Old thought reposted - sleeping with

I posted this blog a while ago and even though I am a more precise writer now I liked this one and wanted to put it up on this site.



I ran into an old classmate I had not seen in almost thirteen years. The last time we knew each other we were both near the end of the long road towards ordination within the orthodox rabbinate. I left the program he stayed on. He was shocked that any of his peer group, we who had been intimate with god, that one of us could become secular.

He wanted to know why. Maybe he cared about my well-being or maybe he wanted to feel superior. He wanted to know why I don't spend my days shooting up or getting hookers or robbing people, "after all," he said, "if there is no god then you can do anything you want. There is no morality, no right and wrong, no one to say no."

"Isn't it possible that morality, right and wrong, healthy and unhealthy, isn't it probable that these values are instinctive. For example, imagine you're wandering around the desert, your family in a large tribe with other families and its 2000bc. A day off, a sabbath day for rest and family is an important and needed value.

In today's world we have language. We can quote studies and statistics and cite case law and medical records all to explain what we instinctivly know, that a day off for rest and family is an important and needed value. But 4000 years ago they didn't have the language we have since developed. So, isn't it possible that god was brought in to cement those realizations; that we needed to insert god to validate our instinct."

"you can interpet the bible anthropologically, but that's just your point of view, that doesn't disprove anything," he said.

"Disprove? Shouldn't it be like science, here you are stating a theory, your theory is that there is a god, not only is there a god but it is this god and that this god wants a-b-c from us. You should have to prove that theory before I have to disprove it. You cannot disprove and unevidenced theory. Where is your proof?""

My proof is the world, our world, the daily miricales, all the really smart people who have believed, morality and faith. Faith is not needing proof."

"Well look," I said. "Let's ignore the faith issue because on that one we are speaking two diffrent languages. Our existence alone proves nothing. The evidence all reputable scientists agree certainly points towards some form of evolutionary path. But even if there are things we can't explain or can't understand,all that means is we don't have an answer yet. Just like we didn't always have antibiotics. But not having an answer doesn't mean that the default answer is god. And pleanty of smart people have believed in pleanty of dumb things, like slavery and jew killing, so what smart people do only shows that people can believe and do anything. The only point left is morality.

So let me understand. You believe that without god man would have no senseof morality of right and wrong?"

"That's right."

"And you believe that because there is a god man knows right from wrong, which choices lead to fufillment and which do not, healthy behaviors from unhealthy behaviors?"

"Absolutely."

"So you want to sleep with your sister and the only reason you don't is because god tells you not to?

Home Schooling

Public schools are usually not great institutions of learning. Even private schools frequently don't mesh with what the parents desire. But, the one thing that these facilities have in common is the chance that kids might be protected. There are alot of bad people out there. There are people who rape their kids, beat their kids, use and abuse in every manner concievable. Many kids never get the help they need from their school. Occasionally though some adult recognises what is happening and steps up to help the kid. Even though it is not 100% success, not even close, at least in a school structure their is a chance that the problem will be ferreted out.

Is there any chance at all that a home schooled kid will be protected?

Do you really beleive that there aren't parents out there keeping their kids out of school for just that reason?

The Problem with Common Sense

is that it is common.

In this months (feb. 08) issue of Scientific American, Michael Shermer makes the argument that free trade is essentially fair trade because most trading is not based on greed but on an instinctive sense of right & wrong and good & bad.

Sheremer writes every month a column labelled "Skeptic." His column usually applies a scientific eye to issues like homeopathy, economic, polotics, a wide variety of issues where science trumps common sense.

In this month's column he brings a few examples to make his argument. One example is that if you take two people and tell one that he can get up to $100 if person B lets him have that amount or he can negotiate with person B. And they found that when person B is offered $10 leaving $90 for person A that the guy feels ripped off and doesn't agree. The split usually ends up at $70-$30. Shermer deduces that because the guy feels cheated, even though he would have recieved a free $10, but he needs some level of parity to assuage his moral outrage.

The same he says is true of primates. In tests primates that scratch each other back for a treat will preform about 90% of the time, unless one primate gets a better treat than the other. When one primate got a grape instead of a cucumber slice the rate dropped to 60%. When he got anouther grape the primate threw his cucumber slice at the human.

Shermer argues that the innate need for parity is based on good, on the idea of fairness.

I disagree.

All the test subjects were predators. These tests do not work on Prey members of the animal kingdom. The need to acheive parity is not based on good it is based on dominance. The human might not have the free $10 but he has the power to prevent the other guy from getting his $100. And he excercises that power and leverage to recieve $30. The primate excercises his leverage to prevent the other from getting any more grapes unless he gets grapes as well.

If these predators could make the rewards weigh in their favor they would. They only have enough leverage to argue for something close to parity; not our of goodness or fairness; from predatory struggle of dominance.

To Ad or not to ad

I am unsure whether I should keep this blog ad-free. On the one hand it might be nice to be paid, on the other hand I don't really like ads cluttering up my existence.

So before I figure Google out and make a decision about letting their service put ads on or not, I thought I would put up some pics of my kids and see if anyone wants to hire them.... as models or thespians or something along those lines.


This is Lia:
















This is Michael Lorenzo:

They are both happy and hard-working kids. They both have lots of energy and can definatly handle a workday schedule.

Any offers other than livestock will be considered

from algebra in the 13th century

From my sis-in-law of zoo fame:



I was depressed last night so I called Lifeline.

Got a call center in Pakistan .

I told them I was suicidal.

They got all excited and asked if I could drive a truck.........





From my freind Jason:



I don’t understand Urdu, but something tells me they’re not protesting for women’s rights or screaming “death to discrimination”



























Makes you wonder if the mongols regret their ancestors descision to destroy the arab world in the 13th cent.

Death Penalty

If you've listened to the news lately you might have heard the story about the teens at the San Francisco Zoo. Apparantly a couple of kids were drunk and high and were mocking the tiger. The tiger escaped his confines and killed and maimed the teens.

So now the zoo representatives are out there spreading the word that it is not the zoo's fault and that the tiger should not have been provoked.

So apparantly the zoo feels that the appropriate punishment for yelling and waving and making silly faces at the tiger is the death penalty.

There is a lagoon at a local park. During the warm months, right now it is zero farenheit outside, I take may kids there and we play in the park and watch the ducks in the lagoon.

Big signs are posted all over the fence sorrounding the lagoon. The signs say, "please don't feed the ducks." There are also signs explainsing why, explaining that these animals are on a scientific and natural diet and that bread and etc that is fed to them disturbs their systems, creates waste, illness, rodents etc. The signs could not be more clear and prominent. Every single time we go there I see people bring big big bags of white bread and throw loaves of foodstuff to the ducks.

I've been to zoos all over the place. In Israel my sis-in-law, after watching people feeding the animals despite all the signs, said something to the dad ignoring the signs. The dad berated her and kept throwing food at the bear. A zoo attendant was called and the dad berated him as well.

My little girl asked me why those people were feeding the ducks and couldn't she as well. I felt bad for her. But I explained that those people were really really bad evil nasty people who didn't mind destroying this beutiful place for their own amusement.

So if waving at a tiger is the death penalty these scum should at least have their eyes pecked out.

Here is what I find most interesting: it is always the adults. The kids don't mind not feeding the ducks or animals. They are happy to see the animals. It doesn't occur to them to feed the animals. They have to be trained by their parents or other adult gaurdian to want to feed the animals and ignore the signs. When I take my kids to the lagoon I don't bring a bag of bread with, other people come prepared to behave in that manner.

You want to feed a duck go buy a duck. Don't ruin a public facility for your ego.

vegatarians

Expanding on the thought behind the last post:

I feel bad for vegatarians; animal lovers not the ones who do it in a misguided health scheme.

People are predators. That is part of our nature. From a scientific point of view we can break down how we arrive at that classafication:

We have eyes in the front of our skull and not on the sides. All mammals in the animal kingdom are split into these two catagories. We surmise the reason to be that predators need a straight line of site and prey need to watch their backs.

We have canines.

We have a digestive and metabolic system capable of transforming consumed flesh into energy.

So people are predators. We are also much more than just predators, but all those other instincts and labels fall under and are biased by our most primal instinct. And there is no reason to label it good or bad, it simply is. Why deny who you are? You can't change it. You could be the meekest and mildest andmost vulnerable person ever, you could be ghandi and your classification is still predator; just not a very efficient one.

So vegatarians deny their most basic instinct. They have a vacumn in their mind, the dissonance between what they think and who their genes have created.

The same is true of all control and differences. Laws are created, and people behave in a manner consistent of a struggle. We struggle to balance what we think with who we are.

I think we should practice our breathing and eat more hot dogs.

Criminal

The government's job appears to be to make their citizens criminals. Laws and laws and laws are passed, and when those laws fail they pass more laws on the same issue; on every issue. Taxes and fees and fines.

The other day I stopped by a coffee shop to grab a quick bite. Standing in front of the shop on this cold january day were two people who asked me if I had time to talk about global warming.

I laughed.

So incandescant lightbulbs have been outlawed while coal plants spew forth in a day what all the lightbulbs use in a year.

The jails are filled with non-violent criminals and Chicago passed a law banning fois gra and a natural root that people chew to get high, but does anyone feel any safer?

All this ties in with Jew Hatred. It all comes from the same place. Many people only feel comfortable in familiar and stable situations of conformity. The Jew is unique to most people, outside of the mainstream. And rather than allowing people to make their own choices, society desires an average. A difference creates a vacum of thought in a person's mind and spirit; and nature abhors a vacum. It matters little whether we are talking about fois gra or Jews, if the people in charge want it one way, woe to the people who are different.

Steroids in Sport

Steriods in sports: the latest boogyman.

Frankly I don't understand the problem, why not steroids in sports? What's the problem? If an athlete wants to enhance their performance, what's the problem? Sports change all the time, baseball today is vastly different than in the era of Babe Ruth. Walls are lower, balls are bouncier etc. What is the problem with steroids? An unfair advantage for one player? If one player has better gear, if the yankees can afford three times the payroll, if there is no level playing field to begin with than why draw the line at steroids?

I say, let them take whatever they want. I want a good sporting event. I see no difference between steroids and other modes of enhancing one's ability.

Hey I know, let's send proffessional athletes to jail for use of steroids, that will be a worthwhile endevor.
Oh wait, they are going to jail for lying about using steroids? Well Bush will pardon them. Obviously if Scooter Libby desearved a pardon for lying about outing a CIA agent than clearly perjury about steroids warrants a pardon.

Thou Shalt Rape

"That which exists in your mind, exists. That which you do not know does not exist" 6th cent. Japanese Swordsman Muashi

If a tree falls in the forest it only makes a sound if you know that if fell.

So what do we know about the bible (Old Testament)? We know that which was written, defined as stories, history, diary, compilation, laws, rules, guidlines. From those written words we have hosts and legions of writings and oral explanations; a library of thought.

And yet nowhere are to be found four simple words, "thou shalt not rape."

Plenty of space for prescribing what to eat and not eat, but the closest the bible comes is describing a situation. Here is how the bible touches on the subject: If a woman has sex in a field and cries out for help than it is considered forced, if she does not cry out than it is considered consensual." And what is the punishment for the offender, should it be considered rape? The judgment is as a property crime where the man is required to pay the victims Dad approx. $12,ooo-$15,000 in todays usd. He is also required, unless she refuses, to take her as his wife and care for her. Remember though, in the era of the bible marriage was polygymous and he must take her to his "tent" because she is damaged property and no-one else will marry her.

Intresting I find the story of Simeon and Levy, two of Jacob's children who wiped out the city of Shechem when they discovered that a man from there had raped their sister.
So apparantly rape illicited strong emotions even back then.
And what was their punishment for mass murder in retaliation for a property crime? Their dad gave them a stern lecture. No Kidding. That is what it says. That is what we know. That is what exists.

What exists now is a different understanding than what existed in the bible. Now women exist as seperate human entities with worth and value as more than property. What exists now is an understanding that rape is wrong and against the law in todays moral climate.

Why isn't it in the bible?

Obama's Whitewater

Change.

I believe it was Reverand Ike who said about donations to his church, 'I don't want to hear the vulgar sound of change.'

Barack Obama, the shining light of change, the man with the life experiance and a solid core. Let's examine this situation:

From the CHicago SUN TIMES:

" June 2005, Obama and Rezko purchased adjoining parcels in Kenwood. The state's junior senator paid $1.65 million for a Georgian revival mansion, while Rezko paid $625,000 for the adjacent, undeveloped lot. Both closed on their properties on the same day. Last January, aiming to increase the size of his sideyard, Obama paid Rezko $104,500 for a strip of his land.
The transaction occurred at a time when it was widely known Tony Rezko was under investigation by U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald and as other Illinois politicians befriended by Rezko distanced themselves from him"

So Obama made a crooked land deal with a man whose federal trial starts feb 29th. Lucky for him Rezko's investigation starts after the Feb 5th primary.
And I am supposed to beleive that this smart and wonderful man made a quick half a million on a crooked land deal with a guy who everybody is running away from and it was just a "mistake."

When Obama talks about change what he really means is change the name on the check you write and send it to Obama instead.

At least with Hillary all the subpenas and investigations have already occured. Do we really need a prezident with a brand new Whitewater?