In debates it's always good to consider the other side of the issue. Sometimes you learn something. WIth all the hubbub over Gibson's "The Passion" I played a mental game and considered the other side of the coin. That is, I imagined myself as a Jewish leader back then and how I would react to events if the New Testament is to be remotely believed. Consider: You're a Jewish Leader living under Roman rule. That you can safely practice your religion depends on their generosity. They could easily wipe you out. What do you do?

A. Proselytize and try to convert those Roman heathen, possibly inviting retribution.

B. Show how great Judaism is by having loud and frequent displays of enthusiasm, possibly inviting retribution.

C. Quietly practice your religion and pray that the Romans don't find cause to wipe you out.

I think choice 'C' in this case makes sense. If you're under foreign rule you don't want to make waves. You just want to get along with your life as quietly as possible, like what the Jews did under the beginnings of Nazi rule. They didn't make waves. They didn't provoke violence. It was brought to them.

Back to old Israel. Things are relatively quiet but now you have a new voice, a loud voice, a disturbing voice. Someone is raising a ruckus, gathering followers, making a scene in your temple. What do you do?

A. Try to talk things out but he turns over tables and causes a near riot.

B. Ignore him but he is not to be ignored.

C. Have him arrested. Get him out of the scene altogether.

Again, choice 'C' seems the most logical if it boils down to having one guy arrested (and possibly killed) versus your entire religious community wiped out because the Romans are sick of the uppity noisesome Jews.

Jesus gets arrested, crucified, resurrected, and ascends - Hallelujah! The Jews don't get wiped out - double Hallelujah!

Now the ironies: If Jesus didn't get crucified and resurrected there'd be no Christianity. There'd have been no hatred of Jews resulting from the perception that Jews killed the Christ. That's like a kid thanking his parents for his birth by killing them. Where's the love?

Again, this is just mind games which can go in any direction. No offense is intended. I think I need to take a break from Religion arguments (which ultimately are arguments over speculations, like who's hotter: Mary Ann or Ginger) and get back to ripping Bush and the Puckered Right.

Indecency Fines

Better watch what you say on the Air. It'll cost you. The House voted to increase fines for indecency on the air. Our children's ears must remain untainted until they reach adulthood, sometime around age 62. First amendment? Heck with it. Morality must rule! And soon we'll have ordinary police able to issue tickets for foul language or behavior. That'll increase the city coffers, which means we can hire more police and/or send the Mayor on a nice junket to Europe.

Exempt From Slavery?

This is for those readers whom like me are peoned in a big company. I'm just wondering if any of you have been through this: You get hired as an Exempt employee. Exempt means that you get paid but your salary is usually expressed as "per year" instead of "per hour". You're a professional peon, not a menial peon. You don't get overtime or time and a half. You get your x dollars per year and put in your forty hours per week.

That's the theory. What I've seen repeatedly is that Exempt employees are required to work forty hours per week but are usually expected to put in far more hours...without pay. "It's part of being a professional." or "It's part of being a team player." More than once I've been called to task because I don't put in more than forty hours. They even suggest working from home on the weekends, telecommuting.

My reply is:

"When I got hired I specifically mentioned that I cannot work more than forty hours. I have a family to take care of and work to do at home. I will not *EVER* place business over work."

But what I really want to say is:

1. I expect to get paid for my work. I'm not a chump.

2. My personal time and work time don't mix because I have a life outside work that I consider more important.

3. Don't try to turn me into a work-aholic or a corporate slave.

4. You want me to work more hours? Fine, hire me a responsible person to pick up my kids, get them home and check their homework, make dinner, do laundry, and fend off stupid telemarketers."

5. You want me to telecommute? Fine, buy me a new dedictaed-work computer, a DSL line, and hire a responsible person to help watch over the kids, fed them, and do the weekend chores."

And you know what happens? At review time I consistently get dinged for not being a player, for not sacrificing myself for the company. This, despite that I get the work done without complaint from my customers. In fact, I get glowing reviews for my work but I'm not a team player.

At least I have a life!

Gods Grand Experiment

Science and Religion are often at odds. Evolution, Creationism, How old is the Earth - really? Why bother with Science if God will provide? Why bother with Religion if you can't prove God exists - you end up with a belief system built on an imaginary base.

But what if the two could be reconciled, could co-exist, and even mutually support each other? Wouldn't our live be that much easier.

In the grand Little Mr Mahatma tradition of "it ain't poop if it comes out of the mouth", I have a suggestion. I contend that we are part of a grand experiment by God. That is, she (in the gender-neutral sense - wink, wink!) started the experiment to create intelligent life. She started the experiemtn but hasn't intervened since that would pollute the experiment. And we may not be the only planet participating!

If you've ever played the computer game of Life or perhaps the Sims, we could be that. She started us (and all the other planet with life) with varying parameters to see what would happen. Would we evolve? Would we die out? What?

Imagine playing a game like the Sims but the characters evolve and gain intelligence, enough so that they contact you! That's intelligence and maybe that's what we're striving to do. Become intelligent enough to break "out of the box" and contact God.

Consider the benefits of the idea:

1. Religious types have their external God, waiting to be contacted.

2. Atheists don't have to worry about God because we haven't contacted her yet. So there is no proof of God.

3. Science has a quest to increase our understanding and knowledge of what is and perhaps, someday, we'll be intelligent enough to contact God.

Nice, neat, palatable.

Except for whether God is part of larger experiment. When we contact her we'll enlist her help on the new quest.

Blog Mirror Shrinkage

I didn't notice that when posting to eBloggy you have 6000 character limit per entry. I thought the character count was a feature and a nifty one at that. It didn't strike me as any significant until I noticed that quite a few postings were exactly 6000 characters. That's when I looked at the output and saw the truncations. For someone who likes to post en masse this wasn't good.

Blog Drive and tBlog both require me to post in topic chunks, which is most annoying but does allow for flexibility in receiving topic-specific comments. tBlog has proven to be a far more enjoyable community. In fact, I find I quickly do my big "one-shot" post quickly on Blogger, log out, and then after chunk postings on tBlog, I'll read comments, check out blogs, and generally hang out. Not even Blogger has that appeal.

So farewell to eBloggy and Blog Drive. It was fun but not fun enough.