Archive for the ‘Review’ Category

The Origin of the Universe

Monday, December 14th, 2009

Looks like the blog was down all weekend, and I lost 100 subscribers. Not a lot when you’ve got thousands, but I only had 150 or so. Not sure why the site was down, but I apologize.

Short book review of Simon Singh’s “Big Bang: The Origin of the Universe”

I recently finished reading Simon Singh’s excellent book, “Big Bang: The Origin of the Universe.” I learned quite a bit from the book, and, as I’ve told some friends, I think I learned more about chemistry and physics than I did in the years that I took courses in them. Learned in a deeper level of understanding sort of way, conceptually. That’s something major missing from high school and college education — the way everything fits together, introduced in a historical scale. Before anyone even takes an advanced math or science class, everyone should have to take a course in the origin of the universe, taught in Simon Singh’s narrative style.

The book got me excited about astronomy, physics, chemistry, and, surprising to me, the history and people behind the development of what I recall as a child being this new and amazing “discovery” that everything started with a “big bang.” I was surprised to learn that when I was a kid, this wasn’t new stuff, but had been a theory steadily gaining support for many decades, constantly urged on by advancements in technology and discoveries across a swath of scientific disciplines.

That last bit is what I think most fascinated me — we needed astronomers, physicists, chemists, and mathematicians to help explain our universe; defining the stars wasn’t relegated to the astronomers. Singh’s book helped me come to the realization that our common understanding of the universe and all within it derives from separate disciplines related by the fact that they’re all merely different ways of trying to perceive and translate those perceptions of the universe into something we can understand. Each person in the chain of history had an important role, but knowledge was built on the backs of their combined (and often independent) efforts.

Singh also spent some time describing how religion and unscientific thought kept holding back discoveries and realizations of what the real world was like, despite the fact that a good number of discoveries were made by clergymen. Almost surprisingly, Singh didn’t place the likes of Einstein on a superhuman pedestal of perfection. Einstein wasn’t always right, and Singh focused on the mistake that each scientific generation was wont to make — settling in with a comfortable idea about how things work and turning a dogmatic eye to new discoveries that challenge the status quo. Einstein was guilty of it (read the book to see how), and it took decades for him to recant. He was by far not the only one.

Consider the Ptolemaic point of view, carrying on the ancient assumption that there was something divinely perfect about the circle, so much so that it must, by that very nature, lie as the foundation of just about everything. Ptolemy tried to mathematically explain both how the Earth was at the center of the universe (another stubborn claim perpetuated by religion) and simultaneously how all the orbits of all the satellites of the Earth and other heavenly bodies must necessarily follow circular orbits.1

What he came up with was quite a mess. Instead of going for simplicity (as in, perhaps the Earth isn’t in the center, and perhaps circles aren’t all that), he added in complexity.

Ptolemy
(image from cset.mnsu.edu/pa)

What that image shows is how each major entity in the solar system had two orbits — one around the Earth, and another around its own orbit around the Earth. This invention satisfied those who, despite new discoveries and scientific doubts, wanted to keep the universe squeezed into a God-shaped box. The universe is a lot more complex than we originally imagined; for example, it’s not reduced to four elements. However, it’s also a lot more straightforward; when we discover something new that doesn’t conform to our prior notions, it quite often leads to a shift in thinking (what Singh explains is a “Paradigm Shift”) that explains the universe in a different, more accurate way.

As described in the book, even the most brilliant minds resist change, but the beauty of the scientific method is that it doesn’t care what the most brilliant minds think. If we feed it new information, and the results show that it does not conform to previously held ideas, then either the data is wrong or the old ideas were wrong. Singh’s book, while laying out the amazing development and modification of the theories of the origin of the universe, is a thorough explanation of how science works, despite all the efforts of stubborn humans to have it their way.

If you have even the remotest interest in why we accept the “big bang” as the theory of the origin of our universe (in the same way that we accept evolution), I strongly urge you to read “Big Bang.” If you’re afraid that the math and science will be beyond your comprehension, worry not; Singh’s style flows gently like a book of historical fiction, with a comfortable depth for the layperson. I didn’t once have to pull out a calculator. Of course, if you’re a scientist, you might find the math and science in the book to be beneath you, but the rich history, introduction to (or reminder of) the cast of characters involved, and the lesson in humility should appeal to anyone.

  1. This was in an effort to explain why Mars appeared to move backwards (retrograde motion) during part of its orbit “around Earth.” See Geocentric Perspective by Robert A. Hatch. Although the Ptolemaic model was imperfect in some ways (one being its non-reality), it did explain the behaviors of the solar system bodies better than any previous model, and more accurately. What science does in our favor is to take new data and destroy old ideas, no matter how nicely they appeared and no matter how staunchly they were protected by the men who clung to them. [<]

Be The Change

Wednesday, November 11th, 2009

bethechange Book review: Be The Change — How Meditation Can Transform You and the World, by Ed and Deb Shapiro

I tend to see the “Self-Help” and “New Age” sections of the book store to be redundant. Both appear to proffer a variety of methods by which readers may allegedly improve their lives, and the methodology is based either on mysticism or disguised pragmatism.

‘Be The Change’ is a book that I could see being found in either section, but something that seems to set it apart from most of its neighbors is that instead of focusing entirely on helping the reader, it has as a goal to improve the world in general. The premise is that meditation can change you and the world.

But what is meditation? Surprisingly, this book on meditation doesn’t come right out and tell the reader. This fact had two effects upon me. First was frustration. Why am I reading a book about meditation that doesn’t start off by telling me exactly what the authors think meditation is? Second was enlightenment. The authors are indirectly telling me that it’s not quite that easy to define meditation — the anecdotes told by the myriad contributors go a long way to show that although meditation is somewhat tangible as a concept, it’s still very subjective and personal. I wasn’t getting an easy answer, but instead of throwing the book down in frustration, I tried to analyze the collected thoughts of the authors and contributors.

Be The Change was written by Ed and Deb Shapiro, who, according to their website, have authored sixteen books on personal development, meditation and social action, and who have led meditation retreats and personal development programs worldwide for over 25 years.1 The book’s personal foreword was written by HH The Dalai Lama, and enhanced greatly by contributions from dozens of famous and influential people who have all had a variety of experiences with meditation. Although the book’s format is quite unlike reading an instruction manual, the personal contributions are interesting and thoughtful — the book could nearly rest on the contributions alone and still be a worthy read (note that there are certainly samples of religious contributors, but plenty of non-religious, spiritual, and overall peace-loving contributors to add balance).

The skeptic in me suggested that something so subjective and undefined as meditation couldn’t be as influential as advertised. The standard fare for self-help and new age seems to involve one of two fundamental components — magic or pragmatism. Authors often twist these into shapes that appear novel and exciting for readers who are on the lookout for the next great thing to help them along some personal path. But when those how-to books are examined, and the facade stripped away, all that’s left is either a skeletal message of “just do what makes sense and you’ll be fine,” or “this is about as reliable as coin-flipping, but at least you got to light some candles and chant some freaky words, right?”

With that as a basis for comparison, why should I think that meditation is any different than what boils down to mere “resting for recovery of the mind and body, a logical and pragmatic thing we all do in sleep anyway”? The book seems to challenge that notion, suggesting that meditation is not just a basic function hyped up for eager audiences, but, instead, it’s a source for clarity and personal insight that can have a positive effect on the world around us. One of contributor Ed Begley, Jr.’s comments expands on that notion:

Although we are not going to solve all the problems by just sitting on the side of a hill or by spinning a prayer wheel, we also have to be still and centered so we can act with clarity. In other words, in order to do this work, we need to have an inner resource we can always come back to. If we do not have quiet time, we will get too burnt out to be able to clean up the rivers or save the whales. We have to sit still and recharge. We have to be in the moment as it is happening, and we cannot do that if we do not have meditation as a resource.2

When my skepticism kicks in with a response like, “Well, that can’t possibly apply to everyone who is doing good in the world, for many of them get along just fine without meditation,” my guess is that meditation “apologists” would respond, “We’re not talking about meditation necessarily in the form of sitting down, cross-legged, humming or chanting for hours on end; meditation can take many forms, and fundamentally it’s about self-reflection, clarification, and contemplation.”

I, in turn, wonder whether, then, if meditation isn’t just another fundamental form of pragmatism, but one that transcends aspects of life so much that just about anything can be referred to as meditation. For example, a dancer who gets into a “zone” while dancing may not personally believe he or she is “meditating,” but ‘Be The Change’ suggests3 that dancing can be meditative.

The Shapiros nearly answer my question in their second chapter, So What Is Meditation?

Meditation has been associated with everything from affirming ourselves as thin/rich/in love to visualizing ourselves bathed in white light to sitting cross-legged with closed eyes and doing nothing but contemplating our own navel. Yet meditation is none of these. Rather, it covers a vast arena of experiences and activities, including opening our heart to all beings, realize the truth and becoming free, counting our breaths, gazing at the flame of a candle, intoning different sounds, or moving rhythmically…. In other words, it is both an experience and a practice — an experience of oneness, of being with who we really are, as well as the practice that enables us to be in this state.4

That statement is both revealing and misleading. I don’t think the authors are trying to say that sitting cross-legged while thinking self-affirming thoughts is “absolutely not meditation,” but instead that doing so doesn’t cover the gambit of meditation — it’s not the embodiment of meditation, since meditation includes so many different things, fundamentally being some sort of mental connective experience combined with whatever physical method is necessary to achieve that state.

Although I don’t agree with a number of the contributor quotes, there are so many different points of view that I found it to be more like reading different perspectives about life, so that even though I might not be able to perceive it in the same way, I can respect the thoughts of those who are experiencing it right along side me.

This isn’t really a comprehensive meditation ‘how to’ book. It provides a few basic techniques, plus insight into areas that I had not previously considered as fitting for “meditation,” such as while running, dancing, and writing. Despite the fact that by doing so, the book implies that meditation is anything and everything as long as you can pin the “meditation” label upon it, the concept of searching for a meditative state in an activity that is not stereotypically meditative is unique (for me) and has offered me something to try on my own.

So, can meditation change me and the world? Absolutely. If through meditation I am more clear, less distracted, focused, and can achieve some sort of greater connection to my inner self (where I believe most people have a common set of higher moral principles), then I, as a member of the world, have improved it, have changed it. If others do the same, we collectively improve and change it. Is ‘Be The Change’ the key component in accomplishing such a feat? No, but it’s certainly an interesting book that may help to guide those who know nothing about meditation or who are curious and want to learn more. Just be sure to approach the book with the knowledge that it is primarily anecdotal, with clarifying insights by two longtime practitioners, and not everything in it should be taken as objective fact. (For example, the book is full of statements like, “Meditation accomplishes X,” where a more factual and unbiased approach would be, “Meditation can accomplish X.”)

In any event, I think meditation is certainly worth a shot, and I plan to try some different methods and try to visualize meditation with different points of view based on my reading of the book. It’s already gotten me thinking about things I’d like to try, and considering my general skepticism, I think that says something about the quality of the book and the revelations of the authors and contributors.

  1. http://www.edanddebshapiro.com/about-us/ [<]
  2. p.197 [<]
  3. pp.321-323 [<]
  4. pp. 15-16 [<]

Everyday Astrology?

Wednesday, October 21st, 2009

Everyday AstrologyBook Review: Gary Goldschneider’s Everyday Astrology

Fill the Void

When I was young, I wanted to believe in God and Jesus. It was a warm, fuzzy, exciting feeling to think that some great and powerful entity was out there, watching, interacting, loving. The search for some sort of understanding about this entity helped give purpose to my life. As the years progressed, though, I accumulated doubts about there being an all-knowing, all-powerful deity who bothered with the day-to-day affairs of humans, and I ultimately weaned myself off that world view. But, when a void is made, it yearns to be refilled.

Thus I began a rebound relationship with magic. I collected books and what I thought were magic artifacts (Tarot cards, runes, hematite, daggers). I tried spells and rituals, and I convinced myself that there was some mystical nature to the universe into which I could tap and manifest my will. I didn’t merely believe in magic, I wanted to believe it. And thus it became true and magical for me. Until reality overcame desire.

My efforts to manipulate the world through magic were in vain — spells didn’t really work; the Tarot was too open to subjective interpretation; rituals accomplished little more than wax on the carpet. It was as if my prayers were going unanswered while a fanatic yelled at me that I must be doing it wrong. After years of failed attempts at harnessing something I no longer believed to exist, my hope that there is “something” out there vanished, and my search for some metaphysical truth seems to have ended.

We’re all just star dust.

But not everyone is content to sate their vacuity with materialism. There are many people who want to believe in something, and quite a few of them want to believe in astrology.1 Gary Goldschneider’s new book, Everyday Astrology, is for those people.

Make Astrology Work for You?

The book’s official pitch indicates that it explores “hundreds of scenarios in areas ranging from work to love to family and friends,” including “how to break up with a Scorpio boyfriend, how to make a great impression on a Capricorn first date, how to survive the holidays with a Pisces parent.” “Whatever the situation,” it claims, “you’ll find practical and specific advice for making astrology work for you.”

Astrology is the realm of belief that the positions of the stars and planets can provide information about human personalities and earthly events. Although scientists call astrology a pseudoscience or superstition,2 it’s popular enough that the U.S. is inundated with newspaper and magazine postings of daily Horoscopes, which list the star signs of the Zodiac in chronological order, with tidbits of advice or predictions under each.

The truth about astrological star signs might surprise even some amateur astrologers. Star signs are determined by drawing an imaginary line from Earth “through” the Sun, to one of the twelve constellations of the zodiac. During a solar year, that line points to each of the twelve zodiac constellations in succession along the zodiac “ring.”
Ecliptic_path (image via Wikipedia)

Because the Earth wobbles a bit on its axis, our perspective changes in such a way as to “shift” the zodiac ring about one degree every 72 years, taking about 25,800 years to complete a full cycle. This is called the precession of the equinoxes, and its relevance to today’s horoscope is that the zodiac has shifted about one full constellation since the original zodiac was discovered over 2000 years ago.

In other words, if Jesus had been born on December 25, about 2009 years ago, his target constellation would have been Capricorn. However, if Jesus were born December 25, 2009, it would, instead, be Sagittarius. Yes, the sign you thought you were may not be the sign under which you were actually born.3

The reality of the shifty zodiac, however, doesn’t dissuade people from asking, “What’s your sign?” in order to determine potential compatibility.

Everyday Astrology contains voluminous details about the characteristics of people, based on the historical zodiac. Similarly to any other horoscope one might read in a paper or astrology book, Everyday Astrology gives bits of advice, scattered with hints about personality and fate. Unlike those other sources, this book changes perspective. It’s not about you and your sign. It’s about someone you know (or want to know). The book is quite cleverly organized such that the reader can choose a target based on sign and relationship to the reader, and then turn right to the section on how Goldschneider suggests the reader deal with that person.

For example, if the reader has a boss, and the boss is a Taurus, the reader can flip to the Work / The Taurus Boss section, and then to any of the sub-sections: Asking the Taurus Boss for a Raise; Breaking Bad News to the Taurus Boss; Arranging Travel and/or Entertainment; Decision-Making; Impressing and/or Motivating; Making Proposals and/or Giving Presentations to the Taurus Boss.

What if the reader wants to ask a Taurus Boss for a raise? Everyday Astrology says that the reader must be thoroughly prepared, make an appointment early, state the case in writing, don’t rush the meeting, don’t exert any pressure, let the facts speak for themselves, voice demands unequivocally, never threaten to leave unless intending to, and never make idle threats to a Taurus boss. That’s pretty good advice for just about any situation where a worker wants to ask for a raise, but the book gives the advice through the filter of the Taurus stereotype: stubborn, bossy, inflexible, insensitive.

Don’t Screw with the Mutable Positive Fire Sign

The book’s margins blast strength, weakness, and interactive style adjectives at the reader, like “Stable,” “Inflexible,” and “Explicit,” that sometimes seem self-contradictory, while each main sign page displays the date range of the sign with a brief description of the sign using astrological terminology that I found unhelpful, since there is no glossary or explanation. Perhaps it’s assumed that the reader would either already know astrological lingo or wouldn’t care enough to worry about it.

For example, Geminis are apparently “mutable air signs… [r]uled by Mercury.” That’s certainly not language for an “everyday” person who hasn’t delved at least thigh-deep into more comprehensive astrological texts.4 Although I’ve had some friends and family at some point fascinated enough with astrology to want to have a reading done for me, the terminology here escapes me. Regardless, this doesn’t necessarily detract from the indicated purpose of the book, which is to give specific advice about people with a certain sign.

The two categories of the book besides Work are Love and Friends and Family, which include subcategories like First Date, Spouse, Friend, Roommate, Parent, Sibling, and Child, all of which contain similar insights into the personalities of those types of people based on their star signs.

The Painful Truth?

I try to approach everything as a skeptic, but also without prejudice. My first thought upon opening the book was, “I wonder if any of this is accurate.” The best way, in my mind, to answer that question would be to find my own star sign and see if the entries accurately describe me, and then to see if others in my life are accurately described. Interestingly enough, when I picked up the book and gave the pages a quick flip-through, my thumb landed on my very own star sign. Perhaps a bit of magic remained from my days of old. I read the description, which warned, “Scorpios are best left alone since their capacity to inflict pain is pronounced.” Hah, that pegged me!

Unfortunately, I found little else in the book that corresponded with the personalities of myself or anyone I know. However, arguing about whether or not the book accurately depicts anyone in my life would be akin to me arguing that you didn’t really see the ghost you know you saw. It was real to you, so it’s real, right? Astrology, just like its cousins psychic reading and numerology, titillates our human desire to fit pieces together in a desirable pattern, even if those pieces don’t belong to the same puzzle.

Could there be some truth to astrology? There are so many other factors involved that can explain the perceived correlations between star signs and personality. People could adopt personality traits based on their perception of the horoscope stereotype. We could view others through an astrological filter, subconsciously highlighting horoscope-matching characteristics despite the presence of non-matching characteristics. Sign descriptions could be designed to include as many personality types as possible, but presented slightly differently, and cryptically, so that most people reading them could find a connection and still feel spiritually connected to the sign. If the correlation between the stars and our personalities is so frail, what purpose can a book on astrology serve? At minimum, it can be mildly entertaining and perhaps provide some decent advice that is probably applicable to the majority of the population, disguised as being mystically derived.

A Child is Born

Does horoscope ambiguity and the reliance some people put upon astrology create a potential danger to the believers or others? Astrology, although taken seriously centuries ago, is now as influential and credible as a psychic hotline. I know of no astrology nuts who try to impose learning astrology on public school children, or try to get our money imprinted with “In the Zodiac We Trust.” I’m quite positive that no astrologer would condemn any non-astrologer to an eternity in hell just for not believing in astrology. Astrologers don’t make human sacrifices. Overall, it’s a fairly innocuous practice that might just be a lot of fun, seeing whether someone you know fits a certain profile, or whether you can predict something based on how the planets are aligned. As long as people aren’t hurting or abusing one another in the name of astrology, there isn’t a problem.

But what about the manner in which a book like Everyday Astrology is being advertised? This isn’t a book solely about whether the cute boy or girl sitting next to you in class will like you based on some two-thousand-year-old stellar alignment. It’s also about how to interact with people who may not place as much faith in astrology as the reader. The boss, the competitor, the spouse, the parent. The child.

A child is born on that day and at that hour when the celestial rays are in mathematical harmony with his individual karma. His horoscope is a challenging portrait, revealing his unalterable past and its probable future results. But the natal chart can be rightly interpreted only by men of intuitive wisdom: these are few.
-spoken by Sri Yukteswar in Autobiography of a Yogi by Paramhansa Yogananda

Besides the fact that Everyday Astrology informs the reader that the majority of spouses, regardless of the sign, are inclined to be unfaithful (both creating a potentially hostile situation in any relationship as well as possibly giving a justification for certain signs to cheat), the book also gives advice on how to raise a child, based apparently not on any peer-reviewed and tried medical or psychological approach, but, instead, on the author’s determination that all children born under the sign of Aries, for example, will react the same way and will require the same parental treatment. When we’re dealing with adults not desiring to wear red on Tuesday because that’s what the horoscope said, that’s a sad case, but only detrimental in the sense that the person is perpetuating a delusion that is fairly harmless at the time. However, when that delusion (of astrology telling it like it is) is applied by parents to children, my spider sense starts tingling.

Is there any parental “advice” in Everyday Astrology that deviates from the generic “this applies to everyone, but you’ll see it as applying directly to you because it’s under your sign” advice into the realm of misguidance?

My first thought in examining the Aries child entry is that a parent who believes this stuff might unintentionally impose the book’s listed personality characteristics upon a child. For example, the Aries child is, according to Goldschneider, constricted, criticized, and sad.

In the 1960s, researchers studied the effect of giving school teachers false information about students picked at random, to see what effect the teachers’ expectations of the students were. The researchers concluded that the behavior of the teachers that accompanied high expectations actually caused accelerated intellectual growth in the targeted students.5 It’s unquestionable that a parent exerts an even greater amount of influence. With expectations and guidance, a parent can shape a child’s personality.

An author of a work meant to guide parents in the disciplining and development of children has a duty not to suggest actions that are equivalent to child abuse. Fortunately, despite being set in the realm of mysticism, Everyday Astrology does not appear to breach that duty. Indeed, the sections on children could quite easily be interchanged and applied to just about any child.

The lessons are muddled in methodical verbosity, needlessly and repetitively invoking the star sign, but seem applicable to every parent and child relationship — don’t be too negative, understand that your child might be very demanding, some children have trouble expressing emotion, some stages of childhood can be troublesome, offer your child a range of experiences, older siblings might be a hindrance or might even be helpful, children depend on their parents, children like fantasy. I don’t perceive any harm against children coming from this book, which is certainly better than ancient and even modern religious texts that advocate instilling fear into their hearts.

Pisces, the Final Sign

If you enjoy horoscopes and think there might be something to them, but you feel that you’re still grounded in reality, then this book might be an entertaining way to pass the time with friends and family to see how much of it is accurate. If, on the other hand, you are at the skeptical end of the spectrum of doubt, I would suggest buying the book only if you want to debunk it — it certainly isn’t a book to be shelved in the “rational” category. Finally, if you’re the kind of person I suggested this book was written for — the person who wants to believe in astrology — how could you not at least take a look to see what you’re getting into? The author’s 40 years of astrological study, plus his experience writing very popular books about “personology” will make this book a must-have for budding astrologists and fans of all things spiritual.

I know at least two or three people to whom I would seriously consider gifting this book, based on their studies of astrology or their belief that there’s something spiritual or supernatural out there that is at least somewhat accessible. The cover is well-designed and the navigation easy and quick. If you’re into Ouija boards, Tarot, runes, or any other sort of mysticism or party games, this might be a good book to keep on the coffee table.

Dear Procrustes,

First, does this book really try to convince people that astrology is something that can manipulate the world, or is it just something to satisfy the cravings of the superstitious?

Second, can I start a tax-exempt astrology church? Please! I mean, out of all the supernatural-based beliefs out there, I find this one mildly relaxing and not so vicious, at least with regard to people trying to pry my rights away. Why can’t we have more churches of astrology?

Finally, Who is Gary Goldschneider, and what’s it take to become an “expert” in astrology?

Best,
Astro

Astro,

Thanks for your questions. I think the author really believes there’s something out there that has a connection, and that people have personalities that correlate to zodiacal interpretation. I don’t think he’s trying to scam people, but I also don’t think any rational person could believe that a book about stereotypical personalities will, as the advert says, improve your relationships. I think this is really just another “this description could apply to 70% of the population, which is good enough to convince people with spiritual inclinations.”

Even if the author were completely serious that personalities and star signs are causally intertwined, there is no explanation in the book for how it is supposed to work. This isn’t a book on astrology theory; it’s a book meant for the reader to assume that the author knows what he’s talking about, has done all the dirty work, and now is giving the reader simple to follow instructions on ground-level application.

As for the astrology church, I discovered Friends of Astrology, which is apparently a non-profit organization meant to teach about astrology, so I guess you can!

For more about Gary Goldschneider, here is his author bio:

Gary Goldschneider, author of Gary Goldschneider’s Everyday Astrology, is an astrologer and the author of several best-selling books, including The Secret Language of Birthdays, The Secret Language of Relationships, and The Secret Language of Destiny. He has studied astrology for forty years and frequently lectures and writes on the subject. An accomplished pianist and composer, he has performed in concerts and recitals worldwide. He lives in Amsterdam, where he writes a regular astrology column for AvantGardemagazine. Visit him on the mypersonology.com and goldschneider.com.

Sincerely,
Procrustes

After the break is an excerpt from the book:
(more…)

  1. According to a 2003 Harris Poll, 31% of those polled believed in astrology, most between the ages of 25-29. [<]
  2. See Carl Sagan on the pseudoscience of Astrology [<]
  3. If you’re interested in learning more, see the Table of Dates on the Wikipedia Zodiac page, and a more thorough explanation of how the zodiac works at Space.com [<]
  4. Wikipedia says that a mutable sign is a subgroup of the Zodiac whose members include Gemini, Virgo, Sagittarius and Pisces. Apparently they are in this group because they each straddle “temperate zone seasons.” The “air sign” associated with Gemini refers to the classical elements of fire, water, air, and earth. And, of course, being ruled by Mercury refers to the visibility of the planet during the time in which the star sign is in alignment. All clear? I’m not, either, and based on my foray into Wikipedia to come up with even the slightest hint of what these things mean leads me to believe the author merely lacked the space in his book and patience to explain each and every term. [<]
  5. See Expectations and Student Outcomes, Kathleen Cotton, November 1989. [<]

Two Long Years and a Carnival of Sorts

Wednesday, October 7th, 2009

Two long years ago, I decided that I wanted to start a periodical journal or magazine filled with interesting articles about reason that could motivate and pique the curiosity of readers who were either hardline atheists or moderate fence-sitters, with the goal of perhaps being one of the many rational activists who makes a little bit of a difference in a world that has been overrun by an oppressive religious regime.

Well, that didn’t happen.

What I did, instead, was to start this blog, on October 31, 2007, mostly as a way to gain some readership before I tried for the physical publication, and I ended up liking this format and the dynamics of online production so much that I didn’t want to try to bother with paper production. My readership started off with maybe 15 devoted followers, most of whom were people I knew indirectly from my various ventures into atheist forums. It helped a lot that I had some friends volunteering their time and energy to write some outstanding articles. They also helped pass around the blog URL so that others might read, and readership increased to about 35 followers.

Then, things started to pick up when one of my early articles caught attention (perhaps on Reddit), and I got my first taste of a hit spike when visitors to my page started exceeding 100.1 I was psyched. I couldn’t believe 100 different people were reading what I have been writing. Then it spiked again, and I stood unbelieving at 1000 people, 5000 people, 10,000 people, and, recently, 50,000 people within a two-day span. That’s insane. Sure, it’s not Pharyngula insane, but for a guy who is perhaps too self-critical and thinks his work generally sucks, it’s like getting hit on the head with a squid-wrapped brick. Of course, I don’t have 50,000 regular readers, nor 1000. Those were just daily hits in various spike periods when I had a particularly popular article. Current readership is actually closer to 200, plus or minus. I’m not sure if that’s satisfactory, but it is what it is, and I’m grateful to everyone who visits and reads what this site has to offer, and I hope they at least get some info or humor out of it.

Being so self-critical, and constantly being without a comfortable span of free time, I have repeatedly thought about just closing the blog down and sneaking away. When I express such sentiment, my closer friends tell me I should absolutely not do that. Apparently they like this place and what it does and represents. Sometimes I have to go back and read some of my old articles and say to myself, “hey, this isn’t that bad, it’s actually pretty good,” in order to re-motivate myself. Troubles with the server hosting also produced obstacles that I nearly considered unworthy of my effort. However, I have overcome those and my reticence to continue this venture. At least for now.

So, for this second anniversary of State of Protest, I’m doing a kind of State of Protest carnival where I’ll link to what I think are some of the best and most popular articles on the blog from the past two years, with my standard Carnival of the Godless format, which includes an excerpt and commentary. I hope you’ll take the time to read some of these articles, as I think they represent the focus and spirit of this blog. And thank you again for reading. You make this all worth it.

State of Protest Second Anniversary Carnival

One of my most popular posts that isn’t satire was something inspired by an ad for fast food that I saw, and my thought that America was happily advertising to and feeding itself stuff that you could barely live on. I then immediately saw an analogy between that and religious people feeding themselves fabrications with no factual substance in order to keep themselves artificially satiated, but perpetually malnourished. Thus, Being Religious is Like Eating Sand, written in December, 2008.

It fills you up, tricks you into not being hungry, but has no nutritional value. When religious people argue that the lack of God or religion leaves an empty hole that cannot be filled by anything other than religion or spirituality, they’re mistaken or being misleading, perhaps because they’re so full of sand that they cannot make room for that very obvious thing that can, and does, fill that hole — good food. What your mind and body need is sustenance – real sustenance, which can take many different forms, but always has something in common — it passes the honesty test.

Of interest is a much more recent video ZOMGitsCriss posted on YouTube, practically stating the same thing:

You think the food is real and that it nourishes you. In fact, you can even feel how it satisfies your hunger, because this is the kind of power the mind has over the body when strong beliefs are involved. You are perfectly happy with your invisible food, but the thing is, in reality, you’re not okay at all.

It’s unfortunate, though, that she’ll never see the message I sent her regarding this, because she generally has to filter through the 2500+ comments from the 109,000 viewers, many of which focus not on the substance of her message, but rather the fact that she’s an attractive young woman making videos on the interwebs. Hey, I’m not complaining. I mean, I got 34 comments and over 11,000 views. That’s pretty good for a blog run by an ugly, angry, old guy. Kudos to her, though, for coming up with the analogy as well. I’m about 99.9% certain she didn’t steal it from me. (because it’s doubtful she’s ever had the pleasure of visiting State of Protest, but she certainly has an invite)

The most popular comic on this site is related to an article regarding one of the last-minute efforts on the part of outgoing president G.W. Bush to diminish women’s rights:

Opposition is growing quickly to a Bush administration proposal which seeks to grant sweeping protections to health care providers who oppose medical procedures, such as abortion, based on their religious beliefs. The proposed rule would prohibit entities that receive federal funding from discriminating against health care workers who refuse to assist in performing abortions or other procedures because of their religious beliefs. It would also prevent hospitals, clinics, doctors’ offices and pharmacies from requiring any employee to “assist in the performance of any part of a health service program or research activity” financed by the Department of Health and Human Services, if that employee refuses because of religious or moral objections.

The comic:


Yay Scientology!

Thanks to Laura for her hilarious depictions of human suffering. See all of State of Protest’s comics here.

In 1999, Jerry Bergman, at Answers in Genesis, argued that we should be teaching Creationism in public schools, and he used very twisted studies on popular opinion to support that view. This is a provocative issue that just won’t go away. It didn’t die in 1925’s Scopes Monkey trial, and it apparently survived the 2005 Kitzmiller trial. In Why Stop at Creationism?, I argued that if we were to teach Creationism in schools based on the argument that we should teach the controversy and address ideas that differed from the Big Bang Theory, we shouldn’t stop at the Christian version of events (called simply “Creationism”), and I made an example curriculum to fill the day of our soon to be inspired students. Here’s an excerpt:

Monday
3rd Period: Mangala was an entity made up of four divisions, and two sets of dual gendered twins. Being tired of keeping it all inside, Mangala compiled all the matter into a seed, which was the world. And the seed exploded, disappointing Mangala, who destroyed it. Then Mangala tried again with two sets of twin seeds, which, after having been planted in an egg-like womb, along with other sets of seeds, emerged as fish, representing fertility. One of the male twins tried to escape from the egg. This trickster, Pemba, stole a piece of the womb’s placenta and threw it down, creating the earth. He then tried to refertilize the remainder of the womb. Mangala castrated and killed Farro, Pemba’s brother, to save creation, and then Mangala raised Farro from the dead. Mangala then took the remainder of the placenta and transformed it into the sun, leaving Pemba for the darkness and night. Mangala transformed Ferro into a human, and was taught the language of creation. Farro’s newly created twins came and joined him on the earth, and they all propagated humanity.

4th Period: Lunch…

I didn’t address every alternate theory, of course. There are far too many.

Every so often (too often, really) in the news, we hear about a child who dies because the parents are religious fundamentalists who, in some way, refuse proper treatment for their child’s illness. Time has an article covering this issue, “When Parents Call God Instead of the Doctor,” focusing on a child who died in March, 2008:

On Easter Sunday of 2008, 11-year-old Kara Neumann of Weston, Wisconsin, suffered waves of nausea as she lay motionless on her deathbed, too weak to walk or speak. Kara’s parents — both followers of the Unleavened Bread Ministries, an online church that shuns medical intervention — knelt in prayer beside their dying daughter. They did not call a doctor for help. A few hours later, Kara died of diabetes, a relatively common — and treatable — condition….

Under current Wisconsin law, a parent cannot be convicted of child abuse or negligent homicide if they can prove they genuinely believed that calling God, instead of a doctor, was the best option available for their child. The law is part of the legacy of the 1996 Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, which included a landmark exemption for parents who do not seek medical care for their children for religious purposes.

My article, Why is there a Legal Provision Allowing a Lighter Sentence Based on Religious Beliefs?, focuses on another death by religion based in Oregon:

Carl and Raylene Worthington, the killers (should we really call them parents?) happen to belong to the same church, the Followers of Christ Church, as Jeffrey and Marci Beagley, who were indicted on charges of criminally negligent homicide in October, 2008, after they attempted only prayer healing for their 16-year-old son, Neil Beagley, instead of medically treating him for what was an easily treatable illness. Apparently, this church as been the catalyst for at least twenty other child deaths as a result of applying faith healing techniques, when every one of them could have been easily cured with proper medical treatment.

An excerpt from the Oregon law:

[W]hen a person is convicted of … manslaughter in the second degree … the court may impose a sentence according to the rules of the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission that is less than the minimum sentence that otherwise may be required … if the court, on the record at sentencing, … [Finds] on the record by a preponderance of the evidence… ["That the defendant treated the injury or illness solely by spiritual treatment in accordance with the religious beliefs or practices of the defendant and based on a good faith belief that spiritual treatment would bring about the victim’s recovery from the injury or illness"]… and finds that a substantial and compelling reason under the rules of the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission justifies the lesser sentence.

Utterly insane.

My all-time most popular article is also my most controversial, because it’s satire wrapped in a “This is news” shell. When I read a news story about people who were complaining somewhere in Florida about an abstract sculpture representing nude human fleeing refugees, I was disgusted that, again, we find that people just cannot stand to look upon that which God (nature) made. Apparently to see nudity is to be forced into impure thought, and to display anything of nudity is to be perverse. I’d really like that trend to reverse. Covering up David’s dangly bits should be more embarrassing than exposing them, especially for someone who sincerely believes that their version of God created those dangly bits in a bit of inspired perfection.

Well, my analogy in the form of satire meter jumped off the scale that day when I thought about how to present this aversion to nature as being as stupid as it really is. So, I asked myself, what idiotic human bits could they possibly find offensive next, and why? And I thought “DNA.” Every time you look at a human, you see it, it’s a fundamental part of being human, and to find an aversion to its mere existence would be just incredibly stupid, right? Well, that’s how I feel about nudity, and I wanted to try to get people thinking about it in terms of Peter Singer’s “ick” factor having no logical grounds — nudity isn’t icky! The satire: DNA Sculpture is “Vile and Offensive.”

In addition, I wanted to see what kinds of reactions I’d get when I presented the satire as “news” (but with what I felt were plenty of clues for the skeptical-minded folks to recognize that it was, indeed, satire). What ended up happening was that just about every skeptic who read it believed it to be true — believed that there were actually people on this earth who thought the sight of a sculpture of DNA was repulsive based on their religious beliefs. I was blown away by the responses and the hits. The reactions varied greatly. Many thought I had hit the nail on the head and created some truly funny and insightful satire. Others thought I was being intentionally misleading, or that the satire didn’t work, or that it wasn’t funny enough. I addressed many of those issues in a follow-up article called “This is Satire.” It also became quite popular. You should read it, since it talks about a much more famous person who fell into the same pit I had.

In any event, I learned a few things. First, America is in bad shape if literally tens of thousands of skeptics honestly believe that religious nuts would oppose a sculpture of DNA on religious grounds. That shows an increase in the overarching stupidity of religious trends while also suggesting that even skeptics might need to calibrate their bullshit meters. Second, no one likes the truth unless it has pizzazz. I wrote another article about women in Sudan being beaten for fighting for the right to wear pants. It was straightforward, and the facts showed how detestable the men were to those miserable women. About 170 people read it. Over 51,000 people read my satire about DNA. Sometimes I just don’t get it. If you like the satire stuff, check out the others.

Of course, I’m not the only author here. I have some very good, albeit infrequent, writers.

JNTB, for instance, recently wrote an article about hypocritical contradiction in our classification of “terrorism,” “Only Muslims can commit terrorism.”

Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, 24, a convert to Islam, is under arrest for allegedly murdering Pvt William Long and injuring Pvt Quinton Ezeagwula at a military recruiting center in Little Rock, Arkansas. Is Mr Muhammad being charged with murder and attempted murder? Yes, of course, but guess what else? He is being charged with “15 counts of engaging in a terrorist act” as “investigators believe there were ‘political and religious motives‘ in the shooting”.

I don’t know if Mr Muhammad has engaged in multiple acts of violence toward the same or similar targets, but with at least this one episode of violence toward these two men, Mr Muhammad is labeled as a terrorist. Really? Is it because he is a “darkie”? Is it because he is Muslim? Is it because he objected to the actions of the US military? Is it because he used to be named Carlos Bledsoe and likely engaged, although unclear and unknown, in some form of Christianity before converting to Islam?

How is Abdulhakim Muhammad a terrorst but Scott Roeder isn’t? How is Osama bin Laden a terrorist but Randall Terry isn’t?

Laura wrote multiple excellent analyses of the Proposition 8 issue, which culminated from her first, “Proposition 8, the Mormons, and the New “Separate But Equal”“:

Speaking of the Mormons, they deserve special attention in this article. On June 29, 2008, the First Presidency of the Mormon Church released a letter calling on its 770,000 members located in California to give their full support and to donate as much money as they can within their means to the Prop 8 campaign.3 A complete list of Mormons who have donated $1,000 or more, with a running tally, can be found here. This is particularly sickening to me in that there are many people on this list whom I know personally. Mormons currently account for 31% of pro-Prop 8 donations, although that number is expected to rise dramatically as more data is collected.4 The Mormons’ opposition to gay marriage is quite ironic when you consider their history. They themselves have endured incredible persecution due to their own unorthodox views on marriage, i.e. their previous practice of polygamy. They were also much slower to react than the rest of the nation in treating blacks as equals. It took them until 1978 to give black males the same authorities that white males enjoyed.5 (Women still currently are given no authority at all.) Just because the mainstream Mormons no longer practice polygamy and now give blacks equal status, they would do well to remember their history.

Laura is also the author of the excellent series “Religion Unearthed,” and she also illustrates most of State of Protest’s comics (she has the distinct big-eyed bobble-headed hilarious characters).

Philadelphic is our resident book and other media reviewer, recently having tackled The Power of Premonitions by Larry Dossey.

There is a calming, nonsensical balm to the idea that “everything happens for a reason.” If your child dies, it’s for a reason. If you have a dream that saves the child’s life, that’s for a reason too. But what about those who take a closer look at this? What about the grieving parent who wonders if lack of divine intervention means that “God” is punishing them? Or what about those of us who see no value in calling divine intervention a “miracle” when, by definition, any god who could intervene in the death of a child, but refuses, would essentially be a killer? Is it justice to look down on the unlucky, then, because they must either be ill-favored by God or refusing to heed their natural-born psychic abilities?

For the mentally unstable, this magical thinking might prove to be seriously dangerous. Dossey goes as far as to acknowledge this (p. 169) in a section called “cautions,” where he tells people to “think twice before intentionally cultivating premonitions” if they have any kind of mental illness, childhood trauma or maltreatment, any mood disturbances such as major depression or neuroticism, history of substance abuse, or even in the case of someone who is abnormally sensitive. Isn’t a person who has prophetic dreams being “abnormally sensitive”? Or is Dr. Dossey simply covering his legal bases in case someone who has read his book decides that doing the bidding of their intuition, their God, or their Rice Crispies requires killing someone (as in the case of Deanna Laney)? Oddly enough, most of the Oprah viewers I know have been known to take the Prozac at some point or another.

Mutha graced us with a more accurate history of winter celebrations while we yet again await another accusation that we’re committing some sort of “war” on Christmas. Stealing the Solstice for Christ’s Sake!

Some authors have not contributed as much in volume, but their work is greatly appreciated. Please click their links to see their unique and interesting contributions.

Velkyn has authored a few reviews and “Unearthed” posts, as well as the great article “A Culture of Lies.”

Noumenon compares life to a poker tournament and firmly establishes that he is a god.

Absinthium has written a few insightful movie reviews.

Steve-Doug describes how we share the epiphany of disbelief.

FormerFundy exclaims that personal responsibility is paramount, especially in politics.

Jim Gardner criticizes Answers in Genesis’ abject refusal to consider falsifiable peer reviewed evidence.

Urs examines the origins of morality.

Ivy helps to clarify atheism.

Spider covered Catholic Youth Day 2008.

I think that’s a pretty good history for only two years in, and infinity to go.

Thanks for stopping by.

-Procrustes

  1. Props also to Carnival of the Godless, which I hosted early on and got some attention, as well as vjack at Atheist Revolution, who gave me some critical advice that helped me out immensely. [<]

Fan-Annotated Little Brother

Monday, August 24th, 2009

BoingBoing announced today that a wiki-style Little Brother (by Cory Doctorow) fan-annotated website has gone live at W1N5T0N.

I read Little Brother, and I really liked it. I think it should be on the required reading list for all teens and most adults and young adults who like tech fiction or have a desire to indulge their “more real than you’d think” conspiracy/techpocalypse fantasies. If you haven’t read it, I strongly suggest downloading it and devouring it. Perhaps, like me, you’ll then immediately start reevaluating your passwords and data protection.

I popped over to the W1N5T0N annotation site and noticed that it really must have just gone live recently, for out of 21 chapters and some appendices, there were only 13 comments thus far. To keep the spam down, comments are moderated, and I am guessing that a number of them are probably in queue, especially following BB’s announcement.

I read a few of the comments, and then I read the about/objectives page, and I immediately wanted to start annotating. I’ve done a bit of annotating on this blog as well as in the legal world, and I like it. When reading cases, it was always the footnotes that most captivated me. So, I set about finding a paragraph1 that I wanted to examine.

My first stop brought me to Chapter 2, Paragraph 3,

“I’m thinking of majoring in physics when I go to Berkeley,” Darryl said. His dad taught at the University of California at Berkeley, which meant he’d get free tuition when he went. And there’d never been any question in Darryl’s household about whether he’d go.

My recent oft-misunderstood DNA satire article focused on a sculpture in Berkeley (although the basis for the satire was elsewhere with an analogous sculpture), so I thought I would redeem myself by doing a comment on the basics of a Berkeley education in physics. I would also research to see whether Cory Doctorow had some relationship with the school, thus giving him the seed for the character. I got as far as finding a mysterious other Doctorow person, apparently with a PhD in something like physics or math, before I started having second thoughts. Was I really on the level of all the techies who get into this stuff and disassemble everything they touch, like a follower of the Owner’s Manifesto? Would people laugh at my feeble attempt to gather information that someone else likely possesses in greater excess and detail? Probably.

So, I paused for a bit, thought about it, and then urged myself to look again and find a paragraph that held more interest to me. And I think I found one in Chapter 1, Paragraph 104:

But it also lets the school track where you are at all times. It was another of those legal loopholes: the courts wouldn’t let the schools track us with arphids, but they could track library books, and use the school records to tell them who was likely to be carrying which library book.

Now this paragraph has appeal. Legal issues with RFID tagging students!2 The first thing that crossed my mind was, “I wonder if they have actually tried this in the US.” It didn’t take me long to find out, and before a few minutes had passed, I was well on my way toward a fair sized comment supporting Doctorow’s text.3

Of course, my comment is still being moderated, so I thought I would write a blog post about the concept and share my thoughts. Then it hit me that I could do more than that. I could cross-comment! In other words, assuming it doesn’t violate any of the copyright restrictions on W1N5T0N,4 I will be citing the paragraphs here that I comment upon, and posting my comments here as well as there. I’ll be using the Little Brother category I just created. I think it’ll be fun and perhaps informative. There’s a lot of info out there, and Doctorow’s book highlights a lot of ways that tech can be and is abused.

So, without further banter from myself to myself, here is, again, my first attempt at annotating a paragraph from Cory Doctorow’s Little Brother.5

Chapter 1, Paragraph 104:

But it also lets the school track where you are at all times. It was another of those legal loopholes: the courts wouldn’t let the schools track us with arphids, but they could track library books, and use the school records to tell them who was likely to be carrying which library book.

Annotation by Procrustes:

In 2005, the Northern California school district of Brittan established an RFID tracking system for students, to track attendance and identify trespassers. The program was opposed by many parents and the ACLU. (See School RFID Plan Gets an F, at Wired; Privacy Rights Are At Risk – Parents and Civil Liberties Groups Urge School District to Terminate Use of Tracking Devices, at ACLU of Northern California; and Keep RFIDs Out of Public Schools, at EFF.)

The ACLU of Northern California, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and Privacy Rights Clearinghouse all helped draft legislation in California to limit RFID.

The RFID supplier for the Brittan school district, InCom Corporation, retracted its agreement to provide the RFID tracking system, according to a USA Today article (as noted at RFID Update), Company pulls out of contract to track students.

In October, 2007, InformationWeek reported that ten UK schoolchildren would be tracked with RFID chips in their school uniforms for a pilot program meant to make way for a behavioral reporting and attendance sytem. (See U.K. Kids Get RFID Chips In School Uniforms).

On December 12, 2007, ATT announced that it would offer RFID tracking for schools that would include tracking of buses, assets (like books), student attendance (on ID badges), and visitors. (See RFID Update’s article, AT&T Steps into RFID Student-Tracking Minefield.)

In 2008, the Rhode Island Middletown Public School system established a pilot program to put RFID tags on about 80 children’s school bags. The ACLU responded in ACLU ISSUES ALARM ABOUT MIDDLETOWN PLAN TO ELECTRONICALLY MONITOR SCHOOL CHILDREN.

  1. W1N5T0N is set up by chapter and then by paragraph; annotations are paragraph-centric, and there can be multiple comments per paragraph. [<]
  2. Another paragraph I considered was the prior (103) paragraph that identified the term “arphid” as being a term that Bruce Sterling insists everyone use instead of “RFID” or saying “Arr eff eye dee.” Bruce Sterling, of course, is the author of Mirrorshades, and is one of the founders of the science fiction cyberpunk movement. Look at this, I’m annotating my article on annotations! [<]
  3. Part of the site’s objective is to fact check the book in light of it being a speculative fiction that is supposed to be plausible. [<]
  4. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/us/ [<]
  5. I hope they accept it! They did! [<]