Entropy, the Chicken, the Egg and Information Processing

More Correspondence: I received a reply by gentlemen named Fernando
who mistakenly believed I supported the combination of Metaphysics
and science. In so many words I reassured him that I would never
make that error... Have fun with this one!
(The previous post sets the stage)

Don't fret Fernando, I am in total agreement with you. I see that
some have mistaken my politeness to the gentlemen as sympathy for
his argument. Let me make myself clear:

Mixing metaphysics with physics is like mating a horse and a donkey,
the fruit of your labors will be as sterile and as dull as a mule
(note that proponents of this mixture are also as stubborn as mules
as to the correctness of their beliefs)!

OK, have I set that aside? Please note that I identify myself as a
Materialist and an Atheist. Where does that leave room for
metaphysics in my life view? Nowhere!

By the way, I did get an answer as to the physics my correspondent
used: they were bogus. Allot of hard work went into his creation.
My first response to him almost included the line: "You know they
have medication for that!" Speaking of needing medication . . .

The last gentlemen (a different one) with his chicken and egg article
sort of threw me for a minute. Was it an attempt at satire?
No, I guess he was serious. One comment he made about the
chicken and egg sort of got me going:

"Shortly, in eggs is stored information about the long-term change-
overs, accumulated in the 3.5 billions year of cell-history, whereas
in chicken, only the information for the present-time situations are
stored and processed. Therefore, chickens and eggs are mutually
dependent on each-other; but in the long-run, eggs are the dominant
part of the system and they determine the future of the life-
development, because they have the most important information data
about their past-developmental-stages."

Ah, not quite. The chicken also contains all the genetic
information that goes into the egg. They are equals. No chicken,
no egg (or the Colonel!) . . . no egg, no chicken! As far as
chicken only having data about present time situations, that is true
only for the nervous system's data storage. However, there are also
instincts hard wired into that nervous system, patterns of
behavioral responses etched over the milennia. Its not as simple as
he tried to make it. The neuron of an aplysia (sea slug) shares much
in common with the neurons in chickens or in humans. This
similarity illustrates that each species represents a different
point in the continuum of life on this planet. At its most basic
levels all life has DNA in common. There is information in my DNA
which overlaps with that of a chicken, a sea slug etc. So what's
the point? Any attempt of division as simplistic as dominant, non-
dominant is not going to reflect the complexity of reality. The
mutual dependence part is right--but dominance has no place in
reality.

Now the chicken and egg guy goes on to say:

"we humans are equivalents of chickens, our cells are equivalents of
eggs;
cells are equivalents of chickens, molecules are equivalents of eggs;

molecules are equivalents of chickens, atoms are equivalents of eggs;

atoms are equivalents of chickens, sub-atomic-particles are
equivalents of eggs;"

Now, what this hierarchy proves, I'm not sure. To rephrase, using
his terminology, he seems to be saying: sub-atomic particles
determine atomic particles which determines the atom which determine
molecules which determine cells which determine eggs which
determines life. Even if this were true, it leaves too much out.
The fact is each level comes along with different methods of
observation. We as the observer determine what we look at and how
we interpret it. Now, yes you can break down a human being to the
level of sub-atomic particles, but this is not news to anybody with
a rudimentary knowledge of physics. There is an organization shaped
thru evolution and all the smaller parts (technical term,lol) are
the building blocks of a species' morphology--it just is, to plain-
speak. A dominance hierarchy? I don't see what that proves. Its
artificial and facetious. I still wonder whether he's pulling our
leg.

Finally he gets to where he's going:
"Because creation-potential starts at sub-atomic levels and
increases and diversifies with their integrations (in accordance
with the rules of "theory of integrative levels"), the evolution of
organic world must be accomplished purposefully, not by random
mutational development. Natural selection taught in biological
textbooks excludes the active (conscious) involvement of the life-
beings in constructions of their genetic codes."

Sorry chicken guy, as useful as consciousness may be to humans, it
is merely a by product of natural selection. To give intent to the
sub-atomic level, and attribute development of the organic world to
a "purpose", is unnecessary theoretical baggage. As far as we can
observe, mind is an emergent property of the brain's machinery and
processes. No brain, no mind. Bad brain, impaired mind. Mind? must
have brain (ug!). Intent is not intrinsic to the natural world, but
instead a relatively recent evolutionary accident. Also referring
to a statement he said concerning entropy representing higher levels
of organization: I say hah! You have never seen a brain lose
organization (increased entropy). Its not a pretty sight (think
dementia, schizophrenia, Alzheimer's, multiple stroke victems . . .
etc). Entropy in biological systems is a very sad thing to see.

Finally he ends with this:
"Physicists have to revise their basic evaluation principles like
time and space translations, because time and space are irreversible
due to their dependency on exponential information development,
which let develop time and space as polarised systems. For example,
our world history starts with Archaeozoic time, developing into
Proterozoic, and this one develops into Phanerozoic (Figure 4). Each
one of them is very different than the previous ones. Both spatial
and time development of our world is very anisotropic. Time being
manifested as change-over-rates is developed very differently in
different environments; with very slow change-over-rates in
interstellar or intergalactic realms, but with very high change-over-
rates in some planetary systems like our world. And this difference
is due to different rates of information developments, being very
poor in formers with less entropy, and being very developed in last
ones with very high entropy. "

I have only one comment chicken guy:
"You know they do have medication for that!"

Remember one thing: Entropy is a bad thing for information
processing, not a good thing. If not true, then bring more entropy
to your computer system. Say for instance, bash it with a club
(increases entropy for sure). Is your computer working better now?
Enough said . . .

As far as the linearity of time being unidirectional, which jives
with our common sense, but may or may not be so simple at the Quantum
level (this is just so beyond the scope here);I would say, "OK, did
we have to go thru that whole chicken egg story to get to linear ,
unidirectional time?"

And don't we now refer to it as space-time? Whatever . . . but
what does information devolopment have to do with this? He said time
is anisotropic (meaning:exhibiting properties with different values
when measured in different directions), and this is due to different
rates of information development. So? Well he just sort of peeters
out with that entropy thing (remember: he thinks entropy is good
for information development; duh!!!). Entropy broadly defined is:
"the degree of disorder or uncertainty in a system"
I think egg man should invest in a good dictionary!

What do I mean, well to beat a dead mule (see above),
more entropy=more disorder=more uncertainty=less information,
not better informational developments as he concluded.

Wow, that was easy!

Can someone increase the entropy in here, I want to stop thinking
so hard!

A Break From Politics: Let's talk about Spirituality and Quantum Physics

A Break From Politics: Let's talk about Spirituality and Quantum Physics

Below is an argument on my part against the spiritualization of physics, in particular Quantum Mechanics.

The respondent remains unnamed:

From Sard0nic Pan to correspondent:

I guess I hit a raw nerve! Let us follow some lines in your argument:(My comments in parentheses (SP), the correspondent's (C) are not)

C:Apples, Oranges and Pears...
SP:(Allergic to apples, love oranges and
pears: I know with certainty they exist from a materialist perspective)

C:On the one hand, "God Created Them"
SP:(A priori assumption: There is a God)

C:On the other hand, "Oh, they are made of atoms".
SP:(Through Chemistry and physics as the means, we know this to be true)

C:What's an atom? "Oh, those are made of electrons,
protons, and neutrons".
SP:(Chemistry and physics: Empirical science)

C:What are those? "Oh, those are made of quarks and gluons"
SP:(Getting into the realm of Quantum mechanics)

C:What's those ? Where did they come from ? "They are tiny wavicles made of virtual sub-quantum wavicles, and they all come from the Big Bang".
SP:(Now, Quantum theory)

C:Great, what's the big bang ?
SP:(do you need references?)

C:Where did it come from ?
SP:(Ah, ultimate questions, welcome to the
realm of speculation!)

C:And, please make one,
SP:(What am I? God?)

C:I'd like to see how that works.
SP:(Ditto for me!)

The following is Sard0nicpan:

Here we have to agree to disagree. I can agree with all that may be observed, I can examine the logic of certain speculations. However, we do not share the same a priori assumptions. Neither one of us can prove or disprove the existence of God. I do not accept the proposition that there is a God, or that there must be a God. You do, and I respect that. I am just not wired that way. As for ultimate causes, speculation is fine, but it may be a limitation of
our Biology that we can never know. That is why it is called Faith.

As far as Archetypes, even if the proposition is true that there is a logical structure of archetypes inherent to human physiology, it does not follow that the archetypes are in themselves true--only useful from a biological perspective. I have read the work that postulates that we are hard-wired for religion. Perhaps, but what does that prove? That religion is beneficial to the species? I can go with that, but it does not follow that the cosmology of said archetypes are true, only that they have value in a survival sense.

As far as running, from my perspective I am moving slowly, while your imagination is running wild. (Touché!) As I said, I see that I touched a raw nerve, but you cannot reason me over to your way of
thinking. The data just does not support the Conclusions.

Respectfully,
Sard0nicpan

This is the whole argument of correspondent from which bits were incorporated above:

Hi Sard0nicpan:

LOGICAL ARCHETYPES.Those DO exist in religion. Religion is also much older than science. Religion is so old and has so much "trace evidence" in it, that maybe religion is a crippled post catastrophic remnant of an older science. Bear with me for a moment. Apples, Oranges and Pears...On the one hand,
"God Created Them" On the other hand, "Oh, they are made of atoms". What's an atom? "Oh, those are made of electrons, protons, and neutrons".What's
those ? "Oh, those are made of quarks and gluons" What's those? Where did they come from ? "They are tiny wavicles made of virtual sub-quantum
wavicles, and they all come from the Big Bang". Great, what's the big bang? Where did it come from ?And, please make one, I'd like to see how that
works.Occam works for "archetypes" as well. Occam will quickly reduce things to their bare naked selves.It was not my intent to prove any point in the
context of what you posted. Instead, sincerely, I was hoping to elucidate the archetypes of the situation, using something similar to Occam's shaving device
to peel back a few layers and see that the oranges, apples and pears are not actually oranges apples and pears to begin with. At some point in history,
some incredibly genius people did a lot of thinking that resembled science to a very significant degree, but they were tied to religion, want it or not. If you look at their archetypes, it is easy, by logic, to enter the realm of esoteric on sure footing and stay that way. Just don't try to run too fast. Religion is a big word, and cannot be reduced, casually, to a "merely annoying non-scientific
waste of time". All that we are today has emerged in LARGE part due to the emergent behavior of religion both what is on-purpose, and also what is unintended consequence I'm sure. Say you're an alchemist and can be burned at the stake, but you're so sure this effort you are undertaking has value... even
resembles science... and you have friends... but you can't really talk publicly about what you're doing or it's off to the bar-b-que...UNLESS, you "conceal"
your meanings in palatable religiously acceptable terminology. Like I was saying, "religion" is a big word, and you really can't do anyone justice by tossing it out of the way in favor of science. That is equivalent to tossing history, or the better portion thereof, and all the little incidentals that go with it. So please again consider adam/eve as not the first two people, but the first things of ever. Also grant me, of all people, enough leeway to use terms that go with the origins of the descriptions I'm conveying. More importantly, what I really
mean to say, is slow down enough to ponder the adam/eve thing in that context on your own very carefully until it means something to you. At best, I
can start the ball rolling. You have the ball. I think at the moment you are running with the ball too quickly. This stuff really rocks if you go slow with it and see the archetypes,and follow the logic there, forget "pear" "orange", see
"fruit","atoms".

Correspondent's argument ends.

Sard0nicpan to correspondent: (this is what provoked his above response)

I guess where the whole topic boggles my mind is when people attempt to give old-fashioned country-time religion (or spirituality) to science. The problem is
that the arguments after awhile begin to mix their metaphors, and stretch their similes to fit the facts. Belief and theory are separate domains, in my
view, one emotive the other rational. Now of course I will give you that we are rational-emotive beings, but the fact is that good science has always played up the rational and played down the emotive (in theory if not practice).

Now I can emote with the best of you! However, when seeking knowledge I try to become as dispassionate as possible in my reasoning. You speak of yin/yang,
adam/eve and 1/0 as if they were all dichotomous entities. Why use yin/yang or adam/eve as terms unless you need it to prove a point? If so, then you are indicating male/female and all that it denotes/connotes. It really depends on
how you frame it. Biologically, behaviorally and socially speaking, the reality is that male/female runs more along a continuum; it is analog, not digital. If there were really yin and yang energy vortices in the universe, does it not
stand to reason that there are also androgynous entities? You can see that I can also mix my metaphors with the best . . . ;)

So you say there is no vacuum, but instead yin/yang vortices (containers?) . . . I am not sure what you mean by vortex, but Would agree with the following definition:

. . .a mass of fluid (as a liquid) with a whirling or circular motion that tends to form a cavity or vacuum in the center of the circle and to draw toward this
cavity or vacuum bodies subject to its action.

So it follows, given the above definition, a vortex naturally leads to vacuum, or at least a cavity. I am trying to visualize all this, and I really cannot.

If there is no vacuum, then how do you delimit your vortices? When does one start and the other stop? Is it possible to have a continuum of vortices and not infer a vacuum or some other medium (the famous ether?) for them to swirl in? The major problem I have in understanding your point is that we are not really speaking the same language. That's OK, I am sure we can come to some common language for which to continue this discourse.

What is my intent? What am I trying to prove? My intention is discourse and entertainment. As for
proof, there is nothing one can prove from all this--and that is the point. It is nebulous at best, straining logic and science to accommodate belief. My opinion is stop trying to prove God (or whatever). Fundamentally, either you believe or you do not. Logic has little to do with it. Rationalization
everything.

A final thought: The main problem, as I see it, is that languages of spirituality and those of science may share many terms, but the intended meanings of said terms are marked by different assumptions. There may be a linking of terms between domains, but when you get down to the root intent (a priori assumptions), you are fitting square pegs into round wholes. It may sound as if there are commonalities, when in fact you are comparing apples and oranges when you are really looking for a pear. If that sounds ludicrous, then I have proven my point.

Correspondent's first letter:

"Light" has an esoteric meaning, biblically, kaballistically,"sub-real", "meta".For example, biblically, God defines intelligence as "The light of truth".So far so good.Now, google around for "The Tree of Life". Find a "picture" of it.That, in
my not so humble opinion, is a blueprint / object oriented analysis, of the "rules" necessary to instantiate matter "malkuth".The saying goes, "spirit has to die to become matter".If one were to study kaballa a bit, all sorts of "emergent" stuff comes up right away, and you will be happy to note, "they"
love Fibbonaci, and the golden mean, etc., spiral, fractal stuff.Adam, for example, and in OTHER creation lore, is NOT the first "man".Adam is the very first "thing". "male" "kinetic"Eve is made from Adam, "feminine" "container" - yet still made of the kinetic stuff.Visualize perhaps a "vortex".That is lesson one on this stuff.So what is your goal ?Find flaws in what they are saying ? That is a matter of looking carefully at what they choose to describe in the realm of science and"reverse engineer" towards the "tree of life" and what I just said
about emergence.USUALLY, you can find flaws in this type of logic. I should know, I make such flaws myself.;)But the saving grace, if any, is "how close
does this stuff get to'computational CPH' "
?C-CPH are "binary" 0/1 yin/yang An
"embodyment" of "adam"/"eve" - kinetic, self contained.Then there is "computational adjacency".Start not with a vacuum, is my argument so far. There is no vacuum.There is no zero. There is only bazillions of "adam/eve" yin/yang vorticies. Hold their feet to this fire and the rest will be obvious and you may end up helping.

Sard0nicPan's original posting which led to Correspondent's interest (this is the
mess that started it all):

Below you will see my comments on a page
fromhttp://www.socratus.com/bibleeng.htmThe gentlemen wanted to correspond with me so I took him up on it. I have been fascinated by those who have tried to deify Quantum theory, and/or use it to somehow explain human consciousness. I myself have a strong background in Neurophysiology, Neuropsychology and Philosophy with physics sort of a later in life hobby. My comments on his Quantum/Bible section are negative, although respectfully so. Given obvious gaps in his logic (plain old-fashioned leaps of faith) I wonder how accurate are his physics. I would be pleased if you could help me out.
Personally, I am materialist/Atheist, but I am always up for a good argument.

My Comments on http://www.socratus.com/bibleeng.htm:
More a question: So what about entropy? If the universe is intellectual, is it slowly losing its organization, its fundamental structure? Most
Neurophysiologists agree that mind is an emergent property of the workings of
the brain. Entropy in biological systems leads to the breakdown of information processing (for example Alzheimer's, stroke, metabolic disorders and the rest). Does entropy determine that the universe is becoming senile? Overall, while I find many of your ideas are interesting, I do believe that you are taking a leap of faith. Your physics/mathematics are needless window dressing and draw
attention away from your fundamental assumption that a photon has intention and is spiritual in nature (spiritual particle). If you believe that God is light, the rigor you provide in support of your argument is superfluous. In the end you either believe or you don't. In any case, I am interested in your response.

Will the U.S. ever elect an Atheist?

Will the U.S. voter ever elect an atheist president?

This is a relatively easy question to answer: No way, no how, no when, no chance. Although constitutionally there is nothing preventing it from happening, the general attitude towards atheism in this country is a mixture of pity, horror and revulsion. The only way an atheist could be elected is if they left their beliefs in the closet. Not only that, they would have to do the walk, do the talk and act the part of a devout Christian 24/7.

“Have you been saved yet?” I am sick of getting this question from complete strangers. A week ago, I made the mistake of making small talk with a pleasant elderly woman as we waited for our bus. Before long she was asking me if I was saved, pushing Bush/Cheney on me and the virtues of the local Conservative Republicans. I bit my tongue and just pleasantly nodded at her, while along I was thinking: “Please shut up!”

No, I do not need saving. “Tsk Tsk,” you say. “Well remember Jesus will always be there for you.” While faith is fine for those who have it, I would prefer that they keep it to themselves. The separation of Church and State guarantees the right to freely participate in your religion, and also the freedom for me not to participate.

That is what makes Bush and the Neocons so disturbing to atheists. We are losing our freedom to be free from religion, to comfortably not believe in god (small caps intentional), and to live our lives in peace. The “under God” and “In God We Trust” controversies are little prayers that atheists must confront on a daily basis. It seems piddling, but given the atmosphere in this nation it takes on a life of its own.

My beliefs are that we are not under god, and I have no trust in something I don’t believe exists. I am not screaming it off the rooftops, so I would expect the same from my government. At least when the missionaries of one group or another come to my front door, I don’t have to open it. My tax dollars should not be going into faith based initiatives. Highly politicized religious groups by their actions should rightfully lose their tax-exempt status. That’s not religious freedom, it is public policy.

Religiosity has become a litmus test for all politicians, and even those candidates who are traditionally reticent about their beliefs (e.g. Northeastern Catholics) are being forced to prove their devoutness. Can you even begin to imagine an Atheist Supreme Court Justice? I doubt it. Despite whatever qualifications they may or may not have they will be disqualified and dismissed out of hand.

Hypothetical Interview (I have had this conversation, even though I’m not in politics):
Q: “So tell me, senator, have you found Jeeeeesus?”
S: “Well I’m a practicing Catholic.”
Q: “That’s not the same thing. I mean have you been reborn?”
S: “I am strong in my faith, I don’t need to be reborn.”
Q: “To be accepted in the house of the father, you must bear witness, and accept Jesus in your life” . . . etc . . .

Not only do you now have to be Christian, but rapidly you are needing to become the right kind of Christian for acceptance. JFK bucked the odds as a Catholic and low and behold, was elected. What did he get for his troubles? Shot. Now I’m not even hinting at a connection between his death and his religion, but it is ironic that the first Catholic president in this nation’s history did not live past his first term. Since then, no Catholic has come close, unless you count Dukakis (Bobby Kennedy? Oh yeah, he was shot too). Joe Lieberman was a miscalculation on Gore’s part in thinking a Jew was a good idea to add to his ticket. Although he had the right conservative social attitudes for the most part, Jesus was not his guy. In the conservative south, the attitude was that he was still on the wrong team.

So I have one final question, what if for some strange reason Americans had to choose between an Atheist guy with a wife and 2.2 children, or a Gay Christian man; what do you think the outcome would be there? I don’t think the right could choose, they would just shoot them both!

The Loss of Civility. . .have the terrorists already won?

Loss of Civility . . .

One of the more maddening phrases that I have heard, not once, but twice uttered by John Kerry in the debate of October 8th was: “I will hunt down the terrorists and I will kill them.” Is it me, or have we already lost this war on terror? For years, the phrase was usually: “We will hunt down the terrorists, we will find them and they will be brought to Justice.” I know that Bush supporters make issues of Kerry’s toughness, but does he have to stoop down to their level? Must we fight terror with terror?

Let us examine this further. On a national level, the degree that the rhetoric has degenerated into a series of Ramboisms is astonishing. Here is a statement written by Ralph Peters, a retired United States Army intelligence officer and author of "Beyond Terror: Strategy in a Changing World,"

“ . . . terrorists must be destroyed. There is no alternative to killing the hardcore believers, and it may be necessary to kill thousands of them, if we are to protect the lives of millions of our own citizens.”

This is a respected man amongst intelligence experts not advocating the capture and arrest (with death as a possible sentence), or the possible loss of terrorist life in combat, but instead promoting a "take no prisoners" stratagem of out and out murder. Do you really believe that such a policy would lead only to the death of terrorists? Doubtful . . . He is not talking about police work here, but instead the use of overwhelming force against terrorist hideaways. What he fails to consider is that such groups often seek shelter amongst the innocents. There is no justice in that, and no one seems to care if collateral damage is inflicted upon Muslim innocents.

From my perspective, if you are to adopt a blanket killing policy, you may as well employ tactical nuclear weapons. At least that would minimize the loss of American combat soldiers. What is that you say? It is inhuman . . . I heartily agree with you, but is it very different from a “kill them all policy” using conventional weapons? Only in its impact on the environment and I do not think the mass killing brigade gives a rat’s ass about the environment.

From this administration’s flunkies you get the following from Paul Bremer (The top civilian administrator in Baghdad, to oversee Iraq's transition to democratic rule):

“ . . .We must go on the offensive. To be blunt, we have to kill the terrorists before they kill us."

Then Bremer gives yet another rationale for the war on Iraq:

"Regime change in Iraq, long a sponsor of terror, would be an excellent way to bring home to friends and foes that we are serious about terrorism and show that opposing the U.S. has a high cost."

I do not know what we have done in convincing our “friends”, but I do know that Iraq has become a terrorist magnet, and that our foes have been fighting an effective war on the cheap. Yet, we balk at using overwhelming force in eliminating the rabble. That is because for some reason we have taken to nation building in Iraq, a policy Bush once swore he would not adopt. His rationale: “911 changed everything.”

Did it, did it really? It meant that it was time for the U.S. to grow up and join the rest of the World (for whom terrorism has always been real—see ETA in Spain, IRA in Britain, the Red Army Brigade in Japan, Red Brigade in Italy and throughout Europe, the middle-east afflicted by terrorism for decades, etc.). Instead, the administration continues to rant and rave like a bunch of juvenile delinquents, thumbing its nose at the world and destroying the foundations of it’s own future.

Rhetoric does not harm in and of itself, but it does inflame attitudes that inspire violence. I facetiously advocated the use of tactical nuclear weapons, but it is somewhere out there on the continuum that neo-conservatives are rapidly traversing. When a liberal democrat adopts the language of thugs, what does that say about the more extreme elements in our society that just happen to be in power at this time? To me it signals a green light.

Senator Kerry, we do not need a tough leader in the manner of John J. Rambo, we need wise leaders who employ the use of force judiciously and of necessity. If you really want to advocate creating a killing fields for terrorists, I suggest you save time and money and just scatter their atoms amongst the winds.

"God bless America. . . And no one else!" —Chris Rock, HBO special.

Bush Wired? Keep it simple stupid!

Bush wired . . .

As much as I would like to see that statement proven true, I think the evidence is pretty weak. A more parsimonious explanation is simply that Bush is not so bright--especially as one would assess his verbal abilities. Personally, if I were one of W's handlers, I might try to sneak an earpiece in there, under controlled conditions (their own very private Bush laboratory), and see if his performance improves. Problem is, I don't think they'd use it in public for one very important reason-- I don't think W has the ability to attend to an interviewer there in front of him, and a handler whispering in his ear. He's not the brightest bulb, but many of the people he’s hired to handle him are (sorry to say!). That experiment would never leave the laboratory once they realized that W could not handle it. His ability to concentrate, and appear to attend to only a single speaker would be simply overwhelmed (and No, I did not just prove the point, I'm illustrating why W's handlers would never let it get that far).

I saw the picture of the President’s back which showed a suspicious bulge. Problem is that I’m a technology guy and I know better: If the President’s men were willing to take such a chance, the technology they would have chosen would not be so easily seen. Technologically speaking, that sort of wiring job is so 15 years ago. I have to agree with the President: He had a wardrobe malfunction.

On another level, other evidence mentioned in the media and by Bloggers just reeks of the conspiracy theory pabulum spewed out by the mentally unbalanced (right or left wing extremists). Of course I don't totally discount the possibility, but I do believe that Democrats would do themselves more harm than good in embracing this theory and using that evidence. The faulty logic and the sort of manic anti-Bush slant do not stand up to objective examination. Mind you, I would love to be wrong. I just think a better explanation is that W is not intellectually up to the task at hand. He's just too stupid to make a good ventriloquist’s dummy . . . (could not resist that).

. . . and any way, do we really need to go out on a limb in exposing the president as lacking? There's enough objectively proven evidence of his lacking "the right stuff" out there to bury not only him, but any member of his administration who has future political aspirations. The public is only now slowly owning up to this president's failure to perform. Its up to all of us now not only to go out there and vote W out of office, but also to make cogent reasoned arguments as to why we are better off with Kerry. That he's not Bush is a good start, but we all have seen how far that goes . . . We have a good argument for changing horses in midstream, but the American public has to be convinced that its not trading in a glue horse for a dumb Ass . . . (yes, pun intended. Sorry!)

Half-baked Bush Impresses Half-wit Supporters pt 1

For so long I have cautioned people not to underestimate George W. Bush's intelligence, nor that of his supporters. This is a stand that I can no longer abide by. After watching W in action over the course of the two debates, I can only come up with one conclusion: The only way W appears intelligent is when you compare his intellect to that of his supporters. I mean are these people for real?

Since when is changing your mind a sign of weakness, and staying the course in the face of contrary information the sign of a strong leader? Seems to me that flexibility in a leader is far more important, and effective, than beating your brains out against the same dead end over and over again. I would say to W, "now really, we now know that there were no weapons of mass destruction, but you were worried about Saddam aiding terrorists in the acquisition of said weapons? Now be real George, if he can't get them for his own use, how will he provide them to someone else?"

The absurdity is appalling! Yet his supporters are even more absurd in his defense. The standard neo-con line is that Saddam was somehow in contact with Al Qaida prior to the Gulf War, and was indeed plotting the use of WMD against the U.S., Israel, and any other foreign power that would stand between them and their designs on destruction of all that is Western. Yet let's examine the aims of Al Qaida and those of Saddam: Al Qaida aims to foster an Islamic Theocracy in Jihad against the secular world; Saddam was a secular dictator and demagogue. The sad fact for the Bushies is that Saddam was considered an enemy of Al Qaida. Saddam considered Al Qaida to be a threat to his rule. In fact, the one true link to Al Qaida is Iran. Iran is a Theocratic dictatorship run by radical Mullahs and Ayatollahs. They regard the lives of Westerners and the whole of Western culture as something to be eliminated. Oh yeah, and while W. was steadfastly resolute in the removal of an impotent dictator (Saddam, of course), this very same Iranian nation acquired the means and materials to begin in earnest a nuclear weapons program. Good call George! (not)

What about North Korea? Is W. really so short-sighted that he still believes that it is a good thing to have so many troops tied up in Iraq while Kim's nuclear weapons programs flourish? They say hindsight is 20-20, but W's must be in the legally blind range. Yes it was a mistake, George, one that should never be repeated. Yet with no move towards a Bush administration mea culpa on Iraq, what can we expect in the next four years? More of the same would be the least of our problems. With terrorist Theocracies flourishing in the Middle East, and Nuclear Korea ready willing and able to push the Orient to war, W's wrong-headed stewardship could lead us to fighting a World War on many fronts. A war that we will be too weakened and alone in the world to fight.

We still have a chance to build a strong coalition on our own terms. Four more years of international diplomacy as we have seen it will leave us as one lone-crazed voice from the wilderness. Nations such as France and Germany will have to be begged for aid in a most demoralizing manner if we continue to treat their views with the derisive scorn showered upon them by the Bush league of not so extraordinary gentlemen (and Condy of course!). Tony Blair will be gone, and likely replaced by a more independent Britain (remember Spain?). Yes, they may not be the greatest of friends right now, but think of Bush's great diplomatic accomplishment: We are now on better terms with Moammar Khadafy and Libya than we are with the greatest industrial nations of NATO. Good work George, we can count on Khadafy! Say that over and over again about 10 times and your brains will likely start to leak from your ears.

The Passion of the Bush

October 3, 2004 FRANK RICH NY Times

Now on DVD: The Passion of the Bush

Frank Rich

You can run but you can't hide: Oct. 5 will bring the perfect storm in this year's culture wars. It's on that strategically chosen date, four Tuesdays before the election, that the DVD of "Fahrenheit 9/11" will be released along with not one but two new Michael Moore books. It's also the release date of the equally self-effacing Ann Coulter's latest rant, of a new DVD documentary, "Horns and Halos," that revisits the Bush mystery year of 1972, and of an R.E.M. album, "Around the Sun," that gets in its own political licks at the state of the nation.

When Dick Cheney and John Edwards debate in Cleveland that night, Bruce Springsteen will be barnstorming in another swing state, as the Vote for Change tour hits St. Paul. All that's needed to make the day complete is a smackdown between Kinky Friedman and Teresa Heinz Kerry on "Imus in the Morning."

Of the many cultural grenades being tossed that day, though, the one must-see is "George W. Bush: Faith in the White House," a DVD that is being specifically marketed in "head to head" partisan opposition to "Fahrenheit 9/11." This documentary first surfaced at the Republican convention in New York, where it was previewed in tandem with an invitation-only, no-press-allowed "Family, Faith and Freedom Rally," a Ralph Reed-Sam Brownback jamboree thrown by the Bush campaign for Christian conservatives. Though you can buy the DVD for $14.95, its makers told the right-wing news service WorldNetDaily.com that they plan to distribute 300,000 copies to America's churches. And no wonder. This movie aspires to be "The Passion of the Bush," and it succeeds.


The president praying in a scene from "Faith in the White House."

More than any other campaign artifact, it clarifies the hard-knuckles rationale of the president's vote-for-me-or-face-Armageddon re-election message. It transforms the president that the Democrats deride as a "fortunate son" of privilege into a prodigal son with the "moral clarity of an old-fashioned biblical prophet." Its Bush is not merely a sincere man of faith but God's essential and irreplaceable warrior on Earth. The stations of his cross are burnished into cinematic fable: the misspent youth, the hard drinking (a thirst that came from "a throat full of Texas dust"), the fateful 40th-birthday hangover in Colorado Springs, the walk on the beach with Billy Graham. A towheaded child actor bathed in the golden light of an off-camera halo re-enacts the young George comforting his mom after the death of his sister; it's a parable anticipating the future president's miraculous ability to comfort us all after 9/11. An older Bush impersonator is seen rebuffing a sexual come-on from a fellow Bush-Quayle campaign worker hovering by a Xerox machine in 1988; it's an effort to imbue our born-again savior with retroactive chastity. As for the actual president, he is shown with a flag for a backdrop in a split-screen tableau with Jesus. The message isn't subtle: they were separated at birth.

"Faith in the White House" purports to be the product of "independent research," uncoordinated with the Bush-Cheney campaign. But many of its talking heads are official or unofficial administration associates or sycophants. They include the evangelical leader and presidential confidant Ted Haggard (who is also one of Mel Gibson's most fervent P.R. men) and Deal Hudson, an adviser to the Bush-Cheney campaign until August, when he resigned following The National Catholic Reporter's investigation of accusations that he sexually harassed an 18-year-old Fordham student in the 1990's. As for the documentary's "research," a film positioning itself as a scrupulously factual "alternative" to "Fahrenheit 9/11" should not inflate Mr. Bush's early business "success" with Arbusto Energy (an outright bust for most of its investors) or the number of children he's had vaccinated in Iraq ("more than 22 million," the movie claims, in a country whose total population is 25 million).

"Will George W. Bush be allowed to finish the battle against the forces of evil that threaten our very existence?" Such is the portentous question posed at the film's conclusion by its narrator, the religious broadcaster Janet Parshall, beloved by some for her ecumenical generosity in inviting Jews for Jesus onto her radio show during the High Holidays. Anyone who stands in the way of Mr. Bush completing his godly battle, of course, is a heretic. Facts on the ground in Iraq don't matter. Rational arguments mustered in presidential debates don't matter. Logic of any kind is a nonstarter. The president - who after 9/11 called the war on terrorism a "crusade," until protests forced the White House to backpedal - is divine. He may not hear "voices" instructing him on policy, testifies Stephen Mansfield, the author of one of the movie's source texts, "The Faith of George W. Bush," but he does act on "promptings" from God. "I think we went into Iraq not so much because there were weapons of mass destruction," Mr. Mansfield has explained elsewhere, "but because Bush had concluded that Saddam Hussein was an evildoer" in the battle "between good and evil." So why didn't we go into those other countries in the axis of evil, North Korea or Iran? Never mind. To ask such questions is to be against God and "with the terrorists."

he propagandists of "Faith in the White House" argue, as others have, that the president's invocation of religion in the public sphere, from his citation of Jesus as his favorite "political philosopher" to his incessant invocation of the Almighty in talking about how everything is coming up roses in Iraq, is consistent with the civic spirituality practiced by his antecedents, from the founding fathers to Bill Clinton. It's not. Past presidents have rarely, if ever, claimed such godlike infallibility. Mr. Bush never admits to making a mistake; even his premature "Mission Accomplished" victory lap wasn't in error, as he recently told Bill O'Reilly. After all, if you believe "God wants me to be president" - a quote attributed to Mr. Bush by the Rev. Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention - it's a given that you are incapable of making mistakes. Those who say you have are by definition committing blasphemy. A God-appointed leader even has the power to rewrite His texts. Jim Wallis, the liberal evangelical author, has pointed out Mr. Bush's habit of rejiggering specific scriptural citations so that, say, the light shining into the darkness is no longer God's light but America's and, by inference, the president's own.

It's not just Mr. Bush's self-deification that separates him from the likes of Lincoln, however; it's his chosen fashion of Christianity. The president didn't revive the word "crusade" idly in the fall of 2001. His view of faith as a Manichaean scheme of blacks and whites to be acted out in a perpetual war against evil is synergistic with the violent poetics of the best-selling "Left Behind" novels by Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins and Mel Gibson's cinematic bloodfest. The majority of Christian Americans may not agree with this apocalyptic worldview, but there's a big market for it. A Newsweek poll shows that 17 percent of Americans expect the world to end in their lifetime. To Karl Rove and company, that 17 percent is otherwise known as "the base."

The pandering to that base has become familiar in countless administration policies, starting with its antipathy to stem-cell research, abortion, condoms for H.I.V. prevention and gay civil rights. But ever since Mr. Bush's genuflection to Bob Jones University threatened to shoo away moderates in 2000, the Rove ruse is to try to keep the most militant and sectarian tactics of the Bush religious program under the radar. (Mr. Rove even tried to deny that the wooden lectern at the Republican convention was a pulpit embedded with a cross, as if a nation of eyewitnesses could all be mistaken.) The re-election juggernaut has not only rounded up the membership rosters of churches en masse but quietly mounted official Web sites like
kerrywrongforcatholics.com as well. (Evangelicals and Mormons have their own Web variants on this same theme, but not the Jews, who are apparently getting in Kerry just what they deserve.) Even the contraband C-word is being revived out of sight of most of the press: Marc Racicot, the Bush-Cheney campaign chairman, lobbed a direct-mail fund-raising letter in March describing Mr. Bush as "leading a global crusade against terrorism."

In this spring's classic "South Park" parody, "The Passion of the Jew," in which Mr. Gibson's movie tosses the community into a religious war, one of the kids concludes: "If you want to be Christian, that's cool, but you should focus on what Jesus taught instead of how he got killed. Focusing on how he got killed is what people did in the Dark Ages, and it ends up with really bad results." He has a point. It's far from clear that Mr. Bush's eschatology and his religious vanity are leading to good results now. The all-seeing president who could pronounce Vladimir Putin saintly by looking into his "soul" is now refusing to acknowledge that the reverse may be true. The general in charge of tracking down Osama bin Laden, William G. Boykin, has earned cheers in some quarters for giving speeches at churches proclaiming that Mr. Bush is "in the White House because God put him there" to lead the "army of God" against "a guy named Satan." But all that preaching didn't get his day job done; he hasn't snared the guy named Osama he was supposed to bring back "dead or alive."

"George W. Bush: Faith in the White House" must be seen because it shows how someone like General Boykin can stay in his job even in failure and why Mr. Bush feels divinely entitled to keep his job even as we stand on the cusp of an abyss in Iraq. In this pious but not humble worldview, faith, or at least a certain brand of it, counts more than competence, and a biblical mission, or at least a simplistic, blunderbuss facsimile of one, counts more than the secular goal of waging an effective, focused battle against an enemy as elusive and cunning as terrorists. That no one in this documentary, including its hero, acknowledges any constitutional boundaries between church and state is hardly a surprise. To them, America is a "Christian nation," period, with no need even for the fig-leaf prefix of "Judeo-."

Far more startling is the inability of a president or his acolytes to acknowledge any boundary that might separate Mr. Bush's flawed actions battling "against the forces of evil" from the righteous dictates of God. What that level of hubris might bring in a second term is left to the imagination, and "Faith in the White House" gives the imagination room to run riot about what a 21st-century crusade might look like in the flesh. A documentary conceived as a rebuke to "Fahrenheit 9/11" is nothing if not its unintentional and considerably more nightmarish sequel.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company Home Privacy Policy Search Corrections RSS Help Back to Top

Social Studies

I discovered this gem on http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Dubyahs_Follies/messages

Now here's a real lesson in social studies.
DEMOCRAT You have two cows. Your neighbor has none. You feel guilty for being successful. Barbara Streisand sings for you.

REPUBLICAN You have two cows. Your neighbor has none. So?

SOCIALIST You have two cows. The government takes one and gives it to your neighbor. You form a cooperative to tell him how to manage his cow.

COMMUNIST You have two cows. The government seizes both and provides you with milk. You wait in line for hours to get it. It is expensive and sour.

CAPITALISM, AMERICAN STYLE You have two cows. You sell one, buy a bull and build a herd of cows.

DEMOCRACY, AMERICAN STYLE You have two cows. The government taxes you to the point you have to sell both to support a man in a foreign country who has only one cow. Of course, that cow was a gift from your government.

BUREAUCRACY, AMERICAN STYLE You have two cows. The government takes them both, shoots one, milks the other, pays you for the milk, then pours the milk down the drain.

AMERICAN CORPORATION You have two cows. You pretend to sell one, lease it back to yourself, and do an IPO on the 2nd one. You force the two cows to produce the milk of four cows. You are surprised when one cow drops dead. You spin an announcement to the analysts stating you have downsized and are reducing expenses. Your stock goes up.

FRENCH CORPORATION You have two cows. You go on strike because you want three cows. You go to lunch and drink wine. Life is good.

JAPANESE CORPORATION You have two cows. You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and produce twenty times the milk. They learn to travel on unbelievably crowded trains. Most are at the top of their class at cow school.

GERMAN CORPORATION You have two cows. You engineer them so they are all blond, drink lots of beer, give excellent quality milk, and run a hundred miles an hour. Unfortunately, they also demand 13 weeks of vacation per year.

ITALIAN CORPORATION You have two cows but you don't know where they are. While ambling around, you see a beautiful woman. You break for lunch. Life is good.

RUSSIAN (& Ukrainian) CORPORATION You have two cows. You have some vodka You count them and learn you have five cows. You have some more vodka. You count them again and learn you have 42 cows. The Mafia shows up and takes over however many cows you really have.

TALIBAN CORPORATION You have all the cows in Afghanistan, which are two. You don't milk them because you cannot touch any creature's private parts. Then you kill them and claim a US bomb blew them up while they were in the veterinary hospital. IRAQI CORPORATION You have two cows. They go into hiding. They send radio tapes of their moos.

POLISH CORPORATION You have two bulls. Employees are regularly maimed and killed attempting to milk them.

FLORIDA CORPORATION You have a black cow and a brown cow. Everyone votes for the best looking cow. Some of the people who like the brown one best, vote for the black one. Some people vote for both. Some people can't figure out how to vote at all. Finally, a bunch of guys from out-of-state tell you which is the best-looking cow.

NEW YORK CORPORATION You have fifteen million cows. You have to choose which one will be the leader of the herd. So you pick some fat cow from Arkansas.

CALIFORNIA CORPORATION You have millions of cows Most are illegals. Arnold likes the ones with the big udders.