. In other words the effects were spectacular, but the science wasn't nearly as good as say... Deep Impact.

Still a movie is a movie. The writers and directors take a certain amount of artistic license in order to bring the viewer in (both into the theater and into the movie itself). Unfortunately, the movie itself is based upon the belief, by some, that the world is going to end on December 21st, 2012.

Last week at work we had a bit of a discussion about the movie, and one of my coworkers brought up the 2012 doomsday prophecies. If it had been just a topic of discussion I would probably have enjoyed talking about it, but this coworker had a note of worry in his voice and talked about what he'd heard as if he'd read it in Scientific American. Here's a hint. He didn't.

Oddly enough, I was able to supply more information about the prophecies than he could. He could only go by what the grapevine had supplied, but I'd actually done some reading on it. Granted, my study was out of curiosity but he actually showed a hint of fear. He brought up the "science" (and I use the quotes because the science was virtually non-existent) in the movie and I explained the reality. I debunked everything that was brought up, but by the end he was still giving the prophecies (and the movie) infinitely more credibility than they deserve, since they deserve no credibility at all.

Then yesterday Phil Plait wrote a post about 2012. In the post he links to a 2012 article by Information is Beautiful. It's a terrific article to link to if you know someone is genuinely concerned about the world ending prophecy. It takes each aspect of it and gives the believer's view and the skeptical findings.

Unfortunately, no amount of information will convince some that there's nothing to worry about. It won't be until December 22nd of 2012 that they'll breathe easier, and even then there will be another end-of-the-world scenario that'll gain attention and it will all start over again.

Nonexistent Skin

2009-11-13T11:57:00.013-05:00

There's an idiom about someone "having a thin skin". It refers to someone that you find "to be insensitive (or acutely sensitive) to blame, criticism, insults, etc." Recently, some people have voiced opposition to things that show their skin to be not just thin, but nonexistent.

My last post was on the CinCOR billboard and the accompanying poll. Unfortunately, there's more to the story. The billboard was originally erected in Over-the-Rhine, but the owner of the property received so many threats that the billboard company moved it to the Queensgate area. What was the wording on the billboard that allegedly caused the owner to receive threats and for 79% of those in the internet poll to feel offended?

Don't Believe in God?
You are not alone.

WOW! I can see what's got people so worked up.

Wait... no I can't.

Is it offensive for them to find out that others don't buy into their particular brand of delusion and dogma, or is it that others like me had the audacity to put such a message up on a billboard? Either way those who are "offended" seem as intolerant as they are constantly accusing atheists of being.

If the billboard had said something like

There [probably] is no God, so get on with your life!

Need God? Then you need a psychologist even more.

Theology: What happens when mythology meets gullibility.

Having trouble justifying your hate and bigotry? We've got a passage that'll help.

Give me about $4,000 and I'll show them something really offensive.

Just a little ways north of Cincinnati is the Butter Jesus. According to 79% of those polled I should be offended at it. However, I'm not. It's an eyesore and a waste of money that could have been better spent on other things, but it's not offensive to me.

However, AiG has a billboard that I find offensive. It shows a child pointing a gun at the camera and asks:

If God doesn't matter
to him, do you?

If they hadn't included the child holding the gun, I probably wouldn't find it offensive. It would actually make a great conversation opener.

Those who are offended by the billboard are probably offended by everything that doesn't fall inline with their particular mythol... personal philosophy. That could probably include other sects of Christianity that doesn't fit with their view of what Christianity should be. Since they seem to find my existence offensive, it may comfort them to know that I find their views depressing. Of course, they could find that offensive, too.

Atheist Billboards in Cincinnati

2009-11-13T10:46:00.004-05:00

There is an atheist billboard up in the Over-The-Rhine section of Cincinnati (video here), put up by CinCOR. There's also a poll.

Are you offended by an Atheist or Agnostic billboard?

Yes
No

Thank you for participating in our poll. Here are the results so far:

Yes 79%

No 21%

Perhaps the poll should be Pharyngulated.

Atheist Analogy #3: Religious Experience

2009-11-10T13:37:00.003-05:00

Due to an influx of SPAM on the original post, I had to duplicate it in hopes of clearing up my email.

This atheist analogy is about religious experience. Religious experience can take many forms for different people. For some it's just a euphoria that fills them when they are listening to their pastor or praying, for others it involves speaking in tongues, and for others it involves the use of hallucinogens.

Growing up in a rural town in the Appalachian Mountains I got to witness quite a few examples of the first two. However, the only common local drug was cannabis, and that was used for recreational purposes. Keep in mind that where I grew up the Pentecostal and Baptist religions were virtually the only regional religions for many years. In such a culturally isolated location it wasn't very difficult for the fundamentalist and evangelical churches to thrive.

There wasn't a time that I didn't go to church and see someone nearby standing, holding their hands up, and saying "Thank you, Jesus" or some other platitude. Usually this involved a slight swaying to their stance, reminiscent of seeing someone inebriated.

Speaking in tongues was also fairly normal. There were few churches in my localized area that didn't have occurences, and most had them with each service. For a few, the platitudes that I spoke of above would be replaced with an inarticulate babbling, and quite often with trembling. Others would run around among the pews and people, holding their hands up and loudly making noises similar to the babbling of the more sedate group but higher in volume.

Since I grew up with these sorts of occurences, I found them normal when attending a service. It wasn't until I in my teens, and attended a few churches further removed from my locale that I noticed that not everyone did it. Later examinations of the occurences in the churches I regularly attended seemed to show some correlation between the self-viewed "piety" of the person and the severity of their experience.

Like many others I found myself wondering why I didn't share the same experience as the others. I prayed and "listened" for any sort of response, but I never felt the euphoria that the others seemed to experience. However, I did find that other things could give me a similar experience.

Some of you may have listened to music that elicited an emotional response. It was music that caused, and causes, a catharsis for me. A song with just the right combination of tone, rhythm, and "message" can bring on that euphoric religious experience that I witnessed so often growing up. I've even found that simply standing in an isolated location with a wonderful view, which there is no shortage of where I grew up, can cause me to feel calmer and more at ease and peaceful.

In the ~20 years since my discovery I've had several "religious experiences", but none of them have occured inside of a church or during prayer. Anything that can cause a strong emotion causes the same reaction from me (minus the running around and babbling) that I witnessed in those who I attended church services with. However, I don't find it necessary to call upon the supernatural to have a religious experience. I just allow myself to experience the beauty of the world around me.

Another Annoying Email

2009-11-06T11:57:00.006-05:00

With the twins still not sleeping and most of my mental faculties being devoted to work, feeding, and diaper changes I haven't had much time or inclination to post. However, the coworker who sent out the Death Panel email sent me another one last week. This one wasn't about health care, though. Instead it was about evolution.

SOMEBODY'S RAISING THEIR KID RIGHT!

One Nation, 'Under God'.

One day a 6 year old girl was sitting in a
classroom. The teacher was going to explain
evolution to the children. The teacher asked
a little boy: Tommy do you see the tree
outside?

TOMMY: Yes.

TEACHER: Tommy, do you see the grass outside?

TOMMY: Yes.

TEACHER: Go outside and look up and see if you can see the sky.

TOMMY: Okay. (He returned a few minutes later) Yes, I saw the sky.

TEACHER: Did you see God up there?

TOMMY: No.

TEACHER: That's my point. We can't see God because he isn't there. Possibly he just doesn't exist.

A little girl spoke up and wanted to ask the boy some questions.

The teacher agreed and the little girl asked the boy: Tommy, do you see the tree outside?
TOMMY: Yes.
LITTLE GIRL: Tommy do you see the grass outside?

TOMMY: Yessssss!

LITTLE GIRL: Did you see the sky?

TOMMY: Yessssss!

LITTLE GIRL: Tommy, do you see the teacher?

TOMMY: Yes

LITTLE GIRL: Do you see her brain?

TOMMY: No

LITTLE GIRL: Then according to what we were taught today in school, she possibly may not even have one!

(You Go Girl!)

'FOR WE WALK BY FAITH, NOT BY SIGHT'

II CORINTHIANS 5:7

Don't forget to pass this on! I love this one.
Everyone should send this to everyone they know, especially today with prayer restricted in schools. Forward if you believe in GOD!!!!

Perhaps it's the lack of sleep or just my irritation at people forwarding falsehoods, but I took a little bit of time to respond. Of course, I also have to work with this person (and share a cubicle with him) so I tried to keep it as diplomatic as I could.

E Pluribus Unum “ Out of many, one” – The original motto for the United States.

Biology is not being taught to 1st or 2nd graders. Evolution isn’t covered until middle to high school, depending on locale.[I found out since that it's only taught in high school]

The fictional teacher in the story didn’t even cover anything pertaining to evolution.

Any teacher in a public school would have been fired (or at least suspended) for such an act. Teachers are there to teach their classes, not to put forth their views on religion. If a student were to bring up their religion during a study of evolution, the most the teach could say is that the class is about biology not theology.

Matthew 6:6
"But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly."

The only restriction on prayer in schools is that a school official (teacher, principal, etc.) cannot lead, require, sanction, schedule or suggest that any students pray. Each student is free to devote their free time (time not participating in classes) in any way that they like. However, the students do not have the right to impose prayer on others during school hours. Think of it this way. What if the teacher was a Pagan, Wiccan, or Muslim? Would you want them leading your children (or in your case, grandchildren) in prayer?

This is my blog, though, and I don't have to be so diplomatic.

Perhaps someone will eventually come up with an original theme to this glurge. I've heard variations of it before. From the violence of a Navy SEAL to a piece of unbreakable chalk. The only difference with this one is the age group. And that leads me to my next point.

The protagonists in these stories are getting younger. It used to be college students, and now they have a six year old one-upping a teacher. Their delusions must be getting stronger since the adult cdesign proponentsists lost a court case in Pennsylvania.

Also, the girl's response was fallacious. The teacher spoke in a coherent manner. In order for a person to do so takes a functioning brain. We can't see the wind, but we can see the effects that it has. The same goes for the brain. If a person is able to voice ideas and move about with purpose then it stands to reason that they have a brain. However, if they insist that there's an invisible friend watching over everything they do and telling them what to do it's questionable how functional their brain is.

It's subtle, but when you get to the end you find out what the entire email is about. It's the fear that while the children are away from the parents that the indoctrination they receive at home and in church is being undermined by our secular school system. Apparently, anyone who believes that evolution is the best natural explanation of the diversity of life on earth is a non-believer. Unfortunately, they don't realize that a number of Christians think that God is the one who authored the process.

As you may have guessed, I'm not going to be forwarding this email on to anyone. It may be some feel good superiority endorsing glurge for the believers, but for me it's an irritating lie. There are so many holes in the story that it's telling that it has went around enough to eventually make it around to my inbox (FYI, one of the people who sent the email is in the public school system). Do the forwarders and writer actually believe that is how evolution is approached, do they really think that evolution is so ingrained in schools that it's taught to primary school children, or is this just a way for them to feel superior over those who've actually followed where the evidence leads instead of a two millenia old book of mythology?

The only positive that I saw to this email, compared to others, is that it wasn't touted as a true story. Other than that it's an epic fail. It gives an "either with us or against us" message, doesn't even address the topic of the email, perpetuates the lie, by insinuation, that prayer isn't allowed in schools, and promotes ignorance over examining the evidence. The entire email is a collection of bullshit written to make evolution denialists feel better about their beliefs. After all, if a six year old can outsmart her teacher, shouldn't they be able to outsmart the overwhelming scientific consensus?

Team Building, My Ass!!

2009-09-09T15:44:00.004-04:00

Rebecca just put up a post on Skepchick about some members of a football team who were taken to be baptized. Among those present at the baptism were the coach, superintendent, and a few of the parents.

In the comments of the post, owheelj said:

I can’t say I understand the outrage that much. If you actually believed that it had some power perhaps, but all that really happened was the kids in the football team got dunked in water. No harm in that. The kid with the Catholic dad is still free to choose whatever religion he likes.

I have to correct owheelj on one aspect. I'm not outraged, I'm fucking livid!

What parent wouldn't be outraged at their child being taken somewhere without their consent.

When Dannie Ammons' 16-year-old son, Robert, left on a school bus bound for a neighbouring Kentucky county two weeks ago, he thought his son's high-school football team was off to hear a motivational speaker and enjoy a steak dinner.

So the father wasn't even told where his son was going.

Instead, Robert was baptized and, along with eight other members of the Fighting Tigers football team, accepted Christ as his saviour.

Mr. Ammons, who is Catholic, said his son received the religious sacrament without his knowledge or consent.

Some of the parents weren't told of what the trip actually entailed.

Robert, a sophomore who plays safety, told his father that his coach, Scott Mooney, said partaking in a baptism would be a team-building experience. "He said it would bring the team together," Robert told the Louisville's Courier-Journal.

The coach abused his position of authority and trust, along with peer-pressure.

Roughly half of the team's 40 players participated in the excursion on Aug. 26 to Franklin Crossroads Baptist Church, the coach's church, for which permission slips were not required. That night, Robert and eight of his teammates -- all minors -- swapped their jeans and T-shirts for white robes, and were submerged in baptismal water during a 20-minute ceremony.
[emphasis mine]

None of the players were required to have a permission slip to go on a field trip across county lines? Things must have changed drastically since I was in school. If it wasn't known to the parents, such as going to play at a game or the daily trip to the vocational school, there was a permission slip to be signed.

"I believe the faith was pushed on my son," Mr. Ammons said, adding that he and his wife, who is a Baptist, hoped his son would wait until he was older to decide his faith.

"I think the coach used his faith as a weapon, and my son followed along. We feel like he was brainwashed.... I asked my son if he even knows what it means to be baptized as a Baptist, and he has no clue."

I'm pretty sure that Mr. Ammons is correct on this one.

Superintendent Janet Meeks, who is also a member of the church and who witnessed the ceremony, said she thought parents were aware the event included a church service and said participation was voluntary. "The coach requested the use of a school bus," she said in a statement released last night. "The cost of the fuel was donated, and the driver volunteered."

Superintendent Meeks should have been sure that parents were aware, and damn well shouldn't have allowed the use of school property. If they wanted to get the boys there, they should have provided private transportation.

Although Mr. Ammons said most parents were "kept in the dark," a handful of parents knew their sons were heading to the revival service. In fact, some parents travelled the 40 kilometres to the Baptist church to attend the event.

Who wants to bet that the ones who actually knew were Baptist. Only letting certain parents know what was going on only supports Mr. Ammons suspicions.

"We had invited the coach and his team for a night of encouragement," said Rev. Ron Davis, who baptized the players. "Those boys made the decision in that moment to be obedient and know Christ."

My bullshit detector just went into overdrive. The church is 40 kilometers away, and in another county. I suspect that the reverend was only thinking about proselytizing. I've never met a religious authority figure who was more intent on getting a team to win a football game than preaching the word of their deity.

Also among the 700 congregants was the coach's daughter, who was also baptized at the service. Although Rev. Davis typically seeks parental consent for baptisms involving minors, he said the boys were "bulked up" and looked older than their 16 years.

Wow, they looked older than 16. Perhaps the reverend should have asked to make sure before going through with the baptism.

"I didn't check their IDs," he said, adding that Mr. Mooney -- who has brought players to church services in the past -- did not pre-arrange for the boys to accept the sacrament.

Did any of the ones before get baptized, and where their parents aware of it? Mr. Mooney's judgement has been seriously called into question, now.

"If I had known his mother and father would be upset, I would have tried to persuade him to wait."

Tried? How about, "Not until your mother and father give their permission, or you're a responsible adult." The last of which means the coach isn't ready to be baptized yet, either.

Indeed, Mr. Ammons and his wife, Michelle, are planning to consult a lawyer. "I want something done, this whole thing is just wrong," said Mr. Ammons, adding that his son thinks he is overreacting and fears ruffling feathers among the team. "This doesn't happen every day."

It doesn't matter if this never happened before. It should never happen again. The primary blame goes on Mr. Mooney, and disciplinary action should be taken. He has a responsibility to the parents of the kids on his team. His responsibility concerns football. The conditioning, discipline, and rules of the game should be his concern. Not what religion the members of his team accept.

I don't care if the field trip is to the Creation Museum, or the Museum of Natural History. The school authorities should obtain the consent of the parents, and be honest with the parents as to where the trip is going and what is there. They are there to make sure our children learn. Be it a football coach or biology teacher, their responsibility to our kids is teaching first and religion last. If they get their priorities screwed up, they're too dumb to be in their job.

And I have one other question. Did the boys actually get their steak dinner?

Munchkin and the Twins

2009-09-03T09:13:00.005-04:00

Everyone in our household has had to make adjustments to the twins' arrival. For Princess and me, it's been the late night feedings and logistics. However, the person who's been impacted the most by the twins' birth is Munchkin.

For five+ years Munchkin has been an only child, and the youngest grandchild on both sides. When family came to visit, she didn't have to share attention with anyone else, and even when there were other family around she was always the youngest. Being the youngest meant that most gave her more attention. However, now that Peep and Boo are in the picture, all of that has changed.

We are having to spend a great deal of time with the twins. Since they can't eat their own food, change their own clothes, take their own baths, etc. they require attention. Munchkin is used to having that attention available to her, but now she's adjusting. Having my in-laws, and soon Mama and Padre, here has helped tremendously. It's also given Munchkin the chance to get attention from someone else when we aren't available.

We've made an effort to spend time with her, even if the twins were wearing us out. I get up early enough that I can see her onto the bus, and we both spend time with her in the afternoons going over her kindergarten homework. If the twins are sleeping we put them down and give her our undivided attention for a while, doing something that she wants to do with us. We've also found ways to keep her occupied when we're busy with her sisters.

If I'm changing one (or both) of the twins, she helps me get the diaper, wipes, ointment, etc. If one of us needs to do something we let her hold the less fussy of the twins while we do it, and we're working on setting up a way that she can help feed them.

However, one evening we had a conversation on the difference between "love" and "attention". It went something like this:

Munchkin: “[My friend] said that now you won’t love me as much because you have the twins to take care of, but that's okay.”

[Princess looks at me with surprise]

Me: "That's not true, Munchkin. We love you just as much as we did before we had the twins, but they need more attention. They can't put on their own clothes, eat their own food, or tell us what they need like you can, so we have to spend more time with them. That doesn't mean we love you any less."

Princess: “Do you remember what I told you about when you make me mad?”

Munchkin: “Even when I make you mad, that doesn’t mean that you don’t love me.”

Me: “That’s right. We will always love you, even when you drive us nuts, just like your sisters probably will sometimes.”

Munchkin: ”…”

Munchkin: ”But daddy, I can’t drive.”
...
Munchkin: ”What's so funny?"

Since I don't live in the household of Munchkin's friend I can't say for sure what made her friend say it, but Munchkin's friend has a little sister that isn't quite preschool age. Her father also has health problems, so that would probably play a part in it.

The next time Munchkin's friend visited I sat down and talked to both of them about it. I told Munchkin's friend that if she feels her mom and dad don't love her to talk to them, and if she didn't feel comfortable doing it to come tell me and I'd do what I could to help her.

Thanks to our reassurances, and probably moreso to our actions, Munchkin is coping quite well with the change. She even volunteers to help when I'm changing diapers. Although, I suspect and ulterior motive to helping me change them. She was at the hospital when Boo pooped on me (I won't go into details, here), and I'm pretty sure Munchkin is just waiting for it to happen again.

Atheist Analogy #5: Spirituality

2009-09-01T10:07:00.009-04:00

This atheist analogy is about spirituality. Aaron, who I wrote about in my last post, did a more recent post on Atheist Spirituality.

Aaron saw a tweet by Leonard Sweet that said:

most atheists now claim to be "spiritual;" has spirituality become a shopping bag in which to collect the ultimate in fashion accessories?

My first thought was to question where Mr. Sweet got his information. All too often the term "atheist" is used as loosely as "spiritual". People will use the words, but not actually contemplate what the terms actually mean.

However, instead of questioning what Mr. Sweet actually means by "atheist" the comments had me thinking about the term spiritual.

As I wrote in the comments, if spirituality means "disconnected embodiment of self" then I am most definitely not spiritual. The term "spirit" is often used interchangably with soul, and as I wrote in that piece I don't believe in a soul in a supernatural sense.

The belief that the spirit can transcend the present plane is prominent in many different religions. Even some non-theistic religions, such as some forms of Buddhism, are spiritual in nature. The belief that there is more to a person than just their physical body and mind permeates religions of all types. Without including something "spiritual" that lasts beyond the lifespan of the body most religions would be impossible. An afterlife, reincarnation, transcendence... All would be moot without the inclusion of something insubstantial to benefit from the ideas.

So how can spiritual apply when you don't believe there is anything beyond the physical plane in which we currently exist? If the soul is simply "a byproduct of society, consciousness, and beliefs", then of what use is spiritual?

Perhaps it's spiritual when you look up at the night sky with awe and wonder knowing that there are billions of galaxies up there that only appear as pinpoints of light along with billions of other stars in each galaxy including our own, perhaps it's spiritual when you see your own children born knowing that you not only helped to create a new life but will have a responsibility in making sure that newborn will grow up to become a real person, or perhaps it's just an experience that fills you with emotion. Any of those could be considered spiritual, although in a very loose sense.

However, I have quit using the term "spiritual". The main reason is that it's become so overused that it's became a buzzword. Each time someone says it they seem to be expecting the people around them to react as if they've said something profound. Here's some news. If everyone and their brother, from the New Age movement to mainstream religions, are using the same word it isn't profound. It's boring.

The Lamb Among the Wolves

2009-09-01T09:01:00.004-04:00

Via Mixter I found out about a Christian who attended the Creation Mausoleum with the SSA. As I wrote in an earlier post there was some concern about fanatical Christians joining our group as a fifth column. Fortunately, Aaron (the writer of the post) didn't join the group to cause problems.

"What would it be like to be a Christian and a fly on the wall as a group of atheists peered at exhibits that attempted to prove them wrong? How would the creationist lecturer react to challenges and would he gloat when he wins a point?"

Aaron writes from the perspective of a believer mingling with the heathens, and some of what he says is quite interesting.

I was surprised at the number, and visibility, of the security people, but since Aaron's wife had been there before she had a different perspective. Most places I've been effort has been taken to make the security personel blend in. However, at the Creation Mausoleum the purpose of security seemed to be intimidation instead of keeping of order.

I also caught some of the stares, and was ignored by some if I nodded and said "Howdy" (sue me, I'm southern). I honestly expected it, and it didn't bother me. When you come from a town where everyone knows everybody there are those who know things about you that they disagree with, and if they are of the civil sort they will ignore you. I also never heard the whispers, but then again I was more interested in the displays.

I have to commend Aaron for doing something that not many would even think of doing. He walked a mile (although it seemed like ten to me) in secular shoes, and was disappointed in what he found. His disappointment didn't stem from the actions of the secularists who attended the tour, but of how his own treated his fellow man.

While I don't agree with everything Aaron has written (and I've only read a few of his other posts) I do find his writing thought provoking, and he does seem to be open to conversation and debate. That's why he's soon going to appear on my blogroll.

The Issues of Arrival

2009-08-31T12:26:00.006-04:00

In "The Expectation Came Unexpectedly" I hinted at at least one issue during the birth of our twins (the oxygen mask shown in the second picture). However there's a couple of other things that readers might find interesting, or at least helpful if they find themselves in the same position.

I talked about Princess's back labor and how that influenced her decision to go with a c-section. Well, after they had pulled the twins, and their placentas, out there was some internal bleeding. Not enough to be life threatening, but enough that the doctor felt they should give her fluids and keep an eye on her. I'm not sure of the technical term, but they were afraid that the placenta had grown into the uterus. However, the evidence didn't add up, and a second opinion confirmed that it was something relatively rare but not life threatening. It did require some internal stitches (along with the additional blood loss), but not much more than that.

Princess also became violently ill once again. This time the nausea came prior to the medication. This suggests that it is the labor that caused her vomiting. Now that some time has passed, we've termed it "an allergy to labor". It's funny now, but 36 hours of being unable to eat wasn't very humorous at the time.

Princess had some problems breastfeeding Munchkin. Basically, we switched to formula to keep Munchkin from screaming from hunger. She chalked it up to inexperience, and since I had no experience in the matter, we left it at that. However, the same problem occured this time. This caused some distress in Princess, since we know of several people who were able to. It doesn't help that there are some (although it seems a small but vocal minority) who are fanatical that a mother who doesn't breastfeed is tantamount to child abuse. It turns out that Princess's mother wasn't able to breastfeed either. Both produced the milk, but were unable to express enough to feed the children. Perhaps there's a genetic predisposition to being unable to breastfeed.

Boo had to be given oxygen when she was first born. She wasn't able to expel the fluid from her lungs very well, so they gave her some oxygen to help her breath until she could get clear her lungs. It didn't take long for us to know that she was going to be the most vocal of the two.

We also have to take Boo for an MRI in about a month. She was breech for quite some time, and that means there's a possibility of hip dysplasia. The nurses and doctors who've examined her aren't that concerned with it, but MRIs are a standard procedure in those cases (read CYA). Judging by how well Boo and Peep kick when we're changing their diapers, I'm not that concerned either.

Peep and Boo were originally Peek and Boo. They both would lift their arms and cover their eyes, but then lower them when it came time to let us know that they needed fed/changed/held etc. Since Boo is the less... reserved of the two, she would almost always be the one to cry first. However, when Peep got the hiccups she made this adorable little "peep" sound that cemented the change to her nickname.

The week passed and we were beginning to get into a rhythm. Granted, the rhythm we're getting into is conflicting with our circadian rhythm, but we're getting a rhythm. Princess is very surprised at how well I can function with lack of REM sleep, but several years of late nights and early mornings (involving alcohol, of course) might have prepared me for it.

Where was I going with this? Sorry, lack of sleep makes it easier for me to go off on a tangent. Anyway, last night Princess's incision started leaking. By leaking I mean we thought Boo had pooped on Princess. There was a smell to it that supported the crap hypothesis, but when Princess went to check on it she found that it was leaking from her incision. We called her OB-Gyn, and she asked a few questions. Since there was no fever, and the leaking subsided there didn't seem to be that much of a problem. They still saw her today and examined the leaking. It turns out not to be a big deal, but last night I prepared myself for a late night ER visit and a phone call to my boss telling him I might be a little late.

Now, things have settled down, at least until the next bit of drama occurs. Everyone is doing well, and Princess is now capable of driving. Grandma and Grandpa will be at the house until Friday, and then Mamaw and Papaw will come to relieve them (and Papaw will become Munchkin's jungle gym).

My intent is to next make a post on some suggestions on preparations on twins. It has more to do with what I found besides the list of things to bring with you to the hospital.

"Your Name"

2009-08-31T11:47:00.003-04:00

A reader sent me an email with a link to a youtube video. It's a song sung by Gory Bateson called "Your Name". At first, it seems to be a typical country-western/gospel song until you listen closely to the words. Expand this post to see the video.

Gory gets extra points for using the word "fuck".

(Tip o' the trident to Nick at CSUS)

The Expectation Came Unexpectedly

2009-08-31T09:16:00.007-04:00

On Friday, Aug. 21st, I wrote that Princess and I were getting closer. Well, as John Lennon once said:

"Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans."

John Lennon, smart man, shot in the back very sad.

Okay, I'm rambling a bit. Sue me. I'm only getting about an hour and a half of sleep at a time.

On my way home from work on the 21st, a little after 5 pm, Princess called. Just as I answered I hit a dead zone (yes, they do exist even with Verizon) and had to wait a couple of minutes to call her back. When I did, she told me to all a wonderful, amazing, stupendous friend who had volunteered to watch Munchkin when Princess went into labor.

A couple of weeks earlier, Princess's phrasing had almost made me panic and run home from work early. So this time I verified that she meant what I thought she meant, and then completed the final three minutes of the trip home in about a minute and a half. Apparently, I also called our friend.

We grabbed all of the bags containing our clothes, toiletries, etc. and piled into the minivan. Well, I actually had to help Princess to the minivan because she was having back labor, again. We picked up Munchkin, who was playing at a friend's house, and headed to the hospital.

We made it there in record time, and that was with Princess attempting to crush my hand every two minutes. Munchkin helped carry some of the items, and we grabbed a wheelchair so Princess wouldn't have to walk. About ten minutes after we arrived, our friend's husband arrived and took Munchkin to their house to play with their two daughters.

Princess used some very colorful language to tell them to give her some chemical help in dealing with the pain. She also found out that Baby "B" was still breech. Her original intention was to attempt a VBAC, but elected to go with c-section when she found out that Baby "B" may need an emergency c-section anyway.

Actually, I think it went something like:

Get the fucking scaple.

The medical personel started to work then Baby "A", hereafter referred to as Peep, was born (click on picture for stats).

From IVF

Then, a minute later Baby "B", hereafter known as Boo, was pulled out into this world.

From IVF

(Notice the oxygen mask. I'll give some additional details later)

So for the past week plus, I haven't been able to get online, return phone calls, sleep, have any coherent thoughts, or sleep. Yes, I know I mentioned sleep twice, but there's a reason for that.

Now, the week has passed, and I'm back at work. My M&F-I-L are visiting to help, and after they go back to their home my Mamma and Padre will be coming by to help, so we do have help for now. We also have several close friends who have volunteered to help in any way that they can.

That's the story for the past week. If you'll excuse me, I'm now going to paint eyeballs on my eyelids and attempt to get some rest before I go home at 5 pm.

Getting Closer

2009-08-21T08:22:00.004-04:00

As some of you know, Princess and I are expecting twins. Well, unless they decide they don't want to wait, they will be born on Monday, Aug. 24th.

Princess says that she must have a comfortable womb, because no one who's been in there has ever wanted to come out. For Munchkin labor was actually induced a couple of days after her actual due date, because of pregnancy induced hypertension. Even then there was an issue that prevented Munchkin from being born naturally, and she was eventually delivered by c-section.

To give you some idea, we arrived at 6:30 am, they started the drip for the induction medication, Princess's labor actually started around noon, and Munchkin was finally delivered via c-section at 11:05 pm. That doesn't include Princess's adverse reaction to the pain medication given to her.

There are some signs that Princess won't make it to Monday, but we're going to have two more girls in our lives by this time next week.

What is "Traditional" Marriage?

2009-08-20T09:42:00.008-04:00

Recent articles by Rebecca and PZ talk about some in the Bahama's protesting a bill that would outlaw marital rape. Why are they protesting?

"It is ridiculous for them to try to make that a law, because I don’t think a man can rape his own wife. After two people get married, the Bible says that they become one – one flesh. How is it possible to rape what is yours?" asked Mr. Sutherland.

...

Elvis Russell told the Journal that he does not support the bill either because there is no such thing as rape within a marriage.

"Even if a woman says no to her husband it still can’t be considered rape because she is his wife. He already paid his dues at the church and she already said ‘I do,’ so from then on, even if [a man] forces sex on his wife, it isn’t rape," he said.

And it's not just the men...

Deanne Sweeting said that she strongly disagrees with the bill and does not understand why so many women are supporting it.

"I disagree with the bill because I disagree that a man can rape his wife. The Bible tells me that a man’s body is his wife’s and her body is his. How could he rape her?" asked Ms. Sweeting.

...

Coralee Clarke told the Journal that although she is not married, she believes that a man is entitled to sex from his wife whenever he feels like it.

"If a man wants to have sex with his wife he is supposed to [have sex with her] regardless of what the circumstances [are]. I don’t see why he should be charged with raping his own wife, she is never supposed to say no," said Ms. Clarke.

"If I were married and my husband wanted to have sex with me I wouldn’t stop him, [because] I’m not supposed to, even if I was tired or feeling sick, I wouldn’t tell him no."

There are some who support the bill of course, on grounds that rape is rape.

Reading the comments of the protestors, and thinking about objections to gay marriage has gotten me to thinking. My marriage is by no means a "traditional" marriage.

Calling our marriage "traditional" is a stretch, unless the only criteria is "one man + one woman". Otherwise, there are several aspects of it that go against tradition.

The most obvious is probably my non-belief and her self-identification as a christian. There are some who consider that aspect opposite of the purpose of marriage.

Malachi 2:15 informs us that an important purpose of marriage is to produce godly offspring—

According to this, our marriage wouldn't be "traditional" even if we were both atheists. We're more interested in teaching our daughters to think for themselves, and give them the tools to choose their own paths.

According to the protestors in the Bahama's, ours isn't a traditional marriage because Princess is not my property. We're equal participants in our marriage, and we purposefully kept "obey" out of our vows. We both work (although she's off work now because of the impending births of our next two girls), we share the responsibilities of child rearing, and we both do the house and yard work. We talk over decisions that need to be made, and her input is just as important as mine.

Then there's the ceremony. At the time we got married, in late 2000, I was a non-practicing Pentecostal (i.e. agnostic) and she was Roman Catholic. In order to prevent making some of my family uncomfortable she elected not to have mass during the ceremony (something my MIL couldn't understand). As I wrote earlier we kept "obey" out of the vows, and the participants were a bit non-traditional.

In our party, we had a mixture of "witnesses". On my side I had my "best man" (I'll explain the quotes later), my two cousins (twins and Pentecostal), and a friend who is a child of Arab christian parents. On her side it was the "maid of honor" (again I'll get to this), a former co-worker of Princess's who was the matron of honor, and a bridesmaid who has been her friend for many years. Basically, our party was a mixture of friends, and some happened to be family.

Now for the part that was non-traditional, and caused some confusion among the attendees. The "best man" was a female friend of mine that introduced me to Princess, with the help of her mother. The "maid of honor" was Princess's brother. She wore a black dress of the same cut as the bridesmaids, and he wore a tux. My "best man" was willing to wear a tux, but only if the "maid of honor" wore a dress. Unfortunately, the open bar at the reception was after the wedding, so we couldn't convince him to do so without including money. Needless to say the duties of both of them didn't exactly fit into the normal niche.

So there are many aspects of our marriage that are "non-traditional", and it starts at the ceremony. However, I have never heard anyone complain that she and I should not be married. I have heard a few complain that we seem too happily married, but I have no idea what that means.

My point is that a marriage is a marriage. There is no such thing as a "traditional" marriage. Throughout history marriages have been about politics and power, convenience and appearances, and sometimes love has been involved. Sometimes its one man and one woman, except in the cases of multiple women, additional concubines, and sometimes an understanding that they are allowed to see other people. The purposes and participants in "traditional" marriage are so varied that it makes the very concept of a "traditional" one defunct.

Traditional has come to mean "I like it the way it is, and I don't want it to change". The problem is the reasoning behind their opinion. People keep tagging onto the end, "... even if it doesn't affect me and benefits others."

What if I'm Okay with Dieing?

2009-08-18T13:31:00.008-04:00

If you haven't been living in a bubble for the past few weeks, you've heard talk of the Death Panels. Of course, it all seems to be the opposition crying "the sky is falling", when all it's all really just a few drops of rain.

My biggest confusion is why talk of living wills and the option to die painlessly is such a big topic of discussion. As Mrs. Lemming said in a letter to the Cincy Enquirer,

"No one ever gets out of here alive."

Why is it such a bad thing to be able to be given the options and then choosing our exit?

Death is inevitable. Even religions acknowledge that eventually our body is going to stop functioning. In order for your soul to go to heaven (or hell), your body has to die, in order for your soul to be reincarnated in another body (whether human, mouse, or cow) you have to die, and in order for you to make it to Valhalla you have to die (in battle).

Death is more inevitable than taxes. Every body has a finite number of heartbeats, breaths, and exchange of electrical charges between neurons. You can't file a complaint with the government to keep it from happening, you can't hide your heartbeats through creative bookkeeping, and you can't move to a land where death doesn't exist. Eventually, all that will be left of us are a conglomeration of organic molecules that no longer function as they did when we are alive.

The only thing you can do is live your life, and prepare for the eventual end of it. No, I don't mean attempting to cover your bases on an afterlife, but making sure that if you have fewer heartbeats than you allowed for that you've covered everything you can.

In the past couple of years, my wife and I have been going over such things. We've both updated our life insurance policies so the one that survives has enough capital to go on, and if something happens to both of us Munchkin (and now her soon to be born siblings) have a guardian and some financial help with their upbringing. We've filled out a living will and DNR giving some legal clout to our wishes should we be incapable of telling a doctor the extent of life support that we want, and made sure that the other knows of our wishes. There's still a few more 'i's to cross and 't's to dot, but we're taking the steps.

As much as I would like to bounce my great-great-great(ad infinitum)...grandchildren on my knee, I know that is very unlikely to happen. The best I can do is make sure my family will be taken care of after I'm gone, and that I can make my wishes known for how my final days/hours/minutes will be dealt with.

If at the end of my life my organs are failing, I'm going to be unable to talk, or listen, to my wife and children because my brain isn't aware of the rest of my body let alone the outside world, and I won't be able to leave a bed because it's only the machines hooked up to me that are keeping me alive then I want the plug pulled. If someone else wants to be put onto life support until even the machines can no longer keep their body alive then that's up to them. However, whether I'm kept alive artificially or not should be my choice.

And that's what it comes down to. Everyone should be given the choice, and, just as important, everyone that may get into such a situation should have it explained to them what their choices are. Contrary to what the opposition would have you believe the Death Panels are not going to tell you how you'll die. A representative is going to tell you what your options are and let you choose the one that most appeals to you.

It's not about the government gaining the ability to euthanize. It's about giving everyone the liberty to die as they wish.

Health Care (Bill) Warning... Hoax

2009-08-12T14:04:00.031-04:00

Last week, on August 6th, I received an email from a coworker. It was the day before the SSA trip to the Creation Mausoleum, and I was a bit busy so I didn't worry to much about it. However, the coworker made a few errors.

The email pertained to the subjects of politics and religion (double whammy).
The email was sent to the "everyone" address of our company, and the two sister companies that share the building with us (triple whammy).
After I did a quick check of the first seven points mentioned in the email, I didn't find that one of them wasn't misleading (hat-trick whammy).

If anyone else receives and email titled "Prophet warning in Health Bill", I have two words for you:

DON'T PANIC

Below is the email that I got from my coworker. I'm not a lawyer, but I'll do my best to translate the legal speak in the actual bill.

For clarity, I'm going to use this layout in going through it:

The text of the email in italics

The actually wording of the bill in quotes (if applicable)

My comments underneath

Now, away we go.

Subject: FW: Prophet warning in Health Bill

Good Morning Everyone,
Pleasant enough start, but seeing the word "prophet" in the title raised a red flag.

I am forwarding a message I received from a good and well respected
friend of mine whose opinion I value highly. Even before receiving it I
heard about it from my daughter and son-in-law who is a physical
therapist and a family medical doctor. The message is about the Health
Bill being proposed in congress and what it really means to us as
individuals and as a nation if this were to pass. After reading the
e-mail I decided that I must share this message from Rick Joynor and
Mathew Staver with as many people as possible.
It starts off with an appeal to authority. Not a good sign.

Once you read down a little more, you'll find that he (and the person who sent the email to him) got one of the names wrong. It's Rick Joyner, and when I read this article about him my BS meter pegged at its highest reading.

Then I did a search for Mathew Staver, and got this. Yes, Mr. Staver is dean and professor of law at Liberty University. Yes, that Liberty University, the one that "trains champions for Christ".

First of all let me say I have never sent out a mass e-mail because I
don't like to waste time, mine or anyone else's; however, this message
is of the utmost importance to us all.
Actually, it was a waste of time on everyone's part, but I'll get to that when we get to the point by point included (that goes on forever).

Second, this is a long message and will take some time to read and
digest. Please forward the message to your home e-mail and read it
there or read it at lunchtime. As important as this is we all still
have a job to do and we must maintain good work ethics.
Speaking of work, he really should have paid more attention to the employee handbook when it talks about what we can and can't use company email for.

Thank you for taking the time to read this later and understanding the
gravity of what is happening in Washington. We can do something about
it and make our voices heard by doing what Mr. Joynor asks at the end of
his e-mail.
If I agree with what Mr. Joyner says, sure. However, I'm not just going to take his word for it.

Thank you and God Bless,
[Name Redacted]
I hear a bell tolling.

Now, onto the rest of the email.

-----Original Message-----
Subject: Prophet warning in Health Bill
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 21:01:08 -0400

Rick Joynor, a prophet in his own right has sent out this important
message. We must pray for its defeat and take some action in the natural
by contacting our representatives.
Still didn't get the name right. Some "prophet" he must be. I have to admit that I am impressed that they didn't start calling for prayer warriors, though.

SPECIAL BULLETIN
NATIONAL HEALTH SCARE

By Rick Joyner
Mr. Joyner must have signed this himself, since they finally got the spelling right.

When I read the brief on what was contained in the National Health Care bill that is now being presented before Congress, I could not believe I was reading something that was actually being considered in the United States of America. This is not about money or government mismanagement-this is about something far more diabolical than that. As incomprehensible as it may seem, this is about euthanasia, the power to determine who lives or dies in America. Hitler and Stalin would have loved to have had a means such as this for dispatching the millions they killed-it would have made their job much easier, and probably given them the ability to kill many more than they did. THIS BILL IS THAT SINISTER. This is not a joke-this is actually the nature of what is being proposed in the National Health Care legislation, and it is the obvious reason why the Obama Administration wants to ram it through Congress before anyone gets a chance to read it.
Wow. The first paragraph and he's already bringing up euthenasia, Hitler (see Godwin's Law), and Stalin. After reading about Pastor Joyner, I'm expecting to be more entertained than scared.

The paragraphs following aren't much better, and the ones I scanned didn't contain any useful information. Mostly complaints about bureaucrats and talking about praying, quite often specifically praying for President Obama.

The following is a brief outline of this bill put together by
Mat Staver of the Freedom Foundation and Liberty Counsel (contact info
is at the end). The comments by the brief are Mat's, except where I have
noted my own by putting them in italics. The bold is also mine.

After reading, please do not wait to contact your representatives to
protest this. If you don't get through, keep calling, send emails, but
do not stop until you know your voice has been heard.
Now, keep in mind that the bill itself is 1,017 pages. So Mr. Staver was able to find fault with quite a few sections. However, my reading of it didn't feel as "SINISTER" as Mr. Joyner (or Mr. Staver) found it.

Since I talked about finding errors in the first seven point, I'll keep them in here.

Obama Health Care Plan Details

HR 3200 currently under consideration in the House of Representatives
I linked to the bill above, but if you want to verify that I have put in the right wording you can find it here.

Pg 22 of the HC Bill MANDATES the Government will audit the books of
ALL EMPLOYERS that self insure!!
9 (C) The financial solvency and capital re-
10 serve levels of employers that self-insure by em-
11 ployer size.

Since he doesn't actually give any details, I'm going to assume this is the section he meant. However, if you read pg. 21 (starting on line 26) you'll find that this section pertains to a "...study of the large group insured and self-insured employer health care markets. Such study shall examine the following:"

First of all, a "large study" does not imply "ALL EMPLOYERS". Second, unless such a company had something to hide, why would they care? Don't they have to pay taxes and such to the government on their earnings anyway?

Pg 29 lines 4-16 in the HC Bill - YOUR HEALTH CARE IS RATIONED!!!

4 (A) ANNUAL LIMITATION.—The cost-shar-
5 ing incurred under the essential benefits pack-
6 age with respect to an individual (or family) for
7 a year does not exceed the applicable level spec-
ified in subparagraph (B).
9 (B) APPLICABLE LEVEL.—The applicable
10 level specified in this subparagraph for Y1 is
11 $5,000 for an individual and $10,000 for a
12 family. Such levels shall be increased (rounded
13 to the nearest $100) for each subsequent year
14 by the annual percentage increase in the Con-
15 sumer Price Index (United States city average)
16 applicable to such year.

Again, if you read the part before it says "(1) NO COST-SHARING FOR PREVENTIVE SERVICES.—There shall be no cost-sharing under the essential benefits package for preventive items and services (as specified under the benefit standards), including well baby and well child care."

He may even be right on this one, but I have to ask, aren't we currently rationed, anyway? As David Leonhardt of the New York Times put it:

...rationing is an inescapable part of economic life. It is the process of allocating scarce resources. We ration spots in good public high schools. We ration lakefront homes. We ration the best cuts of stake.
Healthcare, I realize, seems as if it should be different. But it isn't.

If you go to visit your general practioner for something you feel is wrong, does he keep you there until he finds out what is wrong? Nope. He rations you to about 15 minutes or so to explain your symptoms, and then he gives a diagnosis and possibly medication. If that doesn't work, you have to call and make another appointment.

That's rationing, and we deal with it every day.

Pg 30 Sec 123 of HC Bill - THERE WILL BE A GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE that
decides what treatments/benefits you get

11 SEC. 123. HEALTH BENEFITS ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
12 (a) ESTABLISHMENT.—
13 (1) IN GENERAL.—There is established a pri-
14 vate-public advisory committee which shall be a
15 panel of medical and other experts to be known as
16 the Health Benefits Advisory Committee to rec-
17 ommend covered benefits and essential, enhanced,
18 and premium plans.
19 (2) CHAIR.—The Surgeon General shall be a
20 member and the chair of the Health Benefits Advi
21 sory Committee.
22 (3) MEMBERSHIP.—The Health Benefits Advi-
23 sory Committee shall be composed of the following
24 members, in addition to the Surgeon General:
(pg. 31)
1 (A) 9 members who are not Federal em-
2 ployees or officers and who are appointed by
3 the President.
4 (B) 9 members who are not Federal em-
5 ployees or officers and who are appointed by
6 the Comptroller General of the United States in
7 a manner similar to the manner in which the
8 Comptroller General appoints members to the
9 Medicare Payment Advisory Commission under
10 section 1805(c) of the Social Security Act.
11 (C) Such even number of members (not to
12 exceed 8) who are Federal employees and offi-
13 cers, as the President may appoint.
14 Such initial appointments shall be made not later
15 than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this
16 Act.

Wasn't Mr. Joyner earlier complaining about there no medical knowledge being needed? I'm actually impressed with the idea, but I'm going to reserve judgement on how it will work in reality.

Pg 42 of HC Bill - The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your
benefits for you. You have no choice!

4 (a) DUTIES.—The Commissioner is responsible for
5 carrying out the following functions under this division:
...
15 (3) INDIVIDUAL AFFORDABILITY CREDITS.—
16 The administration of individual affordability credits
17 under subtitle C of title II, including determination
18 of eligibility for such credits.

The benefits are chosen by your income. There's a table on page 137 that helps to clarify it. It starts at 133% of the Federal Poverty Level, and continues up to 400%. Anyone below that 133% is considered to have income of that 133%.

So, in essence they base your benefits on your income. Now we're forced to do that anyway, because a persons income and expenses affect which benefits package we can afford. However, with this it means that those who are at or below the poverty level can still get insurance. The horror.

Pg 50 Section 152 in HC Bill - HC will be provided to ALL non-U.S.
citizens, illegal or otherwise

21 SEC. 152. PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION IN HEALTH CARE.
22 (a) IN GENERAL.—Except as otherwise explicitly per-
23 mitted by this Act and by subsequent regulations con-
24 sistent with this Act, all health care and related services
25 (including insurance coverage and public health activities)
(pg. 51)
1 covered by this Act shall be provided without regard to
2 personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of
3 high quality health care or related services.
4 (b) IMPLEMENTATION.—To implement the require
5 ment set forth in subsection (a), the Secretary of Health
6 and Human Services shall, not later than 18 months after
7 the date of the enactment of this Act, promulgate such
8 regulations as are necessary or appropriate to insure that
9 all health care and related services (including insurance
10 coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act
11 are provided (whether directly or through contractual, li-
12 censing, or other arrangements) without regard to per-
13 sonal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high
14 quality health care or related services.

Someone who doesn't fear every word written by the "Obama Administration" could also be taken to mean that coverage can't be denied, no matter what the persons race, sexual orientation, or any other bias may be present.

Also, Mr. Staver must have skipped section 246, on page 143, in his reading.

3 SEC. 246. NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED
4 ALIENS.
5 Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments
6 for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are
7 not lawfully present in the United States.

Pg 58 HC Bill - Government will have real-time access to individual's
finances and a National ID Health Care Card will be issued!

5 ‘‘(D) enable the real-time (or near real-
6 time) determination of an individual’s financial
7 responsibility at the point of service and, to the
8 extent possible, prior to service, including
9 whether the individual is eligible for a specific
10 service with a specific physician at a specific fa-
11 cility, which may include utilization of a ma-
12 chine-readable health plan beneficiary identi-
13 fication card;

Currently, the government has a record of every cent I make. Sometimes, they even give me money back. According to this, W-2's are some sort of conspiracy.

Also, I right now carry an insurance card in my wallet that tells any medical facility how much my copay is. Big whoop.

Pg 59 HC Bill lines 21-24 Government will have direct access to your
banks accounts for electronic funds transfer.

21 ‘‘(C) enable electronic funds transfers, in
22 order to allow automated reconciliation with the
23 related health care payment and remittance ad-
24 vice;

You mean like we can make an electronic transfer of money to pay our various bills, now? Or possibly the debit card that I use to buy groceries and other items?

Welcome to the 21st century, Mr. Staver.

(NOTE FROM RJ-This really does mean they can take your money at any
time. Who will have this authority?-a government bureaucrat.)
If they could, this would mean that the clerk at Shell, or the "bureaucrat" at my electric company could clean me out.

For some reason, I'm picturing Chicken Little here.

Pg 65 Sec 164 is a payoff subsidized plan for retirees and their
families in unions and community organizations (ACORN).

12 SEC. 164. REINSURANCE PROGRAM FOR RETIREES.
13 (a) ESTABLISHMENT.—
14 (1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 90 days after
15 the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary
16 of Health and Human Services shall establish a tem-
17 porary reinsurance program (in this section referred
18 to as the ‘‘reinsurance program’’) to provide reim-
19 bursement to assist participating employment-based
20 plans with the cost of providing health benefits to
21 retirees and to eligible spouses, surviving spouses
22 and dependents of such retirees.

He read that and immediately thought of ACORN? I read that and think of the Teamsters, UMWA, and health insurance plans for those who retire from a job.

And for the record, I don't think ACORN is the devil they make it out to be.

Now, I'm going to skip ahead to the points that deal with "euthanasia".

Pg 425 Lines 4-12 Government mandates Advance [Death] Care Planning
Consult. Think Senior Citizens end of life.
(Perhaps Mr. Staver read an earlier version. In the one I found online it's lines 3-11)

3 ‘‘(A) An explanation by the practitioner of ad-
4 vance care planning, including key questions and
5 considerations, important steps, and suggested peo-
6 ple to talk to.
7 ‘‘(B) An explanation by the practitioner of ad-
8 vance directives, including living wills and durable
9 powers of attorney, and their uses.
10 ‘‘(C) An explanation by the practitioner of the
11 role and responsibilities of a health care proxy.

The government mandates that the practioner tell them what their options are. I have trouble seeing that as a problem.

Pg 425 Lines 17-19 Government will instruct and consult regarding
living wills, durable powers of attorney. Mandatory!

12 ‘‘(D) The provision by the practitioner of a list
13 of national and State-specific resources to assist con-
14 sumers and their families with advance care plan-
15 ning, including the national toll-free hotline, the ad-
16 vance care planning clearinghouses, and State legal
17 service organizations (including those funded
18 through the Older Americans Act of 1965).

Actually, the "practioner" will give them a "list of national and State-specific resources... (including those funded through the Older Americans Act of 1965)." So it's mandatory for the practioner to tell you where you can find the resources. Somehow, I don't believe this section is as nefarious as Mr. Staver makes it out to be.

Pg 425 Lines 22-25, 426 Lines 1-3 Government provides approved list of
end of life resources, guiding you in death.

19 ‘‘(E) An explanation by the practitioner of the
20 continuum of end-of-life services and supports avail-
21 able, including palliative care and hospice, and bene-
22 fits for such services and supports that are available
23 under this title.
(page 426)
1 ‘‘(F)(i) Subject to clause (ii), an explanation of
2 orders regarding life sustaining treatment or similar
3 orders, which shall include—

They don't guide. They tell you your options. Also, notice that line three continues:

4 ‘‘(I) the reasons why the development of
5 such an order is beneficial to the individual and
6 the individual’s family and the reasons why
7 such an order should be updated periodically as
8 the health of the individual changes;
9 ‘‘(II) the information needed for an indi-
10 vidual or legal surrogate to make informed deci-
11 sions regarding the completion of such an
12 order; and
13 ‘‘(III) the identification of resources that
14 an individual may use to determine the require-
15 ments of the State in which such individual re-
16 sides so that the treatment wishes of that indi-
17 vidual will be carried out if the individual is un-
18 able to communicate those wishes, including re-
19 quirements regarding the designation of a sur-
20 rogate decisionmaker (also known as a health
21 care proxy).

Basically, this is to make sure that the wishes of the person are carried out. You fill out the paperwork, and your wishes are carried out. No one else has any say on how you are treated when the time comes that your body is failing.

Pg 427 Lines 15-24 Government mandates program for orders for end of
life. The government has a say in how your life ends.

13 ‘‘(II) distributes or makes accessible such
14 orders to physicians and other health profes-
15 sionals that (acting within the scope of the pro-
16 fessional’s authority under State law) may sign
17 orders for life sustaining treatment;

Umm... Line 17 says "life sustaining treatment". In other words, withing the limits of state laws doctors and other health professionals can override a living will under certain circumstances.

Pg 429 Lines 1-9 An "adv. care planning consult" will be used
frequently as patient's health deteriorates.
(in the copy of the bill I found, it starts on page 428)

17 ‘‘(B) An advance care planning consultation with re-
18 spect to an individual may be conducted more frequently
19 than provided under paragraph (1) if there is a significant
20 change in the health condition of the individual, including
21 diagnosis of a chronic, progressive, life-limiting disease, a
22 life-threatening or terminal diagnosis or life-threatening
23 injury, or upon admission to a skilled nursing facility, a
24 long-term care facility (as defined by the Secretary), or
25 a hospice program.

I cannot find anything bad about this. As the patients health gets worse, they consult the patient to make sure the patients wishes are followed.

Pg 429 Lines 10-12 "adv. care consultation" may include an ORDER for
end of life plans. AN ORDER from Government.

1 ‘‘(4) A consultation under this subsection may in-
2 clude the formulation of an order regarding life sustaining
3 treatment or a similar order.

Actually, the order is from the patient, and has the weight of the government behind it when it comes to following the patients wishes. From page 429 lines 17-20:

17 ‘‘(ii) effectively communicates the individual’s
18 preferences regarding life sustaining treatment, in-
19 cluding an indication of the treatment and care de-
20 sired by the individual;

So the preferences can include anything from do everything possible, to just make the patient comfortable. It's up to the patient, but the government order is to follow the patients wishes.

Pg 429 Lines 13-25 - The government will specify which doctors can
write an end of life order.

8 ‘‘(i) is signed and dated by a physician (as de-
9 fined in subsection (r)(1)) or another health care
10 professional (as specified by the Secretary and who
11 is acting within the scope of the professional’s au-
12 thority under State law in signing such an order, in-
13 cluding a nurse practitioner or physician assistant)
14 and is in a form that permits it to stay with the in-
15 dividual and be followed by health care professionals
16 and providers across the continuum of care;

Actually, State law decides who has enough authority to witness the patient's wishes. Still, it's up to the patient how their care will be done.

PG 430 Lines 11-15 The government will decide what level of treatment
you will have at end of life.

4 ‘‘(B) The level of treatment indicated under subpara-
5 graph (A)(ii) may range from an indication for full treat-
6 ment to an indication to limit some or all or specified
7 interventions. Such indicated levels of treatment may in-
8 clude indications respecting, among other items—

No, the government will order the caregivers to follow the patients wishes, as outlined in paragraph (A) (ii), which I quoted above (page 429 lines 17-20). The patient gets to decide and put their wishes in writing, and the government backs their decision. The government no more gets to decide a patients healthcare than they get to decide who a person votes for in an election.

(NOTE FROM RJ: The above really does give the government the authority
to determine who lives and dies, and when. A government bureaucrat
really will be making this decision for you and your loved ones.)
I'm calling bullshit. It doesn't give the government authority. The government backs the wishes of the patient.

The rest of the email is virtually identical. Take issue with everything involved, and make it seem like the government is going to take everything out of the hands of the individual. It's a scare tactic.

Mathew D. Staver*
Founder and Chairman Dean and Professor of Law Liberty Counsel
Liberty University School of Law Offices in Florida, Virginia and the
District of Columbia, Lynchburg, Virginia
(800) 671-1776 - Telephone (434) 592-5300 - Telephone
www.LC.org

www.law.liberty.edu

*Licensed in Florida and the District of Columbia

Now do you understand why we have to stand up today against this bill
and declare with all of the courageous souls who are sounding the
alarm and let us say to the bill-
"YOU SHALL NOT PASS."

Click here to search for your local Representative

Click here to search for your local Senator

The entire email is full of misrepresentation and cherry-picking. As an example, they completely skip over the section that starts on page 170:

19 ‘‘(5) RELIGIOUS CONSCIENCE EXEMPTION.—
20 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (a) shall
21 not apply to any individual (and any qualifying
22 child residing with such individual) for any pe-
23 riod if such individual has in effect an exemp-
24 tion which certifies that such individual is a
25 member of a recognized religious sect or divi-
(page 171)
1 sion thereof described in section 1402(g)(1) and
2 an adherent of established tenets or teachings
3 of such sect or division as described in such sec-
4 tion.

So if you have a religious objection, as Mr. Joyner and Mr. Staver apparently do, not only do they get to opt out but they can also opt out their "dependents". Somehow, I don't see the holocaust or the purge in Russia being as effective if it was voluntary.

Expanding Post Test

2009-08-12T13:33:00.004-04:00

If this works, and you want to be able to compress your posts for easier viewing, you can thank...Bronze Dog by going to this link.