Cat Superstition, and the Origins of Religion, Astrology, and all forms of Supernatural Beliefs

A few years ago, my (late) kitty cat friend and roommate Fushi jumped up on the table.
On the table was a large object of some kind - I don't remember exactly what, maybe a book, maybe a pot; whatever it was, it was kind of near the edge.


Supposedly cats are naturally graceful, but that seems to vary as much by the individual as it does for humans.
He bumped into this object, which teetered a bit from the impact, and he jumped right back down.
And the thing tipped over and came down behind him, crashing just barely behind him.
As anyone would, in such a circumstance, he quickly jumped out of the way.



But then he did something more interesting...

He continued to run.
In fact, he ran not only completely across the room, but right out of the room, and kept right on going across the entire house, before finding a safe hiding place in the bedroom.

Now, Fushi was not a particularly skittish cat.  He wasn't bothered by loud noises, he trusted human strangers, and even strange dogs as long as they didn't chase or bark at him.  He stood up to bully cats and went on adventures, sometimes for days at a time.

But this object, set in motion by his own actions, and continued in motion by gravity, had just scared him away.

Us VS Them (Part I, the Star Wars analogy)

"There are heroes on both sides. Evil is everywhere. "

So says the opening crawl of Star Wars Episode III (Revenge of the Sith)

Yet this message gets lost and forgotten as soon as it is off the screen.

As a viewer of any of the Star Wars movies, it goes without saying that the Jedi represent Good, and those who practice the "Dark" side of the force are Evil.
The Jedi and their allies say as much explicitly, at every opportunity.

Paying slightly more attention to the politics behind the action, though, it appears the reality is much more complicated than that.

In this Universe, roughly 50 thousand planets have agreed to a broad alliance, the Galactic Republic, roughly equivalent to the UN - each member state retains some degree of autonomy, and each sends its own representative to be a part of the Senate.The Senate is headed up by a Chancellor who gets elected by the Senate.  Each planet's government picks their Senator - if the planet happens to be a democracy, the inhabitants may vote on the senator, but if the planetary government is a monarchy, then it may unilaterally decide who will be the planets representative.  

The roughly 50 thousand planets are divided into groups of 50 (called sectors), with the senate floor consisting of 1000 chairs - some of which are taken by representatives of extra-planetary organizations such as trade federations.

That leaves one not-necessarily-democratically-elected individual to represent on average more than 50 entire planets.

(Much like the US), although they preach Democratic values consistently, the Republic makes no particular effort to practice them in actuality.

The Jedi were originally meant to be a security force that answered to the senate and the Chancellor (much like the CIA answers to the president).  They protected the Republic government (like the secret service), and enforced senate decrees (like Federal police), since the Republic did not originally have any military force of its own.  They were also considered a "moral authority", making them in some ways akin to Mutaween, the religious police that enforce Sharia law in some Islamic nations.  

Nudity - the Default State

There's a special type of pedal used by serious bicycle riders which has a locking mechanism that attaches to a special metal cleat on bicycle shoes, which snaps the foot and pedal together, allowing for more efficient pedaling and more control.

The old fashioned way was to have a tiny metal cage called a "clip", with a cloth strap around it, which you would slide your foot into.  Some commuters still use these, but basically all racers and serious amateurs have gone to the new system.

Since the new system no longer has the metal bracket - the  "clip" - sticking out of the pedal, the new system was initially called "clipless".
The name stuck and caught on, and now, even though a young rider starting out today would find the interlocking-pedal-and-shoe-system the standard default, cyclists still refer to them as "clipless" pedals.

I was thinking about how odd it is that we would designate something's identity in the negative like this.  In other words, a "clipless" pedal is defined by what it isn't.
Which is odd, especially now that the new system is the standard.

Defining something as ______-less implies that whatever it isn't is the default.

I tried to come up with other things which we define by what they aren't, and couldn't think of much.  There used to be "horseless carriage", which is what automobiles used to be called, but today we have long since dropped the connection to horses, and even shortened "carriage" down to just "car".

Looking it up (powerless nameless worthless purposeless doubtless flawless motionless regardless endless fearless homeless reckless restless spotless useless) the majority of them refer to intangible states - mostly states of mind, or otherwise determined subjectively. None of them refers to a concrete, definite, observable state of being, the way a pedal either has a clip on it or it doesn't, a carriage is either pulled by a horse or not.
And they are all terms in which the opposite would indeed be reasonably considered the default state.

But then I eventually thought of one other common word which is defined by what it isn't - it had alluded me because it has become the de facto assumed "default" state to such an extent that the term doesn't even have the suffix -less in it at all.

You can probably guess, given the blog post title...

Nude.
Or naked.

What those terms actually mean is "clothes-less".
They are defined by not having some form of cloth wrapped around the body.

We've all grown up in the modern world, so we take it for granted, but if you think about it, this is kind of strange.

Megan's Law and The Sex Offender Registry (is a seriously flawed system)

Any sexual contact with a minor is automatically classified as "abuse"

23% of "child sexual abuse" is "perpetrated" by another minor.
Of those, 80% were NOT "forcible" rape.  In other words, it is considered "rape" only because the "victim" is a minor.
In other words, any two children exploring their bodies, playing doctor, or "I'll show you mine if you show me yours", even if everything was entirely consensual, and both were the same age, for purposes of crime statistics, both children "abused" each other, and they are legally both sex offenders. If caught, they can end up on the list.  Sometimes for life.

"Teenagers and even young children who engage in certain sex-based conduct may find themselves subject to sex offender registration, community notification, and residency restriction laws. Some children are on registries because they committed serious sex offenses, such as forcibly raping a much younger child. Other children are labeled sex offenders for such non-coercive or nonviolent and age-appropriate activities as "playing doctor," youthful pranks such as exposing one's buttocks, and non-coercive teen sex." http://www.hrw.org/reports/2007/us0907/7.htm

The registry also currently includes "Internet crimes", in which there is not even a possibility of any physical contact.  All any "victim" would have to do, if they felt uncomfortable, is log off.

Which means that when ever you see some seemingly scary high number of how many children are "victims" of "childhood sexual abuse", that number is ridiculously inflated with things which aren't actually abuse, to the point where the numbers are meaningless.  This is similar to the recent redefinition of "rape" to include any sexual activity that takes place after entirely voluntary self-intoxication.  Have you ever had one too many glasses of wine with dinner, or stayed at the bar just a little too long before going home, and then had completely consensual sex with your partner?  Nope! Because according to the law in most states, the fact that you were intoxicated automatically makes it non-consensual.  You were actually raped, and your partner is a rapist.  Which, incidentally, means your partner, too, "deserves" to be on the registry.

55% of all Americans have sex by age 17.  Legally that means that more than half of all Americans, male and female, were "raped".  23% have sex (consensual) by age 14. When various crime statistics come out, almost never do they make a distinction between "forcible" and "statutory" rape.  They are treated as interchangeable.

On not posting many blogs anymore

At first it was work. Was working as the manager of the building I lived in, along with all my other jobs.
And filling most of my free time with dating.

Then I actually ended up finding her.
Not even somewhere I was looking.  A series of very random and fortunate events.
I'll probably write more on that later.

So she's been getting most of my free time ever since figuring out that that was settled.
But she works full time, and I most certainly don't.

I have had just about as many thoughts, but been much less motivated to take the time and effort to actually write.

I think I may slowly be getting to that final stage.
Acceptance.

Maybe there is so little writing from the wisest because they realize how little impact it would have, and so don't bother. (Or at least, that's what I'm going to keep telling myself.)

As the robots say: "all of this has happened before, and all of it will happen again".
The more I learn, the more I start to believe that.

If I Were Elected King of the Country

My new friend asked me a few weeks ago, "what would you change about the world, if you had the power to?"

She said she tried to ask all new people she met that question.

She said it was surprising how many people didn't have an answer because they had never thought about it.

I couldn't answer, but for a very different reason.

I just couldn't sum up, couldn't choose from the list what to say first.

I've been thinking about it ever since then, and I still can't find any way to tie all the various things together, so, instead of going into the detail about how and why for each one, I think I'll just list as many as I can think of.

(and if anyone wants elaboration on any in particular, ask me as a comment, and maybe I'll make that one its own post)

These are in no particular order:

What does our gut reaction to the word "rape" say about our subconscious beliefs about women's agency?

[NOTE: This article is longer than the typical blog post.  As an MS Word document it comes to about 30 pages.  Much shorter than a book, but longer than a magazine article.  Its probably better to think of it as an internet based paper, and not expect to read the entire thing straight through in one sitting.  I have broke it into 5 parts to facilitate that.
Also, if it isn't obvious enough from the title, its a very sensitive subject.  I am definitely not trying to offend or upset, but I am deliberately trying to be real, which means not being "politically correct" or sensitive for the sake of sensitivity.]


A friend of mine sent me a link to an internet blog article recently:

http://goodmenproject.com/ethics-values/nice-guys-commit-rape-too/

I read it, it was interesting and insightful and honest and unfortunately rare in its open-mindedness and candor.  I didn’t know when I read it,  but apparently it was read by a great many people, many of whom did not share that opinion of it. 
It was reasonably infamous among feminist bloggers, and induced quite a number of responses - none of which I’ve read. 

I did, however, take several days to go back and read the comment thread in its entirety.  The comment thread was surprisingly thoughtful for an internet discussion on a topic that causes intense negative gut reactions and has generated plenty of controversy, one which people are passionate and angry about. 
So much of the discussion was so good already that I had nothing to add.  

The first three pages are almost entirely filled with reasonable, open-minded people having a back and forth conversation on really difficult topics.  From all appearances these are regulars to the site, readers and contributors.  On page three the sort of knee-jerk responses that you would expect for the topic finally begin appearing, and it appears as though few of the new commenters took the time to read the existing comments before adding their own.  Not to say that intelligent conversation does not continue, it does all the way to the end, only that the ‘TL;DR – still have an opinion’ comments start becoming more common, - no doubt as the article began to be read and popularized more and more.
If you are interested in the topic, and have a few hours to kill, I recommend reading all of the comments from the beginning.

Though much of what I would have said was addressed, some very important things weren’t, and that’s what inspired this essay that you are reading right now.

The Oldest Profession

First of all, let’s make one thing clear.  A prostitute does not sell their body.  The only circumstance in which any person actually sells a body part is when someone sells a kidney.  When you sell something, the buyer takes permanent possession of it, and the seller can not get it back.  The new owner can do anything they want with their purchase, because it is now their property.  This does not describe the prostitute / client transaction at all.  Even when people accepted indentured servitude arrangements they were only offering themselves on a long-term lease, not actually selling themselves.  A prostitute normally only allows her (or his) clients limited use of a portion of their body for a short, usually designated time period, an hour perhaps, maybe a few. 

This is not just semantics.  It’s a very important distinction.   

Really, what the transaction consists of is a person agreeing to engage in a specific activity for a specified time period which they otherwise might not do, to the benefit of another person who offers compensation for the time and labor involved.

Which, if you think about it, kind of describes every job.

Why is sex a special case? 

Counter-protest / Not that there's anything wrong with it

• May 24, 2009

Counter-protest / Not that there's anything wrong with it

 

A friend of mine insists that I seem really gay (despite this friend being female, and us sleeping together).
As evidence she questioned someone I had just met, who agreed that whatever I was, she doubted it was straight.
As I found this more than a little strange, I proceeded to ask other people if they thought that when they first met me.
Responses mixed, but I was surprised to find some people agreed with their assessment.

The reasons I got included: that I seem comfortable with myself and others, comfortable in my own skin (mind you, I was in my own home at the time), and that I am not a sleazy slimeball.

I definitely consider those both to be very positive (and, I like to imagine, accurate) things to say about me, but it leaves an absolutely terrible implication for like, all straight men everywhere. 
Like, (aside from gay guys and me), they are all fake, all of the time (or at least around women), always trying to show off or prove something, I suppose, or one way or another acting (presumably for the chance to have sex with everyone they meet).
I have a lot of trouble believing that.

Sex vs. Morality (Warren was right)

• Dec 21, 2008

Sex vs. Morality (Warren was right)

The Warren controversy is over the following statement:

"But the issue to me is, I'm not opposed to that as much as I'm opposed to the redefinition of a 5,000-year definition of marriage. I'm opposed to having a brother and sister be together and call that marriage. I'm opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that a marriage. I'm opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage."

People are, of course, up in arms about this, as apparently comparing gays to people who commit incest or polygamy is extremely offensive.

Why is it ok to claim incest and polygamy are inherently immoral or unacceptable?
There have been, and currently still are, a great many cultures where polygamy is practiced, accepted, and legal.  Obama's father, in fact, was married to more than one woman at a time, which is legal in Kenya. 
We are talking consenting adults.  You personally may not want to share your spouse.  What reason do you have to deprive someone who does? 
It is legal, right here in California, for first cousins to marry.  Siblings are slightly closer than cousins genetically, which makes it slightly more likely that certain genetic illnesses which reside on regressive genes could surface if they had children together - but we aren't talking about having children.  Our sexual morays were developed long before the advent of accessible, safe, effective birth control.  Set aside that its gross and weird, and that you personally would never want to do it.  There is no objective reason why two siblings, who are consenting adults, shouldn't have sex if they so choose.  No one is harmed.  It isn't immoral.  Its unusual, (because our brains evolved before birth control. We naturally feel its gross, because its better for the gene pool to be mixed up), but there is nothing wrong with it.
So then, seriously, why shouldn't siblings be allowed to marry? 
When I first began a relationship with my ex-wife she was, technically, a child.  I was an adult, and in CA it was, technically, illegal (had I been 20, instead of 21, however, it would have been legal).  Of course, with a parents consent, a 17 year old can get married, and the age of the other party isn't relevant.  In different cultures and different times, what age is considered a "child" has varied.  There are a great number of countries - as well as most US states - which currently allow marriage at age 16, several at 14 (including 3 US states), and a few at 12.  In many cases (including in the US) this is below the age of adulthood.  Warren did not specify pedophilia (which implies a prepubescent child) nor the age of the older person.

unborn humans and social conservatives; mixing emotion and politics

• Oct 29, 2007

unborn humans and social conservatives; mixing emotion and politics

I went to see the exhibit where they dissect human cadavers, coat them in plastic, and display them in various poses in a cross between anatomy education and a morbid art form.

Two of my three companions skipped the section with embryos and fetuses, as well as a pregnant woman.

I found this surprising, as I found it among the most interesting of the sections there.

On Buddhism, as a supposedly benign religion

• Dec 27, 2006

On Buddhism, as a supposedly benign religion

Buddhism doesn't believe in a supreme creator God, and different sects believe different things, but there are (in some versions and texts) other worldly or other dimensional beings, be they Gods, angels, spirits, or whatever.
They also believe in literal Karma, of being re-born indefinitely.
It still involves meta-physics, and it still involves faith.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_in_Buddhism


Buddhism specifically instructs its followers to refrain from "Sexual Misconduct" (although it does not specify what that means) and Buddhist monks and nuns are expected to remain celibate, just as Christian ones are.  Gender roles are determined and rigid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_Buddhism


Many westerners seem to have a view of Buddhism which would apply better to Taoism.
It is really more of a philosophy than a religion.

Personally, I find "spirituality" to be just as silly as religion.  It requires a denial of both the physical senses and common sense. I believe that the thought is basically complex emotion, emotion is complex instinct, instinct is complex stimulus-response, stimulus-response is complex biology, biology is complex chemistry, chemistry is complex physics… and that's all there is.
But if some people can experience a personal higher power, or interconnectedness, or whatever, maybe people feel a sign that the Book of Mormon is really true once they read it and pray.
The Mormons make a significant and deliberate point of saying that every individual should turn to God themselves and ask whether their teachings are true, they don't ask that you just believe what they tell you.

I think individuals of all religions are expected to not just believe, but to feel it is true from personal experience.  Just look at the practitioners "speaking in tongues".  And they say that everyone, given a life of goodness and faith, can achieve salvation, not just the Prophets.
You can find people who are intelligent, who think critically, within every religion, no matter how stupid.  That's the thing about faith.

Conclusion?

·                     Dec 13, 2006

Conclusion?

Looking up an article for the "pain ray" (Military 'Active Denial System') which basically uses a radio frequency similar to microwaves to heat up the skin of nearby rioters or protesters (she wanted to know if it was real - it is) I came across a link to a BBC documentary on the simultaneous rise of the NeoCon and Islamic Fundamentalist movements.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1002626006461047517
They both were largely inspired by what they saw as the corruption of modern life in America, caused by the incorporation of liberal values throughout society.  For an muslim visiting America, this was represented by young people at a dance.
People were becoming "too selfish" which prevented them from focusing on what is really important - God, and the words which were written hundreds of years ago by a guy who claimed to be able to talk directly with God.
Interestingly, while they do mention the religious component of the neocons ideas, they never mention the economic components.
The Muslims at least are consistent, and in that have a sort of personal integrity, even if it is based on something utterly stupid.
For the conservative movement, christianity is only half the story.
They also want unlimited wealth for the wealthy.
This is what caused them to hate the USSR so much.  When they speak of "The American Way of Life" they want the listener to believe they talking about "family values" or "freedom" or something of the like, but what they really mean is capitalism.
By very definition, capitalism's goal is maxing it easy for someone who already has money to make more money with out working.
It is about earning interest on your capital, investing.
We make it seem like it should be taken for granted that people can earn interest through investments, but this concept is not universal.
Beyond the obvious case of communists, muslims are forbidden to earn interest on their money.  However, this is not just written in the Koran.  It is written in the Bible, (remember Islam and Christian and probably 95% exactly the same - they seem more different than that because christians choose to ignore the parts of the bible which aren't convenient)
The bible also says you must pay your workers daily, you must forgive all debts every 7 years, neither work nor allow employees to work on Sunday, in addition to not charging interest on borrowed money. (Slavery is ok, though)
So much for the country being based on "christian' values.  It is based on business, and pretty much always has been.

Anyway,
I am getting side-tracked

25; Genesis

·                     Sep 14, 2006

25; Genesis

Adam and Eve are supposed to be the ONLY two people on the Earth.
They have a son, Cain; (and later his brother Abel).

There's the feud between them, Able dies, and then:

Cain goes out to the city, and gets married!

Where the fuck did a city come from?
Where the hell did his wife come from?

There are three people who exist - Adam, Eve, and Cain.
Who built the city? Is the wife his sister? Was God making people out of dirt all over, and they just didn't mention it? Whose rib did this new chick come out of?

Obviously anyone who takes Creationism seriously, or who takes the Bible literally, is either illiterate, or a complete fucking moron!

Oh, wait, no wonder they re-elected Bush!
It all makes so much sense now.
FUCK!

21; 2 simple points to convince any rational person Americans are so stupid that it's hopeless

• Sep 10, 2006

21; 2 simple points to convince any rational person Americans are so stupid that it's hopeless

1 More than half of us still believe in creationism, even after humans have invented genetic engineering. This is artificial evolution. It has been done, and is being done continually.  It is no more a "theory" than gravity. Gravity is also a "theory" in the scientific sense of the word.  This does not mean that things might not fall down.

2 We don't use the metric system. It's better in every way - how many mm in a cm? 10. How many cm in a m? 100. How many m in a km? 1000. How many mm in a km? 1,000,000. How many grams of water in 15 cubic cm? 15.
How many inches in a mile? Who the fuck knows? How many ounces in 15 cubic inches? good luck, better have a reference book and calculator handy.
The entire rest of the world knows this, but not America.)

As long as these two facts remain true, how can we expect anything substantial to get better?

20; How Would Jesus Drive?

• Sep 9, 2006

20; How Would Jesus Drive?

I just got cut off by someone with a Jesus "fish" on their car on the freeway.
I believe Jesus would use His turn signals.

For that matter, I doubt He would be driving a large SUV in an urban area, with just Himself in a 7 passenger vehicle

Portion 17; in which true Christians stay kosher

[In response to my list of Biblical Law passages that most modern Christians like to ignore, most will say that the 1st coming of  Christ nullified all of the Old Law.  If that were true, it would mean the 10 Commandments no longer applied either.

In fact, more than 10 commandments were handed down at the same time.  Its just that the people present fled in terror after hearing the first 10.  A good number of what I posted last time, as well as lots more that have been forgotten, are all from the same incident where the more famous Ten were delivered: Exodus 20  Exodus 21 Exodus 22.  All in all, about 100 Commandments.  And no word about the first 10 being the only important ones, or being in a special category apart from the rest.  Either you discard them all, or you keep them all.  And according to the New Testemant, and Jesus Himself, you keep them all.]

• Sep 4, 2006 

Portion 17; in which true Christians stay kosher

Item 12; in which abortion is NOT an matter of the right to life, & NOT a women's rights issue.

• Aug 10, 2006

Item 12; in which abortion is NOT an matter of the right to life, & NOT a women's rights issue.

 [I originally wrote this in '06, but added a bit 24Mar2012.  I tend to be on the liberal / progressive side of most things - but as I say in my blog's header, I am not beholden to a "side".  This is one of those times.]

[Looking at it objectively, I have to say that the conservative right is wrong on this issue - but they are wrong for the right reason.  The left is right, but just by lucky coincidence.  They are right for the wrong reason. 
Now, you might think that as long as they get it right, that's all that matters - but you would be wrong.
Because the country is divided pretty evenly right and left in this country, and its a very important issue.  The arguments pro-choice people make have no affect on public opinion, because they are ignoring the actual issue.  If we give up on convincing people it has anything to do with women's rights or reproductive freedom, and instead focus on addressing the "life" part of pro-life, we have a much better chance of actually swaying the opinion of the people on the other side.]

Not human?

Human??

Why the hell is it so hard for both sides (of the abortion issue) to see that it is NOT a question of morality, and it is NOT a question of women's rights?
It comes down one philosophical / scientific question:

At what point can you consider something human?

Book 10; in which I list my favorite Bible verses

• Aug 7, 2006

Book 10; in which I list my favorite Bible verses

 

The Law of God, as recorded by the Old Testament