My Faith Statement

Although I would agree, anybody who associates personality and creativity with some kind of universal entity is likely deluded; faith, never the less, has a very real and relevant function in our lives.

My reasoning stems from the fact that, frankly, I can't know everything. I don't believe anybody can. But if omniscience is out of the question, then what do I fill the holes in my knowledge with? Simple answer, assumptions. And an assumption is merely taking a position of faith while I figure all the other stuff out--I may need to come back and change my assumptions after I've learned more, but it is an exercise in faith that got me over the hump.

Furthermore, though the God of my fathers' is certainly dead to me, I yet sense divinity and holiness in our universe. Now, if we can agree that some things are sacred, and also, that we all must at some point rely on faith, then I'll accept any definition of secular humanism you wish to give me. But let us not be reciprocal fundamentalists about it! Fundamentalism is not a good thing from either the believers' or the unbelievers' camp. There will always be room for liberal religion and its quirkiness in the world I dream of.

Fwd: A Informative Regan-omics Defector's Opinion

Bruce Bartlett "The New American Economy"
http://capitalgainsandgames.com

Barlett's argument: supply-side economics, though effective in Reagan's day, has outlived its usefulness. He also contends that Conservatives need to accept programs that assist the "welfare state" (health care, for example) and that in an effort to fund those programs, a change in how we tax in the U.S. should be considered. Barlett calls for a "value-added tax" as an alternative to the current system.

Elasticity of Demand

Listening to the Senate debating health care reform. The thought occurs to me that the health-care/insurance marketplace is really two overlapping industries. That creates deeper complexity since some interests are in conflict.

There are some marketplaces that conform to the theory I learned in Econ 101, i.e. price controls through competition. But some markets do not fit the model, i.e. health-care, education, perishable food. These markets exhibit little change in demand with change in price. This is because these items are not merely desirable, they are a requirement for survival (at a decent level). Economists refer to this kind of relationship between price and demand as the elasticity of demand. But I would imagine that prices in the insurance market place are highly elastic -- e.g. what's your life worth? Who knows? It's just a matter of what the salesman can convince me of, uh?

...guess I skipped that class.

Wisdom

Wisdom: the ability to appreciate the difference between knowledge of good and evil, knowledge that is good, and knowledge that is evil.
-- Michael Masiak, 2009

The best description of Unitarian Universalism I've ever seen...

This article is in the Summer 2009 issue of the Unitarian Universalist publication UUWorld. It was authored by Kenneth W. Collier...

The human condition

Let the buyer beware, WebMD...

Never trust a web site that won't let you post comments, complaints, or alternate views! In fact with webMD you can't even send a private email to an author. That's an obvious signal you're reading plain old corporate advertising and NOT information.

Look at the smoking cessation article by Jennifer Warner for example. Right off the bat you read: "nicotine-replacement therapies are more than twice as effective at helping smokers quit than going it alone."

Yea, right. OK, did anybody ask what "going it alone" means? The phrase is used like it is an accepted technical term, maybe to suggest cold turkey cessation? In the next paragraph you read: "... treatments were more effective than placebo...", but is placebo the same thing as cold turkey quitting? Really? In the first case with placebo, you have a person who thinks they're getting a magic pill, an easy way out. Any wonder why they fail? But the second case describes a motivated person who needs to arrest the addiction, who needs to get free of nicotine. So, you see, it's really not a fair comparison after all, though the author didn't actually refer to any overt comparison--rather it was cleverly insinuated, wrapped in clinical sounding mumbo-jumbo.

Now I am a 40 year smoker who quit cold turkey. I tried using all the tricks: gum, patch, hypnotism, bupropion, varenicline. And they all failed, utterly. I was provided with a nicotine substitute and a thin assurance that this magic bullet could end my misery. But it never did, and I didn't quit. Well, not until I obtained knowledge, the Knowledge, of how addiction works. It was information, not corporate spam, that made the difference. And all the real quitters I know agree.

If you are a smoker and you want to quit try WhyQuit.com, and leave WebMD to the marketing jerks!

Let the buyer beware.

A letter to my conservative friend

Regarding your accusation that I'm merely reiterating the liberal media; let me assure you, I've never been to moveon.org nor do I give much credence to the talking heads on cable TV. All of my substantial information is derived first and foremost from CSPAN (I'm an avid fan). It's true that CSPAN is not 'news' in the traditional sense, and also one must imbibe for years as the effect is cumulative. I use it for cues and references, which I direct to further (careful) research on the internet and of course, old fashioned books.

Now the issues that you only slightly less than eloquently harped on are quite reminiscent of Libertarian hype. I have many Libertarian friends in my church and have read many of their tracts and treatises -- which I find somewhat narrow in scope. Be that as it may, I am certain that you shouldn't find any solace in today's version of the Republican party. That, my friend, is a dangerous recourse. For this I would direct you to the well received and respected work "The Conservative Ascendancy" by Donald T. Critchlow. a historian of impeccable credentials. It is a fast read and pretty well lays out the story in non-partisan terms. If you'd like to compare that to a more liberal leaning account of the same history from another tremendously respected historian try Paul Krugman's "The Conscience of a Liberal."

I couch what I'm about to say with the assertion that I have deep respect for the Republican platform (indeed, I've read it), and the party that freed the slaves. But it is not the machine we see backing McCain (whom I love, and am fond of saying is the _only_ good thing about today's Republican party). What we see today are those who truly "spend so much time doing well that they've forgotten how to do good." So if it's a question of issues for you, then we must first agree upon what the issues are. This I would argue, but not now.

But, my good and old friend, you must know that I'm a liberal in every since of the word. Always have been. And I'm not afraid of the word Socialism either, so don't try the scare tactics on guys like me. Here's the thing, and this is subtle so read carefully: The Republican platform is founded on a bed rock belief in the inherent goodness of the human species. It's why the dollar vote works, it's why supply side economics works, it's why Christianity is righteous, it's why there is a universal way to interpret right and wrong, and above all it's why we can have faith in our leaders! Now the Democratic platform is pretty much exactly opposite, one could say: founded on the disbelief in the goodness of individuals; but I prefer to say it is the party of confidence in the community. That's why it's so easy to attack the platform on the grounds that it is Socialist leaning, because frankly, it is. But don't over emotionalize the concept, hell it's just a philosophy.

I don't believe in big government! But I do want a government that is strong enough to defend me in a world of global markets and international corporations (which, by the way, are good things). Now the neo-cons talk about small government, but they mean 'weak' government. You know where that goes so I'll leave it there. I believe in a middle class, one that includes much more than half the population, even dare I say, 8 in 10. I believe in taxes to support the agencies and effort it takes to make all that happen -- and I don't mind paying them. I believe that society's responsibilities should include providing universal access to education and healthcare, but I don't want to argue about implementation details at this point. For I am trying to communicate something deeper.

(Example follows) I went to an interfaith picnic the other day. You can probably imagine how that looked where I live in northern VA (we're as cosmopolitan as NYC here). There were religious representatives from every corner of the world: Protestant, Catholic, Reform Jew, Muslim, Bahai, Sekh, Hindu, Buddhist, and, of course, me (Unitarian Universalist). Now the thing that changed me, the thing that really made a difference in my understanding of our world was the opening speech from a Methodist minister. "We are _not_ here to learn how to accept each other's differences, we are here to learn how to respect our differences; in fact, celebrate our differences!"

This is important stuff. I believe it is part of something that is happening at the 'movement' level -- globally. We need to re-learn something that our predecessors had subconsciously. Something about community, but in a new and larger way. The Democratic party, with all it's foibles and deviants, is learning how to tap that -- mark my words.

I've left much unsaid. But I hope to have given you enough to understand where I'm coming from. One final remark must be made: why did I include you in that mailing list? Well, the fact is, Obama may not win -- this is far from won. You made a remark about all the idiots in our country, and you are right. Pandering to populist and divisive issues is why we are where we are today, and the neo-cons are dangerously close to pulling it off again! Fear mongering and slander are powerful tools among the uneducated masses! Please, please, please vote democratic!