An "Unbiased" Statement on Bias

A few minutes ago, while watching TV, I saw a rather remarkable ad. The wonderful people at Time-Life were marketing a video series about the "untold" story of the Vietnam War. One of the carrots they employed to try to get viewers to order the series was that this documentary offers an unbiased appraisal of said conflict.

Really? No bias?

There's one problem with this claim. It's hogwash!! Pure unadulterated hogwash!

Every one of us views the world around us through a subjective lens. We don't merely see things with our eyes, we interpret what we see we our brains. Further, our emotions color how our rational faculties transcribe this data. Consequently, every second of every day is affected by our biases.

In relation to any video, our biases determine what, when, where and how we film the matter at hand. In a scene with a lot going on, the determination of what elements to focus on reveals a bias. Deciding to film in one location and not another reveals a bias. Who gets interviewed and who doesn't reveals a bias.

Our biases even extend beyond the initial phase of any film project. How a project is framed or the music chosen as background (or deciding to use no background music at all) or what gets left on the cutting room floor are yet more examples of someone's bias.

The same is true for almost every aspect of our lives. Whether we're talking about books, magazine articles, blog entries, TV shows or what we tell our family members about our day, our personal biases determine what information is shared and how it is shared.

We couldn't remove our biases even if we wanted to. It's one of the characteristics that makes each of us unique.

So, anytime someone tells me that they will present an unbiased account of something, I laugh almost as hard as when someone says their presentation will be objective.

Cake & The End of All Things

I know of few people who don't like cake. It just happens to be one of those culinary concoctions that appeals to people based on texture, taste, appearance or varying combinations of the three. Cake has been loved by kings and queens as well as most of us commoners. In essence, it happens to be a great joy for the majority of people.

Imagine you're sitting down at the table and someone brings you the most humongous and delectable cake of your favorite flavor[s] that you've ever laid eyes on. The aroma alone is enough to bring armies to their knees! You're told that this cake is for you and you alone -- you don't have to share it with anyone.

One group of people would tear right into it with great abandon. They would engage in an orgy of pleasure -- eating as much as quickly as possible. Chances are that they would soon make themselves sick as a dog!

Another group of people would address the cake in a more contemplative way. They would savor each bite, reveling in the taste sensations. They would eat slowly so as to a) not make themselves sick and b) get to enjoy the cake over a long period of time.

A third group would eat the cake in a most peculiar way. Like the previous group, these people would eat the cake slowly. However, unlike the previous group, these people wouldn't delight in the taste sensations at all. In fact, their whole focus wouldn't be on eating the cake itself; no, their focus is on being finished with the cake altogether.

In my mind, the first group is hedonists. The second group is [non-hedonistic] Taoists, Deists or atheists. And the third group is adherents to religious beliefs.

Hedonists care solely for the now -- there is no interest in what has been or will be. Their overriding goal in life is to obtain as much sensual pleasure as the present moment will allow. Consequently, the hedonist has a tendency to burn all bridges to the past and to suffer all kind of negative future consequences for unplanned present actions.

As this blog is about Taoism, I'll skip my analysis of the second group because the reader gets enough of that anyway!

As Christopher Hitchens points out in "God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything", the interesting thing about religious people is that their focus is more on the hereafter than the present. In fact, in most every major religion, there are a host of taboos against enjoying the many facets of human life (i.e., sins of the flesh) and, instead, all the focus is on the "paradise" of the after days.

Consequently, as with the cake, religion pushes its adherents not to enjoy and savor each moment of life. Rather than revel in the amazing taste sensations laid before us, we're urged to repress our taste buds in the hope that we'll taste the cake and more somewhere down the road.

A Question of Pigmentation

Over the course of the next two months, the mainstream media is going to try to convince the voting public that we have a bona fide race for the presidency on our hands. The polls will tip one way, then the other. We'll be told again and again that this is a race to the wire.

I'm sorry, but I don't buy it!! I personally think that, unless something politically catastrophic occurs, there's only one fellow who has a real shot at this...and his skin is lily white.

While many in this country would like to THINK we've moved beyond the day when the color of a person's skin matters, it, unfortunately, STILL MATTERS to far too many people. We still live in predominantly segregated neighborhoods. People of color typically earn less in similar occupations than their white counterparts and aren't offered the same kinds of home loans.

Black men are still locked up in prison at alarming rates and no white person I know has to fear "driving while white".

I simply do not believe there are sufficient numbers of white voters who would willingly cast their vote for a black man. (And no, I'm not an Obama supporter. I plan to cast my vote for two black women: Cynthia McKinney & Rosa Clemente, the Green Party ticket.)

I realize that some may agrue that the polls show otherwise. I will agree that several polls have indicated that a majority of white respondents have indicated they would vote for a black candidate for president. But what do you think these people are going to say?

Most white people don't want to be looked at as bigots, so they certainly aren't going to say to the pollster, "I ain't voting for no negro." No, they'll say, "I don't look at a person's skin color".

But there's a wide chasm between telling a pollster what you want them to believe and stepping inside the voting booth (or filling out a ballot at your kitchen table) in private. When you're all by your lonesome, there's no need to put on aires. And that, my friends, is where I believe far too many Americans will place an X next to the names McCain/Palin.

Maybe I'll wake up on a November morning to find that I'm wrong. I think it's far more likely that McCain is going to win in a landslide and all the pundits are going to be scratching their heads asking, "Duh, how'd that happen?'

Rally 'Round the Boys 'N Girls

A friend emailed me to ask if I had been watching the Democratic Party convention in Denver -- he thought it was high comedy!! I replied that I had decided to pass because I didn't desire to make myself sick, both with too much laughter and too much time screaming in horror at the telly.

I've read a little bit about it online and, folks, that's enough for me!

Political party conventions are such a bore and wholly theatrical. Everything is staged in such a way to deliver a message. This is particularly true of the Democratic Party version!!

Every four years they trot out party luminaries to bang on the podium about so-called liberal issues they really don't care that much about. They whip their faithful into an almost religious frenzy, then spend the rest of the campaign backtracking on almost every glorious promise.

I suppose they feel it must go this way for two reasons. First, they must galvanize their rank-and-file members. They must convince them -- almost beyond rational belief -- that the party honchos really, truly care about those issues that matter most to the lower and middle classes.

Once duped into believing these calculated lies, the faithful run around rabidly badgering their friends and colleagues with the phrase, "We must support the Democrats this year." If you try to point out to them that the chosen candidate is espousing policies and platform planks that contradict the reason for this euphoria, they're so poisoned by the kool-aid, you soon realize their cerebral matter has already turned to mush.

It's like trying to argue with your dog.

Of course, there's another reason for this grand theater -- To tick off the conservatives! As I've written in this space before, the corporate party needs to uphold this masquerade that there are two distinct entities (i.e., political parties) battling for the American soul. So, to undergird this facade, the Dems go out of their way every four years to inflame rank-and-file conservatives.

Mind you, most federal legislation passed with Democratic Party majorities over the last 2 - 3 decades doesn't look altogether different than the ones passed by their GOP counterparts. But that's not the point! No, the point is that conservatives remember the fire-and-brimstone speeches made at the national convention every four years and that's what they'll spend their time blathering about.

So, to ensure that the rank-and-file embrace the concept of adversarial parties, the Dems go out of their way to lace their speeches with references to universal health care, raising the minimum wage, foreign policy based on human rights and other topics sure to anger the "opposition".

I have no interest at all in watching this "dog and pony" show. It actually makes mindless reality programming almost palatable.

The Two Topics We CAN'T Avoid

Often, when faced with attendance at a family, social or workplace gathering, people are advised as follows: "You don't want to get into any type of deep conversation with so-and-so. If you just steer clear of politics and religion, I think you'll be okay".

It sounds like great advice, but it's virtually impossible to engage another human being in cogent conversation without both of these topics rearing their ugly heads. While the focus of any given conversation may not touch on either topic in an overt manner, both are bubbling merrily under the surface.

This point is touched on in a book I picked up at the library yesterday, "God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything" by Christopher Hitchens. (I'm sure I'll have to write about this work as I progress in my reading.)

How we look at the world is shaped by our political and religious or philosophical perspectives. None of us are blank canvasses. We all have biases, preferences and unique ways of interacting with the world around us.

Consequently, our frames of reference, informs anything we speak or write about. Take something as innocuous as a superficial conversation about the weather. How each person views "climate change" often impacts this seemingly meaningless dialog.

Person A: Gosh, it's really been raining a lot lately.
Person B: I'll agree to that!
Person A: You know, it really is abnormal for this time of year.
Person B: Oh, I wouldn't say that. These things run in cycles. We're simply having a wet year.

There's a better than average chance Person A's comments are colored by their concern regarding global warming. This person views the "abnormality" as having a specific cause and this is the direct effect.

Person B, on the other hand, doesn't give much credence to the so-called phenomena of "climate change". Consequently, for them, there is no direct cause-and-effect. The wet year is merely a random, chance occurrence.

While we can establish no precise rule in these kinds of situations, some generalities can be observed. In general, Person A is most likely a political and religious liberal, while Person B is more apt to be conservative in both areas.

It really doesn't matter much which topic of conversation might come up. Whatever is focused on is defined by our political and religious or philosophical beliefs. It's not that we consciously use these variables to drive our communications; they manifest themselves simply because they are an ingrained part of who we are.

Look in the Mirror

I'd guess that almost every single person who has participated in an unmoderated email list knows a thing or two about "flame wars". Somebody writes something that someone else objects to or labels disrespectful or declares is demeaning and, before you know it, a virtual donnybrook has broken out. These sorts of tempests happen on almost every email list I'm subscribed to.

What really amazes me the most is that people -- and I certainly include myself -- write things they would never, ever say to a person's face!! While email has ushered in a period in which diverse people from far away places can converse with kindred spirits in a meaningful way, it has also produced a kind of virtual anonymity that turns otherwise peaceful and uplifting individuals into email tyrants and bullies. It provides a perverse sort of freedom from accepted social constraints, so you can call someone a dirty rotten S.O.B. without much fear that you'll get punched in the nose or you'll run into them at the mall.

Two things I must remind myself of again and again are that 1) I need to spend more time looking in the mirror -- No, I'm not suggesting that I need to spend time fawning all over myself in a narcissistic way -- I need to treat others by the same standards that I expect others to treat me; and 2) how others behave genuinely does not affect how I behave.

We're all guilty of sin #1. If someone writes something that we object to, we immediately presume that we KNOW their true motivation and, quite often, no amount of apology or contrition is good enough for us. Yet, when the shoe is on the other foot and WE are the transgressor, many of us think that a simple, "I'm sorry you took my statement that way. I can promise you I didn't intend it in the way you perceived it" is sufficient to absolve us of all guilt. In other words, we grant ourselves a wide berth, while forcing our allies and comrades into the tiniest of shoe boxes.

Another way this manifests itself is in the way we choose to express ourselves. If another person chooses to employ vulgarities, profanity, rudeness or name-calling, we're quick to point it out and to demand immediate censure or punishment. However, when we're the person guilty of employing these same means, we're just as quick to submit that in THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE it's completely justified because so-and-so started it or we've been so wounded to the core by their comments that we should be given a free pass.

Regardless of how any of us interprets another's actions or behaviors towards us as individuals or as a group, we are the captain of our own ship. We alone choose to meet anger with anger, disrespect with disrespect, or name-calling with name-calling. It doesn't have to be that way. Like the peace activists who turn swords into plowshares, we are free to respond to anger with love and vulgarity with civility.

In my experience, the best way to minimize flame wars is to take the time to look in the mirror before firing off another hasty email. It's not enough to proof your messages to ensure you're saying what you mean to say. We also need to step outside of our own frames of reference to see how others might view our prose and verbiage. While it's certainly true that we have no way of knowing for certain how each person who reads our message will receive or interpret it, we shouldn't use this as a ready rationale to excuse ourselves from this needed exercise in intentionally thoughtful communication.

What I often ask myself is -- though obviously, not often enough -- How would I interpret my message if it came from someone I disagree with? Would it anger or provoke me? In many cases, this tact has caused me to go back and rewrite what I just wrote.

Look in the mirror. Treat others as you would have them treat you.

IQ versus W

My brother and I have been engaging in a long running debate. My brother seems infatuated with the concept of intelligence, while I place far more emphasis on commonsense and wisdom. Of course, as a participant in this debate, I'm not providing you with an objective assessment; I admit that I can only offer my subjective viewpoint. Maybe Sean will chime in to better elucidate his perspective.

For me, intelligence doesn't really tell me a lot about a person. Most intelligence tests are racially and ethnically biased. They also contain knowledge that the reigning oligarchy deems important at any particular time. So, garnering a high score on such a test could simply mean that a person is of the "proper" racial/ethic background and the person knows well the kind of information the powers that be want a commoner to know!

For the sake of argument, however, let's pretend that there IS an IQ test that evenly measures anyone's rote intelligence. I would still argue that such a test doesn't mean all that much.

I think all of us have known one or more individuals who are considered smart, intelligent and bright, yet many such people seem to lack any modicum of commonsense. Such people can expound at great length on the formulation properties of isosceles triangles, but such a person can't figure out that plaids and stripes clash or that one shouldn't try to operate electric appliances in the rain.

Even worse than a lack of commonsense, these poor unfortunate blokes seem to have an incapacity for obtaining wisdom. For all their smarts, they simply can't seem to learn from their own mistakes.

Again, I'm sure we all know these kinds of individuals. Their social relationships can only be described as one mess after another. They may earn a pretty paycheck, but they squander their money time and time again. For all their immense knowledge, they can't find any traction in the world because they keep falling over their own feet.

Now I'm not suggesting that all brainy people are wisdom-challenged. Many are blessed with sharp minds and keen insights. But if I was given the choice of having great intelligence or supreme wisdom, I would choose the latter every time!

There's a big difference between book smarts and native intelligence. I know of many people who never graduated from high school who I consider to be quite smart -- they may not know how to measure an isosceles triangle, but they ARE smart in the ways of the world. In such cases, the proverbial IQ test will be unable to quantify their innate abilities.

As the Tao Te Ching teaches and many other belief systems agree, knowledge isn't all that it's cracked up to be anyway. Knowledge often gets in the way of truly understanding the nature of things, the mysterious Tao. It blinds us to the rhythms of the universe and it often retards our growth in wisdom.

'Tis better to be a sage than a genius.

All in the Game

A news article is out today which says that Democratic Party leaders in Congress are starting to waver re their opposition to offshore drilling as a response to the current spike in gas prices. Despite the fact that THEY know what almost everyone else knows -- that drilling will have no impact on gas prices for many, many years -- they SAY they don't want to be viewed as weaker on this issue than their GOP counterparts, particularly during this election year.

For those who considers themselves liberals or many of us here on the left, there is a ready -- and I believe misguided -- explanation for their steady litany of capitulations on this issue and far too many others (e.g., the Patriot Act, NAFTA, funding the wars, etc.). People will tell you that the Democrats are spineless!

The way this popular theory goes is that the Democrats too easily cave in on issues. They start out standing up for average Americans, but they give up ground too quickly in the face of Republican opposition. They fight hard for us, but only to a point.

I think that a lot of liberals tell themselves this fairytale because they don't want to have to face up to what's really going down. They don't want to come face-to-face with the fact that it's all a big charade!

Personally, I think it's all a game. It would be one thing if this scenario only played out from time to time, but this same scenario plays out over and over again on almost EVERY issue. The Democrats draw a line in the sand that is erased when the tide comes in. They stand strong just long enough for their supporters to THINK they're looking out for their best interests, only to betray those interests in the end.

In essence, it's really a sham to think we have two dominant political parties in this country! We have one dominant party -- the corporate party -- which has two popular faces. The GOP postures for the conservatives and the Democrats posture for the liberals.

The Republicans criticize almost every proposed bill as trampling on personal rights and giving away the store to bleeding heart liberals. For their part, the Democrats decry every proposed bill as serving the "moneyed interests" and not offering enough protections of John and Jane Doe America. In the end, I fear, the bill that becomes law is what the two supposed adversaries had already agreed upon initially.

So, I believe that almost all federal law isn't genuinely debated on the floor of the capital via C-SPAN, but is the result of backroom politics. The supposed policy debates are nothing more than a show to convince gullible Americans that our system is working the way it's supposed to. It IS, in fact, working the way the elites set it up; it's simply not the system most Americans believe it to be.

Seconds & Thirds

As I watch the Olympics, I've thought about the way medals are awarded. As most everyone knows, the person who comes in first wins the gold, the second place finisher gets the silver and the third place finisher gets to take home the bronze. While it's a much better system than the typical American winner-take-all paradigm, it still strikes me as rather odd -- when you consider the nature of competitive sports AND the phraseology involved with certain words.

In the popular lexicon, the words second and third do not tend to signify something exceptional. In fact, they typically denote something that is far from the standard. Here are some examples:

• Second Banana - a performer in a subordinate role;
• Second Fiddle - to occupy a secondary status;
• Secondhand - not from the original source or owner;
• Second-String - subordinate or inferior in rank;
• Third-Class - on the Titanic it meant steerage class;
• Third Person - a reference to someone else;
• Third-Rate - inferior, or very poor quality.

So, while finishing second or third is not something most athletes would generally crow about, they do hold some level of significance in Olympic and World Championship events.

As an American, though, it simply appears strange to see someone jumping up and down with joy as the result of NOT winning. While the second place finisher can, at least, have the consolation that only one person finished better than they did, the third place finisher doesn't even enjoy that luxury!

Can you imagine the third place finisher in the upcoming presidential election strutting around on TV flashing their bronze medal for all to see? "I'm just so happy to place in the medals," this person would chirp. "I feel I represented my party and home state very well and I'm pleased as punch!"

Actually, maybe it wouldn't be such a bad concept after all.

The Rippling Effect

As I discussed on Saturday, a member of our family -- Becca -- dies the previous day. For a family with so many animals, one might think that losing only 1 of 6 wouldn't have dramatic effects. But quite the opposite is true.

Becca was the leader of our pack. She was by far the most gregarious of the brood. She DEMANDED the most attention, both good and bad. She was always under foot -- if you were in a hurry, she was sure to be in your way!

When someone came to the front door, she was the first to greet them. Our other two dogs will bark up a storm and, if that doesn't work and a non-family members enters, both scurry for cover. But not Becca!! She would approach anybody as if to say, "Hi. How ya doing? I'm Becca. I like people. Pet me. Pet me. Pet me."

So, despite the fact our house is still filled with cats and dogs, it seems rather empty. The main vital spirit has gone. In time, we'll get used to this new energy and it will become the norm. For now, however, everything seems out of sorts.

In contemplating the last few days, I again recognized the mysterious ripple effects of life. Every action by each and every entity cause ripples that flow out into the world. Sometimes the ripples intersect and sometimes they clash. They form an invisible tapestry around us.

It is because of these trillions upon trillions of simultaneous ripples that we have no bona fide chance to truly comprehend this tapestry. The picture is far too broad and expansive for any of us to take in. So, we use terms like fate, chance or faith to define what we are unable rationally to define.

When something fortuitous happens to us, we say it was "the luck of the draw". When something bad happens to us, we say "the stars were aligned against us". We treat such things as random occurrences of chance.

I often find it interesting that when someone survives a tragedy that befell many others -- say a plane crash with only a few survivors -- we often hear that person exclaim, "God was watching out for me" or "an angel saved me." Whenever I hear such remarks, I always ask, "What about the others -- those who died. Why wasn't God watching out for them? What makes you think you're so special as to deserve this extraordinary treatment?"

In my humble opinion, it's not God or chance or fate that averts disaster or brings unexpected joy. It is something far more ordinary and pervasive -- the rippling effect.

If we had the ability to pull back to view the entirety of it all, we would be able to understand the ripples that led to the death of the man in Seat 4A and spared the life of the woman in Seat 4B.

Bye Bye Becca

The one constant of life is death and my wife and I came face-to-face with this reality yesterday. Our beloved Becca (a Labrador-Collie mix) had to be euthanized. It's never an easy decision to end the life of a pet, but sometimes it's the most humane and compassionate thing to do.

Of course, we were there when she was "put to sleep". I would have rather skipped the procedure, but the reason for being there is to comfort your friend, not yourself. She had provided so much comfort to us for more than a decade that we couldn't turn our back on her when she needed our comfort the most.

It's an odd thing to see your beloved pet slowly lay her head down -- one last time -- then lay motionless. You stroke her head and she no longer responds. You say her name and she no longer wags her tail. She's laying there in front of you, yet she's no longer there.

We both cried, long and hard. I know a lot of people would say we were crying for Becca, but I think we were crying for ourselves. The pain of death is for the living, not the dead.

Our other animals seem out of kilter now. Becca's best friend, Heidi (a German Shepherd-Collie mix), keeps going from room-to-room looking for her pal. Becca's cat buddy, Dylan, isn't sure which dog to greet when he comes in from outside. Scruffy (dog) seems depressed and the other two cats (Little Bit and Mookie) sense that something's out of place.

Something IS out of place -- Becca's gone.

The Reincarnation of the SUV

I've read several articles lately that have indicated that the market for SUVs, big trucks and mini-vans is waning. In the first 6 months of 2008, sales have fallen 50% from last year. With gas prices soaring to unfathomable levels in the US, it's understandable why middle and high income families are trading down, so to speak.

While it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the production of new SUVs and other gas guzzlers will ride off into the sunset, I think it's a big mistake to think such vehicles will disappear from America's highways. In fact, I'm fairly sure we'll continue to see them in very large numbers for decades to come.

The difference between then and the future will be who's behind the wheel!

The poor -- and I count myself among them -- drive the castoffs of upper class society. Over the past 20 years, it's been quite easy for those of us of limited means to purchase and drive vehicles that get good gas mileage. While the rest of society embraced the motto "bigger is better", we've had to live on the other end of the spectrum.

Over the past 3 decades, my wife & I have only purchased one new vehicle and we only had the requisite funds for that purchase due to my mother's death! Except for that one instance, each new Smith family vehicle has been a used vehicle. We've owned gas-efficient Datsons, Nissans, Isuzus, Mazdas and one Ford Escort.

But, I'm afraid, those days have come to an abrupt end! In perusing the ads for used vehicles in this area, I've found that all those little cars that one used to be able to find for $4000 or less have jumped in price as more and more people are scrounging for more fuel-efficient rides.

In their place are all the SUV and monster truck castoffs. So, such vehicles won't disappear after all. I'll probably be driving one -- against my will -- within the next two to three years.

Crossing the Line

Over the past 2 weeks or so, two important "personalities" died: Tim Russert and George Carlin. Depending on which of these two men you mourn most, I bet I can tell which side of the line you stand on. One lived his professional life near the line, but never crossing it. The other rarely found a line he wouldn't cross.

I have nothing against Tim Russert. He seemed like a decent fellow who would have been a great coworker, friend or family member. However, he's been lionized in the mainstream media for being a tough interviewer -- certainly not in my book! To be fair, as far as the mainstream media goes, he probably was an above average interviewer, but that's not saying very much.

I don't know how many times I sat watching Russert allow elected officials and political candidates off the hook. He always seemed to be heading the right direction, but almost always veered off before getting to the end of the street! He'd ask a quasi-tough question and allow the interviewee either to muddle through a very nonspecific answer or launch into a soliloquy about anything and everything under the sun EXCEPT the topic at hand. I would bang the arm of my recliner, beseeching Tim to ask the obvious next question, yet he rarely did.

Russert would not ask those kinds of questions because he well understood where the line was drawn and, as a member of the ruling class, he knew that he dare not genuinely upset the apple cart.

George Carlin, on the other hand, spent his life upsetting any apple cart within reach. In his comedic monologues, he asked the questions the Tim Russert's of the world refuse even to acknowledge. While he is best known as the man of the "seven words you can't say on TV." Carlin (in my humbled estimation) was not only the best social critic of our time but the conscience of an entire generation.

In his own often crude and profane way, George cut to the quick of the inequalities and injustice that pervades American society. He incessantly shone the light on the "fucking bullshit" of the American ethos the masses are fed everyday and he challenged us to pull ourselves out of the oozing muck of oppression and alienation to become the giving and just society we still can be.

I feel great empathy for the Russert family. They lost a husband, father and friend. But I mourn the passing of George Carlin for we've all lost a clear voice crying in the wilderness of modern life.

No Comprende

There's one particular TV commercial that I simply do not understand. It's for the drug, Valtrex, a medication for sufferers of genital herpes.

According to the ad, the benefit of taking a daily dose of Valtrex is that it will help the infected person not spread the virus to others. On the surface, that sounds like a great benefit and a sure reason to ask one's doctor to prescribe it.

But the disclaimers basically contradict the premise of such benefits. For example, we're told there is no cure for genital herpes, so how does Valtrex help to alleviate the disease?

More importantly, potential users are warned that during an outbreak or if the infected person sees the signs of an impending outbreak, the best way not to spread the virus is to avoid sexual activity. This is good advice. So, what role does Valtrex play?

I mean, if an infected person forgoes sexual activity as suggested, it's immaterial whether or not they take the drug.

What am I missing?

(Hmm. No blog entries for over a month and now two within less than 1 hour.)

Striking Up a Conversation

I should know better than to strike up an innocent conversation with a stranger. Any more, it seems to get me in trouble. I'm just trying to be friendly, but I keep running into people who have agendas...often religious ones.

Take yesterday as an example. My wife & I had just returned home from running errands. I noticed the sound of mowers coming from behind our house. This struck me as a bit odd since no one lives behind us. It turned out that the woman who owns the abandoned turn-of-the century home (catty corner from our back) asked two local guys to keep the yard mowed.

I went out on my deck and yelled to the older fellow, "Have my dogs kept you entertained?" (I asked this innocent question because one of my dogs is an incessant barker. It drives me crazy. We had left the back door open so the two dogs that had stayed home could get out to run around the backyard and handle their "business".)

The guy laughed and said that the black one had been quite animated at their presence. I smiled and was just about to go back into the house to make myself some lunch when the a-g-e-n-d-a arose.

Fellow: Lived here long?
Me: Not real long. My wife & I bought this house about 8 months ago.
Fellow: From around here?
Me: We moved here from Aberdeen and, before that, from Salem, OR.
Fellow: (Drum roll, please) Do you attend a local church?
Me: No.
Fellow: Why not?
Me: Because I'm a Taoist.
Fellow: A what?
Me: A Taoist.
Fellow: What's a Taoist?

I then explained what a Taoist was and thought that would be that. But, oh no, the conversation continued.

Fellow: Have you been a Taoist your whole life?
Me: No. If you must know, I grew up in the Presbyterian Church.
Fellow: What caused you to turn away from God?
Me: I realized that believing in an invisible "father" was wholly irrational and asinine.
Fellow: Sounds to me like you must have had a bad experience with your church.
Me: Not at all. I simply decided that Christianity, like all religions, was nonsensical to me.

I went on to explain that, after my undergraduate studies, I had given serious thought to enter seminary to become a minister. I came to realize though that I really didn't believe in most of the tenets of the Christian belief system, so I became a social worker.

Fellow: So how did you learn about this Tao thing?
Me: One day I was walking by my favorite book store in Salem and noticed one particular book in the window, "The Idiot's Guide to Taoism". Something caused me to go in to buy the book -- maybe it's because I'm idiot. As I read the book, I realized I had been a Taoist my whole life; I just didn't know it.
Fellow: In the ways of God, we're all idiots. My name's (I've already forgotten his name). I'm the Youth Pastor of (one of the local churches). Would you be interested in coming to our church one Sunday?
Me: No.
Fellow: Why not?
Me: Because I'm not a Christian.

At this juncture, Mr. Youth Pastor adopted a weird stance, one that seemed to fly in the face of rationality.

Fellow: Do you have a lot of friends?
Me: I don't know what you define as "a lot". I still don't know that many people here, but I've got a lot of friends all over Washington and Oregon.
Fellow: Well, if you came to our church, I bet you'd have a lot more friends in the area.
Me: That's a very poor reason to go to church. I mean that's not the point. A person should go to church if the particular religion speaks to them in a deep and sacred way.
Fellow: That's true, but if you decided to come, I bet God would make himself known to you.
Me: I don't believe in God, so I think that's highly unlikely.

The conversation lagged on for another 30 minutes because this fellow wouldn't take "no" for an answer. He kept trying different gambits to get me to agree to attend his church. Finally, he started to get the message.

Fellow: Sounds to me that you're against religion.
Me: Ya think?
Fellow: Why is that?
Me: Taoists don't run around telling other people what and how to believe. They don't nag at complete strangers to attend their meetings. I came out here to be friendly and all I've gotten for my trouble is to be harangued by you for not believing as you do.
Fellow: I'm sorry. I didn't mean to push you. I just wanted to share the Good News.
Me: If it's Good News for you, fine. You're free to believe how you want, but it's blather to me. I don't find it compelling nor of any interest.

I don't want to make it sound more negative than it truly was. We shook hands and he mentioned that we could pick up the conversation next time he came to mow. That's not very likely as I won't make the mistake of venturing outside when I see him next.

What ever happened to conversations about the weather?

The World By Our Fingertips

A lot can be said about the internet -- both good and bad. On the negative side of the ledger, the internet has pushed people farther apart. While it is true that you can converse with individuals you most likely would never meet (e.g., someone thousands of miles away), this lack of platonic intimacy allows people to write things they would NEVER say to a person's face. It's very unfortunate indeed that a great many people revel in this kind of virtual anonymity by viciously attacking anyone who happens by.

On the plus side, however, the internet has brought libraries home to anyone with an internet connection. Need to find a new recipe for stuffed peppers? Need to look up a phone number or address? Looking for a new pair of socks or jeans? You can find all this and more with a few mouse clicks.

For someone like me -- who loves to do research AND who lives in a small town in a rural county far from a quality library -- my computer and the internet have become the closest of friends! Almost anything I might need (job) or want (interest) to look up, I can find, if I'm patient.

Just yesterday, I watched a documentary on The Weather Channel about the famed "Serum Run of 1925". According to Wikipedia,

During the 1925 serum run to Nome, also known as the "Great Race of Mercy", 20 mushers and about 150 sled dogs relayed diphtheria antitoxin 674 miles (1,085 km) by dog sled across the U.S. territory of Alaska in a record-breaking five and a half days, saving the small city of Nome and the surrounding communities from an incipient epidemic. Both the mushers and their dogs were portrayed as heroes in the newly popular medium of radio, and received headline coverage in newspapers across the United States. Balto, the lead sled dog on the final stretch into Nome, became the most famous canine celebrity of the era after Rin Tin Tin, and his statue is still one of the most popular tourist attractions in New York City's Central Park. The publicity also helped spur an inoculation campaign in the U.S. that dramatically reduced the threat of the disease.

After watching the documentary, I wanted to learn more about the one musher who covered more distance than any other, Leonhard Seppala. Among the many facts I learned was that Seppala lived his last years in Ballard, Washington (a section of Seattle). A Norwegian friend of mine lives there now and I emailed her to ask if she ever met the man!

Were it not for the internet and the world wide web, I would have known very little about the Serum Run, other than what I watched on TV. And this is but one example that is representative of many such occurrences.

Knock, Knock Who's There?

As today is the holiest of holy days in Christendom, it got me to thinking about the "rapture". Since, according to the bible, most people of his day didn't recognize Jesus as the Messiah back then, why do present day Christians think they will recognize him during the second coming?

By almost all accounts, this Jewish carpenter had a decidedly small following and, even amongst his own followers, many didn't view him as the son of "God" -- He was simply a wise teacher and a sage. Even after the "resurrection", most people still didn't view him as anything divine or special. So I ask again, why do contemporary Christians think they will be any different?

For one thing, whose to say that he hasn't already come and gone? Because so few people recognized him for who he is, he just threw up his hands in frustration!

For another thing -- if you even believe in these fairy tales -- do people think he will send out an advance team to work up a big pr campaign announcing his arrival? Are they expecting the kind of spectacle that one might see on Super Bowl Sunday? Are they expecting the right wing blogosphere to create an internet event of epic proportions?

My guess is that, if the second coming ever came to pass, contemporary right-wing Christian zealots, who chortle incessantly about the impending rapture, wouldn't even bat an eyelash. They would summarily dismiss this obvious crackpot or lunatic. Others would froth at the mouth and mount an extensive "Swift Boat" campaign declaring that this person was not the second coming of the Messiah at all, but the antichrist himself.

No Back and Forth for Me

The other day -- whilst taking a break from a marathon research session -- I was flipping around the TV dial and came upon the movie, Back to the Future. Yes, I know, we're not talking about about an Oscar-winning flick, but it's one I've enjoyed many times...that is, if I don't think about it very deeply.

While the film is a rather whimsical look at "time travel", it suffers from the same fatal flaw that all books and movies of this genre suffer from -- there's one variable not accounted for.

The person who leaves "today" for their trip to past or future can never return again. Of course, their body can return to the appointed time, but their consciousness is forever altered. For example, in Back to the Future, Marty changes some past events by his very presence, yet, when he returns to the "present", his consciousness is not altered.

Everything around him is changed. His parents have different personae as do his two siblings. The bully of his father's youth is now dad's gofer. Yet, for all these critical changes, Marty is the same. His consciousness basically is unchanged from the time he left.

As Taoism teaches and commonsense reveals, every action taken creates a ripple effect. It spreads out from the original point in ways we are unable to fathom. This is the prime lesson in the classic film, It's a Wonderful Life, in which George Bailey gets to see what life would be like had he never have been born.

Returning to Back to the Future, if Marty McFly's parents had tread a different path, the Marty that returned to the future wouldn't have been the same Marty that left for the past!

Moving beyond the fantasy of film, this same principle applies to real life. I don't know how many times I've heard a friend ask the question, What if s/he had done such and such a thing at a critical point in life instead of the path that was chosen? The friend then tells you how they imagine their life would be so different.

Unlike most people, I don't spend a lot of time looking back. What has been done was done and, rightly or wrong, it's led me to the present point. I realize intuitively that had I chosen a different path, I wouldn't be in the same place right now and, thus, could not even entertain the question.

For me, this is why second guessing our life's choices is an utter waste of time. If we had chosen a different path at any point -- whether we deem it significant or not -- our lives may have gone off in an entirely different direction and none of us would have even the tiniest inkling what that direction might be.

So, I try to embrace the present without spending too much time thinking about the past or future. I can't change my past and I can only influence the future when it becomes the present.

I Love A Rainy Day

Over the past several days we've received about an inch or more of rain each day. At times, it comes in torrents. At other times, it just comes and comes and comes. I'm not suggesting this is abnormal -- it's typical winter weather here on the south Washington coast.

What strikes me as interesting is that the environment here just soaks it up like a sponge. In order for this area to have flooding problems, we've got to be hit by week long monsoons, one right after the other.

Compare this to other parts of the U.S. If my friend Carlotta saw this much rain, she'd be flooded out of her house for sure. Carlotta lives in suburban Phoenix and rain is not something they see all that often.

About 13 years ago, my wife Della & I lived in Pendleton, OR. That region averages about 12 inches of precipitation per annum, most of it in the form of snow. I can remember a time or two when an inch or so fell over a 24 hour period. You would have thought we were living in biblical times and we should head for the ark!

Even in the Midwest, the copious amount of rain we've received thus far this calendar year (probably about 15-20 inches in 5 weeks) would be causing a lot of concern. People would be eying the nearest levy and, possibly, filling lots of sandbags.

It just goes to show that every place is different. What would strain one area is perfectly natural for another. It's a lesson we humans should really embrace.

Everything has its time and everything has its place.

Out of Time

While time itself is a human construct, this human is having difficulty with finding the time to do several things. My life keeps changing in dramatic ways, though this isn't saying much since change is the way of the world.

When I started this blog, I had a lot of time on my hands. I needed something to keep me engaged with the world around me. In essence, I needed a vehicle that provided me with a mechanism to climb outside my own head. So, most days, I dutifully wrote at least one entry.

In the past 6 months, however, time has been at a premium for me. I've added two part-time jobs and my income has tripled (not that this says much -- I'm still poor). So, I now have 3 jobs plus all my various volunteer duties as State Treasurer of the Green Party of Washington State. It leaves little time to share my thoughts here.

It's not that I don't still have thoughts to share with the world! There are many blog entries swirling in my head almost every day and, on many days, I've planned to pen an entry. It usually ends up, though, that I run out of time and mental energy.

So, on the one hand, I could decide to shutdown The Rambling Taoist. Blogs come and go daily. The world wouldn't stop spinning if there was no TRT. But I realize that each aspect of our lives has its OWN time and TRT may have its time again. So, it will remain here and I will share my thoughts on it as time allows.

One of my new jobs is with the Green Institute. I'm the Researcher for GreenPRO. It's the kind of job I think most people would find mundane, but, for a research maven like me, it's a dream job! I spend hours each day trolling the web for progressive local policies, programs, resolutions and ordinances to add to our ever-growing online database. By the end of today, we should have over 800 entries!!

So, if you wanted to know where most of my blog entry energy has gone, check out GreenPRO.