In through the out door

Hebrews 8

2009-06-16T02:28:00.000-07:00

Recently, I looked up a few bible passages from a video I watched on youtube regarding biblical morality. I don't always watch these as I'm pretty sure I've seen every argument available. I've seen most, but while it's hard to find new information on an old subject, I have noticed some of the commentary getting more concise, more direct, and more satisfactorily explanatory. This was one such piece of meta-analysis:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQ-XCn75uZA

While I took the time to look up many of the passages quoted, it was clear that the one main extravaganza of an idea was Hebrews 8. It struck me (as the speaker noted) that I had never read this passage, or if I did, somehow managed to gloss over its significance. Judge for yourself:

Hebrews 8

1Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;

2A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.

3For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer.

4For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:

5Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.

6But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

7For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

8For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

9Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

10For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

11And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

12For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

13In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

The whole of it is worth a read for context, but the bolded part makes clear that this New Covenant dissolves the old one on the grounds that it was imperfect and flawed- lest a new one wouldn't have been needed. I've been saying this for fucking ever, but I never knew there was an actual bible verse to support it. Verse 11 also claims that evangelism is no longer needed because all will be born with the knowledge of good and evil (god).

Please, let's start a campaign to post this as often as we can to our fundie friends! I'm so fucking sick of hearing them drone on and on from the Old Testament- apparently they haven't read the New Testament and found out that old shit doesn't count anymore. What a different society we could have if they'd accept that. I'd even stop challenging them on scientific grounds if they'd just be nicer and get the fuck out of government. How often do they search out the vilest characterisations of their fellow men rather than the pleas for forgiveness from jesus? This is a comment on human nature, not just specific people. When we're thinking of our own misdeeds, we want forgiveness and mercy. When it's the other guy, we dole out judgment and hold a superior attitude. Why DON'T we prefer to do unto others as we would be done by? Religious or not, I think this is the question of the hour.

I remember being perfectly horrified about the story of Lot's daughters when I was a teen. Eventually I came to the conclusion that it must have been because of some cultural norm back then that no longer applied. Why was my own critical thinking turned off in regards to the rest of the stories then?

We have brains that have evolved not just to carry instinctual messages through our dna, but also to be more fully programmed by our caretakers (parents). We have a biological predisposition to expect and accept information given to us by our parents, elders, and perceived authority figures- this is what allows us not to need to learn every aspect of life afresh, and makes it possible for us to advance more rapidly. The problem is that we are equally susceptible to bad information as good, and once the framework is fleshed out, those thinking patterns are integrated and no longer even perceptible to the conscious mind. It's also more recently been argued by Steven Pinker that during times of high stress and extreme crisis- when we are looking for answers desperately, we are more likely to accept any answer than no answer. Once the crisis has abated, we credit god for our success in coping, and now earnestly believe we've made "contact". We are unlikely to be shaken from that view, as it is so emotionally integrated. Of course, barring suicide, the crisis would have abated anyway, due to our own efforts, but we never stop to think about that.

Anyway, understanding the brain has made me realise how easy it is to get "hard-wired for religion" and force yourself to believe that these contradictory statements make sense. Even though they make no sense at all, it isn't a logical attachment- it's an emotional one. "Knowing" something emotionally is completely different from knowing it scientifically.
Most people think that fervently held opinions make facts. Believe it or not, even really smart people pull this crap. Very few understand the necessity of evidence, and none of them are religious.

Ken Miller at the Museum of Natural History, and How Reality Slapped Me In the Face

2008-12-09T01:15:00.000-08:00

Thursday December 4th brought scientist, lecturer and writer Kenneth Miller to the Museum of Natural History to deliver a lecture entitled, "Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America’s Soul". I awaited this event eagerly, as I had followed with rapture the arguments for and against creationism in the Dover trial. Dr. Miller's testimony was crucial in bringing down the house of cards against creationism as science, and even the Bush-appointed judge zealously ruled it "religion, not science". My daughter Julianna and I arrived early, and were fortunate enough to get apparently undesirable seats up front, which were mostly empty. I like the front seats, old nerds never die (and old people have bad vision!)
A group of about twenty of our friends filed in, and remarked at what good seats we had "saved", haha. But then people kept coming in. And coming in. We were asked to move in to open up more seats, and before the lecture started, the youth were asked to move to the back to allow the more "age enhanced" to have the front seats. It pays to be an old fart.

Most of the lecture was the expected pleasure of listening to a man of science indulge his joy and knowledge of the natural world- I would have been disappointed with less. He had charts and graphs of "transitional species", and informed us that samples of these exist by the thousands, and even that a fair argument can be made that all species are transitional. Recognising that that could be perceived as a cop-out, he gave specific examples of well-documented findings from around the world. The scenery was dynamic.

He remarked on what a tremendous institution we have in our fair city in our History Museum, to the delighted squeals of all- we know, we know. He Brought up a local news item- that Cincinnatians, with the help of other concerned citizens from around the country, had convinced the Cincinnati Zoo and Botanical Gardens to disassociate itself from a promotion in conjunction with the Creation Museum twenty miles south in Kentucky. Such a promotion would lend credibility to creationism, which is in direct contrast to the information on evolution the zoo teaches and promotes. The Creation Museum's gain in prestige and credibility would come at the zoo's expense. It was over in about four hours.

Getting people to leave their house in Cincinnati is a feat, but Miller spoke before a capacity audience of about 400 on a blistering cold Thursday night. The lecture was interrupted at one point by a listener begging the museum attendant turn on the air conditioning due to the packed crowd and body heat.

So the mood is set- reverence for science being shared by a large group I would have never suspected inhabited my fair city, a person I admire telling a part of the biological tale from known reality, reaching out to the audience about our hometown issues- all good, right? Why then did my heart sink when I heard him say "I'm a Catholic"?

I guess I just assume all scientists are atheists or agnostics, especially the smart ones. Especially the biologists! How does one do that? How do you go all through your career studying evolution and how species develop through careful study and critical analysis, then somehow turn off that same skepticism to believe in the sky daddy? How do you justify believing just "some of it", but not the icky parts, and yet easily point out the frivolousness of those who believe too much of it? How do you not see that the frivolousness, as well as the danger to critical thinking, comes from believing any of it? It's not like there are some parts that hold up to critical analysis and others that don't- it's ALL unsubstantiated claims, and nothing more. A scientist should be able to see the abundantly obvious.

His apologetics while brief were predictable, and very sad. We were treated to the oh-so-offical-sounding "non-overlapping magisteria" bullshit and the "some kind of force", as if we're really supposed to believe he DOESN'T mean "father figure". Whatthehellever. I have sympathy for the poorly educated, and the generally less intelligent- but from a brilliant, well-educated man I expect better. I wanted to like him much more than I did, in the end we didn't even ask to get the picture I was hoping for in our "stalking great minds" quest. Near the end, he threw out a claim that 40% of scientists were religious- I certainly hoped he meant in Alabama. I've heard much lower figures, but a quick google search proved him right. Thanks for ruining my day, Ken. It was a day or two before I could even remember much of the earlier two-thirds of the lecture that still made it an event worth attending.

Please understand, my objection to religion is the lack of discernment otherwise discerning people employ in every other field- that they willfully turn off in this case of special pleading. No scientist would accept it from any other direction, but claim "supernatural", and apparently all logic is off. It doesn't make him a bad scientist, but it sure makes him bad at connecting the dots.

Hilary for State? The Type A Personality and Thinking Traps to Avoid

2008-12-09T01:06:00.000-08:00

Ugh, I'm going to give this my best shot, although as a defense it won't be my most pleasant.

Politicians and leaders of every kind are Type As. Type As are not often perceived as wonderful people by everyone else- because they're pig-headed, arrogant, have delusions of grandeur, tend to be elitist, self-important, and extend criticism much easier than they receive it. Gee, what's not to like about that? The only problem is, Type Bs won't lead shit.

Hilary has presidentitis, just like Obama, McCain, Ron Paul, nutty old Nader, and every other candidate for anything since the beginning of time. She wants to bask in the glow of praise for her brilliant and savvy political moves, just like rappers want glory for their prose. Every Type A wants recognition for their glorious gifts they bestow upon mankind (the lesser, of course). Yes, she's as obnoxious and self-important as everyone else. We were expecting a saint, perhaps? Because she's got tits? Sorry, she's a greasy politician who wants the glory and perks of stardom just like everyone else. Here's hoping Obama isn't already bitter and resentful about lifelong losses, we might get a few years of genuine concern for the human race before his head swells to such proportions. She just bluntly acted like she was owed the presidency, and America booed. Obama better keep his eyes low in a sense, and avoid presenting a sense of entitlement, because Americans didn't like an uppity bitch and they won't like an uppity nigger any better. So far, he is performing beyond my expectations and seems to have a very grounded group giving him advice. He'll avoid too much talk about grandstanding by the mere fact that the economy is going to collapse around us no matter what he does. All he has to do is be seen as stopping *some* of the bleeding, and he'll pass muster.

With Hilary, he has a chance to capitalise on her strengths, which are her relationships with foreign leaders and general good will for the Clintons among them, and possibly have foreign relations be a star in the crown of what is going to be a long sad story, at least for a while. Can she deliver on that hope, and will she? Does it take a thief to catch a thief? Will she try to position herself for another run in 2012? God only knows if they struck some kind of arrangement, and he's not telling.

Is she a drama-queen? The reporters create more of the news than probably exists. The Clintons' well-reported flair for the dramatic is more often dramatic reporting, under closer inspection. BC lied about a blowjob to try to save his own ass, but wouldn't it be more realistic to say he tried to downplay it than that he was "dramatic"? Other than bragging about herself on the campaign trail, what has Hilary done specifically that you'd consider "dramatic"? I think she's an egotistical self-important politician, which is practically what politician means. So what?? The media often has a way of creating a story that doesn't exist in organic nature.

Now, none of that baggage stops a Type A from having legitimate moral and political beliefs and goals. This is simply a set of facts that must be accepted about ALL leaders before the world makes sense. Those who don't think they're better than "the average guy" are poorly motivated to lead. Pointing out that a politician is aggressive and elitist is just such a moot point- yeah, of course they are. Now what? They're a lying sack of shit when it's convenient- obviously. We have to get to the point where the givens are- given, so we can get around to talking about the point at hand, which is "Can/will she be an effective SOS?".

I don't think many doubt her capacity, it's more a question of her personal motivations. And what are her morals and goals? We know she wants universal healthcare, we know Bill has been working on world health issues for years now. We know more though. She hasn't been a grandstander in the senate, contrary to fearful predictions, so let's let reality enter into the discussion. She gets a reputation for being a ballbuster, but the reality is she couldn't even fire staffers on the campaign that caused her serious problems. Not much of a hatchet man, if you ask me. She might be better suited for State, her own "vision" didn't seem strong enough to me to be the president, but she is a talented and capable politician in that she can deliver a message, present cohesive thoughts, move people to react. I say she's exhibited that she can be a credible and positive leader, and we'll see if she will.

Stalking the Devil's Advocate

2008-09-11T09:26:00.000-07:00

There is surely a temptation to follow Christopher Hitchens around with a pen and notepad so as not to miss the gems of humor, wit and sincere passion- had I known the day would be so long, I myself might not have resisted. I'm glad I did. What follows is my chronology of a day in the life of this very public figure leading up to, during and following his debate with Frank Turek at Virginia Commonwealth University on September 9th 2008 entitled "Does God Exist?".

My daughter Julianna and I arrived the night before to meet with Roy Roberts, president of the Secular Student Union, who had arranged the event. It was then that he informed us that we would be invited to attend a luncheon with Mr. Hitchens prior to the debate. Our pleasure was redoubled when we discovered that this would take place at an Indian restaurant. Having traveled from Cincinnati Ohio to Richmond Virginia for the event I could have scarcely imagined better news. We had come in the hopes of gleaning a few short moments in which we could ask some questions for our Answers In Atheism podcast on Thursday evenings, now we would get to observe him in a small group as friends, relaxing over a buffet.

Books in tow for signing and cameras ready, we arrived to join the group of organisers. The place was small, our group of about fifteen took up most of the restaurant. It is always a pleasure to meet the people who put their efforts toward the advancement of understanding of the issues we all face, and these were no exceptions. Christopher Hitchens appeared unceremoniously, the ward for the day of the students who had worked so hard to plan the debate. There were no formal introductions, he asked if we should help ourselves to the buffet, and we all raced to fill our plates. That was it, we were off. Having been an avid fan for some time of his debates and lectures, I was already familiar with his stances on many of the more topical issues. What I really wanted to learn about was the man behind the words. Arguably among the most well-read authors of our time, Hitchens has a reputation of being strident if not arrogant. I have often wondered if this was more a reflection of the subject material than of him as an actual person. The man I spent the day with was the very embodiment of patience, eloquence and candor. He would get no breaks from the relentless questions from myself and everyone else for the rest of the day, the requests for "just one more" picture, autograph, or answer to some burning question from both sympathisers and detractors. He would disappoint no one.

It was my sincere intention to eat and listen, however my big mouth has a mind of its own. I was sitting directly across the table from a man I admire greatly- an opportunity not likely to be repeated in the near future. I only wanted to know one thing- everything. Barring that, I'd settle for everything else. Why does he support the war? He explained that in a quieter time he would be a one-issue voter on the issue of separation of church and state, a condition that makes America unique from the rest of the world. That we stand alone as the only country to have a truly secular government is a fact to be celebrated and defended, he reminds us. He makes me proud to be an American, at a time when I'm not so sure. However, we find ourselves where we are at present, our country embroiled in a nasty war of dubious beginnings, with the dire necessity of some sort of resolution. He reminds me that people all over the world are human beings and have a right not to live under the tyranny of religious zealotry, and that they need and deserve our support. I do believe that human rights supersede American rights, although I remain in turmoil as to our responsibility to insure them. I countered that many of us who willfully take on the title of "lefties" are doubtful that such a goal as emancipation from religious tyranny is likely, and not even on the agenda of our military. He believes the downfall and scattering of the most egregious regimes will accomplish improved secularism by default. He is asked by another attendee if there was a catalyst that made him feel this was particularly important right now, and he replied that September 11th made it clear what kind of threat the parties of god offer. As a man who has spent a great deal of time both on travel to and study of these cultures, he is someone from what is often the "other side" from me politically whose opinions I seek out.

There was round two at the buffet, and I asked if he might spare some time for a brief interview for our podcast on Thursday. He invited Julianna and I without hesitation to join him immediately before his debate, a time he claims is always boring and uneventful. I looked across the sea of faces hoping to get their questions in, and doubted he'd have time to be bored. There was nice strong Indian tea. More conversation. The restaurant was closed for midday before we were ushered out, at which time the meeting convened on the sidewalk. Hitchens was whisked away to visit some local sites of interest including the Jefferson Hotel, but not before he reminded Julianna and I to find him before the debate for the interview, to my delight.

The room was huge and the crowd sparse an hour before the show. The planning was coming together- I recognised doormen, ushers, cameramen and film crews from lunch. We found our reserved seats, and were quickly summoned to interview Hitchens in the green room. As the results will be discussed on our Answers In Atheism podcast with Edwin Kagin, I won't repeat them here, but Hitchens was as cordial and generous with his time as could be imagined. Cameras clicked, people wandered in and out interjecting throughout and he never lost his composure, or his place in our conversation. This, only moments before he would take the stage. Turek came in to introduce himself before the debate, informing Hitchens that he's a great fan. Hitchens replied, "It's early".

We reclaimed our seats in the now jam-packed auditorium of five hundred, with two overflow rooms full as well. The debate was, well it was a debate between a theist and an atheist so there really isn't anything new that can come out of it. Turek made the usual objections which amount to "I personally don't understand science so therefore goddidit!!!" and Hitchens volleyed back with great dignity that human beings deserve more respect than to be shamed by people claiming to represent a non-existent being. Check youtube for video of the nearly two-hour debate, it was frustrating to me to have to sit silent through the litany of irrationality Turek passed off as "evidence". Apparently evidence is now something an incredibly ignorant person manufactures in their own head- baseless assertions and postulations that the rest of us are supposed to "respect". Ugh. Why is Hitchens mad at god? Ugh. How did something come from nothing? Ugh. Why can't he just accept that things are too perfectly in tune not to be the intentional creation of a supreme being? Double ugh. Quotes from "important people" who proclaim supernatural necessity. Christ. You get the picture. As passionate as Hitchens clearly is on the subject, he avoids underlining the problem as it actually exists- you can't reason with utter absurdity. That large numbers of people believe utter absurdity makes no comment on its truth content. Hitchens prefers instead to refute specific claims rather than to call the man stupid, I doubt I could have managed that myself. I've heard there are no such things as stupid questions, and this I now know for certain to be false.

Does the long day near a close? Hardly! After a standing ovation for what was surely among the more interesting debates I've seen of his, the moderator announces that Hitchens will be available afterward for pictures and book signings. The line of hopefuls spills out down the corridor and out the door- he will not leave the table for another two hours until every last request is satisfied, every picture snapped. He declines my offer for coffee, reminding one of the organisers it's nearly 10 pm and he'd like to get a sandwich when they're done. He grants one last filmed interview at nearly 11pm on the condition that we walk while it's being conducted, it's his only hope of eventual escape. Julianna and I are invited again to join the group for the "Well, how did that go?" segment of the evening at a local pub. More pictures, more questions, poor Christopher doesn't get to even eat his sandwich while it's hot. He doesn't seem to notice, he certainly never gets perturbed. Every person in the room is as important as the next and I realise that he granted my interview for one reason alone- because I asked. It's after midnight when he leaves to be driven two hours to get home, he'll be catching a plane at 9am for another city, another day.

When Mother Teresa was being proposed for sainthood, the Vatican called in Christopher Hitchens to argue against it, thereby playing devil's advocate. Of course, her own journals would support his claims against her, but that did not lessen the horror
some felt at the fact that he argued against the presumably unassailable woman to begin with. Few who wish to believe utter nonsense actually even hear his arguments- at least not the content. We know this because they never answer the content- they only address the form. Why won't he just concede to their baseless assertions? Why won't he accept "testimony" as evidence? Why is he a big fat meanie? WHY? Because in this age of coddling insanity, it has become obvious that reason needs a defence among far too many Americans. I retire from what was for me a long, exciting and thoroughly exhausting day relieved that this defender of reason we have in one Christopher Hitchens is so tireless.

Jana ~ AnswersInAtheism.net

Update- the debate is now available at:

http://www.vimeo.com/1904911

David Ryan brief

2008-07-30T18:30:00.000-07:00

Recently I had the opportunity to assist Edwin Kagin, (National Legal Director for American Atheists and Atheist of the Year for both 2005 and 2008 for his contributions to our efforts) on the appellate brief for the David Ryan case. This is a custody case that drew national attention a few months back when a couple who has joint custody of a minor son disagreed about where to send him to high school. The mother is a catholic convert and the father is an atheist. Interestingly enough, the state of Kentucky where the case is being tried has a statement in its Constitution which says that a man cannot be forced to send his child to any school to which he is conscientiously opposed. The judge made a most unusual ruling- to revoke joint custody on one issue only, granting the decision of just this issue to the mother! There is no legal precedent for such a ruling, and the judge himself is a member of the St. Aloysius catholic church which sponsors the school to which the boy is currently being sent, hence the appeal. I hope you will find this document interesting dear readers, as this appeal has not been heard in court yet- you're getting very fresh news:

http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dcghw7dq_8c97sbwhj&hl=en

The religious condition

2008-04-28T23:33:00.000-07:00

You know, I've been thinking a lot about this, and here's the brilliant piece of reasoning I came up with. Jesus and the stories of the bible are a cultural avatar to our innermost aspirations. Because the system is already in place upon our arrival, we are taught to attribute this segment of our desires and aspirations to this avatar [group of avatars, depending on religion] as a means of accessing our group goals. We're having the wrong debate entirely.

Religions are evolving like every other social structure as a reflection of the evolving desires of the species of Man, and our geographical separations are the major influence on what avatars we will be presented with and learn to focus on. As hard as it is to learn to focus on a new one, or change the attributes of the current one- it is incomparably harder to figure out what to do with those feelings and longings without having one at all. This is why we get questions like "Where would you get your morals without god?", we are taught that this whole realm of contemplation belongs in the category of religion, and we've pigeon-holed it thither without a second thought.
We only have ourselves as examples to try to understand our brothers, so we can only assume they think like we do. When they do not, it causes confusion.

One of the most difficult concepts to grasp is that we are inherently different from our brothers in the ways we think, the things to which we personally assign value, the way we channel our emotions- and the ways we choose to express our most transcendent experiences.

We're back to subjective and objective reality (my favorite). The subjective experience, the yearning to be in pace with the will of the world- is real. The experience of feeling you are achieving this is real. The objective truth is that the stories were written by flawed human beings trying to express these needs through avatars that either existed in reality or did not, but are accessed now as ideals to strive for. The religious and the irreligious want the same things. We want to survive, be happy, be productive, have a chance to do something good in the world. The race of Man continues to get nicer, despite how gloomy things look. We are far less likely to die at the hands of our fellow man now than we were 2000 years ago. Despite our unfathomable war machines, we actually kill fewer per capita with them than we did when we were killing with far cruder weapons.

The thing is, the avatars are not real in external reality, and repeating "yuh-huh" a million times won't make it true. They have value- and the value is real, but their external existence is not, any more than any other avatar or god throughout history. You have to remember how meaningful and special those representations are to the people who have connected themselves to them at the "soul" level, as you have with your god. Their external reality is not necessary for the use of such a focal point to achieve the goal- IF that goal is self-improvement. When the goal ceases to be self-improvement and rather becomes an excuse for judgment, then the lack of external reality is going to get flung up in your face. Judge not lest ye be judged. If the religious continue to force their avatars on the disinterested and unwilling, then they're going to have to understand that they are forfeiting their own fantasies. That's the deal. If you want to keep it- keep it to yourself. If you want to indoctrinate others, we'll shred the fantasy into a pile of ancient dust.

In memorium

2007-05-28T12:32:00.000-07:00

Memorial day is a tough proposition for a pacifist.

How exactly does one honour the dead? Why do we feel the need? I find myself feeling more and more like a zombie as I walk through the streets of my hometown, recognising very little of the place I knew as a child- the glamour and yet quaintness of the city.

Cincinnati has always been an anomaly, and whether we admit it or not, that's what so many of us like about it. The people are basically decent, the job market has been basically good, the cost of living is relatively acceptable and the crime rate has been comparatively low. Some years back we won some kind of ranking for most livable city, and we native Cincinnatians smirked a knowing smile, we knew that all along. Let the rest of the country laugh at us for actually stopping at the crosswalks and waiting for the "walk" light, that's just how we roll. It doesn't cost that much to be a big-wig here- used cars are acceptable and last year's fashions are fine by us. My point is, we're dorky but at least we know it.

Well, that's what we've known all our lives, but somewhat unsuddenly, most of it is no longer true. Jobs are tougher- MUCH tougher to find. If you have a degree, you may still be competing for jobs that pay $10. I have no degree and would never consider working for someone else for that amount of money, but that's the reality of what's going on. Crime? We now have a murder rate THREE TIMES HIGHER than that of New York City, and that's new to us. We aren't accustomed to watching the LIST of murders, shootings and violent crimes being read on the evening news. Most of us are too stunned to even verbalise it.

Enter the war. In a part of the country that has been ravaged by this administrations' policies, which have cost both Ohio and Michigan an enormous number of manufacturing jobs in the last seven years, the armed services have been a way out for many. There are a disproportionate amount of servicemen and women from the midwest, due in some part to our failed economy.

It's more than that though, a lot more. We ARE decent people, and we want to do what's right, whatever that is. When I see our young people being interviewed as to why they joined the services, invariably they want to do their part and serve their country. I believe them, I see the resolve in their faces. I DO support our troops!

But I don't support the war. I can't. Our leaders lied to us, and we all know it now. We ALL know it! We all know by now that there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and we all know that Saddam Hussein who we put into power in the 80s is now dead. We all know that Iraq has absolutely nothing to do with the attack on the World Trade Center on Sept. 11th- so why exactly are we still there? I understand why we went- we were flatly lied to by our pres and "intelligence" reports, but now that the lie's been exposed, why are we still there? We've added over 3,000 more of our young people's deaths to the already over 3,000 the terrorists took, plus we've added about 655,000 Iraqi civilians. How can we still be good guys?

Mass murderers cannot be good guys. Our policy makers don't care about your family, don't care about the personal losses you will experience, don't care what it will do to you to lose a son or daughter or husband for no justifyable reason. They aren't doing what they should to provide healthcare for the soldiers returning, it's a national scandal that our soldiers are losing their homes in mortgage defaults, and no one wants to talk about it. Whole pallettes of CASH MONEY disappear to the tune of BILLIONS of dollars in Iraq that was earmarked for intelligence bribes, and even after it gets published in the news, it gets a big "so what?". Thieves cannot be good guys either. Our soldiers want to do a good job, but with no job definition, how can they possibly accomplish that? Let me help you out- they can't.

So here we are on Memorial Day. My grandfather fought in WWII and my step-father in Korea. Most of my uncles and even a few aunts have a military background, and I have grown up accepting this as honourable. But what about now? Is it still honourable to fight for a dishonourable cause? No, it can't be. I honour their intentions this day and I honour their will, but the losses and the dead are still dead for no reason, no goal has been accomplished. I grieve for the naivety in Man that would volunteer for such a position, and I harbour ill will for the leaders who would foul even a person's religion to secure their blind allegiance for an unworthy cause. I am ashamed of my country, we can really do better than this, and we must.

For those who have died, I am sorry that those of us who could have did not prevent this war. For those still living, but under contract to the government for serveral years yet, please protect your lives in whatever way you deem necessary. Your lives DO matter very much to those of us who love you. Don't make us love you at graveside.