Thursday, 11 August 2011

In Ames, Iowa today, eight Republican Presidential candidates took to the stage to explain why they would be the best person for the job.

They also answered questions from the audience:

The panel’s moderator, Byron York, asked Michele Bachmann:

In 2006 when you were running for Congress, you described a moment in your life when your husband said you should study for a degree in tax law. You said you hated the idea, and then you explained, ‘But the Lord said, Be submissive. Wives, you are to be submissive to your husbands.’ As president, would you be submissive to your husband?”

The question garnered boos from the audience, but Bachmann thanked York for the question (as she should).  Bachmann’s response was typical of bible-literalists when presented with uncomfortable passages from their favorite book: She spun the words into a new interpretation that suited her belief-system. Basically, she said that the word “submission” means “respect,” and, yes, she does respect her husband.

First let’s talk about her definition. It’s bullshit. I mean, if that’s how she really defines the word, then I guess I can’t argue, but the reality is it’s just an apologetic’s wrangling to explain an archaic text in a modern world.

In Ephesians 5:24, the misogynistic Apostle Paul says that “wives must be submissive to their husbands in everything” (New International Version).  If Paul had meant ‘respect,’ he would have said respect, as he did in verse 33. Actually, some English versions of the bible render the Greek word used here as “reverence” and some render it as “fear.” And, no, it’s not just a translator’s preference – Paul really did use two different words here. In verse 33 he used phobetai (from whence we glean “phobia,” incidentally), while in verse 24 he used huppotassetai, which literally means “setting under.” Paul used no such word to define a husband’s role. So while I believe – and hope – that Bachmann has respect for her husband, according to the bible, she must also be in submission to him.

Some people are claiming that York’s question was sexist, such as this site here, in which writer Miranda Nelson says the question made her vomit in her mouth a little. Nelson (who makes it clear she’s not a Bachmann supporter) says: “I’m dying to know how Hilary Clinton would have taken the moderator to task for such an inappropriate question.”

Um, I don’t know how Clinton would handle it, but she probably would say something along the lines of: “I don’t take the bible’s words as literal truth, so I’m not sure why you’re asking me this question.”

See, the question was asked, not because York is sexist, but because Bachmann is an Evangelical Christian fundamentalist who has made her faith part and parcel of her political career and her current campaign. More so than anyone else on that panel, Bachmann fully embraces the Holy Bible as a handbook for day-to-day living and she makes no secret about this.

When Kennedy was running for President, he had to field questions relating to his faith, too. He was a Roman Catholic and a very real concern voters held was that electing JFK might be like electing the Pope. Asking Kennedy’s thoughts on this matter was not sexist, nor was it unfair that no one asked his main rival, Richard Nixon, if he would be submissive to the Pope if he was elected President. Asking Nixon would have been a waste of time, since Nixon was not Catholic but Quaker.

So, it’s a good question: if Bachmann is selected by voters to be the next Commander-in-Chief, would her husband really be the one in charge? Nelson also asks: “Were any of the seven men standing up there asked who really wears the pants in the family?”

Well, no, they weren’t. For one thing, most of the other candidates are not Evangelical Christians. But more importantly, we already know what their answer would be: of course they would be in charge! And they would be in charge for reasons besides their faith: They would be the President! So it wouldn’t matter. If, for example, Mitt Romney was elected President, his wife Ann wouldn’t be the de facto President telling her husband what to do: she would be in submission to him as a citizen of this country regardless of her (or Mitt’s) faith. Likewise, if Hillary Clinton becomes President, Bill would be in submission to her as a citizen of this country regardless of his (or Hillary’s) faith. But Bachmann’s case is like Kennedy’s: is a vote for Michele essentially a vote for Marcus? Just as Kennedy – due to his faith – had to answer and explain that, no, a vote for him was not a vote for the Pope (and he did a damn good job of it, too), Bachmann should expect to do likewise in view of her religiosity.

York’s question related to sexism only in that Bachmann subscribes to a sexist holy book. And that could have implications for American voters. If she really believes the bible is the literal word of some deity, then we need to get Marcus on stage to hear how he will be leading his submissive wife during her 4 years as Chief Executive.

Monday, 8 August 2011

This evening, the five of us (my mom is staying at our place right now) watched the film Benji. I saw the film years ago and had only a vague recollection of it. Jennifer and I thought it would be a good family film to watch – tame enough for the kids + starring a dog so my mom would like it.

Turns out, it is a good family film. It even bills itself as such, the words “A family film from Joe Camp” appearing on screen both before and after the film. However, There’s this one scene where one of the thugs kicks Benji’s ‘girlfriend’ Tiffany. The poor dog looks like she only weights about 8 pounds, so it doesn’t take too much force from his boot to scoot her across the room. She whimpers, slams into a wall, then just lies there.

This came as kind of an upsetting shock to some members of our viewing party. We tried to say it wasn’t that bad – that this was just a movie and the real dog wasn’t hurt and that Tiffany (the character) would be fine by the end of the film. The problem is, it’s still an upsetting visual. Three seconds of upsetting footage in an hour and a half long movie isn’t so bad. What made it worse, though, is that this scene is immediately followed by a segment of Benji running for help. The segment is largely in slow motion, with dramatic music playing, and while the hero runs, we are shown several quick shots of, apparently, what Benji is thinking. And what is he thinking? He’s recalling that his friend Tiffany was just kicked in the leg. So, we get to see her kicked in the leg about 5 more times. Yikes. Pretty brutal. I imagine that even if I was just watching the film alone, I would probably think, “Alright, enough already with the dog abuse scene.”

All in all, however, it was a fun little film to watch. I opened up my list of films I’ve seen and saw that I had previously given it a rating of 6 years ago. I decided to leave it at that.

Tuesday, 9 August 2011

This morning, my wife took Isla to Children’s Hospital in St. Paul. Isla had a fever, and a few incidents from the last couple of days led us to believe she might have a bladder infection.

While there, the doctor said that Isla would need to be catheterized. My wife, knowing that this can be a traumatic procedure for little children, requested that Isla be sedated. The doctor said that this was not a good idea, as it carried some risks with it.

“What kind of risks?” my wife asked.

“Well…death!” the doctor said slowly and ominously.

Okay…how stupid is that? Is that how doctors operate these days (excuse the pun)? They just state the most extreme, least likely risk for any procedure they don’t feel like doing? What if a doctor tells me they need to draw blood, and I ask what the risk are – would they say, “Well…death.” I mean, it’s true, right? There is a risk that I could die from getting a blood sample drawn. Or maybe Jennifer shouldn’t even have taken Isla into the hospital because, you know, leaving the house and driving into downtown carries the risk of death. Certainly the risk is exponentially increased from just staying home.

Anyway, the doctor (in what surely made the insurance company proud) finally relented and agreed to have nitrous oxide administered. Jennifer and Isla had to wait approximately 40 minutes until a laughing gas specialist arrived on site. The nurses ended up preferring performing the procedure on a sedated baby, as they didn’t have to fight against a kicking, screaming baby, or even just a fidgety baby. They also drew blood, which was easier than usual as the oxide widened Isla’s veins. Isla, meanwhile, looked loopy and kept lifting her feet in the air, evidently under the belief that she was floating.

The doctor, pleased that everything went so well for the staff and the patient, then asked my wife to write a letter to the hospital board of directors telling them how successful sedation was and that, in an effort to minimize trauma, the staff should suggest it as an appealing option.

Wednesday, 10 August 2011

Today I delivered my sixth speech in Toastmasters. My speech was titled “The 100” and in it, I discussed Michael Hart’s awesome book The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History.

I first mentioned how compelling the idea of such a list is, and that creating such a list is more complicated than we might think at first. Next, I explained the difference (as set forth by Hart) between widespread influence and depth of influence (using Jerry Seinfeld and Joseph Smith as examples).

The bulk of my presentation was given to explaining Hart’s “ground rules.” I numbered them one through four:

First: only real people are eligible. In some cases, I noted, this is obvious. Mickey Mouse is influential, but he’s not real. But in other cases, Hart has to make an educated guess. Was Aesop real? How about Homer?

Second, we have to know who the person was. Again, sometimes this is easy. Who invented the telephone? That’s easy. But who invented the wheel? If, indeed, it was invented by a single person, that person is of monumental influence. But, unfortunately, we just don’t know who it was. So, they don’t count.

Third, the people on the list need to be on there for being influential. Not great. To illustrate the difference, I noted Hart’s admission that he is disgusted at having to place Adolf Hitler on his list, but he reminds his readers that whether someone’s influence is positive or negative, it still counts as influence.

Fourth, we have to consider that a major historical event is not usually the work of a single person. Hart received much criticism for not including the developers of the computer, but he replied that no one individual had overriding influence and, thus, none of them attain top 100 status. For that reason, there’s no one listed who helped with the development of firearms, the women’s liberation movement, or the evolution of Hinduism. Lots of people contributed – which is great for us – but bad for them in regards making it onto this list.

I next called up a slide listing the top ten from the list of 100, and I gave my thoughts on this portion of the list. Here are the top ten:

1. Muhammad
2. Isaac Newton
3. Jesus Christ
4. Buddha
5. Confucius
6. St. Paul
7. Ts’ai Lun
8. Johann Gutenberg
9. Christopher Columbus
10. Albert Einstein

I told the audience that my first reaction upon seeing this list was that Jesus should be #1. Christianity, after all, is bigger than Islam, and it’s been around longer. But then I read the book. Hart notes that Muhammad was also a supremely successful military leader. More importantly, the origins of Christianity need to be divided between a few people – most notable Jesus and Paul (who falls at #6).

It’s funny, a lot of criticism I read about the book is that Jesus is not #1. Most of these people haven’t read the book, such as this doofus who claims the book is biased for not putting Jesus at #1. His argument is that the calendar is based on Jesus, so that should be influence enough. This is beyond stupid. Just because later humans decided to base the calendar on Jesus’ birth has little to do with Jesus’ actual influence. For that matter, perhaps Julius Caesar should be placed at #12, because 1/12th of the year is named after him.

I also told the audience that another thought I had upon seeing this list was: “Who the heck is Ts’ai Lun?”

I then added: “I had never heard of Ts’ai Lun until I read this book. But I read the chapter about him and I agree with Hart – Lun does belong in the top ten. Do you want to know who he was? You’ll have to read the book.” That got a few laughs.

I then said that I respect Einstein and, indeed, of all the people in the top ten, he’s the one I would most like to meet (for one thing – he would speak my language!). However, even after reading Hart’s argument, I still don’t think he belongs in the top ten. Top 100, yes, but not top 10.

I told everyone that I hope I had whetted their appetite for reading the book and, should they ever read it, to please let me know so we could do lunch together and discuss the merits of Hart’s selections.

Saturday, 06 August 2011

Today we attended my nephew’s birthday party.

Before the party, I told Owen it seems like he’d been to a lot of birthday parties this year. He said he has been to eight, so I counted them up and he’s exactly correct (assuming he did not count his own, since you don’t really ‘get invited’ to your own party). Counting his own party, he’s been to nine, so his cousin Asa’s party today makes number ten. And, we noted, we even had to cancel our plans to go to one party due to sickness.

Today’s party was very nice. A small affair (eleven people in attendance including the guest of honor). Lots of food. Good cake.

It just so happens that last week, my wife’s brother and his wife became parents to child #2, so Isla, Asa, and this new baby all have birthdays within 12 days of each other. Maybe, in the future, the three of them will share a birthday party together. The longer I am not a Witness, the more baffling it is to me that Witnesses can so completely ignore their children’s birthdays.

I mean, technically, most of them don’t ignore them, but they’re taught to downplay them to a drastic extent. My brother-in-law and his wife, for example (the ones who just had another baby), use their wedding anniversary as an excuse to shower their older daughter with gifts and a fun day. I’ve known other Witnesses who did this, too, and it’s just plain stupid. They’re simply trying to get around what they know is a silly rule. When I was growing up, my mom said ‘happy birthday’ to me every year, in a silly-sounding voice that let me know she wasn’t really wishing me happy birthday – ’cause that would be bad – she was simply acknowledging that it was the anniversary of my birth (’cause, you know, that’s so much different). My grandfather, in what I assert is the shittiest birthday gift any grandparent can give their grandchild, called me every year on my birthday and shared a scripture with me.

Now that I’m not a Witness, my grandfather doesn’t bother calling me on my birthday (big loss) and my mom performs linguistic gymnastics to acknowledge birthdays without letting on that, technically, she’s sinning against her religion. On Isla’s birthday, for example, she sent me and email with “Happy Day” for the subject line and she called Owen the day after his birthday to let him know she was sending him a gift ‘because she was thinking about him lately.”

The other day, someone once again asked me why Witnesses don’t celebrate birthdays. I said, “They don’t do it because they are told not to do it.” And that’s really all there is to it. If the Watchtower Society announced tomorrow that they’ve reinterpreted the scriptures and now they feel that birthdays are acceptable, all the Witnesses would clap for joy and nod to each other as if this is the most logical development in the world and isn’t it great how their religion is always refining the truth?

Sunday, 07 August 2011

Speaking of that missed birthday party, today we met up with some friends and lunched at Aristo’s restaurant in Stillwater. Owen gave his friend the birthday present that had been sitting by our front door for nearly two months. The service was verrrry slow, but the food was scrumptious – I ordered some tilapia on pita bread. This is a combination of food I’d never enjoyed before, but now I’m determine to masticate such comestibles again.

In the evening, my mom came over. She’s in town once again and she plans to stay at our house the next two nights. Owen hogged most of her attention, which was just fine by Jennifer and me, as it let us get a few other things done.

Our home isn’t exactly in top form for having house-guests right now. We are awash in boxes: about a quarter of our belongings are packed up, and there are many empty boxes sitting around waiting to be filled. In the meantime, they’re taking up lots of space. On the one hand, I hate moving, on the other hand, I don’t like it either. I will be glad when we’ve relocated to our new place and we can trip over boxes there.

Thursday, 04 August 2011

This evening, Jennifer and I watched the Seinfeld episode “The Bubble Boy.” I was excited to watch it; I thought it was one of those classic episodes – In fact, tv.com users have placed it fifth overall. But, with the exception of The Contest, I’m never quite certain if it is the episode itself that is a classic, or if it’s just a line from the episode that people find memorable.

I think, what people remember from this episode are two things:

1) The cast says “bubble boy” like a dozen times. For some reasons, the Seinfeld writers think it’s funny to just repeat a short phrase over and over again. I don’t think that’s very funny. The only time it was funny in this episode was when Jerry said, “he lives in a bubble,” and then George says, “boy!” (as if he’s saying “wow”).

2) The Trivial Pursuit card has a misprint. Instead of saying ‘The Moors,’ it says ‘The Moops.’

So, all in all, I was disappointed with this episode. It’s hard to find too much humor in a kid who has to live inside a plastic bubble…and the rest of the show just wasn’t that funny. I gotta stop excepting too much out of these ‘classic’ Seinfeld episodes or I’m just gonna be disappointed throughout all nine seasons.

Friday, 05 August 2011

Seven years and four months ago, I showed up for my first day of work at my current job. The receptionist pages my new boss, and he came down to the lobby to meet me. He directed me up to my new cube, and during the walk he explained I would be sharing a cube “for a few months, until we move to the new lab area.” A few seconds later, I met Brett who, having arrived exactly at 8:00, was on time and had beaten me by five minutes.

Despite my manager’s promise, Brett and I shared a cube for four years and one month. In fact, we shared three cubes together, moving first to the new lab area, then moving again when the lab was expanded and our cube was mowed down to make room.

One day, I spun around in my cube to ask a favor of Brett. I don’t recall what it was – maybe I wanted him to review some of my lab work, or maybe I had a question on a computer program we used. Regardless, Brett asked what I would be willing to pay. I offered to review something of his in return, but he said that wasn’t goo enough. So I offered him my soul.

I wrote down “my soul” on a sheet of post-it paper:

Brett accepted the payment, and placed my soul in his desk drawer. That was about four years ago. Since then, Brett moved to a different cube (and then he moved again, and again).

Today was Brett’s final day of work here. After taking him out to lunch today, he came over to my cube with a few papers to give back to me. Attached to the top of the stack was the post-it identifying possession of my soul.

Good-bye, Brett. I shall miss working with you. And to everyone else: if you’d like my soul, just name your price.

Tuesday, 02 August 2011

The folks at Prometheus Books sent me the book The End of Christianity, edited by John Loftus. They sent it to me for free, on the condition that I write a review of it.

It’s a decent book. Certainly not great. Not even good, in fact. But it’s not horrible and I intend to finish it. I’m currently about 2/3 of the way through, and I wanted to write about a curious analogy I read on pages 207-217. Those pages are from chapter 8, and the author of that chapter, Dr. Matt McCormick, argues that if anyone accepts Jesus’ resurrection based on the evidence provided in the gospels, then they should also accept that there really were witches in Salem during the late 17th century.

The doctor points out that 150 people were accused of witchcraft in Salem. Using several passive sentences, he notes that the folks in Salem set up a court, conducted investigations, and gathered evidence. People confessed. Community members transcribed the proceedings and accompanied their texts with affidavits, original court documents, and interviews.

Unlike the gospels, this was all documented in real-time (not decades later) by eyewitnesses (not people like Mark, Luke, and Paul who – even if they were the real authors – weren’t present). Community members recorded their sworn statements of witnessing acts of sorcery. Of course, we might claim that everyone was lying, but they had so much to lose. Some of these people provided statements against their spouses, children, parents, and neighbors. “Accusing a friend or wife of being a witch would very likely have the horrible outcome of getting them executed,” the doctor says on page 208.

He claims that if all the documentation from Salem’s witchcraft trials were gathered into one place, it would fill a truck.

The surviving evidence we have that Salem was full of witches far outweighs the evidence we have that Jesus was resurrected.

The doctor notes that if this line of reasoning is pointed out to a Christian, they’re likely to just respond that both the resurrection and the witchcraft in Salem were real events. I wonder if this is true. I can’t recall ever discussing the Salem event with my fellow Witnesses (when I was a Witness), but I wonder if they think their really were acts of sorcery back then. They might. They believe in demons, and they think things like Ouija boards, Ozzy Osbourne records, and the Smurfs have mystical Satanic powers.

The problem with accepting the Salem accounts at face-value, Dr. McCormick notes, is that there are many other tales of the supernatural that are also better documented than the resurrection. So, if people are willing to accept the Salem event as true, then they also need to accept the miracles of Judaism (such as the Hanukkah miracles), Hinduism, Mormonism, and Catholicism (these last two involve much more recent miraculous claims).

As I said, the book is not remarkable, but these few pages were the most intriguing of the bunch. Am I missing something, or is this a pretty damn good argument?

Wednesday, 03 August 2011

Today at work, I walked to the cafeteria to get some ice. While there, I found a dime sitting on the floor. Yes!

As I mentioned back on January 4th, I am keeping track of the money I find this year. One thing I was interested in determining was if I would be able to find enough money to equal minimum wage. Currently, minimum wage is set at $7.25. Well, as you’ve probably guessed by now, today I passed that milestone.

My total was one cent short since Monday. On that day, I also found a dime and my yearly total rang up to $7.24. Today’s dime, therefore, allows me to comfortably surpass that mark. In just over seven months, I found – just lying there for anyone to see – enough money to equal one hour of minimum wage work.

And my pay wasn’t even taxed.