a poke in the mind with a sharp pen

When sectarian ideas become law, countries lose momentum. Economic, and intellectual leadership in the world depend on progress and a country’s progress slows when religion effects policy too much.
There are examples of this throughout history. Centuries ago the middle east was a leader in the world -- scientifically, artistically and militarily. Two of the sectarian ideas which caused them to lose their momentum, are the idea that it is immoral to collect interest on loans and the idea that women are not entitled to equal rights.
Because Arabs could not collect interest on loans, they were effectively shut out of the banking business. Their religious laws sealed their doom, because we know that money is power and banks are where the money is. The Jews, who had no such laws against collecting interest on loans, became the bankers and the powerful. It wasn’t because Jews were such brilliant financial wizards, or that they were evil or overly conniving. It was because the Arab’s own religious law put them at a total and absurd disadvantage.
Because they gave women no opportunities to become educated the Arabs lost considerably more than half their intellectual pool. If you measure physically, they lost exactly half. But consider the contributions and competition that were lost – intellectual contributions and competition which would have made their male academics better. It’s been well proven that countries where women have equal (or nearly equal) opportunities progress better economically, scientifically and socially.
The Arab leaders truly believed their religion which said collecting interest was immoral and women were not equal. They legislated those beliefs and those were among the main reasons that Europe gradually took over as the world’s leader. If it wasn’t for the value of their oil, the middle east countries likely wouldn’t have yet regained a significant role in the world.
Today we have the some thing trying to happen in the United States, where the leadership role in the world migrated from Europe partly because of religious oppression. We have people beginning to legislate their sectarian views. If they continue to do so, they will slow our progress and hasten our fall from leadership.
One of the most important and exciting areas of scientific study today is stem cell research. Some religious people believe it’s immoral, not too unlike those Arabs who believed collecting interest on loans was immoral. Because President Bush and his republican congress have legislated against stem cell research, many scientists who want to work on this most promising leading edge of science have moved and are moving out of the country. And so our intellectual pool and our leadership in science has begun to ebb.
Some of our religious people label homosexuality immoral and are trying to legislate against equal rights for gays. If their misguided yet relentless efforts to make gays second class citizens should succeed, many gays might be inclined to leave the country. Losing that portion of the intellectual pool would further accelerate our fall from leadership in the world.
I heard about a southern community of farmers who hired a consultant to come and tell them how to get businesses interested in moving into their county. They wanted to diversify their tax base and provide employment, so that fewer of their children would be moving away to find work. They had a meeting where the consultant talked about tax abatements, roads, water and other infrastructure improvements that were necessary to attract businesses. The farmers were nodding their heads and agreeing with him unanimously until he mentioned homosexuality. The consultant explained that because businesses employed a certain amount of gays, they would have to be tolerant and accepting of gays in the community. The meeting ended right there and that farming community made no attempts to lure business. If and when those farmers make our country into their community, business and power will go elsewhere and we’ll become a third rate country.
Ah ye greatly religious folk who wish to have your morals de jour legislated for us all to “enjoy”. You remind me of a line from Leonard Cohen’s song “Suzanne”. How long will it be till we all sink “beneath your wisdom like a stone”?

Bits & Pieces

Have you noticed that Republicans are no longer pushing to have English made the official language of the U.S.? Do you suppose they realized that if English was made the official language, not being able to speak it just might be an impeachable offense?
"If we leave, they’ll follow us home." How many times have we heard that line? Does anyone remember that in Afghanistan the Russians fought mostly the same folks we’re fighting now? After about eight years the Russians gave up and went home. They didn’t win. They just left. And nobody followed them home to Russia. How can anybody say they’ll follow us home if we leave, when the same enemy didn’t follow the Russians home when they left?
I mentioned to somebody that Saddam and Osama were enemies and Saddam had nothing to do with 911. They replied that Osama had a training camp in Iraq before 911, so they must have been allies. That’s like saying that because Timothy McVay and Terry Nichols lived in Michigan and were members of the Michigan Militia it follows that the State of Michigan was allied with them.
Do you know what an escape goat is? An escape goat is similar to a Trojan Horse – it’s big, made of wood and you can get inside. The way it works is that when the Trojan Horse comes into your castle through the front gate, you go out the back gate in the escape goat.

It amazes me how many apparently intelligent people regard homosexuality a choice. Given the treatment gays endure, who would choose being gay? Why would anyone choose being gay then spend years in the closet? I never chose being straight. Did you? Nobody chooses whether or not to be sexually aroused by the sight of someone entering the room. Either we are aroused or we’re not. Sexual arousal is a reflex, not a choice.
I assumed homosexuality was a genetic mix-up – some combination of genes that occurs occasionally. I figured scientists would sort it out someday fairly soon and once-and-for-all debunk the queer notion that being gay is a choice. But something exciting has changed my thinking.
I recently heard that homosexuality is caused by a mix-up, not in the genes, but rather regarding testosterone received by the fetus. Three drops of testosterone pass through the placenta during fetal development. When the amount or timing of those three drops varies, it effects the sexual orientation of the fetus.
Apparently the first clue was several studies showing younger siblings more likely to be gay. The mother’s age wasn’t a factor, so it pointed to a variation in the womb, one growing more likely to occur with each pregnancy. Research has revealed those three drops of testosterone to be the answer.
If we know this to any degree of certainty, why hasn’t it made the headlines? Shout it from the rooftops! Haven’t gays suffered long enough at the hands of those insisting that their sexual orientation is of their own choosing? Here, finally, is proof that it is not. That’s the good news. The bad news is that this knowledge is the key to a Pandora’s box.
Knowing the cause, how long till we learn the solution? A year? Five years? Perhaps you test the fluid in the placenta on the 53rd day and add a drop of testosterone if necessary. Do the same on days 66 and 71 and your child is guaranteed to be as straight as an arrow. It’s likely not quite that simple, but we can most certainly figure it out and make the necessary changes. But do we want to?
Isn’t this the point at which we say no? Even those religious folks who decry homosexuality so strong and loudly must say no, that it’s God’s design and we must not alter it. He does not make mistakes.
Anyone needing nonsectarian reasons to say no, must only imagine a world of very masculine men and very feminine women. Such a homogeneous society seems more appalling than appealing.
We are all varying mixes of masculinity and femininity. Most importantly we need the greatest variety of individuals we can get to be the strongest society we can be. Who knows what the makeup of our next brilliant planet-saving scientist will be? What if we add a single drop of testosterone to his/her fetus on the 53rd day, so he/she becomes a professional wrestler or happy homemaker, not a scientist? Thus does our homophobia cause this planet to parish.
Clearly just learning about the biological cause of homosexuality should hasten the eradication of the homophobia malady. However by continuing to pursue this line of research we may find the key to a much more serious puzzle – pedophilia. Might it be possible that by adjusting when a drop of testosterone is introduced to the fetus we could prevent pedophilia? It seems so to me.
Of course homosexuality and pedophilia are quite different. I know that gays bristle at any comparisons, and rightly so. They are however, both variations in one’s sexual orientation, so it truly seems likely that their root causes might be closely related.
I can't see us having any compunction about preventing pedophilia if and when that becomes possible. But what if we become able to identify -- but not cure -- pedophiles when they are in the fetal stage? Should we allow, encourage or even require parents to abort them?
It's difficult to imagine a much thornier issue than this, but the time is nearing when science will make some very tough decisions necessary.

If any of the candidates running for president watched the Kerry campaign, then they know how not to win the presidency. If any of them watched when Bill Clinton answered questions put to him live on TV by college students and if they’ve watched the most popular show on TV – American Idol – then they should know how to win this election.
No I’m not suggesting that ALL that glitz and glamor should be added to question-and-answer sessions. That could be a disaster. But a certain amount, if it was done PRECISELY the right way, would be absolutely tremendously fantastic. So let me spell it out, Mr./Ms. Candidate. Here is PRECISELY the right way.
Plan four televised question-and-answer programs, roughly splitting the country into four quarters. Schedule them each a week or two apart. First, invite the student newspaper editor and one history professor from each of fifty widely diverse universities to participate for a day at each of the four locations. In total 200 students and 200 profs are invited to four locations, each bringing two questions to ask the candidate.
When they arrive, divide them into ten groups of ten, being sure to keep people from right wing schools together and people from left wing schools together to make certain a greater diversity of questions for the candidate. Transparency is the highest priority and getting the best questions is the main goal. You need to show an openness to answering questions from the right, left and center.
At the beginning of the day the ten groups are sequestered and, using secret vote, each required to choose the three best questions to represent their group. Those three questions are then sent to each of the nine other groups, where the members discuss the questions and, again using secret vote, decide which is the best of each three questions.
After lunch all those votes are tabulated and then the top ten voted questions -- one from each group – are discussed by the entire assembled group. The goal here is to eliminate any duplication among the questions, and consider any suggested changes of wording in the questions. If any of the questions are voted too close to being duplicates, the group must vote on which of the duplicates is better and eliminate the other.
All this choosing of questions must be done in total secret from the candidate or anyone in his/her campaign, so that the ones chosen are the questions voters want answered, not the questions the candidate wants to answer. Also the answer will be that of the candidate, not a politically correct one made up by political advisers. Total transparency is the key. The candidate is showing his/her willingness to answer any question the people want to ask, as well as showing how he/she will be open to transparency while in the White House.
After dinner, comes the live televised question-and-answer session. The authors of the chosen questions form a panel seated on stage across from the candidate, while their 90 compatriots comprise the audience. The first few minutes of the TV program tells about the participants and how they spent the day choosing the questions. Then the first question is pulled out of a hat and asked by the narrator. The candidate is given about three minutes to answer.
After the candidate’s answer, the narrator asks the panel whether the candidate directly answered the question or went off in another direction and avoided it. They each hold up a numbered card from one to ten – a ten meaning the candidate stayed on topic and answered completely and a zero meaning he/she did not. Then the narrator asks the panel members whether they liked and agreed with the candidate’s answer and again the panel members hold up a numbered card.
When all the questions and answers are done, the candidate chooses one of the questions and spends a few minutes discussing that question with its author. Finally the audience votes on the best question of the evening, its author is congratulated and given two tickets to the party convention and that’s the end.
Can anybody see how refreshing such openness by a candidate would be? Can anybody hear that candidate promising to continue those exact same question-and-answer sessions with all their transparency every four months when he/she is president? Can anybody imagine what size of an audience might tune in to such an entertaining and informative program?
When used really well, TV can be THE great informer of the people. Here would be a chance Mr./Ms. Candidate. Are there any questions?