Remember Ted Stevens?

It makes sense that Palin would attempt to remove anything linking herself to Ted Stevens from her website. I still think it's funny that she erased this commercial.

A commercial for me

As a frequent flyer (not happy about that, to be honest) this commercial really spoke to me:



Ugh, I never thought I'd see the day that I would share a commercial. Anyway, I like southwest as a company. They've impressed me with their business model.

Genesis 3

This here is a tough chapter. It's one of the chapters that were instrumental in leading me to a long stint of militant atheism (starting age 12 or so). It's the Original Sin chapter. In its standard reading, the reading I was taught, it places the blame mostly on Eve and partly on Adam and the serpent. But when I read it I thought it was impossible to blame anyone but God himself for what happened. Observe:

1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any other wild animal that the Lord God had made.

Verse 1 of the chapter begins like this. And by this very way, it reminds me that God was to have made the snake and, by logic, must have made him crafty. Furthermore, is crafty being used as a pejorative here?

He said to the woman, ‘Did God say, “You shall not eat from any tree in the garden”?’ ²The woman said to the serpent, ‘We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden; ³but God said, “You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden, nor shall you touch it, or you shall die.” ’ ⁴But the serpent said to the woman, ‘You will not die; ⁵for God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.’

Here, the crafty serpent implies that God lied. Eve took his "you shall surely die" comment literally and the serpent explained that she will not die but that she will become more knowledgeable. This is a continuous problem, especially in the new testament: God, or Jesus, says something, people take him literally, hilarity/tragedy/misunderstanding ensues. If God and/or Jesus say something that is not intended to be taken literally, they should have had the foresight to make themselves more clear, better understood. Knowing what we know after reading Genesis 1 to 3 we must assume that God was not being literal about eating from the tree of knowledge leading to death, otherwise it would make him a liar. But EVE TOOK HIM LITERALLY! Why didn't God see this coming?

So, back to the event. Who's at fault here for the fall? The snake, maybe, for enticing Eve. But God made the snake, God knew the snake had the mental capacity to trick Eve, God was certainly watching all of this transpire. Maybe Eve is at fault, but God made Eve, God knew Eve had some obedience issues, God gave her one rule and it took her all of one conversation with a serpent to break it, God knew this would happen when he created Eve, God must have made Eve with very little will power, and God simply watched our simple Eve be swayed by the crafty serpent.

⁶So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate.

Again, the desire to make yourself wise is also responsible for man's fall. When I read verse 6 I cringe, I want to cry. Because there is no arguing a literalist on this point: Wisdom brings sin. As a student or academic, I perpetuate the problem (see the Amish for more illumination on this point). By extension, a critical reading of the bible is frowned upon as it will only lead to trouble. Also, Adam was hanging around watching all of this. He didn't even have the will or foresight to say anything, he just went ahead and ate. Is it his fault? It's clear to me that God made Adam even dumber than Eve.

⁷Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made loincloths for themselves.

Thus, knowledge made us prude.

8 They heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden at the time of the evening breeze, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden.

God is omnipresent. He is everywhere and he is watching. God may be walking in the garden but he already knew all that had happened and all that will happen. Why is God being coy?

⁹But the Lord God called to the man, and said to him, ‘Where are you?’ ¹⁰He said, ‘I heard the sound of you in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.’ ¹¹He said, ‘Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?’ ¹²The man said, ‘The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit from the tree, and I ate.’ ¹³Then the Lord God said to the woman, ‘What is this that you have done?’ The woman said, ‘The serpent tricked me, and I ate.’

God continues to be coy. He pulls out a confession as would a parent with a child covered in chocolate. "what did you do?" -- "nuffin" -- "tell me the truth, did you eat the cookies?" -- and so on. Furthermore, the interaction presented here, where God asks "Who told you that you were naked?" hints to me of a very strange relationship between God and his creation.

The question always lingers: Why would God create us/anything? It's one of those unanswerable questions, but my best guess given his interactions with humans throughout the old testament is that we are his simple playthings. Whether he observes us for entertainment or as some weird experiment gone awry, the old testament, beginning with Genesis 3:11, makes me feel that he created us simply as a means to feel something: anger, dismay, joy, laughter, depression. Before we came along, God had no reason to feel anything. He created us silly creatures so that he could feel something. As the old testament progresses we'll see him experience all kinds of emotions on account of our actions.

¹⁴The Lord God said to the serpent, ‘Because you have done this,
cursed are you among all animals
and among all wild creatures; upon your belly you shall go,
and dust you shall eat
all the days of your life. ¹⁵I will put enmity between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and hers; he will strike your head,
and you will strike his heel.’ ¹⁶To the woman he said, ‘I will greatly increase your pangs in childbearing;
in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband,
and he shall rule over you.’

Genesis 3:16 == HARSH. Especially the "he shall rule over you" bit.

¹⁷And to the man he said, ‘Because you have listened to the voice of your wife,
and have eaten of the tree about which I commanded you,
“You shall not eat of it”, cursed is the ground because of you;
in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life; ¹⁸thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you;
and you shall eat the plants of the field. ¹⁹By the sweat of your face
you shall eat bread until you return to the ground,
for out of it you were taken; you are dust,
and to dust you shall return.’

Let me explain in more detail my BIGGEST problem here (in case you haven't deduced this yourself). God creates man. He knows he has created a creature wich is stupid, has no will power, can't even follow a simple rule, a FLAWED creature. Even worse, in God's omniscience (he knows EVERYTHING) God was aware, even before creating him, that man would betray him. Yet he plays the game, goes through the motions, and punishes him for his sin.

This is like a baker, baking a cake, he forgets to add the eggs or the sugar. Out of the oven the cake looks or tastes horribly, so what does the baker do? He gets mad at the cake and tosses it down the stairs. Excuse me, baker, but you forgot the eggs (or, in this case, you intentionally left them out).

This is a simple deduction. I know that people have argued about this for a thousand years. This very story leads us to our 'free will' argument: The idea that God gave us free will and, with it, we can surprise him and do things he did not expect. Well, that's fine if you want to believe that God does not know our intentions, but then you have to concede that God does not know everything. If God does not know everything, then why is he God and not god or that guy, sam, who happened to put us together and hoped for the best? Anyway, this is Philosophy 101 stuff, so let me move on.

I feel that God can only be worthy of our praise if he is a super genius, if not omniscient. God's behavior in Genesis 3 is so far below super genius that it shames me. How can anyone read this chapter and assume God is a fair, nice person? I suspect that the only way to do this is to make excuses, attempt to dig through what is written and try to find an explanation that would allow God to come out of this tale looking a bit less like an overemotional, bipolar amnesiac and more like a caring, loving nurturer.

20 The man named his wife Eve, because she was the mother of all who live. ²¹And the Lord God made garments of skins for the man and for his wife, and clothed them.

22 Then the Lord God said, ‘See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever’— ²³therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he was taken. ²⁴He drove out the man; and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim, and a sword flaming and turning to guard the way to the tree of life.

So that was how we were punished by God. Some denominations believe that this original sin is a source of continued punishment. Some believe that if we are not baptized before death, regardless of how good we'd been in life, we would still go to hell because of what Adam and Eve did. As if there is some legal, techincal loophole that God won't fix forcing the continued suffering of mankind because of something our incredibly ignorant ancestors did 5000 years ago.

At 12 years old, after reading and re-reading this chapter, asking my Chatechism teacher about it and receiving no response, I lost faith in my fellow roman catholics. How can you not have a response to Genesis 3 for a 12 year old? How can you read this chapter literally and go on with your happy worshipping? How can you, after reading this, deduce that the acquisition of knowledge is a reason for punishment? How can you not blame the creator for the flaws of the creation?

And it isn't just the roman catholics:

Genesis 3 is a chapter that demands the reader to understand God. People read chapter 3 and without a thought move on to chapter 4. Why? Because, chances are, you heard the story of chapter 3 when you were 6 and it made complete sense to you.

"Of course God would be mad, that's what happens when you don't listen to rules. I know from experience! Yesterday when I ate the cookie even though mom told me to wait till after dinner I got a spanking! God is just spanking Adam and Eve..." and so on.

I want everyone who believes in the infallibility of the bible to stop and pay attention to Genesis 3. Read Genesis 3 and pay attention and don't assume that the reason you don't understand the problems is because you didn't major in theology. When human beings say horrible things like "Gays are going to hell" or "Women shouldn't have the right to vote" we are saying them because of literal interpretations of the old testament. But what happens when we follow the logical, literal interpretation of Genesis 3?

What a move!

Congratulations GOP. Sweet move. Give yourselves a round of applause.

Holy shit.

The DNC

What's the purpose of a political convention?

Is it just a big party, a celebration? Is it supposed to rally support for the party? Does it create revenue for the candidate's campaign? Is it supposed to educate the voters, give them fodder or good lines to use in their arguments with undecided voters in their social circles? Is it a pissing contest with the opposing party's convention?

I've never really understood the purpose of the convention process. But one thing that this DNC has made clear to me is that I loathe the speeches.

The speeches aren't informative. Sometimes the speaker throws out some facts like "McCain voted 90% with Bush" without any citation or explanation as to where this number came from (How the hell did McCain vote 90% with Bush when Bush DOESN'T VOTE, he VETOES bills or signs them into law!!!). It's really not possible to provide well supported facts in a speech because it would make for a very boring speech. I would warn anyone who expects to be using any new information learned by DNC speeches to make sure they check the facts and understand what they mean before parroting.

All the cable news pundits want Barack's speech to be full of content about his policies. THIS IS NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN. Why? Because a political speech to a general audience is going to be dull and incomprehensible if it's full of details about ins and outs of policies. The best a candidate can do is give an outline of the plan: "I plan to make oil companies give back a bit of their profits, and that money is going directly to the poorest 25% of taxpayers." but that's about as detailed as a political speech can get about windfall profit tax. If the speech continued with a plan about how exactly the law would be worded such that the oil companies would be forced to pay no one would be rivited, the speaker would be boring, and they'd lose the audience. Then, of course, pundits from Fox news would jump on your quote and yell about how your ideas are childish because A) oil companies are already paying a ton of money in taxes, B) there's no way to broadly define "windfall profit" since each oil company operates under different business plans and different uses of those profits, and C) no similar law has ever been passed which was free of loopholes.

For any candidate, a speech about policy is a lose/lose situation.

I've realized this year that political speeches are not inteded for audience members like me. I'm not motivated by inspirational messages. I hate to hear the phrase "god bless america" (not because I don't want america blessed, but because it is a meaningless phrase used to get a reaction or simply proclaim one's paitriotism). I'd rather get my policy information from a hard source (like the candidates' web sites) where detailed information is available. I don't think a policy maker should be judged on the quality of their public speaking (yes I know that the art of persuasion is linked with the art of speechmaking, and that the ability to persuade is critical in the highest offices, but I think a good president or senator is made from her empathy and ability to understand complex problems from multiple perspectives. I don't want a fantastic speaker with poor judgment to lead the country into a terrible decision just because she's good at giving a speech.) And I think clapping, cheering, ballons, and streamers should be reserved for rock concerts, circuses, or stage acts.

Our politicians are our leaders. They will be the people who decide things like whether the death penalty will be abolished or whether a war will be waged. These are serious issues and when I think about what the political process actually leads us to and then compare it to the extravaganza that has been the Democratic national convention (or the republican one coming up) it's incredibly unnerving.

We cheer for Obama or McCain as if we believe either of these men are going to be flawless presidents. Whoever makes it come January, I guarantee that they are going to do something to piss you off (if you're paying attention). That's simply because they won't share 100% of your opinions regardless of whether you are a republican or democrat. Knowing this should lead one to believe that we should ALWAYS question authority. We should always remind the people we allow the honor of leading us that we are watching, that we won't always agree with what they have to say, but that we give them the benefit of the doubt.

Cheering at them like mullet wearing ladies cheer at bon jovi is totally undermining the relationship we should be having with our elected leaders. Screaming and waving banners doesn't not provide the apporpriate amount of skepticism, the reminder that we are not giving away our right to disagree.

Yes, we support. No, you are not flawless and we'll be watching.

So, what's the purpose of a political convention? Who's being educated? Do you win the presidency by showing the rest of america that your supporters cheer the loudest?

Politics and the tv

Preaching to the choir.

You're going to vote based on preconceived notions of party lines or what you see on TV because you, like most americans, don't have the time or the patience to really research both candidates (you probably don't have enough time to research either candidate).



But if you're watching Fox news, you're probably already going to vote conservative, whereas if you're watching anything else you're more likely to vote liberal. There's not such thing as a swing vote.

Genesis 2 (switching to the NRSV)

¹Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all their multitude. ²And on the seventh day God finished the work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all the work that he had done. ³So God blessed the seventh day and hallowed it, because on it God rested from all the work that he had done in creation.

I've heard people complain about the first three verses of Genesis 2 because they imply that God gets tired. The problem is that an omnipotent God wouldn't be tired. This interpretation makes a lot of sense -- even people who aren't critical bible readers seem to think that the reason God rested was because he was tired (they don't seem to have a problem with imagining a tired God). But there is another sense to the word 'rested', that is 'a pause from doing something', not necessarily taking a nap. Thus, I will assume that God rested not because he was tired but because he just wanted to take some time off to check things out. If he really wanted to he could have kept going, of course.

4 These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created.

Another Account of the Creation

In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, ⁵when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up—for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no one to till the ground; ⁶but a stream would rise from the earth, and water the whole face of the ground— ⁷then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being.

5-7 have always confused me because they directly contradict Genesis 1. In G1 we get plants created (then animals) then man. Here, we get man coming before plants of the field were yet in the earth. I know there's lots of ways to interpret this, such as "God had created a bunch of plants but no corn or soybeans or other 'field plants' as in 'tilled field plants'." I guess that's ok, but why be so obtuse about it?

⁸And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east; and there he put the man whom he had formed. ⁹Out of the ground the Lord God made to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food, the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

I very strongly DISLIKE the name of that tree. It typically gets truncated as "the tree of knowledge" and then labeled as the tree that caused the fall of man. The illogical but unfortunately common interpretation is that knowledge (or the persuit of knowledge) is tangentially responsible for the fall of man. This interpretation may not be much of an issue in the 21st century, but I'm convinced it was at least partially responsible for the 'dark' ages. More on that later.

10 A river flows out of Eden to water the garden, and from there it divides and becomes four branches. ¹¹The name of the first is Pishon; it is the one that flows around the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; ¹²and the gold of that land is good; bdellium and onyx stone are there. ¹³The name of the second river is Gihon; it is the one that flows around the whole land of Cush. ¹⁴The name of the third river is Tigris, which flows east of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.

I wonder how many people in the United States realize that the Iraqi people live near the location of the garden of Eden.

15 The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to till it and keep it. ¹⁶And the Lord God commanded the man, ‘You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; ¹⁷but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.’

If you eat of the tree you shall die. This can mean a couple of things:

A) if you eat from the tree you will immediately fall dead.

B) if you eat from the tree you will no longer be immortal and will become able to die

C) if you eat from the tree you will be metaphorically dead (or you'll wish you were dead)

If God meant A then, given what we know happens later in the story, he was lying or wrong, neither of which is a quality we like to ascribe to God. So he meant either B or C. I'm going to assume C, however, if he really told Adam this how was Adam to know what God literally meant?

18 Then the Lord God said, ‘It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner.’ ¹⁹So out of the ground the Lord God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.

Here we have another continuity problem. God makes the birds after he already made man here but in Genesis 1 it was reversed.

²⁰The man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every animal of the field; but for the man there was not found a helper as his partner. ²¹So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then he took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. ²²And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.

While it may be true that most people don't take the old testament as literal truth, here we have evidence that events from the old testament are used as a tool to corroborate falsities in our everyday lives. I personally know people (more than 2) who believe/believed that men have one fewer rib than women do. When asked why they believe this they say that it was something they learned in church was the result of Eve's creation. Even after being shown evidence that men and women really do have the same number of ribs they refuse to believe it. It took me much cajoling to get them to finally accept that men MIGHT ACTUALLY have the same number of ribs as women. They refused to let go of this fundamental belief that man's missing rib is evidence of the creation account. To set the record straight: Men and women have the same number of ribs. Do look it up.

²³Then the man said,
‘This at last is bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
this one shall be called Woman,
for out of Man his one was taken.’
²⁴Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh. ²⁵And the man and his wife were both naked, and were not ashamed.

Here we have one of my favorite lines in Genesis. I take it to mean that, in our most natural state, we are naked and unashamed. Genesis 2:25 is about as clear as the bible can get regarding how we might get closer to paradise: Get naked! I, myself, am a big fan of Genesis 2:25 :)