40 Songs for My Fortieth

I've had on my mind making a special CD of music to commemorate my turning 40, which happens in January. Here's a first pass at songs that I think should be included, organized by 'my' decades, that is, what I was listening to or what was important to me.

1970s

• "You've Made Me So Very Happy" or "And When I Die," by Blood, Sweat & Tears
• "Both Sides, Now" by Judy Collins
• "You Are the Woman that I've Always Dreamed Of," by Firefox
• "Afternoon Delight," by Starland Vocal Band
• "Classical Gas," by Mason Williams
  

1980s

• "Mean Street," by Van Halen
• "Night Train" by Guns 'n' Roses
• "One Tree Hill" by U2
• "Here Comes the Sun" by the Beatles
• "Stuck Inside of Mobile with the Memphis Blues Again" by Bob Dylan
• "Astral Weeks (Born Again)," by Van Morrison
• "I'll remember April," by Errol Garner
  

1990s

• "India," by John Coltrane
• "Bitch" or "Can't You Hear Me Knockin'" or "Sway" or "Casino Boogie" by the Rolling Stones
• "East of the Sun," by Tony Bennett
• "You Make Me Feel So Young," by Frank Sinatra
• "Mannelig," by Ale Moller and Lena Willemark
• "Wonder Why We Ever Go Home," by Jimmy Buffett
  

2000s

• "'Long as You're Living Yours," by Keith Jarrett
• "Sunshine Song," by Keith Jarrett
• "Have I Told You Lately," by Rod Stewart (for Becky)
  
• "Father and Daughter" by Paul Simon (for Hannah)
• "Nancy (with the laughing face)," by Tony Bennett or Frank Sinatra (for Emily)
• "Polska of Despair," by Bobo Stenson
• "The Goldhearted Miner," by Esbjorn Svensson Trio
• "Acherei Mot," by Masada
• Some Vignette by Marilyn Crispell
• "In Wind, in Light" by Anders Jormin
• "We Shall Overcome," by Bruce Springstein
  

Laughing Away

I spent some time yesterday laughing as thoroughly as I ever have (so far as I remember, with the possible exception of one time in college). I was scanning through a bunch of mock "motivational posters" and then some really great fantasy foods, such as the Turbaconucken (a chicken inside a duck inside a turkey, all wrapped in bacon).

I was later driving home in a capital mood. It occurred to me that for many years I had been thinking about matters of happiness and morality. At different times I pledged to be better and to do better. I resolved to do more and to do better.

Yesterday I thought I could collapse all of that together into a ball, to allude a bit to Marvell, just by laughing. I love to laugh. Who doesn't? I'm good at laughing. Who isn't?

The upshot of it all is that I realized that laughter is both the sign and the practice of my aspirations. Pretty cool.

I wondered about possibly pursuing the laughter as a dissertation topic. There's been stuff done recently, but I think where I want to come in is from a perspective that also addresses the biology/evolutionary aspects of laughter, the cultural uses of laughter throughout Anglo-Saxon England and Medieval Scandinavia/Europe, and the forward-funniness of Anglo-Saxon England (i.e., the way we today look back in amusement at 'them').

I need to think more about this because I would be using rather standard material. The texts and the linguistic data is pretty well established. The only new thing I can offer is context, so it needs to be full and clear eanough to make obvious avenues of research.

To Theists, To Reject Idolatry

The core question is whether God exists. Atheists think the answer is no. We have pretty good evidence that tells us God is very improbable, if not impossible. This evidence comes from many fields, from biology and cosmology to archaeology and paleography. God is also totally irrelevant to morality. There's no law and no prohibition that requires - requires, I say - the authority of a God.

The God idea offers so little. Yes, it makes some people feel like they have a personal connection with the universe. Yes, it helps some people think through their moral choices and their standards. But it's not true. God is a tool, and that's all. God should not be made into a mental idol.

Atheists totally reject idolatry. In this regard and many others we are the better Jews.

So many Jews become agnostic and atheist. So many intermarry. Why is this? Because they learn to be independent thinkers and to ask questions, such as where the Torah and its commentaries come from. When one looks, it becomes pretty clear (1) that the Bible is man made, and (2) that God is utterly unnecessary.

I'm OK with this. So what that the Torah isn't divine? So what that God doesn't exist? So what that Moses never led 3 million slaves through the sea? So what that there's no messiah? So what that there's no afterlife?

It doesn't matter. It really changes nothing. It makes us no different than before. It has no bearing on the past or the future.

Outside of ancient books and commentary, what is the evidence for theism? Where is it? Isn't there even one single fact of physical reality that would independently verify a claim for existence of god, the devil, heaven, giants, ghosts, golems and so on? Where's the frackin' evidence? Or do people just want to decide such matters based on personal feelings of awe when looking at a sunrise?

Proponents of intelligent design always carp that evolutionists and materialists rule out the possibility of divine intervention from the beginning. But what exactly is the reason we should ever rule it in? They seemingly assume that a supernatural explanation is legitimate prima facie. But I disagree, and I think most atheists do too. This is why the burden of proof is on the theist. They are saying there's a dragon in the garage. That's fine, but don't force others to accept the statement as true unless you have the means to support it independently.

How Life Goes

So the trophy wife has been having headaches recently. Bad ones. At first, we thought it was period-related. But these headaches seem to be happening every day, all day, for three weeks now. Not good. The medicine she's been prescribed does not seem to have much effect.

In two days she goes for a CAT scan (is this how it's represented?), and then by Monday we should get a sense of the results. I have no idea what to expect. Both the wife and I are generally optimistic and calm. We are of course aware of some of the scary possibilities, but we just think they are unlikely. What I mean is that we have no basis for assessing whether - based on probabilities - we should fear the worst or not. Therefore, we choose not to worry.

But then I'm writing this, aren't I? I'm trying to wrap my mind around what I need to do if bad news hits. I need to be able to respond correctly and do what I can to establish a positive and stable environment, or at least not make things worse by undue emotion.

Only a few things will happen. The result will come back negative/clean, which means that the problem is not within the brain but is perhaps related to some infection or other external agent. Or the result could come back positive, meaning that there's something in the brain that shouldn't be, maybe a chemical imbalance or an inflamed blood vessel or a tumor. In any of these scenarios, there would be additional levels of specificity we'd need to reach. I guess I rule out the bad, bad scenario because there have been no seizures or other events to suggest that some pressure on the brain was coming from within.

A third possible result is that the scan is inconclusive. The doctors cannot tell what they see or if they see anything. This of course would be very distressing. I'm not sure how we'd proceed in this case, other than in anger.

So, we wait and we worry and we reason and plan and try to deal as best we can with reality. God has nothing to do with this. We don't need prayers, good thoughts, or crossed fingers. What we need is information, positivity, and support.

UPDATE: "It's not a tumor!" The wife called to say that the scan looks pretty good. The doctors think it may be Lyme disease. It's no picnic, but I think it's treatable.

Some People Just Don't Get It (Or, Poe Bill Donohue)

Catholic League blowhard Bill Donohue has a new book out with the awful title Secular Sabotage: How Liberals Are Destroying Religion and Culture in America. The title says it all, actually: secular means liberal (and vice versa), and the bad secularists/liberals are ruining (his) America.

Sorry, Bill, but there are many religions in America, and they are doing a fine job of ruining themselves. For the Catholic Church, I would think the whole kiddie-fucking and covering-up things would be contributing factors in their demise.

Oh, and spare us the jeremiads about modern culture going down the tubes. Seriously, is this theme - "In my day..."; "Things ain't what they used to be..."; "Today, anything goes..." - ever not played out in a society? Yeah, yeah. The American culture that spawned you was so wonderful and pure and christian. You didn't have any atheists or black people and everyone wept to baby jebus for their sins and absolutely everyone in the nation was humble and selfless and gawd-fearin'.

But Donohue's press release for the book is gold. In the release he gives the blurbs meant to praise the book. You know, these are quotes from notable people letting potential readers know that the book is important, timely, or saying what needs to be said. The blurbs are supposed to stir up positive interest toward book sales.

The only problem with Donohue's release is that one blurb shows Donohue's ridiculousnees. This blurb comes from Stephen Colbert, host of Comedy Central's fake news-analysis program, the Colbert Report.

Here's the full release from the Catholic League website:

Catholic League president Bill Donohue’s new book, Secular Sabotage: How Liberals Are Destroying Religion and Culture in America, is now in bookstores. Additionally, it can be ordered online at several book outlets. For $20, including shipping and handling, it can be ordered from the Catholic League: go to http://www.catholicleague.org/ for information.

Here is what some are saying about the book:

• “In these dispatches from the culture war, the indefatigable president of the Catholic League fires on all cylinders. With passionate prose he re-creates many of his hard-won religious battles and offers an urgent warning about what lies ahead.” – Raymond Arroyo, bestselling author of Mother Angelica, host of EWTN’s “The World Over Live”
• “In this bracing, brutal exposé of the anti-God movement, Donohue delivers a common sense smackdown that is both informative and entertaining.” – Laura Ingraham, nationally syndicated radio talk show host and bestselling author
• “Like the man himself, the book is feisty, controversial, impassioned, and important.” – Michael Medved, nationally syndicated talk show host
• “Bill Donohue is right on target. Every Christian needs to read his book.” – Donald E. Wildmon, founder and chairman, American Family Association
• “SECULAR SABOTAGE is an absolute must-read for anyone who believes the Judeo-Christian ethos is the very heart and soul of civilized society.” – L. Brent Bozell III, president, Media Research Center
• “Wake up, America! The secular minority has cut the brake cables on America’s In-God-We-Trust-Mobile™! Not even all 43 of our Christian presidents can save us now.” – Stephen Colbert, host of “The Colbert Report”

Even a quick scan of the blurbs shows that Colbert's quote is different and probably parodic. The fact that it's the last blurb makes the contrast particularly sharp.

Colbert's quote is itself quite brilliant, from the dubious phrase "secular minority" to the trademark to the exclusion of president #44 to the prognostication of doom. It's dead-on parody. Donohue's been Poe-ed

I wonder when/if Donohue or his publisher will realize that the blurb actually pokes fun at the Catholic League's stance. But maybe Donohue already knows that the quote isn't genuine - perhaps he's poking fun at himself. Hmm. I tend not to think of Donohue as the self-deprecating type, if this video is any indication:



Maybe Bill thinks his readers won't catch the rhetoric of the Colbert quote or won't get that Colbert hosts a news show based in satire.

Rant of a Douche

Like a fool, I continue to visit Uncommon Descent. The truth is that I hope to find something that may be useful in my dissertation studies. I have found a few things, but generally the site is home to fairly bright people who crow stupidly.

Case in point: Gil Dodgen, a whiny baby who packed up his toys and stomped away from UD before. He's back, I guess, and here's his latest ridiculousness, "The Sad Case of the Darwinian Fundamentalist":

In the 20th century, a powerful confluence of evidence emerged that essentially eviscerated the creative power of Darwinian mechanisms. This is not hard to figure out.

The most “simple” cell is a marvel of functionally integrated information-processing technology. Those who propose that the Darwinian mechanisms of random errors filtered by natural selection explain all of life are living in an era gone by, a time when it was thought that the foundation of life was chemistry, physics, time, and chance.

The fossil record is a grand and ever-persistent testimony that Darwin was wrong about gradualism. Simple logic, trivial combinatoric mathematical analysis, and the monstrous problems presented by the likelihood of functional, naturally-selectable intermediates, present overwhelming evidence that Darwinian mechanisms are on their deathbed in terms of their explanatory power for anything but the utterly trivial.

In a sense I feel sorry for Darwinian fundamentalists. It must be depressing to realize that one has wasted his life defending a transparently ephemeral goal that has little to do with reality, nothing to do with real scientific investigation, and that has nothing whatsoever to recommend itself besides philosophical nihilism.

*Shakes head*

OK, let's take this bit by bit.

In the 20th century, a powerful confluence of evidence emerged that essentially eviscerated the creative power of Darwinian mechanisms. This is not hard to figure out.

Translation: We are now almost 10 years away from the century that supposedly proved evolution is wrong, so why isn't evolution dead yet? One can already sense Dodgen's bewilderment turning into a temper tantrum.

The most “simple” cell is a marvel of functionally integrated information-processing technology. Those who propose that the Darwinian mechanisms of random errors filtered by natural selection explain all of life are living in an era gone by, a time when it was thought that the foundation of life was chemistry, physics, time, and chance.

If Dodgen is looking to support his position, he's doing a crappy job of it. Sentence #1 is an argument from personal awe and incredulity. His cherished machine metaphor ("functionally integrated information-processing technology") is ultimately unhelpful because it already invokes the watchmaker analogy. In other words, the metaphor stacks the deck in favor of the machine being made by a sentient engineer.

Of course, it's not established that such an engineer made anything. In other words, the very thing under investigation is how the cell came to be what it is today. Dodgen is clearly skeptical about the ability of cells to have evolved. So what's the alternative theory? That they were designed in god's shop and then launched fully-formed on earth? OK. Is there any tangible evidence to suggest that the design hypothesis itself is anything other than gratuitous? What is it? How strong is it as evidence? Does Dodgen have anything more than "I don't like your theory"?

Only two paragraphs in and we're already at the grand stupidity of Dodgen's post: he's completely vague about what - if not everything - in the evolutionary model he takes issue with, and he provides zero argument for how another model better explains the existence and functionality of "simple" cells.

The fossil record is a grand and ever-persistent testimony that Darwin was wrong about gradualism. Simple logic, trivial combinatoric mathematical analysis, and the monstrous problems presented by the likelihood of functional, naturally-selectable intermediates, present overwhelming evidence that Darwinian mechanisms are on their deathbed in terms of their explanatory power for anything but the utterly trivial.

Same problem here. Wrong about what in gradualism, exactly? Is all of gradualism incorrect? How so? If Dodgen has any actual data to back up his topic sentence, he chooses not to divulge them. Instead he goes to a non-sequitur that again argues from personal incredulity. Ho-hum.

In a sense I feel sorry for Darwinian fundamentalists. It must be depressing to realize that one has wasted his life defending a transparently ephemeral goal that has little to do with reality, nothing to do with real scientific investigation, and that has nothing whatsoever to recommend itself besides philosophical nihilism.

OK, here's where Dodgen gets to say what's really on his mind. The stuff before was right out of the ID "science" playbook and he doesn't care about all that anyway. What he really cares about is (1) prognosticating the imminent demise of (the obligatory strawman) "Darwinism" and (2) visualizing mean atheists consigned to the hell-like margins of science and society.

That's what he wants, to fantasize about atheists writhing in a hell on earth. How (christian) loving of him. If we listen hard, we can still hear the echo of his Dr. Evil laugh as he typed up the final paragraph. Maybe he had his eyes closed in a psycho-sexual reverie as he dreamed of Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers weeping together that all their work and teaching had been in vain. "Why didn't we see it, chap?" Dawkins asks. "Why weren't we as clever as that Gil Dodgen fellow to see that our work was not based in reality, was not scientific, and was not as philosophically hopeful as a jewish guy/god sending unbelievers to eternal damnation?"

I swear these UD/ID people make perfect mockeries of themselves.