What parts of American life do you think would most outrage Jesus?
Our selfishness. Our resort to war when it's not necessary. I think that Jesus would be disappointed in our ignoring the plight of those around us who are suffering and our focus on our own selfish short-term needs. I think he would be appalled, actually.
One thing that the right really misses are more cartoonists, they do a great job of getting point across. At least with the web, there are now a few!
One would think "National", "Continental", "Planetary", "Solar" or "Galactic" would be big enough for health care, but we seem stuck on "Universal". If we are going to go that far, we really ought to cover the 10 to the 500 multiverse. "Multiversal Healthcare"? Seems like a concept that Democrats could get behind. Here in MN, the Dems are focused on the important issue of medical marijuana. Enough of that, and how long the lines are for the Multiversal Healthcare really won't matter. If you get sick, you can just take another drag and even ignore the rats chewing up your feet.
It always shocks me when liberals are surprised when there are serious problems with massive federal programs. You name the program ... veterans, medicare, drug benefits, defense, etc, and they will point out how bad the implementation is. Right after they complain, they will ask for more money for the current failing programs and some new ones to start failing in even nastier ways. Don't I feel sorry for the wounded veterans? Absolutely, they are saddled with government healthcare, EVERYONE ought to be feel sorry for them! Walter Reed is just the latest issue. Horrible treatment of veterans requiring medical care is as old as the VA system. The MSM only tends to complain about it when there is a Republican President, but just like a host of other problems endemic to large bloated bureaucracies with no competition or profit motive, it is always there.
The problem with government health care in a democracy is that there are many more well voters than sick voters, and many more slightly sick voters than really sick voters. Even worse, the very sick ones almost never vote. Markets are like death and gravity--you don't have like them, believe in them, or even acknowledge them and they will still work. Politicians are drawn to buy the most votes that they can for as little as they can in their market. They may not even understand what they are doing, but the ones that win in the market for votes are going to naturally be drawn to buying the most votes as efficiently as they can. Granted, it will be very INefficient, but it is the market that they are in that counts.
Certainly federal health care will be bloated and inefficient since it is a bureaucracy with no profit motive, BUT, what the lefties seem to be able to ignore even when it stares them in the face is that since the sick constituency is so small, the politicians and the bureaucracy itself will be drawn to spend less and less on the sick and more and more on the "essentially healthy", and of course on the bureaucracy itself. In this case that means wounded soldiers with horrible care and rats running around. Sadly, horrible VA conditions are a story as old as the VA itself, and horrible care for the SICK in any kind of government health care program is just as old a story.
However, nearly ALL government health care is wildly popular for the HEALTHY! They don't have high insurance bills, they THINK that they are "fully covered", and they THINK that "someone else is paying". What could be better! Government medicine is a lot like the post office ... it is a good system as long as you aren't mailing anything you care about. If you are, you better hope that there is a UPS or Fedex. Government systems just "re-define zero for a very high cost". It doesn't really take a VA system to have rats chewing on wounded veterans, the VA system just allows 100s of billions of dollars to be spent on the way to the peeling paint, rats and squalor. The "new zero" is just a lot higher priced.
The Vikings named their heaven "Valhalla", and the Valhalla hills NE of Iron River WI were snowmobile heaven for the last couple of days. The picture shows the Apex and Fusion sitting at the Valhalla Trail Lodge that happened to be closed on Monday, but the snow was nice anyway.
In something over 280mi of riding over two days we met less than 10 sleds on the trails. We had lunch Monday at the Bell Street Tavern on Madeline Island, where we enjoyed some REALLY good sweet potato fries that were no doubt no good for the waistline.
Trail conditions were generally excellent, with LOTS of snow. Tuesday we headed south to Drummond and had lunch at the Black Bear. We had thought about heading south to Hayward, but decided that we had enough curves, so got on the railroad bed trail to the east and went NE back to the Tri-County Corridor, the big high speed railroad bed trail that runs from Ashland to parts "somewhere west". All the way to Iron River, which is where we stayed, so far enough for our purposes. We decided we had to run into Ashland to have lattes at the Black Cat ... a place that seems to be "very slightly on the liberal side" based on all the posters on the wall. I don't much care about their politics since their coffee is good.
One of those trips where everything went right and all was right with both the snowmobiling world and the trailering / driving world up and back. MUCH nicer to have great snow conditions with a four hour drive rather than an 8 hour drive.
Maybe visible under the latest news section of CNN is a headline titled "Coulter Under Fire for Anti-Gay Slur". In a speech, she said: "I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, but it turns out that you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot,' so I'm - so, kind of at an impasse, can't really talk about Edwards, so I think I'll just conclude here and take your questions"
Naturally, the MSM likes any chance they can get to jump all over Ann, so they ignore the fact that her joke was referencing the case of Isaiah Washington going into rehab, and of course there is NO attempt to indicate that it is a joke ... as opposed to say, John Kerry saying: “You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.” The media was QUICK to point out that "oh, he MEANT Bush" ... yes, he only meant to disparage the commander in chief, not the troops. Nice when the MSM leaps to your defense.
Here is a YouTube that compliments John as being pretty When he was running in '04, he was widely recognized as a "metrosexual" by MANY media people--a male that is very much more concerned with his appearance than standard. He even remarked about the quality of "hair" that he and John Kerry brought to the race. Ann was making a joke ... and one that isn't even particularly direct. It seems like much like being a muti-millionaire with a giant new mansion and talking about "too much income disparity", Edwards would like to get credit for being pretty without even so much as any ribbing. Of course, the MSM figures that is OK too.
If we step back for a minute, Al Franken is running for the Senate from MN, and he wrote a BOOK with the TITLE "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot". Is that nice? Well, I guess it is OK, because Rush is certainly conservative, so you can call him ANYTHING. Republicans are commonly called "Fascists" or any form of that slur that can be thought of ... there is a book out now called "American Fascists" on the "religious right", and nobody in the media has any problem when that at all ... I've seen the author, he doesn't mean it as a joke. Calling people "racist" is also pretty much standard, and nobody is going to do any rehab, certainly as long as the person that they are calling names has an "R" somewhere near their name. Yes, calling people names isn't nice and it might be nice if Ann would refrain from it, BUT, why is it that ANN ought to refrain, but the left does it all the time with total impunity?
Michael Moore wins Academy Awards, sat next to Jimmy Carter at the last Democratic Presidential nominating convention. Let's quote a little bit from his "prayer to the comfortable" on page 234 of "Stupid White Men":
"Dear Lord (God/Yahweh/Buddha/Bob/Nobody) ... Rather dear Lord, we ask that You inflict every member of the House of Representatives with horrible, incurable cancers of the brain, penis, and hand (though not necessarily in that order). We ask, Our Loving Father, that every senator from the South be rendered addicted to drugs and find himself locked away for life. We beseech You to make the children of every senator in the Mountain Time Zone gay--REALLY gay. Put the children of the senators from the East in a wheelchair ..."
Is he joking? Probably, just like Franken, he can say whatever he wants, and if it is "inappropriate", it is a joke! Anyone that doesn't "get it" is pretty much an unsophisticated rube! The MSM likes Franken and Moore because they agree with what the MSM thinks. "Freedom of speech" is for people that agree with the MSM. If you don't agree with them, what you generally do is "hate speech", and they would like to criminalize it as soon as possible.
Here we see how CNN presents the House Democrat leadership attempting to move the Congressman that was caught with $90K of "cold cash" bribe money in his FREEZER into a committee chairmanship.
The sheep can read this and go no further. It is ONLY the GOP that is doing this "baffling" thing. You actually have to read the article to understand AT ALL, and even then it would take a full read to really even have much for suspicion that potentially it isn't all that "baffling" why most any person other than a complete partisan would NOT object.
Were the shoe on the other foot, how would the writing be done? Let's sample a couple and see if they ring true"
"GOP to Elevate Cold Cash Congressman"
"Dems Question GOP Ethics: Where is the reform?"
"Cold Cash Congressman to Key Committee?"
"GOP Gives Tainted Congressman Key Committee"
"Dems Demand GOP Ethics Accountability"
"Dems Decry GOP Culture of Corruption"
One could go on and on, and we will, as soon as there is an "R" next to something even 1/10 this corrupt and overt.
Gore presents yet another case where the very idea of hypocrisy is simply not applicable to Democrats. He lives in a 20+ room mansion that uses 10x the power of the average US family home, and has multiple homes to boot. Of course he is rarely in any of them, but rather traveling around the globe in private jets and running around in SUV motorcades. His "carbon footprint" is the size of a village of average Americans, yet he feels strongly that "the rest of us ought to do something".
If a Republican charges Bill Clinton with infidelity, then any Republican that had an affair in the last 30 years has to be outed as a hypocrite, and we have to point out that Thomas Jefferson may have had an affair with a slave 200 years ago. When Al Gore makes a movie on using less fossil fuel yet burns it in the ranks of the top .001% of Americans himself, there isn't a word spoken.
Here is one link, I'm sure it is "biased", it HAS to be, since the MSM won't touch this story. You KNOW it is true without even thinking about it ... he flys in private jets that burn petrol like a well fire, yet considers himself an environmentalist. Being left means that consistency is not an issue, so hypocrisy is impossible.
I finished up the subject book by Ian W. Toll this snowy weekend. The book was one of the thoughtful gifts for my 50th B-day last fall from a fishing buddy. I hesitate to figure out exactly how I prioritize my book reading.
The book makes me realize that I need to find more time in my reading diet for history, especially well-written and interesting history as this book was. It opens in 1805 with Nelson at Trafalgar defeating the combined navies of Spain and France, and then backs up to the early 1790s to the origin of the US Navy. The interplay of the Federalists (modern Republicans) and Republicans (modern Democrats) during the whole book is very interesting. A great quote from Hamilton's Federalist #11 is given; "A nation despicable by it's weakness forfeits even the privilege of being neutral". The Republicans then, and the Democrats now seem to believe that weakness is the way to be neutral. The events of of the turn of the 19th century showed the folly of that view and the correctness of Hamilton's, but many people never tire of the belief that fortune really ought favor the weak and wishful, no matter how often the position is proved wrong.
In 1794 the six frigates are authorized. The book includes lots of interesting technical detail on their construction, including the live oak wood that seems to make a huge difference in their durability. In 1799 the Constellation goes to sea and wins the first decisive naval battle for the US against a French frigate that has been helping French Privateers as they take over 300 US merchant ships a year. In that battle a gunner panics and runs, and the officer in charge kills him immediately. It was a different time; the way to insure that sailors do not run is to make the penalty for cowardice death, and nobody has an issue with that standard.
The conquest of the Barbary Pirates is covered in some detail, especially the exploits of Stephen Decatur, a navy officer so handsome that young women regularly fell into a swoon on sight of him. Unfortunately, not one of those problems that I have regularly had to deal with. Of special note during the Mediterranean campaigns, and really through the latter half of the book, is the issue of dueling and "honor". The ideas of character and honor were much more in evidence personally, in battle, and in the dealings of nations in that period. Would it have been possible to retain the focus on character and honor without dueling? At least an interesting question.
A number of naval battles in the period around the War of 1812 are covered in levels of detail including maneuvering, gunnery, boarding, and types and effects of injuries. The Chesapeake's "bad luck ship" history is well covered, and in contrast the, the glory of "Old Ironsides", the Constitution, as it becomes the first US ship to defeat a British Frigate, and the historic significance of that action.
All in all an excellent book that brings to life a critical period in the development of the country, and especially the US Navy.
The subject book by Michael W. Wright can be thought of as the executive summary of "The World Is Flat" by Thomas Freidman also here, and here. The Friedman book has become a "standard", but it is quite long, quite repetitive, and short on solutions.
A key paragraph from the Preface lays it out:
The global landscape we have painted seems intractable; we have embraced a the term first introduced into common business use by Roger McNamee, the "New Normal." This landscape is harsh and forbidding, one that will render useless any attempt to palliate through cliche' or dumbing down through generic format. We offer much content along a "how-to" path and cite many examples of successful navigation. But the main mission of the book is to map the scale (size) and scope (diversity) of the landscape. Any organization has to have a clear understanding of its present to divine its future. We we have done is illuminate the time and terrain between today and tomorrow.
The book opens with some key one-liners to remember. Some key ones that stuck with me were:
The rule of three prevails. This essentially means that in a finite market three or fewer players will own at least 70% of the market share. Think of the top hamburger company in the world. The 2nd? How about the third? No doubt McDonalds was easy, maybe you picked a 2nd, by the 3rd, the basic answer is "who cares"?
The old comparison is "have or have not", the new comparison is "know or know not". The only "security net" that anyone has in the NBN is knowledge.
Dual-income households are an econimic necessity. Humorously, the new "trophy wife" is a PH. D. from China with her own business!
Value has migrated from the product to the experience. Customers what the value of the experience without the responsibility or burden of product ownership.
The basic level of human existence is at a higher level of anxiety for all. Everyone can be both in their own universe and connected all the time (internet, cell phone, iPod)
Achievement depends on successful integration and marshalling of groups of varied interests.
In the NBN a company will not let anyone get between them and their customer. "Co-destiny" with the customer is potentially the only remaining "business differentiator".
The cry of today is "What are we good at?". The cry of tomorrow will be "What do we need to be good at?".
Competitive advantage revolves around highly skilled people able to share information quickly and effectively.
In the NBN, two discernible workforces have broadly taken shape: the under-fifties and the over-fities.
Knowledge workers will eventually become the largest single group of older Americans in the workforce.
The NBN for corporations is to innovate and manage the creation, but outsource its execution and administration.
Asian companies see innovation as a process, not a spark of genius. They see change as an opportunity and are willing to abandon their past to create the future.
I could go on, but I think those are the biggest keys. What it all means to me is:
Success has always meant dealing directly with reality, taking risks, being flexible, and making correct moves (changes). The only difference now is that is happening faster and all over the globe.
Better communication and transportation means that the playing field is wider. That means greater opportunity and greater risk. Being "the best in the neighborhood or the best in town" is no longer good enough. If the business isn't location dependent (haircuts, dining), then the market is global.
Loving what you do gets more and more critical since in order to compete, it is critical that the level of professional commitment to the task has to be high.
The book is only 126 reasonable print pages long. It is VERY well worth reading on your own.
I had one of the best weeks at work ever in my nearly 29 year career. A three day class that started out with Michael Wright, Author of "The New Business Normal" current CEO of Entegris, and veteran of a 25 year career in leadership positions in high tech.
Tuesday was spent with Dr Edward Joyce Associate Dean of the Carlson School of Management on the subject of getting the right information out of cost accounting systems.
Wednesday was spent on a subject that I never enjoyed in school, English and grammer, with Dr Steven Wilburs whose web site is extremely informative.
Every one of the instructors was both extremely entertaining and extremely informative. It made me wonder if I may have experienced a taste of what an education at an "overpriced" Ivy League school may be like? I have no way of knowing, but I've never had days in class fly by to the same extent. I hope to get some time to write a bit more detail, but the workload left by taking 3 days of class has limited my time.
The bottom line was that it is always very possible to get A LOT better at what we do, and there is ALWAYS a lot of opportunity, as well as risk of course. The key is figuring out what you really like and becoming very good at it. Cost Accounting and English would be two areas that I would have thought dry beyond hope of anyone really exuding a contagious passion for, but I was proven wrong in the extreme!
The events of the past week, along with of all things a couple of little books of wise quotations picked up at the CAR WASH of all places (that is where I got the Franklin quote) have coalesced in my feeble mind. The book "Be Positive" by Wally Amos (The guy that created Famous Amos cookies, among other things) contains this worthy page:
Keep Moving Toward Your Goals: Confucius said. "It does not matter how slowly you go, so long as you do not stop" Truer works were never spoken. You succeed by not stopping. You are guaranteed to lose if you quit. You never know what will happen if you just keep going. So go as slow or as fast as you need to go, but whatever you do, please do not stop.
Interesting that Wally Amos is black, and most of a James W. Loewen talk last Tuesday at "Rochester Reads" was on the horrors of racism in this country and how hamstrung blacks are because of it. No doubt there is a lot of truth in that ... as well as there is in the case of physically and mentally disabled people, people abused as children, those that have less innate motivation -- the list is infinite. To be human is very much about limitation; but being a victim of our limitations will have a completely different outcome than seeing those limits as learning opportunities.
Liberalism is different though. As I watch and listen to the new powers in Washington, I'm often transported to the scene in Star Wars VI, "Return of the Jedi" where Luke is fighting with Darth in the presence of the the Emperor, who tells him to "release his anger" in order to defeat Darth. Since there is no transcendence in the liberal universe, the human condition has to be lofted to deity, which of course it completely lacks the capacity to fulfill. The intellect and reason are as "good as it gets" as the "highest functions", but the emotions are too omnipresent to be ignored. To carry on the Science Fiction motif, Spock might say; "one does not worship logic".
The Democrats spent the whole week on "Give up, it is taking too long, there is no hope, it is like Vietnam ...". "Victory" to the left is when the forces of good give up and the communists, terrorists or just plain criminals win. Even the act of someone "giving up", especially if it is the US is a "win". When anger, hatred, lust, and especially hopelessness can gain, all is right with the liberal universe; no god is in heaven, life (and especially sacrifice) is meaningless, and prospects for hope are dimmed. Hail, Lord Beelzebub, your constituency has had a "positive week".
Harry Reid even released his anger so well that he said that "Iraq was the worst foreign policy mistake ever". It would be interesting to know his criteria, I'm thinking that the 57,690 US killed in Vietnam might have a couple of words on that ... US involvement in WWI, Spanish-American, some of the actions in Mexico, Philippines...oh , I don't know, it seems "unlikely" even if Reid and the Democrats manage to make it as big a defeat as they can.
In Sunday School today we discussed Philippians, which is a wonderful set of verses to keep the current events in the right perspective.
4:4 Rejoice in the Lord alway: [and] again I say, Rejoice.
4:5 Let your moderation be known unto all men. The Lord [is] at hand.
4:6 Be careful for nothing; but in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God.
4:7 And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.
4:8 Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things [are] honest, whatsoever things [are] just, whatsoever things [are] pure, whatsoever things [are] lovely, whatsoever things [are] of good report; if [there be] any virtue, and if [there be] any praise, think on these things.
This week we enter the season of Lent. While those of faith believe that the ultimate victory has been won, we still live in a time where souls have the freedom to choose whom they serve. Adversity is a good reason to be thankful for the plan and the patience the of the author of hope.
Whether the actual name for the Democrat / Murtha strategy was actually their own name or not, there has rarely been a better term for a Democrat strategy, indeed, "slow-bleed" tends to come pretty close to an embodiment of a liberal view of pretty much everything.
Last Tuesday night I went to a local lecture by Dr. James W. Loewen, author of "Lies My Teacher Told Me". It is a book that I have not read, but his lecture wasn't much on the book anyway. He pointed out that; "Unless the US is the worst monster in history (and he was not asserting that), then an honest appraisal of past history should be no cause for concern". His other assertion was that "Nobody will believe what we say if we don't point out the faults in our history, nor can we learn from them".
I thought those were interesting thoughts, I wonder if he follows that with his wife?
"Honey, have you been putting on a little more weight lately? You know I love you very much, but I think you are bit broader in the beam than formerly, and your general presence has a bit more of a "sag" than it used to. Note that I only tell you this because I love you, and I want you to know how honest I am so you will trust me more."
The thought; "with friends like that, who needs enemies" comes to mind.
Is it "a lie" for a public US school paid for with US tax dollars to give a "positive bias view" of the US? Loewen and many liberals think so. That is in fact the main item that makes Fox news "biased"; they specifically call themselves a US news outlet, and indicate that their bias is "pro-US".
The liberal mindset raises criticism, defeat and even hopelessness to virtues. Indeed, it is a sign of "sophistication" to point out the flaws in all manner of things, especially your own country. Somehow liberals seem bent on "tough love" for their country, but they never see that as a good idea for their children. As Bush pointed out Tuesday, the Senate just confirmed Petraeus 81-0, and he had made it clear that he supported the surge. This past week the House thought it was important to spend the week castigating the surge and then taking a non-binding vote to show they didn't like the surge.
If one had any convictions, would they do everything in their power to hold up a confirmation of a general supporting a strategy they oppose. No, not if you are a liberal. You seek "cover" behind a "slow-bleed", looking to insure failure in any way you can, but making sure that Bush gets all the blame.
Since it seems that liberals like to claim that being conservative is a mental disorder, it is interesting to turn the tables a bit. Somehow I'm quite certain that the MSM will fail to see a connection between "slow-bleed" and "passive-aggressive" behavior, which actually IS an officially recognized personality disorder. Public Radio has been proudly proclaiming all weekend long that Murtha is going to divert all the funds to "better preparation" so the surge never happens, since what kind of Republican could vote against better prepared troops? The hallmark of "passive-aggressive" is simply delay.
Indeed, if it was "all a game", this kind of arm-chair quarterbacking might actually be more fun, but I have the distinct impression that Iran, North Korea, and a number of terrorist groups around the globe actually believe in what they do. I'm sure they will show us again that while psychological gamesmanship might "look impressive" to the MSM and liberals, the kind of expense incurred is likely to be real bleeding with nothing slow about it at all.
The following is a little piece of wisdom from Franklin on "happiness".
There are two ways of being happy; we may either diminish our wants or augment our means. Either will do, the result is the same. And it is for each man to decide for himself, and do that with happens to be the easiest. If you are idle or sick or poor, however hard it may be for you to diminish your wants, it will be harder to augment your means. If you are active and prosperous young or in good health, it may be easier for you to augment your means than to diminish your wants. But if you are wise, you will do both at the same time, young or old, rich or poor, sick or well. And if you are very wise, you will do both in such a way as to augment the general happiness of society.
I'd argue that what he is really talking about here is being "financially satisfied", which may well not be the same thing as "happy".
As I observe those of the liberal frame, I find they tend to MAXIMIZE their dissatisfaction by picking those with the highest wealth that they like the least, and focusing on how much those people have and how "unfair" that is. They work themselves up into a "wealth of outrage", but a "deficit of wisdom". They lose their way so badly that they tend to vote for those with the MOST "ill-gained wealth" (their standard). Kennedy(inherited), Kerry(married), Edwards(taken from a combination of the public (higher medical costs) and poor to moderate income people(the people filing suit that Edwards took a big cut of their awards), Hillary (recently wealthy on book deals), Obama(recently wealthy on book deals) ... etc.
They arrive at the point where their ONLY "wealth" is outrage. They may not even have any "wants" of their own, other than to see "the wealthy knocked down a peg or two", and somehow they believe that they can vote for multi-millionaires that would somehow shoot THEMSELVES in the foot (pocketbook)? Not a very likely prospect, but the wisdom of a Franklin is converted to the rage of a Marx, and rather than focusing on creating something good for society as a whole, they attempt to tear down others in a vain attempt to reduce the outrage that has become their only "wealth".
Much of happiness is really a factor of how much of our life is focused on PERSONALLY doing something for the benefit of others. For some reason, those in the liberal frame tend to become "outraged" at some set of people that have had financial success, and then subsequently think that their own personal "contribution" can be their "opinion that the world is unjust". They see themselves as somehow "on the side of good" because they manage to have an opinion that they see as "just", even though their ability (or even interest) in actually DOING anything to help others may be quite limited.
BUT EVEN after controlling for all other factors, religiosity, measured by the likelihood of weekly attendance at a house of worship, remains by far the most salient predictor of both charitable contributions and volunteerism. Those who attend a house of worship once a week are 25% more likely to give than those who do so never or rarely. And when they do give, they give four times as much. Nor is the generosity of religious people limited to the religious community. They are 10% more likely to give to explicitly non-religious charities and 25% more likely to volunteer for secular groups, such as the PTA.
Unsurprisingly to those that have read Jesus, the liberal lefties that claim the most "righteousness" relative to their generosity and social involvement are actually far LESS likely to "do unto others" than the very people they malign at every opportunity.
Many folks probably missed the smooth comment by Obama to the Australian PM:
"If he's ginned up to fight the good fight in Iraq, I would suggest he call up another 20,000 Australians and send them up to Iraq."
Seems like the essence of smoothness, maybe there is a good reason Obama seldom says anything off the script. If he had an "R" next to his name, we would hear the endless view of how "poorly he treats allies" or something oddly made up about how "ginned up" could be misconstrued to be something about having too much gin. A conservative can't even say "niggardly" without a racist charge, and that is a real word rather than a slang expression.
I got to hear Stanford University physicist Leonard Susskind talk on the subject on MPR via the net. Yet another great feature of the modern world, the net allows us to listen to what we want to when we want to.
I have blogged on his recent book and as I said, really enjoyed it, as I did his talk on the radio. What struck me as I listened was something from "Change or Die", a short little somewhat self-helpish / business sort of book that I picked up and read through recently that ties back to "Frames", ala a series of posts that I made on a George Lakoff book back in December '05 and January '06.
We humans run around with tiny time-delayed models in our heads that are less reliable because everything even manages to be perceived in those models must be filtered through a set of "frames", which are "meta-models" that tell us what conclusions are the most "beneficial" for us to "jump to". "News at 11", all experience is SUBJECTIVE, and "meaning" is even MORE biased!
It is completely unsurprising that a physicist that seems it as a "grave weakness" to "fall into" belief in God and realizes that we are even wired naturally to believe in a "higher power" would seek out nearly ANY explanation to justify how we could just "happen" to live in a Goldilocks universe "tuned" to 10 to the -120th accuracy to allow us to exist.
The "Anthropic Principle" is essentially Descartes "I think therefore I am" writ large. "We are here and able to comprehend the universe, therefore it is obvious it would have all the parameters for us to be here".
How about folks like me that believe that God DOES exist?
It is certainly an open issue if a finite brain can even "imagine the transcendent", but **IF** we have any hopes of escaping the "frame" of physical reality, the path would seem to have to lie in that direction. Our ability to have pure thought, mathematics, religion, love and I'd even argue boolean logic and computer programs takes us as close as we can come in this life to "slipping the surly bonds and touching the face of God". To even attempt to envision escape from the models, frames and incompleteness of the material world seems to me to give a HOPE for a "better perspective".
clipped from powerlineblog.com
