So why don't these Healers heal her? Don't they care? Isn't their belief in their powers strong enough to fulfill the task? Why, why, why?

On a different course of thought, why the uproar over Terri and not someone with Lou Gehrigs Disease? Terri Schiavo is supposedly brain dead but with a responsive body. A person with Lou Gehrigs Disease faces the opposite problem - their body goes but the brain remains intact. You become jailed within your own body until your body stops breathing. Would that not be worse that what Terri is going through?

Another thought: If Terri were black or hispanic, would the Media care about any of this?

I Know You Are But What Am I?
I've noticed a trend lately in newsgroups, blogs, and on the 'Net that the salvos being launch against Liberals and Conservatives are pretty much the same. Only the labels have been changed. For example, one blog whined that the Liberals misuse the Media for their own advantage, yet this same complaint applies equally to the Conservatives. Boths sides are guilty of using the Media, using the Government, using power and money for their own causes. Both sides are equally guilty of distorting or manipulating truths and outright lying. Both sides are guilty of self-righteous arrogance.

Perhaps these gripes apply only to the extreme elements on both sides but shit flows downhill. The Mainstream is being sullied, getting reduced to using the same tactics to effect changes.

I blame most of this on the dumbing down of America, on solving problems not by intellect but by shows of force, snappy sound bites, and short-term rewards. We no longer debate issues but seek to provide the wicked putdown, the verbal bitchslap, the huff of unbelief that there even should be a debate when *MY* viewpoint is so obviously correct.

When I started blogging two years in response to the impending invasion of Iraq, I mentioned that the invasion was a demonstration of the principles of "Might is Right" and "The Ends justify the Means". Today, with the Bush Administration firmly in power, we see these principles demonstrated almost daily. In Iraq, we have had the daily death toll, Abu Ghraib, dubious dollar transactions, and so on...but Iraq had elections so it's all acceptable. All the lying and distortions from our Government should immediately be discounted because - by God! - Iraq is almost a Democracy.

I fear our world is quickly devolving back in to a Dark Age of superstition. Instead of fighting demons with swords, we'll use nuclear bombs. It will be battle between their God and our God with God left out, watching from the sidelines with either a look of disgust or amusement. You never can tell.

That was then This is now.

No more Gilligan's Island, except for occassionally watching an episode from the DVD collection. My kids, thankfully, are too young to get involved in the Great Debate but instead enjoy the shows for the bizarre humor.

But this is about Saturday mornings, specifically about the Teen Titans, precisely about the difficult decision between Starfire or Raven. Sure, I'm older now. A lot older but I can't watch the show wondering, wondering, wondering about those two.

Starfire or Raven...

Starfire is taller, with a gangbuster figure and a sexy naivete that just begs for exploitation. The problem is, I feel, is that she is too naive, a bit too isolated in her upbringing. One wrong grope, one errant opening move and you'll get fireballs down your shorts. No, sorry, Starfire - you may be a tad too high maintenance for this grown-up juvenile.

That leaves Raven. Dark, sexy, somber Raven. I like her looks, her wry humor, her hobby of sitting quietly engrossed in a book. But I worry about her psyche, about the possibility of her falling terminally into a dark mental chasm. I think it best to remove her collection of Anne Sexton before making any moves towards her. Yeah, Raven....Raven....

...or Mary Ann

The question that I ponder is "If a person is in a vegestative state, who should bear the burden of keeping the person alive?" That question becomes more complex if there are no formal instructions by that person as to care. Should the family bankrupt themselves to keep the person going? Should the State or Federal Government provide some sort of support, especially if the Government's position is to "error" on the side of life?

Either way, the politicians are adding in their $0.02 just because they're politicians. Here's the articles:

The first is from The Honolulu Advertiser

It's time for Congress and Bush to butt out

By David Shapiro

It's easy to understand the family and ethical anguish on both sides of the Terri Schiavo spectacle in Florida.

But impossible to respect is the political grandstanding that has turned this poor woman into an ideological sideshow while trashing a legal system that has done its job with extraordinary diligence in the case.

Terri Schiavo's husband, Michael, and her parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, have waged a seven-year legal battle over discontinuing her life support after 15 years of vegetative living without cognitive brain function.

In the process, a family tragedy that cried for privacy and dignity became a tawdry national melodrama. Terri Schiavo would not have wanted to see unflattering pictures of her broken body broadcast endlessly.

She would not have wanted Congress to threaten to parade her as a political prop before a televised hearing.

She would not have wanted to be treated this way, with her feeding tube forever connected and disconnected as political and religious partisans fight over her fate.

The case has received fair and unusually thorough legal review, considered by nearly two dozen judges of different ideological stripes.

The courts have consistently concluded that Michael Schiavo is Terri's legal guardian and has the right to terminate her medical care in accordance with wishes he says she expressed before a heart malfunction destroyed her brain.

The courts have accepted prevalent medical opinion that Terri's chances of recovery are hopeless, rejecting the parents' unsupported belief that she could improve with treatment.

But the grief-stricken parents refuse to accept the judicial verdict they solicited and have turned the battle political.

They've found eager accomplices among religious activists who advance the dangerous view that our traditional rule of civil law takes a back seat to some higher law of God when things don't go their way.

The problem is, which of the many interpretations of God's law that are practiced in our religiously diverse nation would we apply?

The move by President Bush and Congress to impose their judgment over the Florida courts by mandating a federal judicial review is an unprecedented perversion of power.

Their job is to enact laws to govern all Americans. To enact a law that governs a single family and specifically excludes all other Americans oversteps their authority in frightening ways and breeds contempt for our judiciary.

The U.S. Supreme Court has already refused to hear appeals in the Schiavo case and ruled in other cases that patients with hopeless medical conditions have a constitutional right to discontinue feeding tubes.

House and Senate leaders repeatedly invoked the Almighty to justify their midnight intervention. Their piety would be easier to swallow if there wasn't a memo circulating among GOP lawmakers extolling the political benefits of pandering to religious fundamentalists.

In signing the law, President Bush said "it is wise to always err on the side of life" when there are "serious questions and substantial doubts."

But he didn't err on the side of life as governor of Texas when he fast-tracked a record 152 executions despite serious questions and substantial doubts about how effectively the death penalty reduces crime, the poor mental capacity and legal representation of many defendants, and denial of DNA tests that potentially could have altered verdicts.

This is not to raise extraneous issues, but to point out that the sanctimonious Bush is not above applying situational ethics to advance political goals. It's long past time for politicians to butt out of Terri Schiavo's life, let the courts do their job and enforce rather than undermine the rule of civil law that is the backbone of our free society.

David Shapiro, a veteran Hawai'i journalist, can be reached by e-mail at dave@volcanicash.net.

And one from IndyStar.com

Dan Carpenter
It's not about Terri

March 23, 2005

According to the best medical opinion and the appropriate courts, Terri Schiavo is existing in a realm that is below human living and beyond hope of it.

But for men who can never score enough points in the glorified wrestling smackdown that is American politics, her tragic case is a live one.

When President Bush proclaimed on Sunday that he and his allies had rushed to Washington from their vacations to "stand on the side of those defending life for all Americans, including those with disabilities," he knew only his half of America could cheer such an absurdity. Polls give him even less than that; but how did this get to be a popularity contest anyway?

Contest, and crusade. Just as every referee's call against Our Side is an outrage, so could any legal or moral objection to Our Side's groundless exploitation of a high-profile family's misery be dismissed as coldblooded atheistic indifference to life.

"To friends, family and millions of people praying around the world this Palm Sunday weekend: Do not be afraid," said House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. "Terri Schiavo will not be forsaken."

DeLay, of course, knows a lot about ethics-based fear, having become a regular subject of congressional sanctions for misuse of power. He has more than survived those, and he figures to thrive on this one too as his forces once again shove aside rules and reflection to go for the jugular of the liberals and the gut of the religious right.

Poor Terri Schiavo? Yes, in more than one respect. From Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a surgeon, diagnosing her from videotapes, to a colleague warning of her impending "excruciating" death, her newfound friends don't know her and would not have any business in her family's life if they did.

Federal legislation for one person among the thousands who've had feeding tubes or other life support removed? How many other individuals in this nation at this moment are in a bind that may or may not be life-threatening and could use some congressional help? Any congressman or senator surely could find one or a dozen. Why doesn't Indiana Republican Rep. Mike Pence, who confided he and his peers "are so grateful for the heart of our majority leader," look around his own district?

I'll make it easy. Start in Washington. Follow the trail of Medicaid cuts and war casualties, direct and "collateral."

Powerful governments cause suffering and death every day through exercise of their ordinary powers. The minions leave smiling for their vacations after performance of these duties, and reassure their constituents they prayed for guidance. They can't be expected to know who died or went hungry for the sake of "national security" or "fiscal responsibility." But they won't overlook that one poor soul who's the subject of televised candlelight vigils and talk shows, even if the sad and sober particulars have to be muddied up to serve the convenience of an instant cause.

I don't know Terri Schiavo's case either. I know the system provided for in the Constitution has labored over it exhaustively for me. I am forced to trust the courts and doctors on this, because the alternative is to throw her rights and mine like a championship belt into a ring filled with strutting Know-Nothings. I hope she and her family find peace, and that justice comes to all who have served her, and all who've sought to be served by her.

Carpenter is Star op-ed columnist. Contact him at (317) 444-6172 or via e-mail at dan.carpenter@indystar.com .

Family of Activist Killed in Gaza Sues Caterpillar

Fri Mar 18, 3:12 PM ET

CHICAGO (Reuters) - The family of a 23-year-old activist killed two years ago in the Gaza Strip by an Israeli bulldozer accused its maker Caterpillar Inc. of "war crimes" in a federal lawsuit, according to court papers.

The suit was filed earlier this week in U.S. District Court in Seattle by Cynthia and Craig Corrie, the parents of Rachel Corrie, a college student who died on March 16, 2003, while trying to block the demolition of Palestinian homes in the Rafah refugee camp.

A spokesman for Peoria, Illinois-based Caterpillar declined comment except to say it was reviewing the suit and referenced an earlier statement that said the company has "neither the legal right nor the means to police individual use" of its equipment after it was sold.

Person runs over their kid with a tractor - sue the tractor manufacturer!

Person kills someone with a kninfe - sue the knife manufacturer!

I live in Los Angeles - smog central. I plan to sue the car manufacturers for their smog-creating deathmobiles.

Gets stupid, doesn't it? We've become so programmed for victimization, that if anything goes wrong in our lives it's because someone else screwed up and that someone else should pay. But they should pay dearly and if they can't then we look for the next biggest target - the one with deep pockets. Can't sue the driver of the tractor? Sue the company making the tractors.

It's one thing if the tractor ran over the girl because of a mechanical failure, that is, due to no fault of the driver. But this lawsuit is blatantly stupid.

Software Pirates
I was snooping out a warez site for research purposes and noticed that this one site tracked the number of times a particular game was downloaded. In this case a game was downloaded over 97,000 times. Wow! Doing some quick math at $40 / game, that could theoretically mean the game publisher lost nearly four million dollars in sales because of this one site alone. Double wow!! Call the police, the FBI, the NSA - this is a travesty. Those software pirates must die, die, DIE!!!

Wait a second. According to the site the game had been up one day. That means it would have to be downloaded about 300 times concurrently every moment for a day. That's a lot of expensive bandwidth and makes the 97,000 suspicious. Maybe it's the number of attempts to download.

But that got me thinking about WHY a game might get downloaded that much. This game wasn't a major name like a Halo or a Half-Life 2. It was a war game which usually appeal to a niche market. But why the tremendous downloads?

Two thoughts why.

In either case the software company is, yes, theoretically losing money but not in reality necessarily losing sales. The freeloader and collector would likely not buy this game - period - but because it's free and it's there they download it.

Does that justify piracy? Hell, no. But there are different types of downloaders. Sure, some downloaders will be people who enjoy the war game genre and will download the game, will play it, and won't ever buy it but I sincerely doubt they make up the bulk of 97,000 downloads.

Sickening! Ranks right up there with how much time is wasted behind a desk, pushing papers, making pretty pictures for Superiors who will give them a glance and shuffle them aside. Making nice with fellow employees while at the same time plotting to make them look bad by comparison so at review time, the raise money heads my way. Suck up to Supervisors only becuase they control the money, not necessarily because they're better people.

Servitude - whether to a job or to a computer. Is that what our lives have become? Where free time means where to spend one's money? Is it right that we have to pay for freedom?

I know - "Calm down Mahatma! Take a vacation. Go see the great outdoors. Breathe some clean air." Sure, if I could afford a vacation and arrange the time to take the kids out of school. Why not wait until summer when everyone takes vacations and prices shoot up?

Servitude - where, if you're not of the privileged class, your life is plotted out for you.

(This crappy feeling always happens when my stocks go down...ignore me)

Wolfowitz and Bono
This doesn't compute on a variety of levels:

Wolfowitz Discusses World Bank Mission with Bono

Fri Mar 18,12:49 AM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Paul Wolfowitz, whose nomination as World Bank president has stirred controversy, discussed poverty and development issues with Irish rock star Bono in two phone conversations on Thursday, an adviser said.

She came into my cubicle with some "Explanation of Sacred Geometry" article that I had to read. It would change my life. Of course, anything would change my life. Any way, without looking at the article I said that "sacred" is an interpretation, an adjective applied by the author. There is nothing sacred in and of itself, and certainly not when applied to geometry. And off we went...

I find what's difficult to get across to people is the difference between a fact and an interpretation, between a given and a hypothesis. For example, this article talked about inertia and how if our universe is moving, something must have moved it and that is God (therefore God exists). The fact, the given is that our universe is moving; the interpretations, the hypotheses are that the movement is caused by God, and that there is a God to cause the movement. I countered that (1) the hypotheses are unsupported hence the conclusion maybe invalid and (2) there are other possibilities for our movement. I mentioned the classic example of circular reasoning: "Only a God could create a world such as ours. Our world exists, therefore God exists."

This is the thought process for too many people: Science can't explain every little nit-picky thing about, well, everything so that which is unexplained (and even explained) must be due to God (or some such nonsense). And with this begins the building of an unstable philosophical house of cards. Too many people are willing to accept some unsupported hypothesis without question. Worse, their belief in the hypothesis becomes unshakable. And with these hypotheses (plural) they end up with conclusions that may or may not border on ridiculous. Or, they use a conclusion that may be valid to justify the arguments supporting the conclusion - the ends justify the means. That mode of thought doesn't work well in reality (*cough* invasion of Iraq), in Ethics, or Philosophy.

I guess this is the crux of Faith - to have a fervent belief in something without a shred of evidence to support that belief. Personally, I find that very scary and those folks who constantly implore us to strengthen our Faith are even scarier for they are telling us - begging us - to bypass our intelligence, to short-circuit our sense of curiosity and for what? To become as narrow-minded as them, to throw away Science and all of its Achievements for Religion and an old, highly misinterpreted book.

No thanks. As Joe Friday regularly said "Just the facts, ma'am!"

Checking On The Lakers
While Miami (with Shaq) have become the first team to qualify for the Playoffs and are vying for the best record in basketball, the Lakers are borderline for even making the Playoffs. And now the talk is about getting Yao Ming in a few years. Sure, we can wait because Kobe's not going to get us anywhere in the mean time. Said ti before, Kobe's a great plaer - no argument - but he's interchangeable with a half-dozen other great players. Shaq is, was, irreplaceable and needed a Kobe-type player to help his team get to the Playoffs. Shaq got the kid Wade and look where they are going. Kobe got the Lakers and look where they are - around 50% in wins. Big whoop!

Hey Shaq, come back...

Max Stirner
You may have heard of Ayn Rand but doubtful you've heard of Max Stirner (1806-1856) and here. He was arguably the ultimate Egoist Philosopher and not too kindly liked by Karl Marx because of it. His classic book The Ego And Its Own is dense, bewildering, and extremely powerful. My interpretation and summary of it is simple: Any -ism that places its needs above the individual is dangerous for then any act can be justified by claiming it's for the good of the group. Sound familiar? America must be safe so we're going to take away some of your liberties for security reasons. That is, America (the Entity, the Government) is more important than Americans and yet America is supposedly about Freedom, Liberty, Justice for all. How are we to enjoy Life as individuals if we're constantly implored to join the crowd?

Assignment: Find more examples in religion and politics of where individuals are subsumed for the Greater Good of the Group. This will not be graded.

And no wise ass comments about how if everyone assumed the Stirner philosophy then we'd be alike in our individuality, making Individuality more important than the individuals.

When you talk about a purpose of something, you imply that that something is a tool and therefore has a creator and/or user, and a goal to be achieved. What is the purpose of wind? You can't answer that - it's just wind. What's the purpose of a hammer? To hammer in nails for a job. Also, the hammer has a creator and a user. So by asking what is the purpose of our universe you imply an entity - in the common case, God - and a goal, an ending. But why does there have to be a purpose to our existence? What proof is there at all that our existence has a purpose? Science hasn't shown such a quality to our existence. This statement of purpose comes from the religious side and as such this statement is based on Faith - that is, without any support. Therefore you have to question why religion makes this statement of purpose. One answer could be as simple as "to keep religion in business", meaning that religion asks whether our existence has a purpose in order to justify a supreme entity and by circular reasoning to justify its own existence. "We believe that our existence has a purpose. This purpose is known to (our) God. Hence our religious attitude towards God is justified."

Worse, to have a purpose means to have a goal, an end, something to achieve. Religiion has had a field day determining what that is - ragnarok, nirvana, the ultimate after-armageddon party...

As an Atheist, I believe that our existence doesn't have a purpose - no Supreme Entity manipulating things behind the scenes. We're not participating in some galactic version of "The Sims". No, if our lives have purposes it's because of our own initiatives. And this holds for meaning. Our life's meaning is what we make of it, not because of some Supreme Entity whose messages have to be interepreted by a privileged preacher class, but what we choose. If we decide to spend our lives blogging and playing video games then so be it if we're content and not hurting any one. If what gives our lives meaning is to travel or to have kids then so be it as long as we accept responsibility for our lives.

If anything, Townes is too ivory-tower about religion. Inside academia, religion may be about deep philosophical questions but outside of academia, religion is about power - controlling the flock to maintain and expand it's own existence. Religion is about money. You go to near any poor part of the world and what will you find amidst the starvation - a church or some religious building. Sure, some of them bring food but they are there for presence, to bring "hope" and by bringing "hope" to maintain control and don't forget to give to the passing plate. There aren't many churches that you can attend for free on a consistent basis.

Crap, another rant! Look, you want meaning and purpose - go outside and look up, look down, look at your neighbor. Smile, breathe, laugh, sing. Hug your kids, your dog, your in-laws. Chill out, warm up, grow up, keep the child within. Learn, experiment, sleep. In short, live a life and enjoy it.

Password Managers
If you're like me and you spend a little too much on the Net, you may find that you quickly accumulate passwords, too many passwords. I sure did and I kept them in an encrypted Microsoft Excel file. Yeah, that made me feel secure! Besides Excel having crappy encryption, the program was a monster of bloat. No, i had had enough and decided to look for an alternative.

I started my search for a password manager and in situations like this I started at Sourceforge and searched for password managers. Quite a few but none of them were quite what I wanted. My requirements were relatively simple: Free and small program size. The whole program and data should fit on a floppy. I found a contender.

Password Gorilla looked about right. Simple to use and install. Heck, no install - just a single program plus your data and it'd fit on a floppy. I thought I had a winner but there was no way to export the data "just in case". A very good program but I tried...

Password Corral. Also easy to use and allows exporting. There's also an additional .ini file but it's small. But it puts the initial data file buried under "My Documents". You can move the data file and edit the .ini but it'd be better as an upfront option. Another very good program but I ended up using...

PINs - this program had what I wanted. Small footprint - you don't need the language files, exporting, editable .ini. Ins ome ways it's a bit harder than the two programs above but it packs a bit more oomph. Get the latest beta version from their Yahoo group site. Before you run it the first time, edit the .ini so that the options aren't saved in the Registry.

Actually, with any of the above programs, you'll do fine. They all have at a minimum Blowfish encryption and track pretty much the same data and all are certainly better than using encrypted Excel.

Physicist Wins Spirituality Prize

Thu Mar 10, 7:55 AM ET

By Larry B. Stammer Times Staff Writer

Charles Townes, the UC Berkeley professor who shared the 1964 Nobel Prize in physics for his work in quantum electronics and then startled the scientific world by suggesting that religion and science were converging, was awarded the $1.5-million Templeton Prize on Wednesday for progress in spiritual knowledge.

The prize, the proceeds of which Townes said he planned to largely donate to academic and religious institutions, recognized his groundbreaking and controversial leadership in the mid-1960s in bridging science and religion.

The co-inventor of the laser, Townes, 89, said no greater question faced humankind than discovering the purpose and meaning of life — and why there was something rather than nothing in the cosmos.

"If you look at what religion is all about, it's trying to understand the purpose and meaning of our universe," he said in a telephone interview from New York this week. "Science tries to understand function and structures. If there is any meaning, structure will have a lot to do with any meaning. In the long run they must come together."

Townes said that it was "extremely unlikely" that the laws of physics that led to life on Earth were accidental.

Some scientists, he conceded, had suggested that if there were an almost infinite number of universes, each with different laws, one of them was bound by chance to hit upon the right combination to support life.

"I think one has to consider that seriously," Townes told The Times. But he said such an assumption could not currently be tested. Even if there were a multitude of universes, he said, we do not know why the laws of physics would vary from one universe to another.

[snip]
"The fact that the universe had a beginning is a very striking thing," Townes said. "How do you explain that unique event" without God?

Townes this week spoke of his interest in the search for extraterrestrial intelligence. The sheer number of stars and planets, he said, would likely increase the probability of intelligent life elsewhere. But for life to get started on even one planet is "highly improbable. It might not have started more than two or three times," he said. "It would be fascinating to find somebody out there."

[snip]

Science and Religion may converge and find acceptable harmony but only if science weakens its stringent requirements of verifiability and replicability or if the religious factions gain a shot of logic outside of their restricted viewpoints. I'm not even sure that mainstream religion is concerned with life's meaning. I feel it's more concerned with gaining (political) power, influence, and sheer survival - not to mention collecting the all-important tithe.

My view: Religion - organized religion - is collective, open to interpretation and perversion. It's a tool to be used by those in charge to manipulate, exhort, and extort the sheep. Spirituality, on the other hand, is a component of religion. It is personal, sensual, and may not have anything to do with finding meaning in life other than simply enjoying "being". But do I get a prize for being a hard-assed science geek with a stronger sense of spirituality than most preachers? Do I get a prize for being an Atheist and a Spiritual person? Didn't think so.

Physicist Wins Spirituality Prize

Thu Mar 10, 7:55 AM ET

By Larry B. Stammer Times Staff Writer

Charles Townes, the UC Berkeley professor who shared the 1964 Nobel Prize in physics for his work in quantum electronics and then startled the scientific world by suggesting that religion and science were converging, was awarded the $1.5-million Templeton Prize on Wednesday for progress in spiritual knowledge.

The prize, the proceeds of which Townes said he planned to largely donate to academic and religious institutions, recognized his groundbreaking and controversial leadership in the mid-1960s in bridging science and religion.

The co-inventor of the laser, Townes, 89, said no greater question faced humankind than discovering the purpose and meaning of life — and why there was something rather than nothing in the cosmos.

"If you look at what religion is all about, it's trying to understand the purpose and meaning of our universe," he said in a telephone interview from New York this week. "Science tries to understand function and structures. If there is any meaning, structure will have a lot to do with any meaning. In the long run they must come together."

Townes said that it was "extremely unlikely" that the laws of physics that led to life on Earth were accidental.

Some scientists, he conceded, had suggested that if there were an almost infinite number of universes, each with different laws, one of them was bound by chance to hit upon the right combination to support life.

"I think one has to consider that seriously," Townes told The Times. But he said such an assumption could not currently be tested. Even if there were a multitude of universes, he said, we do not know why the laws of physics would vary from one universe to another.

[snip]
"The fact that the universe had a beginning is a very striking thing," Townes said. "How do you explain that unique event" without God?

Townes this week spoke of his interest in the search for extraterrestrial intelligence. The sheer number of stars and planets, he said, would likely increase the probability of intelligent life elsewhere. But for life to get started on even one planet is "highly improbable. It might not have started more than two or three times," he said. "It would be fascinating to find somebody out there."

[snip]

Science and Religion may converge and find acceptable harmony but only if science weakens its stringent requirements of verifiability and replicability or if the religious factions gain a shot of logic outside of their restricted viewpoints. I'm not even sure that mainstream religion is concerned with life's meaning. I feel it's more concerned with gaining (political) power, influence, and sheer survival - not to mention collecting the all-important tithe.

My view: Religion - organized religion - is collective, open to interpretation and perversion. It's a tool to be used by those in charge to manipulate, exhort, and extort the sheep. Spirituality, on the other hand, is a component of religion. It is personal, sensual, and may not have anything to do with finding meaning in life other than simply enjoying "being". But do I get a prize for being a hard-assed science geek with a stronger sense of spirituality than most preachers? Do I get a prize for being an Atheist and a Spiritual person? Didn't think so.

Physicist Wins Spirituality Prize

Thu Mar 10, 7:55 AM ET

By Larry B. Stammer Times Staff Writer

Charles Townes, the UC Berkeley professor who shared the 1964 Nobel Prize in physics for his work in quantum electronics and then startled the scientific world by suggesting that religion and science were converging, was awarded the $1.5-million Templeton Prize on Wednesday for progress in spiritual knowledge.

The prize, the proceeds of which Townes said he planned to largely donate to academic and religious institutions, recognized his groundbreaking and controversial leadership in the mid-1960s in bridging science and religion.

The co-inventor of the laser, Townes, 89, said no greater question faced humankind than discovering the purpose and meaning of life — and why there was something rather than nothing in the cosmos.

"If you look at what religion is all about, it's trying to understand the purpose and meaning of our universe," he said in a telephone interview from New York this week. "Science tries to understand function and structures. If there is any meaning, structure will have a lot to do with any meaning. In the long run they must come together."

Townes said that it was "extremely unlikely" that the laws of physics that led to life on Earth were accidental.

Some scientists, he conceded, had suggested that if there were an almost infinite number of universes, each with different laws, one of them was bound by chance to hit upon the right combination to support life.

"I think one has to consider that seriously," Townes told The Times. But he said such an assumption could not currently be tested. Even if there were a multitude of universes, he said, we do not know why the laws of physics would vary from one universe to another.

[snip]
"The fact that the universe had a beginning is a very striking thing," Townes said. "How do you explain that unique event" without God?

Townes this week spoke of his interest in the search for extraterrestrial intelligence. The sheer number of stars and planets, he said, would likely increase the probability of intelligent life elsewhere. But for life to get started on even one planet is "highly improbable. It might not have started more than two or three times," he said. "It would be fascinating to find somebody out there."

[snip]

Science and Religion may converge and find acceptable harmony but only if science weakens its stringent requirements of verifiability and replicability or if the religious factions gain a shot of logic outside of their restricted viewpoints. I'm not even sure that mainstream religion is concerned with life's meaning. I feel it's more concerned with gaining (political) power, influence, and sheer survival - not to mention collecting the all-important tithe.

My view: Religion - organized religion - is collective, open to interpretation and perversion. It's a tool to be used by those in charge to manipulate, exhort, and extort the sheep. Spirituality, on the other hand, is a component of religion. It is personal, sensual, and may not have anything to do with finding meaning in life other than simply enjoying "being". But do I get a prize for being a hard-assed science geek with a stronger sense of spirituality than most preachers? Do I get a prize for being an Atheist and a Spiritual person? Didn't think so.

Let's go back two years. The Middle East was a wreck. Bush launch the preemptive invasion of Iraq. Result: The MIddle East stayed a wreck but many Arabs were united against the essentially unilateral actions by the U.S.. Oh yes, gas prices shot up.

As Bush's reasons for the invasions proved faulty if not criminal, as billions of our dollars disappeared without a shred of accountability, as the U.S. body count started to rise after Bush's statement of "Mission complete!", Iran started their nuke-rattling. Heck, Iran demonstrated those very qualities that were Bush's reasons for invasing Iraq. Iraq desired WMDs; Iran admitted to pursuing them. It sure seemed that Iran was calling Bush's bluff.

Recently, however, the Middle East has changed because of an event for which Bush can not claim credit. Nor was this event the result of the Iraq invasion. The death of Yassar Arafat is arguably the driving force behind Lebanon, behind the progress of peace between Israel and the Palestinians, and perhaps even Bush deciding to join the Europeans and kowtow to Iran. Arafat's death threw a wrench into the terrorist organizations. The Palestinians could pursue peace for real now and they are. And Israel is responding in kind. And Lebanon is shaking off Syria.

And all this had nothing to do with Bush or his policies!

But watch as the Neocons try to mutate the impact of Arafat's death into a brownie point for Bush. Even worse, any positive changes in the Middle East will be attributed to Bush but any negative changes will be, of course, someone else's fault.

As I've said repeatedly before, what makes the Bush Administration so dangerous is threefold:

Please, I support Lebanon in their quest to taste Freedom. I want peace between Israel and its neighbors. I want the threat of nukes diminished. But I can't stand Bush and his cronies preaching that whatever they do is Right even when it's blatantly and patently Wrong. Gah, I can't even write cohenrently about Bush any more - he's such an infuriating nit.

Halle Berry
Halle Berry Halle Berry Halle Berry Halle Berry Halle Berry Halle Berry Halle Berry Halle Berry Halle Berry Halle Berry Halle Berry Halle Berry Halle Berry Halle Berry HALLE BERRY Halle Berry Halle Berry Halle Berry H*A*L*L*E B*E*R*R*Y Halle Berry Halle Berry Halle Berry Halle Berry Halle Berry Halle Berry Halle Berry Halle Berry Halle Berry Halle Berry

Just had to get that out of my system

Halle Berry

Oooops, one more. That's it - that's all. Whew!

First up - Faith-based charities:

House OKs Bill on Faith-Based Jobs

By Justin Dickerson Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON — The House on Wednesday approved a job-training bill that would allow faith-based organizations receiving federal funds to consider a person's religious beliefs in making employment decisions.

Under current law, religious groups that receive federal money for job-training programs must obey civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in hiring or firing.

Passage of the bill, on a largely party-line vote of 224-200, came a day after President Bush told a group of religious leaders that he would attempt to institute the faith-based employment policies through an executive order if Congress did not approve them this year.

In a statement Wednesday supporting the bill, the White House said, "Receipt of federal funds should not be conditioned on a faith-based organization's giving up a part of its religious identity and mission."

Notice the implied threat from Bush to Congress - "Do it my way or I'll bypass you any way." Notice the blatant disregard for civil rights. This bill is a massive step backwards, allowing discrimination based on a religious beliefs. From there it's a small step to discrimination based on race, gender, or beliefs in general. Worse, imagine two corporations vying for a Government contract. One corporation is Christian, the other is, say, mixed. The Christian one gets the contract because it's more in line with the religious policies of the Supreme Leader, I mean, President.

This bill stinks - plain and simple - and that the House passed it shows that those who voted for this rubbish need to be removed from their jobs. But wait it will likely get worse if...

The Supreme Court decides that it is acceptable for statues of the ten commandments to be displayed on Federal property. I bet their rationale will be that since many Federal courts and what-not start with a prayer, since our currency invokes God, since our Pledge of Allegiance also invokes God, then it must be acceptable for statues of religious objects to be on Federal property. That is, many little wrongs make further wrongs acceptable.

If any of the Justices had any cajones they'd say "Bullshit!" to the Pledge, to the currency, and to the prayers. They'd call for the removal of these breaches between the separation of Church and State. Because America is NOT about the White Christian majority imposing their views on the minority. America is about freedom from such impositions, about Freedom from mob rule.

Our Government should have no hand in religion at all. Zero. And conversely religion should play no part in Government. Zero.

Remove the statues. Remove the "under God" from the Pledge because we're not indivisible. Remove "In God we trust" from our money because God has repeatedly proven quite untrustworthy. Remove faith-based charities from the Governmental budget. Let's keep America for all Americans.