The World Ends in 2012. So, What Do We Do With the Advice, "One Orgasm A Day Keeps the Doctor Away" ?

It's the middle of summer, so maybe I should talk about something light. Let's see, oh, on July 14th, the sun will be perfectly aligned on the East-West Manhattan avenues! I drove crosstown (westward) yesterday during sunset and it was blinding! Nice day though. Went to a party that lasted until the cops showed up... But, that's New York City, things happen like that.

Ah, did you know that the world will end in December of 1012? A Google search gets 300,000 pages on the subject. YouTube has over 65,000 videos on the impending doom. Here are a few on a variety of prophesies! [Can you spot the many fallacies there?] There are lots of people out there who believe this, and given the scientific ignorance of the American public, this is no surprise. They claim the proof is in ancient texts, Mayan calculations, pyramids, holy books, etc. Of course, the ancients knew by divine inspiration or something like that. Anyone can predict the end of the world--I'm sure the world will end someday... when the sun burns up its hydrogen supply--but those who make specific predictions of events that will take place in our lifetime are simply idiots or very gifted con artists. Oops, did I offend anyone?

Now if the world ends in a couple years, what do we do with the British National Health Service (that socialist creation) advice, an orgasm a day keeps the doctor away! If it's about health and long life this isn't the advice to have if the world ends in 2012. Building a bomb shelter may be more appropriate. On the other hand, maybe we should cram in as much pleasure as we can before it all ends! What do you think?

Just across from Britain, Ireland now has an anti-blasphemy law! In an earlier post, I wrote an argument in defense of blasphemy, so I won't repeat the same points here. It strikes me as medieval that the church or any religion needs this special privilege. If it's a crime to offend people of faith in Ireland, I would like to see the immediate implementation of this law against all organized religions that say offensive stuff about other religions! Whenever a Xtian says that Islam is a religion of hate, he should be punished. When a Muslim rails against the infidels he should pay for this offense. As for me--knowing that I've already offended many faiths--I won't be visiting Ireland. I would guess that this new law will have very bad effects on Ireland if it's not changed soon.

Let's look at our own mess with the religious fanatics here. The lunatic fringe was not marginal but in charge in the last 8 years. They still wield considerable influence. One of the problems is a political party that supports scientific illiteracy, prejudice, superstition, and attacks on reason & science. I'm not talking about elements in the GOP--the Dems have lots of ignorant people/politicians in their midst--but it's the party's political agenda to promote ignorance and plain stupidity.

Politicians are elected by the people, so it's natural for them to reflect the people's views. However, the fact are what they are--for example, it is the earth that orbits the sun; a fact that is known only by half of Americans--therefore, some leadership is necessary, and we should do better to educate the people. It's unethical and stupid to promote religion--i.e., creationism or "intelligent design"--instead of science! Evolution is a fact, a scientific theory, supported by evidence, has facts, and many disciplines supporting it. The more we find, the more evidence we collect the stronger this theory becomes. If we ever find evidence that contradicts elements or even the entire theory, then we make revisions. It's absurd to claim that if it's written in a holy book it must be true.

I teach a course on Public Myth and Ideology. I understand the power of ideas. I also understand the power of culture, the strong influence of certain images have on identity, and the conservative mind of those who don't know or don't care to know. Less confident people are less prone to revision and even tolerant of other ideas. Being a fan of a sports team is fine; you support it no matter what. But, you can't do the same about other important things in life. If that's how you see the world, then you'll make the wrong decisions about your life and about the direction of the country. I often ask my students, do we, collectively, get what we deserve? What do you think?

The following video is from Charlie Rose and the great Carl Sagan's last appearance on the show. If you haven't read Carl's Demon-Haunted World yet, I recommend you get a copy right away. It's how science illuminates our world and our existence. He would, too, be committing a crime in Ireland though by saying such things...





There is a good book out, Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future, by Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum. I have to say that I disagree with the authors that blame the atheist scientists for driving (some) people away from science. From early on, the approach should be, learn about the natural world through inquiry and rational thinking. Obviously it's likely that once a person learns the facts, but most importantly learns to base his beliefs on scientific evidence. Atheism is the result of the question: where's the evidence?

Mooney is also the author of The Republican War on Science. If you want to understand how bad it's been in the US read these two books. It's ironic really that a country rich in scientific knowlege and all sorts of achievements because of science and technology has such a disinsterested public. The authors show that it's been like this since our early days. We take pride in the product of our science but we don't know much about it. It's not about high science and obscure ways but about basic stuff, like the age of the earth, evolution, etc.

As Carl Sagan said, science is more than the product. It's the way of thinking, the way of approaching the unknown, obtaining knowledge through inquiry, testing, and open-mindedness. It requires confidence though, in that a person has to be able to make revisions. You can't be a sports fan when it comes to knowledge. Better evidence, better arguments win... and the new theory has ways of amendment; otherwise it's not a scientific theory, it's a dogma. In addition, thinking and searching require effort and time. I hope that many more people find such a journey of discovery worthwhile.

In closing, and since these are the light days of summer, one more video that will make me a criminal in Ireland today... I'm sorry, Bernadette (Bernie) of Donegal Town, I won't be visiting anytime soon...







PS. I started creating this post in my mind after reading Unscientific America around the same time Ireland passed the anti-blasphemy law. Then the news today about disgraced Ralph Reed who wants a new moral Christian Conservative movement in America. Oh, please, God save us... I also read the science blog Pharyngula [highly recommended] that happened to have these 2 videos, so my thanks to PZ Myers.

Paul Krugman to the "Centrist" Dems: This is Not 1993... You're "Way out on Right Field"

Update, 6/24/09. To those members of Congress who oppose the public option: You are wealthy yet you accept the best health care (public option) funded by taxpayers. Why do you believe the rest of Americans don't deserve this choice? At the very least, you should resign from all your public-funded health care benefits until every American has access to same coverage. Yes, it is that simple!
____________

Nobel laureate Paul Krugman is the best voice for compehensive and reasoned universal health care reform. In his New York Times column he sends a message to those self-named "centrists" that they are (along with a good chunk of the Democractic party) way too conservative. It's an interesting question, why these Dems cave in when the public is so far more progressive on the issue of health care...

...The real risk is that health care reform will be undermined by “centrist” Democratic senators who either prevent the passage of a bill or insist on watering down key elements of reform. I use scare quotes around “centrist,” by the way, because if the center means the position held by most Americans, the self-proclaimed centrists are in fact way out in right field.What the balking Democrats seem most determined to do is to kill the public option, either by eliminating it or by carrying out a bait-and-switch, replacing a true public option with something meaningless. For the record, neither regional health cooperatives nor state-level public plans, both of which have been proposed as alternatives, would have the financial stability and bargaining power needed to bring down health care costs.Whatever may be motivating these Democrats, they don’t seem able to explain their reasons in public...

Krugman seems to nail the issue down. We progressives cannot afford to allow the Dem party to drift closer to the lunatic fringe. Let the Repubs stay there to represent the regressive, the small-minded, the religious fanatics, the bigots, and those who want the government to favor the small socio-economic minorities.

..The question now is whether we will nonetheless fail to get that change, because a handful of Democratic senators are still determined to party like it’s 1993.
And yes, I mean Democratic senators. The Republicans, with a few possible exceptions, have decided to do all they can to make the Obama administration a failure. Their role in the health care debate is purely that of spoilers who keep shouting the old slogans — Government-run health care! Socialism! Europe! — hoping that someone still cares.
The polls suggest that hardly anyone does. Voters, it seems, strongly favor a universal guarantee of coverage, and they mostly accept the idea that higher taxes may be needed to achieve that guarantee. What’s more, they overwhelmingly favor precisely the feature of Democratic plans that Republicans denounce most fiercely as “socialized medicine” — the creation of a public health insurance option that competes with private insurers...

What Paul is saying is that the alleged center is no such a thing. A great majority of Americans want socialized medicine. Those who don't want "some government bureaucrat deciding their treatment" should be reminded that, unless they want to spend their own money on a treatment, then it is the insurance bureaucrat that decides when and when they get treatment.

I think the labels ["socialism" etc] must be dispense with clear arguments and by the truth. It's an American value to have empathy, is it not? It's an American value to contribute into the system according to one's ability [progressive taxation is in the US constitution], and, according to the principles of the American revolution and the ones upon which our system was created: the government of, by, and for the people.

PS>Just for the record. I do have a good health care insurance right now, but I care about those who don't, and about those who are underinsured--namely, 1/3 of the country. I'm also sure that Paul Krugman isn't arguing for his own benefit either...

PS2. According to this recent Reuters' study of 100,000 US households Americans struggle to pay for their health care! We're the only advanced country where an individual or a family can go bankrupt due to medical expenses. Lack of health care leads to more deaths, shorter & more painful lives--let's not forget this. Infant mortality is high(er) too... But, abortion and even contraceptives are worse, we're told by the conservatives...

..Americans are struggling to pay for healthcare in the ongoing economic recession, with a quarter saying they have had trouble in the past 12 months, according to a survey released on Monday. ... 17.4 percent of households reported postponing or delaying healthcare over the past year ... Americans pay more per capita for healthcare than people in any other country, yet have high rates of infant mortality, diabetes, untreated heart disease and other conditions. Americans are often dissatisfied with their access to care ... 40 percent of all households planned to postpone care in the coming three months... [Reuters]

Seeing Health Care as a Right and Not as Priviledge Should be the Starting Point

For many years I went without health care coverage. It started when I was in grad school when Blue Cross upped its premium and I couldn't afford it. In the last couple decades, some of my jobs offered health benefits some didn't; during the latter, I hoped that I'd stay healthy, and thankfully I never needed to go to the doctor or a hospital. Now I have coverage, and I've been paying into the system for years without having drawn benefits. But, it's OK, I don't mind. I'm glad I'm healthy, I'm glad I have good options [hey, as far as I know], and I know that I'm paying for others' treatment. I hope this is always the case... Empathy is good.

A few things first. If health care is a priority, then simple logic says that if other less-wealthy countries can do it (yes, Canada's system is superior to ours), then the US can do it too. We tried the private insurance route and it hasn't worked. Medicare--a socialized way to offer coverage to people--is more efficient and much less bureaucratic. After all, if we socialize the risk while privatizing the profit why can't we do it for something that will make Americans live longer, healthier lives.

Obviously, costs must be reduced. The American Medical Association (only a minority of doctors & medical students belong to it; fewer still support its policies) is against any public plan. Well, maybe they could suggest how we can save some big bucks by stopping those doctors from prescribing unnecessary treatments because they get bonuses for such. Something is wrong with spending far more (as % of GDP) than any other nation on health care and yet we have 1/3 of the population uninsured or underinsured.

My sister is in the medical field and earlier this year she lost her job. Her hospital in Queens closed because it wasn't profitable and/or was in the red. It served a poor to middle-class community and it was very busy. The system is overwhelmed. The other hospitals in the borough will be hard pressed to cover the gap. But, health care is a necessary service, like other services an advanced society offers to its citizens. Most doctors, indeed there's a whole big administrative staff, deal with paperwork--some estimates, up to 30% of running a hospital. Infinite amount of bureaucratic maze focusing on fighting, negotiating and getting insurance companies to pay for patients' treatment.

The insurance companies, the HMOs, are in it for the money. They're concerned about the bottom line. That's why they reject a certain number of claims, and they fight to deny benefits and coverage. And, this for-profit mode is part of the problem.

Not everything has to be evaluated on a cost-profit basis; that is, in monetary terms, because society profits from having a healthier population. Some things work better being private, some don't. The police, the fire department, public parks and libraries, and so many other institutions should not be in private hands. They should operate for the public benefit and not for private profit. Therefore, I think health care has to have a public option in it. I know language matters, but we've already have socialized benefits--anytime there's a program open to a greater number of people, it's a form of social policy that benefits the commonwealth. Instead of being shy about certain "red flag" terms, let's explain what they really mean.

I know someone who's been trying to get a good job for years but she's only found low-paying jobs, the per-hour kind, with no health insurance. She's been paying hundreds of dollars every month to maintain health coverage. The other day, I asked her if, hypothetically, she was willing to pay the equivalent of two months worth of premiums in additional taxes in order to insure all Americans. Her reply, "I don't want socialism in my country." Invariably, she repeats the "horrors of the Canadian system." Now, many Americans parrot this conservative mantra, although I'm happy to see that finally most Americans do want change, including greater government role in health care.

Here are some experts from varying viewpoints discussing Obama's proposals, as appeared on the Washington Post's website. Now, I understand why the president wants a public dialogue, but not everyone comes to the table ready for an honest discussion. Most Republicans will opose anything; they'll now vote against the military supplemental spending bill--but when it was Bush's, they accused those who voted against it as "America-haters," and "unpatriotic."

Anyway, Obama has to make a more forceful case and push for a major overhaul of the health care system. Now it's the time. Not so long ago, we had the same rhetoric and charges against Medicare and Veterans benefits. Going back a little further, the conservatives and the big business opposed Social Security, labor laws, safety belts, consumer protection, public education, and so many other good things, including electrification. And, yes, it took bold government action for these to happen. Once it's done, most of the arguments against good-sense policies deflate. It's natural for people to be afraid of the unknown, especially when they hear irresponsible and false claims by those whose interests lie with the status quo.

I would ask all those Republicans (and some Democrats, who hail from conservative states) in Congress who oppose universal health care, why are they so selfish? They have the best coverage but they're not willing to extend the same to their fellow citizens. It's even more offensive if you consider that most members of Congress are wealthy individuals who can afford their own insurance but opt to enjoy a benefit paid by the American taxpayers.




PS. Here's good documentary, PBS Frontline, Sick Around the World, with a comparison of several countries' health care systems.

PS2. Initially, I didn't know what to make of Daschle's nomination to be in charge of health care reform but I gave the benefit of the doubt to Obama for selecting him. Anyway, then we learned that Daschle has worked closely--and at great profit--with those who prefer the status quo. It's a relief not to have him on the "inside" of the Obama team pushing against what most of us want [new poll showing big majority supporting public plan].... Daschle now urges Obama to drop public health care plan! Tsk.. What was Obama thinking? How can he nominate someone like that? In a way, we should be thankful that Daschle cheated on his taxes...

The Republican Ministry of Truth....

George Orwell in his novel, 1984, he described how the Ministry of Truth re-wrote history to fit the current message & policies of the regime. History was just a tool; it wasn't about knowing the past but controlling the future. Obviously a totalitarian regime wants to keep any inconvenient truth under wraps, but revision of history is a phenomenon that flourishes even in open societies where there's freedom of information. How is this possible, you may ask. Well, it's because if enough people choose what the like to hear instead what is, then fantasy is their reality.

Every culture is conservative by nature; tries to preserve the social & economic order, the identity of the group, the "true & tried" ways of the past. Public myths and ideologies support this body of "knowledge." You know that most people never re-examine their most dearly-held beliefs.

Think of a meme [a word coined by Richard Dawkins] that once it reaches a critical mass it becomes "real." Something repeated, adopted by a number of people and it becomes part of "common knowledge." Even if someone really wants to know, he's too busy to find the truth or he's not able to critically evaluate all sorts of claims. He turns to "authorities" and "professionals" for his news and for interpretations of various situations. But, what if the "experts" are lying?...

I generally don't have a problem with people's views. We have different priorities and weigh values differently. But, when such views are based on lies, fantasy, or any crazy idea, then I take issue. It's more infuriating when someone could indeed find out the truth without much effort but chooses not to. So, the Republican noise machine is becoming louder by the day. "Obama declares the US is a Muslim country," "He doesn't take about terrorism to the Muslims," "He'll take all of our guns away," "The Democrats are responsible for 9-11"...., etc.

Cheney says it was Richard Clarke who missed the 9-11 attacks. The whole gang doesn't recall making the connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein... Whatever. The point is that revising history to distort the facts is a bad thing. It's a disservice to our country. We have to know what happened and who did what. Hopefully we won't repeat the same mistakes any time soon; though it seems that every generation has made at least a big mistake...

The other important point is that those who peddle quackery should be relegated to the fringe, not be part of the mainstream conversation. Unfortunately, characters like Limbaugh, O'Liely, Hannity, Coulter, Beck, the whole Republican leadership have currency because many Americans listen to them. As long as many of the natives accept this voodoo magic and rainmen, we will continue to waste our time, energy and resources.

There's lot to be learned from discussion as long as those who come to the table have something meaningful to say. Fair & balanced doesn't mean that we have to keep debating ad nauseum whether the earth is flat!

Observing Memorial Day...

Memorial Day marks the unofficial start of the summer and perhaps makes Americans observe a day of remembrance. But, what is it we're supposed to observe, specifically? Everyone has a sense of patriotism, though, there are many expressions of such. Sensible patriotism means to make sure that we don't waste our blood, sweat and tears. To make sure that we don't commit our troops to an ill-conceived war of choice. To make sure that the citizens are informed about the important issues and that they participate in the civic affairs of their country! We have to look beyond the smoke screen employed by leaders who want to lead a flock of sheep, and the bumper-sticker mentality must be rejected.

When our country must sacrifice, our leaders should do their best to see that this burden is widely shared not based on the shoulders of the least privileged, nor should war be one of choice and an opportunity for a transfer of wealth. Patriotism shouldn't be defined by long & hyperbolic speeches but rather by doing what's best for the commonwealth.

Patriotism is standing up for the truth, and questioning our government. Patriotism is to defend those conditions and civil liberties that have made our country great--not by becoming more like our enemies! Patriotism is to go to war on a necessity (not on a choice based on deception & lies) and when doing so to give our soldiers what they need to accomplish their mission!

Please visit the following links for a better perspective on the war

Iraq Memorial on line (iraqmemorial.org) Family testimonies on the human costs of the war.

The architects of the War--Where are they now? Good question..

Faces of the Fallen. See our dead soldiers' faces, names and brief bios.


We have to face the realities even if they're unpleasant. Even if some of our leaders want this, we shouldn't be "baptized" in Lethe--one of the rivers in Hades that induced complete forgetfulness. This wouldn't be appropriate to the memories of those who were sent to war on false pretences. It wouldn't be appropriate for the rest of us who want to make sure that the US does not become an international bully, conducting unjust wars.

One of the richest counties in the history but our middle class has fallen behind. About 1/3 (if not more) of us have no health insurance or are dangerously under-insured. Obtaining a higher education is becoming more difficult. Regretfully, the US is a militaristic society; military expenditures are the biggest item on the federal budget by far. We're spending more that all the countries in the world combined! This must change.

And, speaking of memorials and memories... Part of life is creating memories; they are part of our unique individual and collective identities. A progressive culture of life means creating the conditions whereas people can better achieve their own potential. It's about having a happy, long and healthy life. Enjoy this life in the here and now, and don't ever buy into the view that reward or punishment may come after death.

Remember, fewer memorials might be a good thing; more pleasant memories are definitely a great thing to have. Let's work on this...

Education Means More than Getting a Paper Good for Framing

"Rarely is the questioned asked: Is our children learning?- President Bush, Florence, S.C., Jan. 11, 2000

It's been a long month with lots of work and countless events to attend. Now it's come to a screeching hold. But, that's the life in the academia. I like it though. A few days ago, I attended the commencement ceremonies and it was the culmination of a long journey for the graduating students. Actually I felt proud for some of them that I got to know more closely over the past 4 years. Even though I will never see them again, I felt I had played a positive role in their young lives. I wish all of them well.

In some sense, it was my moment too, because I started working at that university about four years ago, so I have a few things in common with the graduating class. Our paths will now separate, and I'll go back to the same classrooms next autumn. This is not just a job and I hope I maintain this spirit, which is lost among several of my colleagues.


I often ponder the question of education. It can't possibly be the training of an individual to perform specific tasks. Yes, we do need the scientists, the professionals, the experts, but we need critical thinkers. People who can connect the dots, make sense of the information, explore new paths, are very much needed as well. A learned person is one who has the intellectual curiosity to inquire and the confidence to amend.

Otherwise, we produce automatons, who are highly skilled and specialized--and even though they help our collective progress, they don't get to fully realize their intellectual potential. Education may be the key to many good things, but we should remember that the ultimate goal of education is not a piece of paper good-for-framing; it's to become a learned person--a quest that lasts a lifetime.

The Absurdity of Not Understanding What Science Is

Education should be an equalizing force--that is, give the individual the means to upward mobility--in a society, especially in the US where the gap between the classes is growing especially fast under the Bush administration. Actually, the mobility myth is just that. The rules of the game are being fixed in favor of the established elites, and it's getting harder for Americans to move up the socio-economic ladder.

There is another phenomenon today that's creating another gap: between those who have access to information and those who don't. Education and information are empowering, therefore, access to them is imperative especially for those who don't have a panoply of means.

It's nice to see adults in the White House who speak to us in complete sentences and appeal to our intellect--not to our worst primitive emotions. It's nice to see the President placing an emphasis on education and science. It would be even nicer if our society produced more educated persons; and this means education should be more accessible. If the individual is willing to put the time, energy and effort into this long journey, the price of admission shouldn't be so high as to be a barricade to progress.

We have a problem doing things pro-actively, planning ahead, saving money in the long term. Instead of prevention and reducing ill effects, we try to solve our problems when the symptoms are dire. People in school, for example, are less likely to become a public charge. Access to health care (prevention and early detection included) makes for a healthier population--and the savings are clear.

"I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully." President G.W. Bush —Saginaw, Mich., Sept. 29, 2000

A Reminder on Mother's Day: Raising Humanity one Child at a Time

Happy Mother's Day!

If we want to make our mothers happy, we should celebrate them more than one day, and, generally speaking, we should strive to elevate the position of women everywhere in the world.

Linguist George Lakoff in his book, Moral Politics, talks about the strict disciplinarian father and the nurturing mother as two different models of government. Lakoff suggests that we need more of the mother model--which is preferred by the progressives. The conservatives appeal to people's belief in a strict father; and it seems, that many people need the rigid structure in their lives as they prefer to follow than lead.

Mothers have played a greater role than fathers in raising the generations of humans. They're the keepers of the culture--even if this often means discriminating and prejudicial practices against themselves! But, without their long investment in our well-being, humanity would not have survived.

We do need a progressive culture of life, whereas family values have a true meaning...

Not when the government or religion try to control a woman's reproductive choices... Or, when the emphasis is on the cellular level (before and at conception) but afterward mother and child are left with no social support for survival...

Not when women are treated as chattel and as vessels for procreation. On the contrary, a true culture of life means pre-natal care, full health care coverage for mother & child; it means good educational opportunities for the children too.

Since societies became militaristic, women were relegated to the bottom of the social ladder and their duty & self-fulfillment was to be found by serving their husbands. This has to change fast. For goodness' sake, we've come a long way to the 21st century; at least we should bring all humanity to the present and not leave them in the past!

We hear about family values but we see little in the way of policy that actually promotes those conditions that enhance family life when it matters! Family values should mean a much lower infant mortality. In the world today, every minute, a mother dies due to childbirth complications. Her children die of malaria and other preventable diseases by the millions. But, even before a woman becomes a mother, she can greatly benefit from formal education. An educated mother is less likely to totally depend on her husband, less likely to get AIDS (and more likely to be healthy), and less likely to have too many children.

Some of the conditions in the developing world are appalling. Yet, poverty, hunger, and preventable diseases are not strange to American mothers either. The US is a much better place than the Third Wold, but we do have the weakest social safety net among the advanced democratic countries! The indicators of the health of the nation tell a sad story: we're number 37 on the World Health Organization's list.

The bottom line is this: we honor motherhood by treating our mothers well. It makes sense, doesn't it? Better mothers & better conditions for motherhood and we all benefit. After all, we exist because we were the recipients of our mothers' nurturing and love. That's a smart culture of life, and good family values!

Domestic violence kills and injures more people in the developing world than war, cancer or traffic accidents

By looking at the condition of women in a given country, you can tell a great deal about that country--its economy, politics, and culture.


Mother's Day is this Sunday but I'd like the celebration to be more than one day. I have a problem when people become romantic just because it's Valentine's Day, or remember their mother because it's Mother's Day. I believe it has to be a way of life, an attitude to behave nicely, to be an enlightened person, to treat other human beings with respect and afford them dignity. Unfortunately, not every country is a liberal democracy [the only truly free society we know today], and many haven't arrived at the 21st century yet...

Motherhood cannot be separated from the condition of women in the world today.
UK's The Independent has a great article about that condition. The British government in cooperation with human rights groups have found some very disturbing facts:

• Two-thirds of the world's 800 million illiterate adults are women as girls are not seen as worth the investment, or are busy collecting water or firewood or doing other domestic chores.


• Two million girls aged from five to 15 join the commercial sex market every year.


• Domestic violence kills and injures more people in the developing world than war, cancer or traffic accidents.


• Seventy per cent of the world's poorest people are women.


• Violence against women causes more deaths and disabilities among women aged 15 to 44 than cancer, malaria, traffic accidents or war.


• Women produce half the world's food, but own less than two per cent of the land.


• Of the more than one billion people living in extreme poverty, 70 per cent are women.


• Almost a third of the world's women are homeless or live in inadequate housing.


• Half of all murdered women are killed by their current or former husbands or partners.


• Every minute a woman dies as a result of pregnancy complications.


• Women work two-thirds of the world's working hours, yet earn only a tenth of its income.


• One woman in three will be raped, beaten, coerced into sex or otherwise abused in her lifetime.


• 43 million girls are not able to go to school.


• In 2007, one million HIV-positive women died of AIDS-related illnesses because they could not get the drugs they needed.


• Human Rights Watch, in reports on 15 countries including Afghanistan, Brazil, Morocco, Papua New Guinea, Togo and South Africa, has identified violence against schoolgirls, child domestic workers and those in conflict with the law as on the rise.


• Women across the developing world are the victims of systematic abuse.

I know that, in my lifetime, I propably won't see a world where true humanism and enlightenment are universally practiced, but for every life we change today, we can affect thousands in the future. Yes, every person can make a positive difference, big or small. Oscar Schindler saved about 1,200 human beings, who went on to have families, children, grandchildren, and so forth, for generations. I think it's rather basic, it's respect for human life, in the here & now, when it actually matters!

Women are our mothers. They deserve everything, and more, than we--the children, the men--enjoy today. It makes sense, it's good for the world, it's humane!

Added, 5/10:
This song is about a man bidding farewell to his mother..

Those Who Prefer Pretending & Wilful Ignorance Are Doing a Disservice to Our Country

So, I had my suspicions before but didn't want to know that my girlfriend was cheating on me. However, the love letters now came out and, yes, she was cheating on me. I'm very upset about this. I really didn't want to know and didn't want to confront reality. I preferred to keep my innocence and willful ignorance. I'm also very embarrassed, because the world knows about the violation of my trust. How can I face the world today? At least up to now I could pretend everything was fine and deny the rumors!....

Anyway, in the news these days, the proof about torture is indisputable. Yet, the problem conservatives see is the telling not the crime! Horrors! It's not about the torture it's about being told our government lied to us regarding torture. Conservatives see this revelation as embarrassing and another proof that Obama is weaking American standing the world. Wait! This is bizarro world. It's not about the actual violation of human rights, the law of the land, and ethics, it's about being told about the cheating, er, the crime? Wow!

They knew and approved of torture!

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	M - Th 11p / 10c
We Don't Torture
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Economic Crisis Political Humor

Torture is delivering punishment before someone is found guilty in a court of law! What does it say about the country of laws? Obama wrong when he says there will be no punishment for those who violated the law, ethics, and human decency. We should make an example of those who broke the law. Following orders isn't a good defense when it comes to human rights violations. How about those who authorized torture? How about those, like former AG Alberto Gonzales and John Yoo, both of whom tried to re-define non-torture as anything that doesn't kill or destroys a major body organ! Pulling fingernails out or cutting off fingers woud not be torture according to these criminals.

Torture doesn't work, our experts know this; but even if it worked occasionally, we can't make a practice out of an exception! Our legal principle is to safeguard the innocent even if this means some guilty persons will go free. We don't admit confessions from torture in a court of law. Surely, if we put every arrested person under torture, we could obtaim more confessions... good or bad, real or imaginary facts.

I hear those who say waterboarding isn't torture, but this is not a very good defense since we prosecuted and executed Japanese soldiers & officers because they had waterboarded our own POWs.


At least, Congress hopefully can impeach a federal judge, Jay Bybee, who in the Bush administration authorized torture. Last week, President Obama released four Bush-era legal memos authorizing torture. The earliest one, from 2002, was signed by Jay Bybee, then an Assistant Attorney General and now a federal judge on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. In the memo, Bybee authorized CIA interrogators to, among other techniques:

• --Slam a detainee's head against a wall: "any pain experienced is not of the intensity associated with serious physical injury."
• -- Slap a detainee's face: "The facial slap does not produce pain that is difficult to endure."
• -- Place a detainee into stress positions: "They simply involve forcing the subject to remain in uncomfortable positions."
• -- Waterboard a detainee: "The waterboard...inflicts no pain or actual harm whatsoever."

These techniques are illegal by U.S. statute and international treaty to which the U.S. is a signatory. Bybee attempted to give legal cover to illegal acts, and thus broke the ethical, professional, and legal standards that should govern lawyers.
And, if you care to see a demonstration--under controlled circumstances where the subject has control as to when to stop this procedure--watch this video:

UPDATE 5/22

I see that some are trying to make the argument for torture on the grounds that is effective and it has kept the country safe since 9-11. Great! Why don't we turn this country into a big holding cell whereas Big Brother will keep us safe no matter what it takes... Tsk.

Insular Beliefs Wrapped in Religion Must be Re-examined. And, a Few Thoughts on the Message of Easter.

These days many Christian churches and other religious groups stage Passion of Christ events as well as participate in ceremonies to mark this important occasion. Tradition and culture in general often imbue people with sets of norms, but have you thought why most people don’t even think about what they’re doing? Change the circumstances or the framing and you might raise an eyebrow about certain practices. For instance, we wouldn’t probably find very appealing to showcase torture!

It’s the message that Christ’s crucifixion carries, not the barbaric, excruciating death inflicted upon the condemned, I’m told. So, what is the message really? And, I’m not joking. I’ve asked several friends of mine who are religious to explain it to me; they’re either stumped or begin to think about the message for the first time. God allowed his son to be severely tortured and killed in long agony, because God wanted to show his ..love for his creation, the humans! Or, that Jesus died for our sins! What kind of a moral lesson can I derive from these two examples of God’s behavior? It doesn’t even make sense why someone should (or could possibly) die to pay for the responsibility of others?

It’s about time we have to stop insulating ourselves in the confines of superstitious norms of ancient people who were so primitive as to accept torture as an everyday occurrence; that the universe was divinely ordained—which included fixed places in society—whereas most humans were unworthy and the elites were special due to their bloodlines or direct connection to the heavens.... No wonder why it took us thousands of years to transform some of our societies from the taboos and cruelty of the past.. while the conservatives of every society kicked and screamed!


I wrote this post as the conservatives and those steeped in religious fervor are criticizing president Obama for saying that the United States is not a Christian, or a Muslim, or a Jewish, country but a country based on certain values. What's wrong with this statement? Nothing! The historically-ignorant want to believe that this country was founded upon the Judeo-christian values, but this is simply not the case.

Most of the founders were deists--believed in a higher entity but not a intervening xtian god--and made sure that the US Constitution has no religious test for public office. [Article 6, sec. 3] There's a separation of church-state, and the Biblical moral code is not the legal code of our country! From the 10 Commandments, we have "don't steal" and "don't kill", "no perjury," but these are common sense clauses anyway, and I'm sure these principles predated Moses. The rest of the Commandments [they differ among Catholics, Protestants, and Jews] are left in the "holy" book.

A few words about holy books. If anyone has any knowledge of human history, and the world as it is today, he has to question the design or the creator; horrible events [some natural but deadly diseases & catastrophes] are everyday occurrence. Some design you may ponder. Or, when you examine the crimes in the name of God and because of religion, you may understand better what Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens are saying about religion.

If you are to look for genocide & ethnic cleansing, for murder of non-believers, for slavery, for women's subjugation, for torture, for killing en mass, for nasty-brutish-short lives, for prostitution, and for killing children as punishment for the sins of their parents, you need not look further than the holy book placed in the center of every church, mosque and temple. These moral principles are god-given. Plus, a few other demands such as no clothing of "unnatural fibers" and no boiling a calf in its mother's milk!

It's no accident that the most fervent believers are also the most ignorant about science; they're the most phobic of anything out of a strict norm. They fight science on the basis of uneducated, prejudicial beliefs, and the leaders of that flock encourage it! This is a disservice to humanity. Organized religion prefers it that way. After all, sheep are easier to control. No real effort is undertaken to inform or promote rational thinking. Why? The more a person accepts the literal truth of the holy book the better it is. We are told that faith [read: be satisfied with the absence of evidence and reason] is a virtue!!!!

On the other hand, I think we are making some progress, in that, many religious people see their faith and its moral principles as a supermarket of convenience--pick & choose according to personal preference! That is good, because I don't think the death practices--or any other torture, cruel & unusual punishment--religion has instructed humankind to practice is appropriate in a modern society. The world is a better place today precicely because we've distanced ourselves from the confines of dogma and prejudice.


Update: Along the same ideas, I wrote an editorial, A Miracle That People Want, referring to the annual miracle of the Holy Light! There's another thread of discussions there.

Modern Absurdities

They are middle-class* people so they deserve to get the bonuses.

And the people who are working there that are middle-class people, are expecting to get this bonus. If they do not get it, maybe they won’t be motivated enough to try to help the company turn around and getting the company to turn around and be more profitable is important for all of us.

Dana Perino, former Bush's press secretary

This is the 21st century but it seems it came way too early for many of our fellow humans. The problem is that several of those backward-looking people are also in position of power and can influence many others. Case in point, the Pope. He says that the scourge of AIDS is bad but condoms are worse! I'm not kidding. On his way to Africa--to enlighten the locals on the benefits of superstition, er, religion--he said, "You can't resolve it with the distribution of condoms." So, anything that doesn't solve a problem is not a good idea?! Really? I don't think I have to explain how ridiculous this comment is.

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Stem Sell

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things w/ Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Jim Cramer

What's with this medieval attitude towards sex? Surely, sex can be irresponsible, but in and by itself is not something bad--we're all here because of sex! I reckon that the church's dislike of sex has to do with the idea of pleasure. Oh, and that the human body is disgusting. Therefore, no sex for pleasure, just for procreation; hence, birth control is bad too. As for condoms--that have proven to be effective in the prevention of many communicable diseases--they are, too, bad!

Most women who get infected by HIV are married; they're infected by their husbands! Condoms you say? Well, not for them, not according to the dogmatic and "infallible" Pope. Here we have a proven method for preventing the spread of AIDS and other venereal diseases, but those who know very little about sex [isn't the Pope celibate?] say that they express God's mind on this issue.

Likewise, the conservatives & their Republican party in the US are against stem cell research. Why? Because the soul can exist in a petri dish--where 2 cells have merged! Yeah, I know, it is absurd. Yet, if we remain engaged in the process we will overcome the objections of those who have fought against Social Security, Medicare, science & education, labor laws, consumer protection, public health care, and electrification. We can't be a modern country with politics & attitudes fit for the Dark Ages. Besides, if we want to maintain our prominence, we have to become more educated, a fairer society, supporting science & technology, and a progressive culture of life.



UPDATE 3/18

Speaking of absurdities.. The conservatives have turned into a party of "no." Nothing new to offer, if anything at all. They hope that their best chance is for Obama and the Congressional Dems to fail or be corrupted by power for the GOP to return to relevancy. That might happen, but let's hope that the country doesn't have a short memory syndrome. The huge mess we're experiencing is the result of Republican policies and conservative ideology. It hasn't been only their incompetence that reduced our country by most meaningful measures!

Less than few weeks into his term, the spokespeople of the conservative base have been practicing Big Brother's revision of history. The economy? It's them liberals that started it all by ..forcing the banks to make bad loans! Awwww. Also, while we were attacked on our own soil under the Republican "watch", it's Obama that makes us less safe. That's what tricky Dickey just said.

Here's a good response by a former Republican senator.



Cheney is a jackass!

PS>Did you hear that Dubya is writing an "authoritarian" biography! "I'm going to put people in my place, so when the history of this administration is written at least there's an authoritarian voice saying exactly what happened." He said. Even though I hope the earth opens up and swallows Bush & Co, I'll miss him representing the idiots of this country.

*Middle class is anyone who makes less than $5 million a year! That's what McCain said during the campaign. I know, I'm making $4 mil. a year and I'm roughing it...

Aside from the definition of who's in the "middle class," how can a company give bonuses from the money it doesn't have? The US Treasury gave AIG $180 billion to bail it out. I like what some Dems in Congress are proposing: taxing the bonuses at 100% for any company that has received public money in a bailout.

President Obama Lifts the Gag Rule and the Ban on Science

Elections have consequences. President Obama is lifting a ban & a gag rule, but also ending the war on science that Bush and the Republicans have been waging. Scientific reason, method, and integrity will be the norm in the policies of our federal government. Many states are treading backwards, and it is there that the conservatives are making a stand. Well, it might take a couple more elections--and big defeats--for the moderate Republicans to muster enough courage and support and pull the GOP into the 21st century.




Please watch the video, because it shows that the new president "gets it." He understands what science is and realizes that it's to the country's advantage to seek new frontiers, be on the path of progess, and that the scientific way is the way to go forward.

An Argument in Defense of Blasphemy. [and a comment on the UN blasphemy resolution]

There are many things that offend me. High on my list is obligatory superstition and ignorance forced upon us, as well as violations of human rights & fundamental freedoms! On the other hand, I admit, I do like the occasional blasphemy routine (who doesn’t?), because it has a liberating effect on me. That’s right, it feels good to have the right to free expression! Even though, many things offend me, I support the conditions that ultimately make me happy. Such conditions allow others who disagree with my views and life style to pursue their own self-defined bliss. I can deal with offensive expressions by maintaining my personal choices and taste.

Boycotting, choosing not to, or ignoring something is not the same as legally banning it. I prefer not to be offended, but if it happens, I shouldn’t have the legal right to remain non-offended. This is easy to understand why: there’s isn’t anything under the sun that can’t be offensive to someone somewhere.

Morality, in its most basic application, is how we treat others in a civil society where a plurality exists. The conditions that support civil rights & constitutional liberal democracy are the most suited for enlightened, progressive human beings. A personal definition of fulfillment & purpose is appropriate for every thinking, mature individual. Free expression is in the core of such definition.

If you are a confident person you probably don't think that ideas (or expressions) are toxic, because you can handle them. Correct? Bad taste, stupidity, purposeful ignorance, prejudice, etc, can all be dismissed by the rational and confident mind. You probably worry that it is your fellow citizens who aren't equipped to handle such expression, and therefore you want to protect them by banning offensive material. Right?

Wrong! People have to grow up and deal with life and the real world--even if this means being offended here and there. Keeping people insulated in a web of mind control is not good. It results in ignorance, extremism, lack of confidence to deal with a crisis, and, obviously, authoritarian practices by small elites--benevolent dictators. We are better than that.

Besides, who is the best judge of what's offensive to me? Should I say, I don't want to be offended.. Should I elevate this to a legal right? What do you think?

When I was very young, I saw the American flag being burnt in protest by veterans of the Vietnam war. I was offended. I hadn't separated the material of the flag with what the flag represents. Just as I was offended when my religion was being attacked as a myth. Yes, once I believed in Zeus, Santa Claus, Superman, and the Tooth Fairy. I grew up since. Today, I'm offended mainly by actions that attempt to limit the conditions of freedom--including banning free speech. Being challenged on my core beliefs back then resulted in re-examining those long-held beliefs. I'm better for it. This has been another liberating experience for me. I mean, it's a relief not to have to worry about offending the big man in the sky. My dress code, eating patterns, sex, and how I relate to others, all improved after this discovery.

I do support blasphemy. I support it because I want to offend those who don't want free-thinkers around. And, I want to fight for liberty, including the liberty of those who oppose free expression; though I oppose their plans to gag the rest of us into submission.

By now you've probably heard about the UN General Assembly's resolution to ban "defamatory" speech against Islam and religion in general. If this is not a defamation of liberty & free expression I don't know what it is! It's not just the Islamic countries that are pushing this, mind you. They have many Christian sympathizers, because most of the Church hierarchy does not care to defend free thought & expression; it wants more religion! I bet many western Churches dream longingly of the European theocracies of the past! The Archbishop of Canterbury, for example, favors Sharia law in the Muslim communities in Britain!!! Sharia law in a constitutional liberal democracy??!! Well, that's really offensive!

Germany shares a big slice of the blame here. It's illegal in that country to deny the Jewish holocaust--an offense that can land you 3 years in jail. Obviously, only ignorant persons or Nazi-sympathizers deny the holocaust, but those bigots should have a right to their own propaganda and indoctrination, even if they're 100% wrong and offensive to the rest of us. As others have the right to make up and believe in their own myths, like winged horses, virgin births, walking through walls, warlords from outer space, and the earth resting on a giant tortoise.

After all, there are many types of deniers out there, like those who deny the notion that Zeus is the God of all gods. I suppose this is fine, because only a handful of people follow the ancient Hellenic religion today, right? There are others, though, who make extraordinary claims without offering any proof while their claims could not stand against rudimentary logic. What's really crazy it's the view that irrational & superstitious beliefs deserve an absolute protection from blasphemy. I'd say, {it is precisely those beliefs that we must offend}, and offend with impunity!

Maybe this way, sometime soon, we can reclaim our humanity from those who want to impede our species' intellectual progress and self-fulfillment.
[Here's an older post written at the time of the Danish cartoon controversy. Who's afraid of offensive speech?]




PS>The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which has been signed by most UN members, should be re-read by those who seek to limit free expression. From the UDHR:

Article 19

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.