Foreclosure Bill Dies in Senate

"And the banks -- hard to believe in a time when we're facing a banking crisis that many of the banks created -- are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they frankly own the place," - Dick Durbin [D - Illinois Senator]

Several weeks ago, the Democrat controlled Congress voted down a bill that would have given a new option to millions of Americans facing the prospects of losing their homes (click here). As the above quote implies, there was a lot of pressure from banks and bank lobbyists to kill the measure that would have allowed MILLIONS of home owners facing foreclosure to petition a bankruptcy judge to lower their monthly payments. I blogged (click here) about this in February, about the idea originally proposed by (Republican!) FDIC chairwoman Sheila Blair during the last months of the Bush administration.

Not surprising, EVERY SINGLE Republican Senator (which almost ALWAYS favor business interests over public interest) voted against the measure, as well as 12 Democrats. A significantly weaker bill (which will be hailed as a success) was passed by Congress 2 weeks ago (click here).

If the only news you're aware of are the "sound bites" you get from cable news showing Republicans railing against the bailouts, then you'd think that Republicans are out fighting for the people. These are the stories that happen all the time that noone covers. Noone cares about bills that die in Congress. Thats too boooooooring. Its better to have national news talk about missing children and cargo captains taken hostage.

Waterboarding

This is a conservative radio host ( Erich "Mancow" Muller ) who has criticized liberals and denied that waterboarding was torture... so, he thought... why not have himself waterboarded. The weird thing about this current debate on waterboarding... waterboarding was designated as illegal by U.S. generals in the Vietnam War.

Here's the thing about the foreign policy debate WITHIN the Republican party: Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, David Frum, William Kristol, Henry Kissinger... all those "NEO-con" (chicken) hawks on foreign affairs... they are not soldiers. They've never been soldiers. They've never been to war. Not a single one.

Colin Powell is a soldier. He's been to war. Brent Scowcroft has been to war. George H. W. Bush has. James Baker has. Richard Armitage has. Lawrence Wilkerson has. These were the opposing Republican voices in 2002 and 2003 that were tuned out, when all these decisions were made. Maybe, had the neo-cons experienced war and the "rules of engagement" FIRST HAND, they would have a different perspective on what is and is not torture... and when you should and should not go to war. As the radio host found out... real life experience gives you a different perspective.

Torture

"Safety from external danger is the most powerful director of national conduct. Even the ardent love of liberty will, after a time, give way to its dictates... To be more safe, they at length become willing to run the risk of being less free."
Alexander Hamilton (Federalist Paper 8; click here)

When each President takes office... when he is sworn in by the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, the most important thing that he vows, his most important role as leader of the United States of America... is to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. As Alexander Hamilton was aware more than two hundred years prior, in times of danger and upheaval, even the most ardent proponents of civil liberties can become susceptible to losing freedom for safety's sake. It is up to "the leader of the free world" to make sure we do not succomb to such temptations. But, George Bush didn't do that. In fact, he was leading the cause... violating his sworn duty, by violating the laws of this land.

Now... I like Obama. I haven't agreed with him on everything, but, for the most part... I like the general direction of his administration.

However, President Barack Obama MUST prosecute the previous administration, and their violations of the Constitution, or he himself, will be in violation of the Constitution. Not "should"... not "i hope he does"... not... "it may be a good idea"... NO... He must. Its as simple as that. And this is no trivial matter. The world is watching, but, that is not the main reason for a full investigation.

This is America. We were founded on rule of law. This is not Europe. We have no history of dictators... kings... queens... emporers... caesars... pharoahs... czars... fascist leaders... communist leaders... none! We established a society where no man was above the law at a time when Europe was still dealing with the whims of inept monarchies.

There are no legal exceptions to the US criminal code on torture.

"We did it because..."

Your reasoning is irrelovent. Did you... or did you not break the law? And US law is malleable. If Bush felt there were things that he needed, he could have gone through the legal process to change laws. He could have gone to Congress. Right after 9/11... as spineless as Democrats were... he probably could have gotten most of what he wanted. They didn't want to do that. They wanted to operate under the cloak of dark. But free democracies do not ignore laws.

Obama acknowledges that torture happens. He acknowledges that laws were broken. The President feels that it would be "prudent" and "pragmatic" for the country if we just moved on. Sorry, thats... not... an... option. Thats what Banana Republics do. Thats for leaders who disband parliament on a whim... who wear orange leisure suits and always wear sunglasses and drink pina colado early in the afternoon. America doesn't have that option... and if he didn't want to make that kind of decision... then Obama shouldn't have run for president. Thats where tough decisions are made. If he thinks it will be divisive, then pardon George Bush. Richard Nixon was not convicted of any crime when he was pardoned by Gerald Ford. It is within the legal rights of the President to issue a pardon to any man for any crime at any time, but to ignore the act and purposely avoid criminal proceedings for crimes you acknowledge? Unacceptable.

And now we're having this debate about whether or not there was torture or just enhanced interrogations... yet we're balking at releasing certain photos because of world reaction. Whats so scary on the photos? Its just some good ole' fashion... Enhanced interrogations right? Thats just a phrase they keep saying over and over, (like "enemy combatant") so that stupid people start to believe the distinction you're attempting to make.

"They're not soldiers... they're enemy combatants... um... yeah... so... er... that is... y'see... that means... the Geneva Conventions... dont really... apply to them."

What an assinine thing to say. Even moreso coming from the same retards who insist on saying "war on terror" in all their press conferences. We're fighting a war... but against no soldiers. But, we like saying "war" so we can detain people until the war is over... but, when does this war on "terror" end? We should wage a mighty war against jealousy next. What a glorious battle it shall be! We've been fighting a war on drugs and cancer for 30 years. They just want to be able to hold these guys without trial (as POW's) for the rest of their lives. "Spreading freedom"

Semantics are for morons... they dont work on me. Hows this for a torture debate... at least 98 detainees have died while in US custody. AT LEAST 98 DETAINEES HAVE DIED WHILE IN US CUSTODY.

did they die from poor food? were these senior citizens? 70 year old terrorists? if there is no torture... how did a 100 people in our custody die? debate... over...

Interestingly enough, the "super-duper tree hugging, gay lovin' liberal" media (as Fox 'Noise' claims they are)... for some strange reason... has yet to make mention of the detainee deaths since 2002. You have to go "hunting" for that story. Even with the torture talk, you woooooould think dead prisoners would come up right? Google the subject and see if any of the mainstream (allegedly) Bush hating sites like CNN.com and MSNBC.com come up. I dont think sooooooooo. For some reason... all these flaming liberal companies have been mum on the subject. You would think if someone would bring up a 100 dead prisoners, the "was it really torture?" debate would go away... but none of the great reporters in the mainstream media seem to be aware of it.

The problem with a true investigation... EVERYONE is implicated. The Justice Department wrote the memo mentioned below. The CIA is carrying out most of the work. George Tenet is having torture meetings IN THE WHITE HOUSE with all the "principles." Top ranking Congressional Democrats (Nancy Pelosi in the news this week for this very reason) and Republicans were briefed by the CIA about torture. Judges like John Yoo were giving opinions supporting the change from the Geneva Conventions view on torture (click here). All branches of government have the stench of torture on them.

Forget the idea that an former undercover FBI agent (Ali Soufan), testified before Congress last week and disputes... a) that torture is an effective way to gather information... b) claims of Dick Cheney about intelligence gotten from it. (click here) Interestingly enough, Al Quaeda member Al-Sheikh al-Libi died in a Libyan prison last week. Yes, in 2009, its still happening. I bet you didn't hear about his death either. What great reporting! Go CNN. Im sure there was a missing child or something. Anyway, Libya says it was a suicide. Human Rights Watch isn't so sure. (click here) But, he claimed he was tortured by Egyptians (after the CIA handed him over in 2002... love those "renditions") to the point that he lied about a connection between Saddam and Al Quaeda. Told them what they wanted to here in order to make the pain stop. This was the sole source that made the White House claim (repeatedly) that there was a connection between Iraq and Al-Quaeda in Prague. One guy being tortured in an Egyptian prison cell. (FBI agent) Ali Soufan may be right about torture and unreliable info.

The "torture memo" recently made available by Obama's administration, which is 124 pages (click here) details responses to questions and requests that came straight from the Bush White House. There have been prior occasions where questionable and illegal activity have been done in America's name, and perhaps with our blessings... maybe by some South Vietnamese forces in the 1970's, for example. But, this is the first time that you see undeniable proof tying it DIRECTLY to the White House. The torture memo is a letter being sent to the White House from the "Justice" department. Signed by the Assistant Attorney General.

It goes into great detail about plans to interrogate Abu Zubaydah, a high ranking Al Quaeda operative. The ten techniques to be utilized were... attention grasp... walling... facial hold... facial slap... cramped confinement... wall standing... stress positions... sleep deprivation... insects place in confinement box... and waterboarding. Isn't it interesting how waterboarding, something that was done during the SPANISH INQUISITION, of all things... was called torture by the United States when it was done to POW's during the Vietnam war.




There must be prosecutions... anything short of a full fledge investigation, is just not an option.

Mexican Irony

An issue that is simmering at the moment, but has been in the news often over the last several months, and is one sensational news story away from coming back to the forefront, is drug related violence in Mexico.

Now, I will not pretend that there isn't cause for concern, I would not go to certain cities in Mexico anytime in the near future. But, it seems that there is a certain... contempt and condemnation that some Americans are having for Mexico and Mexicans. Do we forget where the drugs are going? They are coming here. We are the rich kids of the World High School, and we have money to spend. Its, just... kinda weird to judge the neighbor who sells drugs when people in your family are his number one customer. We are supplying the money for this drug war. And what does that drug money buy? Well... among other things... it helps to buy guns. High powered automatic weapons for example.

Hmmm... where might someone get EASY access to automatic weapons... Mexico? Noooo... But close. The answer... AMERICA... yeah... and since we like to vote down any type of ban, including assault rifles... there are Mexican drug lords who come into this country... go to gun shows... and buy weapons to take back to Mexico.

So, we're judging Mexico ("all these deaths! look how uncivilized they are")... for selling drugs... that America buys... and for using those American dollars... to buy armament that has to be purchased here in America.

I have a question... should the average Mexican blame their drug violence on the US?

Einstein - The Young Day Dreamer

Arguably the most influential man of the 20th century, and definately the most influential man in 20th century science. Albert Einstein changed the way that we percieved... not only ourselves, but also the way that we interpreted the world around us. And the story of his teenage and young adult years can be an inspiration to so many, especially those trying to find their way in life.




This is a picture of young Einstein in 1893 at the age of 14. The way that Albert becames the man we know today is so fascinating and so untraditional. He didn't fit the prototype that teachers of his day (and still today?) expected of a young man destined for greatness. He was a good student, but he cut class a lot. The perception his professors had of him was of a lazy goof off. Someone who would not reach their potential. It is sometimes said the most gifted often get bored with normal classes, but in Einstein's case, it seems more a disdain for the structure of school. He'd rather be outside contemplating physics and engaging these scientific concepts directly rather than answering questions in an auditorium and reading textbooks.

To labor the point, it was so bad for young Albert, that after college graduation in 1900, not a single professor would give him a job. He was just another guy after college and at one point he considered selling insurance. In letters written to his family, he shows his frustrations by contemplating that it may have been better had he not been born.

He would eventually get a job as a substitue teacher, just to make ends meet. His dad felt the need to get involved, actively petitioning on his son's behalf with powerful and influential professors, trying to see if any would take Albert Einstein on as a research assistant. He could not. At the time of his father's, he passes away thinking that his son will be a failure.

In 1902, a friend got him a job, far away from physics, as a patent clerk in the Swiss patent office. Again, he wasn't a big fan of the college structure, and it could be suggested that he would not have enjoyed a job as a research assistant kissing up to some college professor. The work that he did at the patent office was not very engaging, he could finish up early and spent a lot of time "daydreaming" out of his 3rd floor window. He cut classes in college to daydream and ponder theoretical physics, and he would have a lot of his brilliant ideas while in that patent office looking out of the window. For example, he often wondered to himself

"what is it like ride a light beam?"

(not something most 23 year-olds think about)

In fact, his daydreams... what he would later term "thought experiments"... would be the foundation for his physics breakthroughs. When you or I daydream, we're goofing off. We're not paying attention. When Albert Einstein does it... its a thought experiment. He didn't have the luxury to work with professors in labs day in and day out. He has a wife and child and needs to earn money... considering the legitimacy of patent requests in Switzerland. And to me, this makes him all the more amazing, because he's changing science in his free time. In 1905, IN HIS SPARE TIME, Einstein publishes four papers that will change the way we view our world.

1) What is light? Explaining light particles (photons), disproving wave theory

2) First proof of atomic particle, even calculating their size.

3) E=MC2: direct correlation between matter and energy

4) Theory of Special Relativity: perception of bodies in motion

That is a career! And its done in one year (known as his miracle year), by a unknown 26 year old patent clerk.

As relates to special relativity, Einstein was riding the bus and daydreaming. While the bus was going forward, he looked back at a clock tower behind him. As most people do, when they're on a bus and looking back at an object, Einstein begins to wonder what would happen if the bus starts to accelerate until its moving at the speed of light. He wonders what he would then see as he looks back at the clock. In his daydream, the hands on the clock stop!

He would later say that this was the point that the flood gates of his mind burst open. Though more than 300 years earlier and related to a totally different topic, Martin Luther would use similar imagery when explaining his total conversion from the Catholic view of salvation. I have a fascination with the mind, and its always interesting to hear a man divulge what totally augmented the way he would see the world.

Einstein knows that for someone standing stationary at the clock tower itself, time is still moving normally and the hands on the clock are still moving like normal... but as the bus reaches the speed of light, the light from the clock is no longer able to catch up to him. If you were facing backwards on that bus, holding a mirror and watching yourself change facial expressions, once you reached the speed of light, there would only show a frozen picture of yourself at the point you reached the speed of light. Like two runners, if one guy is several meters ahead, if they are both going the same exact speed (of light itself), the guy behind will never reach the front runner.

If you talk to the average person from 2009 about this... this is still very weighty stuff. In 1905, this would be mind shattering. So, as you can imagine, the 26 year old patent clerk was very eager for his works, published in the leading German physics journal, to be recognized. But time, slowly, marched on. Months went by...

Finally, Max Planck, a theoretical physicist himself, and perhaps the first person who read Einstein's work... and TRULY understood it... picked up on his writings. But, there would be no immediate recognition, as Einstein would work as a patent clerk for another two full years after publishing such ground breaking scientific papers. Einstein also knew that his theory on "special" relativity only dealt with "special" cases of objects moving at the speed of light. And only when going in one direction. But in reality, what does that? What about changing speeds? What about objects that change directions. And what about gravity? How did special relativity account for that? What exactly was gravity, anyway? A new theory... of general relativity... would be needed.

By this time, Planck and Einstein have begun correspondence with one another. Plunck actually warned Einstein not to even try to tackle gravity. Go work on something else. As Max Planck saw it, there were two major problems. Number one, you can't figure out gravity. Its too hard. You'll just be wasting your time. Its too complicated a concept. How would one tackle gravity from scratch in 1905? Where would you even begin? The second problem that Planck told Einstein... even if you do figure it out... noone will believe you. I blogged about Galileo and his problems with being believed a few days ago. Max Planck understood that a lot of advancement in human history is met with initial resistance.

The physicists of Einstein's day were living under 250 years of Newtonian physics (see above pic). Newton was a major hero for Albert Einstein, himself. He was considered the father of modern physics and indeed made great advancements, but he could not fully tackle gravity. There were certain things the apple could not tell him. All matter had this inate "magical" pull. Smaller objects such as humans have it as well, its just that we dont have enough mass, to where our pull is noticeable. So, in Newtonian physics the Earth pulls on objects. But there's no explanation for why that is... we must just take that at face value (all things pull on others)... and it has been said that this answer never fully satisfied Newton himself.

Einstein would figure out gravity through another of his daydreams. Im sorry, "thought experiment." And he did it while at work in his third floor patent office. He wasn't daydreaming about riding light beams that particular day. He was thinking about guys working on fixing the roofs of the buildings in sight. What if one of those guys were to fall off the roof? What is actually happening? Is that person being pulled? Does the person falling FEEL like he's being pulled down? No. When you fall, you feel weightless. The assumption is, if he were being pulled, he would feel even heavier. But, he when you fall, you feel weightless, as if you're being PUSHED. You dont actually feel gravity when you're falling... or if you're in an elevator that has had the cord severed.

When talking about inertia and laws of thermodynamics... bodies at rest remaining at rest unless acted upon by an outside force... they're not pulled upon... its always a pushing force. But, the 26 year old has to now wonder... if someone falling is being pushed, what is pushing him? And why?

Then he gets it. Space, itself, is pushing downward. The earth has curved the space around it... and the displaced space is pushing downward. Space itself is malleable! Space can be shaped and curved. If the universe with no objects in it, is how space should be... space itself reacts to the planets displacing space. That sounds sooooo weird the first time you hear it. And the next 37 times too. Almost like when you get in a bathtub, you can feel the displaced water on your legs as you try to move your legs. Almost in the same way, the displaced space pushes back... pushes down on the objects on the planet! People today still think that the Sun pulls on the earth and the other planets. The sun does not pull. If a toddler gets in a bathtub, it will not displace water the same way that a 400lb man will. The sun is so enormous... the displacement of space is on such a large scale, that space is actually pushing back on our entire galaxy.

This was realized daydreaming out of a third floor window. It wouldn't be until 1911, before the attention surrounding the article on photon particles gave him the invitation to become a full time scientist at the University of Zurich. So, 1911 would be the first time you could have really called Albert Einstein a professor, now age 32. Once a professior, his "miracle" papers would be taken more serious and scrutinized and the debate over general relativity would begin.. and "tangible" proof would take several years, but he would finally get it (1919).

In 2003, Nasa would use a satellite (when positioned on the otherside of the sun) bound for Saturn (click here) to not only reaffirm what was proven through a Solar eclipse in 1919, but with satellites, prove it far more accurately.

Though there were moments of dispair for the young man, and though it seemed like his life was not on track, the young man was able to not only make his own life better, but help usher in technological advancements which would improve the evolution of human civilization.

Intelligence Defined

As I've mentioned before... one of my biggest fascinations is the human brain. What makes you... you. Why are some people sensitive and empathetic and others are not? What makes one person violent, where another is passive? How do you define love? How much of each person's makeup is how their brain's have reacted to the environment and situations they have experienced, particularly in the younger "formulative" years? How much of each person is comprised primarily of their "inherent" personality?

Abstract concepts (e.g. love, hate, loyalty, betrayal) that revolve around "the (abstract) mind" are very interesting to me, as you can tell... but, one thing I come back to is intelligence. The physical brain. Since I (am forced to) interact with people all the time, its something I often wonder... How smart is this person talking to me?

What actually comprises intelligence?

I'm not usually one for "lists," but I do believe there are four main pillars of intelligence.

The first is obviously... what do you know. There are a lot of people who have potential, but how much information have you actually comprised. (actuality vs potentiality) How much are you aware of? How many concepts have you tackled and comprehend? How many facts do you know? What events are you aware of? As opposed to asking how big is your (metaphorical) library, Im not asking about the size of the building... but, how many books do you ACTUALLY have in your library.

I would NOT consider this 2nd most important, but, since I mentioned the other end, the other pillar would be your potential. What are your capabilities? This would be the least practical of the four... only that... if two people are doing everything they can to improve their minds... the person with far more potential will have a much higher upside. [The bigger library has the ability to bring in more books.] On the flipside... you can have all the potential in the world, if you do not apply your mind to growing, one who may not have nearly the intellectual capacities could be (actually) smarter than you, because that person is optimizing what they do have to its potential.

Another fascinating pillar (perhaps my favorite!) is "retention." How long and how well do you retain what you have taken in? If a professor addressed every test question in different lectures over the course of a 3 week period... without studying outside of class... how well would you do on that test? What portion of a book chapter do you remember after reading? Can you listen to someone give you driving directions and get to the destination, or do you have to write them down and go over them time and time again? If someone asks you to buy five things from the store, will you forget one or two if you dont write them down? Could you get through high school without taking books home?

And lastly... SPEED. Almost like a game show... how quickly can you process the problem and remit the answer? If two people are asked a math question... and they have no access to each other... or any outside sources... if both people come up with the correct answer... yet it took person B three times as long as person A to figure out the solution... we would conclude that (at least as far as math goes)... person A was "sharper" than person B. Obviously, having the right answer is more important than a quick wrong answer, but, the speed at which one's brain is able to correctly process a problem and determine a solution is a good indicator of that person's intellectual prowess.

There may be other things, but they should fall under one of these main four categories.

This is how I define intelligence...

Actual Knowledge - Potential Capacity - Retention - Speed

Thats How You Were Raised?

I have been aware of the flack that Miss California has been getting since the Miss America pageant, but I wasn't going to comment. For one, this is America, you can have any opinion you want, I dont usually care... and more importantly, there are far bigger fish to worry about and keep up with, compared to the comments of a Miss America contestant. I dont even watch pageants... but, CNN seems to think this is news, so this (non)story has been forced on me.




After several days of hearing the same sound bite, one thing finally stood out to me. I'm not going to argue for or against gay rights today, though I am a libertarian when it comes to people and their ability to exercise civil liberties, so you should know where I stand on the issue. But, thats not what I'm blogging about. What was interesting to me was, the apologetic way that Miss California attempted to qualify her answer. I'm not going to do like others and try to make fun of the way she articulated herself. Im sure she was just nervous, and its not as if she was asked a controversial question on national tv, anyway, right? As if most Americans, not anticipating the question, could have done any better. Judgmental idiots...

The only thing that stood out to me, is that in the midst of stating her position, she made the comment...

"thats how I was raised"

That phrase has to be one of the most asinine comments ever uttered. What it really means is, I dont think for myself. So... one would think... that would be one of the last things someone would want to say when trying to intelligently articulate a defense to a position they hold. And if you can't defend a position... then perhaps... you shouldn't hold it.

Now, Miss California is not the first or last person to use the phrase, and I'm not trying to beat up on her. Im sure the people who watch pageants dont watch them expecting to get intellectual stimulation.

"Wow, that Miss Idaho... I found her speech on the DIRECT corrolation between socio-economic issues and crime rates to be very fascinating."

That never happens. But, its just the concept of anyone saying 'thats how I was raised' which has always irk'ed me. Because, the first thing that comes to mind is always... 'so what?' Who said the way you were raised was good? There are too many examples I could use... but, America, IRONICALLY ENOUGH, has a long history of Xenophobia. What if all the children who grew up in those homes just held on to the positions of their parents... JUST because they were the positions of their parents.

"My papa told me not to trust Italians." - 16 year old growing up in 1890's New York City, who is ironically a 7th generation American whose descendents came from Italy in the 1750's

Its like the guy who has spent his entire life in (lets say... a pentecostal) church and "knows" he has the truth.

I'm not (usually) a relativist, I believe in absolutes (depending on the topic) however, I question someone who has never stepped out of his or her "box." I once knew a fool from the pentecostal church... or "asylum" as I now affectionately refer to it... that I grew up in. He was born and raised pentecostal. His parents and grandparents being DEVOUT charismatics, not just sunday morning Christians. And he was QUITE proud of the fact that his form of pentecostalism was all he ever knew. He had never strayed away. Never been duped by the lies of the Catholics... the Baptists... the Lutherans... the Methodists... the Presbyterians... the Episcopalians... or any of their ilk. Never considered there world and their perspective. He was strong. He fought away the poison of such philosophies.

The weirdest thing to me, about that (lack of) logic... is that there are people who do the exact same thing in other backgrounds that are antithetical to yours, yet you consider them fools. Lots of people. And not ooooooooooooonly that, the craziest thing to me... HOW LUCKY ARE YOU... TO BE ONE OF THE FEW... THAT DIDN'T HAVE TO GO LOOKING FOR THE TRUTH... BUT HAPPENED TO BE BORN INTO IT!

That right there... has always been the strangest thing about people who think based on how they were raised. Have they never considered that?

"Wow, I must be... freaking lucky..."

I would try to discuss positions that the charismatics hold, which I find... simply put, to be quite moronic... yet, questioning or even considering an outside position was not a possibility. Not an option. Just like Miss California... and others like her... These people have one objective...

defend what you believe
defend what you believe
defend what you believe

I'm not sure why thats even appealing. I'm not saying one should change the way they think every 2 years, but, you should always be learning. You should always be open to question and challenge presuppositions and be EAGER, not relunctant, to throw out what you can't substantiate. Personally... I look at my mind as the potter who molds clay.




I dont throw out the entire vase and start over, however, I'm always reshaping the clay. Fine tuning the curvatures of the vase. What doesn't work, I pull out. What's illogical, I cut off. And we refine again. Over and over. Learning becomes an adventure. Something you enjoy, rather than something that you tell people to beware:

"You better watch out... listen to them nerds long enough, they'll have you thinking its okay for gays to marry."

A little skepticism never hurt anyone. Natural inquiry. When its working right, the press (our Fourth Estate) is built on it. "This is what the government official said, but we tried to see if we could substantiate his claims."

I'm also a big history guy, I love the history channel and shows about antiquity. A lot of things that we've come to learn over time was based on questioning the world around us.

"Why..."
"Why not..."
"Lets see..."
"What if..."
"How does..."

And my two favorite people in ALL of human history were people who were not afraid to question. I'm NOT saying these are the two most important people in human history, doubt such a list could be created, but they were both extremely relevant to the future of their "spheres" of influence.

Martin Luther 1483 - 1546

Galileo Galilei 1564 - 1642

Unequivocally, my favorite two people... bar none. And just saying that should give you a glimpse into my mindset. I dont consider either man to be a true "skeptic" in any capacity, however, both men studied and questioned... and ultimately took positions that pit them against... quite literally, the entire "world" of their day. Both facing off against the powerful Holy Roman Catholic Church. Both ostracized by the world they knew. Both called to "testify"... to give account... for their heretical beliefs before the authorities of their day.

I wont give their bio's here, (go read up!) though both are very interesting stories.





You have Martin Luther (depicted above) being questioned about his religious beliefs and how they relate to the Roman Catholic church's official stance on Christianity.

And less than a hundred years later, you have Galileo Galilei (depicted above) being questioned about his scientific beliefs and how they relate to the Roman Catholic church's official stance on the Astronomy.

Religion and science would NEVER be the same again. Steven Hawking calls Galileo the father of "modern science." And they were questioning in a time period where it was quite "unhealthy" to question or disagree with Catholicism. A time when there was NO separation between church and state. Where men could die for their views. Where you were not only disagreeing with the majority of men, but you were told you were also in disagreement with God almighty. Neither man being an athiest, such an accusation would be taken seriously. Both men faced not only the strong possibility of execution, but also the burning question of...

"who am I... to question everyone else? can they all be wrong? am I defying God? Can I, alone, be right?"

And that singular question is what makes their stories so similar and so compelling to me. It wasn't just blind unsubstantiated defiance (rebellion just for the sake of rebellion), but, having the courage and conviction to know what you believe... to know why you believe it... and taking a stand (though Galileo would later recant near the end of his "trial" when threatened with medievel torture). I had to point out that these would be torture techniques that were sanctioned in the 1600's... I mean come on... you would have done the same. (click here)

Its hard to even concieve of living in such a position in this day and age. This would not be something a man would have done just willy nilly. Where you live in infamy. Where everyone knows your name, and most people think you a misguided fool. Where you are arguing against the entirety of the religious or scientific community of the day.

"The church has been this way for 1500 years... many a great theologian has come before you and made great articulate defenses of the Catholic system... God has placed a Pope on Earth who clearly explains scripture... do you have insights better than them all?!"

"Astrology and astronomy have affirmed a geocentric universe since their inception... its what God says... its what we all accept... its even what the entire scientific community agrees upon... are you claiming to be smarter than the entire world?!"

Both men could have easily went with the flow... they could have easily just thought what they were told to think and accepted it. Because... as you know, if they had given in and accepted what they were told to think, could anyone fault them? They would have just been living based on...

...how they were raised.