text:
tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-87007933146580859092016-10-18T09:20:52.974-07:00The Uncarved BlockFrom knowledge to naivete and back againAndrew Sigalhttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8700793314658085909.post-65569012572032406872016-08-15T10:27:00.000-07:002016-08-15T11:58:23.014-07:00TRUMPED

<xmeta name="description" text="Putin has taken his daughter"></xmeta><xmeta name="description" text="Now the Russians want the nuclear codes"></xmeta><xmeta name="description" text="To get her back he must become President"></xmeta><xmeta name="description" text="He will RANT"></xmeta><xmeta name="description" text="He will RUN"></xmeta><xmeta name="description" text="He will WIN"></xmeta><xmeta name="description" text="
Liam Neeson faces his toughest role yet!"></xmeta><xmeta name="description" text="Liam Neeson IS Donald Trump in"></xmeta><xmeta name="description" text="TRUMPED"
></xmeta><xmeta name="description" text="
[this film is not yet rated]"></xmeta>

PUTIN HAS TAKEN HIS DAUGHTER

NOW THE RUSSIANS WANT THE NUCLEAR CODES

TO GET HER BACK HE MUST BECOME PRESIDENT

HE WILL RANT

HE WILL RUN

HE WILL WIN

LIAM NESON IS DONALD TRUMP

IN

TRUMPED

THIS FILM IS NOT YET RATED

Andrew Sigalhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8700793314658085909.post-5628531313050909492016-05-16T21:43:00.000-07:002016-05-17T08:47:04.195-07:00Airplane Safety vs NextGen

<xmeta name="description" text="The FAA's Next Generation air traffic control system (NextGen) claims to improve aerospace safety, but does it?"></xmeta><xmeta name="description" text="
"></xmeta><xmeta name="description" text="It has been nearly 50 years since the US has experienced a crash that could have been averted by better air traffic control. How do you improve on that?"></xmeta><xmeta name="description" text="
"></xmeta>

Will changes to air traffic control improve US aviation safety?

One of the goals of the FAA's NextGen "Next Generation" Air Traffic Control System is increased aerospace safety. This is something we should all be able get behind. Isn't it? The safer they can make flying, the better. Right? Right? Um, maybe. Before jumping to conclusions, let's take a look at how NextGen addresses enhancing safety.

When most of us think of the dangers of air travel, we are pretty much worrying about not crashing, or being hijacked or abducted by terrorists. Changing air traffic routing has nothing to do with terrorists or other hijackers, but there is no doubt that not crashing is one of my personal priorities when travelling for pleasure or business. What causes airplanes to crash? There are a handful of factors involving equipment failure, human error, and mother nature (e.g. weather, clouds, lighting, birds, pterodactyls).

How can NextGen stop planes from crashing? NextGen only addresses air traffic control, so it has nothing to do with equipment failures, weather, or flying dinosaurs. While the FAA works tirelessly to help protect us from mistakes made by ground crew, as well as pilots that may be poorly trained, overworked, psychologically unstable, or otherwise unqualified, NextGen wont help with any of that either. By changing flight patters, the FAA claims that NextGen will reduce hazards that arise from congested air space, crossing flight paths, and air traffic controller errors. This is important because it will help to stop the scourge of mid-air collisions that are plaguing our skies. Wait. Huh? The scourge of mid-air collisions that are plaguing our skies? What scourge of mid-air collisions that are plaguing our skies?

Aviation Disasters

From the fiery end of the Hindenburg to the attacks of 9/11, there have been disasters throughout the history of aviation. Some will recall Valujet flight 592, which crashed near Miami after a fire erupted in the cargo hold. The disappearance of Malaysia Airlines MH370 may never be solved. Air France flight 447 cost the lives of 228 people; the unexplained explosion of TWA flight 800 will long be remembered. The "Bermuda Triangle" seems to have claimed many an airplane. Celebrities including Amelia Erhard to Buddy Holly, Patsy Cline, Otis Redding, and many others have died in airplanes.

But air traffic controllers (ATC) did not direct the airplanes that struck the World Trade Center towers on 9/11. The one thing we know about MH370 is that it was out of contact with ATC when it disappeared, and it was definitely not in US airspace. Actions by controllers could not have saved any of the airplanes brought down by fire or explosion. The region of the Bermuda Triangle is not controlled by the FAA, and if the planes lost there had been in contact with ATC, their disappearance might not be such a mystery. Celebrities killed in airplane crashes virtually always died in private planes, not commercial flights under ATC guidance.

The history of mid-air collisions in the US

In the middle of the 20th century there were a series of mid-air collisions in the US that prompted the Federal Aviation Act of 1958. This act created the Federal Aviation Agency (later renamed the Federal Aviation Administration) whose primary responsibility was air traffic safety. The FAA has done a great job. According to Wikipedia, since the founding of the FAA in August 1958, there have been just 14 mid-air collisions (exclusive of military aircraft which fall outside the purview of the FAA.) Of course, each of these was a tragedy. But most of them were not commercial flights controlled by ATC.

One incident involved a collision of a commercial flight with a military plane. The two most recent collisions in US airspace involved news helicopters colliding in one case, and a private plane hitting a tour helicopter in the other. None of these would have been avoided if NextGen had been implemented at the time.

Of the remaining 11 mid-air tragedies, 8 involved private planes striking commercial jets. It has been suggested that NextGen actually increases the hazard of collisions between commercial and private flights (aka "general aviation".) The reason is that on takeoff and landing, commercial flights are now flying at lower altitudes, closer to the airspace where private planes fly. Whether or not this is true, NextGen does not address general aviation, so there is no reason to believe that it would decrease collisions between private planes, private planes and commercial airliners, or helicopter accidents. Even if NextGen did make it safer for commercial and private aircraft to share the same airspace, there have been no such collisions since 1990 – twenty-six years of safe flying in our skies.

The remaining three mid-air collisions happened in the 1960's, killing a total of 220 people. The first, the "Park Slope Plane Crash" of 1960, was the result of a combination of equipment failure, failed communications, and human error. The 1965 "Carmel Collision" could indeed have been avoided by better air traffic control. Thankfully, in that incident, of 112 people onboard there were only 4 fatalities, due to the efforts of the pilots of the two planes. Lastly, a mid-air collision in 1967 could probably have been avoided through better air traffic control. Would improvements by the FAA have saved these lives? Quite possibly. But keep in mind that these incidents occurred almost 50 years ago.

A virtually perfect record

There are over 31 million commercial flights over the USA each year, yet there have only been three incidents involving collisions of two commercial flights since the FAA was established, and none in almost 50 years. Over 600 million people fly in our skies each year. Of the billions of people that have traveled by air since the founding of the FAA 57 years ago, just 220 of them died in accidents that might be attributed to air traffic control. I don't want to sound crass to people whose lives were touched by these events, but, statistically speaking, commercial air travel has been almost 100% safe from the kind of crashes that NextGen claims to address.

The FAA proposes that NextGen will improve safety. But how can it? How do you improve on an almost perfect record? There is no scourge of mid-air collisions that needs to be addressed. Travelling by plane is incredibly safe. Even if we include private planes, helicopters, military aircraft, and crashes that didn't involve air traffic control, it is not dangerous to fly. When considering the number of flights, miles flown, billions of passengers carried, and tons of cargo delivered, air travel is astonishingly safe.

Safety is a red herring

NextGen may well have benefits in terms of efficiency, fuel savings, convenience, time saving, and increases in capacity. It is well worth considering how significant these improvements may be, and the trade-offs for people in the air and on the ground. However, the FAA's claim that NextGen somehow improves on the near-perfect record of American air traffic control is specious. When debating the merits of NextGen, we should be concerned about not harming the extraordinary safety of air travel we all currently enjoy. Claims of increased safety should be left out of the argument.

As always, I look forward to reading your thoughts.

Andrew Sigalhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8700793314658085909.post-19891105813972315622016-05-08T20:19:00.002-07:002016-05-09T08:48:26.490-07:00President Trump Faces Zika Head On

<xmeta name="description" text="President Trump's newly appointed Surgeon General reports on the Zika virus epidemic facing workers on the Trans-Mexico Peace Wall."></xmeta>

April 20, 2017, 11:35 AM EDT

Washington, DC (AP) -- At a press conference today, newly appointed Surgeon General, Dr. Bob "Biff" Tannen, reported that an additional 216 workers on the Trans-Mexico Peace Wall have come down with the Zika virus, bringing the total to 892. When asked about the Government's response to this health crisis, Dr. Tannen replied that he and President Trump had come up with a plan to stop the virus, which he described as "tremendous." Pressed for details, the Surgeon General would only say that the plan would "win against Shitka [sic]" and that it was "the best plan ever." He also noted that Mexico would be paying for the Zika eradication program.

Dr. Thomas Frieden, respected expert on the Zika virus and former Director of the CDC, was contacted for his thoughts on the outbreak at his new home in Geneva, Switzerland. When asked about the Trump-Tannen plan for fighting Zika, Dr. Frieden responded, "Call me in four years. Until then I recommend holding your breath." Frieden, and much of the rest of the CDC staff, emigrated after President Trump defunded the CDC, using their budget to purchase gold letters and "dazzle lighting" for the Washington Monument Renovation project.

---Andrew Sigalhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8700793314658085909.post-35856635757711053162016-04-24T21:16:00.001-07:002016-05-08T20:19:06.744-07:00A NextGen Thought Experiment

<xmeta name="description" text="A thought experiment to help understand the impacts of the FAA's 'NextGen' Next Generation Air Traffic Control System."></xmeta><xmeta name="description" text="
"></xmeta><xmeta name="description" text="How much impact is too much, and who gets to decide?"></xmeta><xmeta name="description" text="
"></xmeta>

The FAA planned, designed, and implemented NextGen (their "Next Generation" air traffic control system) with very little public input or scrutiny. Since the rollout, there has been a huge outcry from people on the ground that have been impacted by the new flight paths. Until recently, the FAA seemed intent on ignoring all complaints and feedback.

As readers of this blog may know, I am fond of thought experiments. They help me get my brain around an issue. The other day I got to wondering about what would have happened if the impacts of NextGen were not the discomfort, annoyance, and potential loss of property values that are currently being reported. What if NextGen were fatal?

What if, for every day that NextGen were in place, some number of people living under the new flight paths died. Random people. Not young or old, or with impaired immune systems. Not people of any particular race, ethnicity or socio-economic status. For no apparent reason, every day, when a plane went over, some number of people would die.

Lets think about what would happen if in every region where NextGen was rolled out, one thousand people per day living under the new flight paths died. I would hope that NextGen would be rolled back instantly. They wouldn't just stop the rollout. They wouldn't form committees to study the problem. They would immediately roll back the implementation of the plan. There would be mass migrations of people away from the affected areas – even after the rollback. There would be congressional hearings, firings of engineers and scientists, lawsuits, and massive reparations. Right?

OK. That's an extreme thought experiment. One thousand people per day is a lot of deaths. What if it were one hundred, or ten, or just one? There are millions of people in the bay area. What if NextGen measurably improved airplane safety and efficiency, but, as a direct result of the changed flight plans, one person on the ground died every day that wouldn't have died under the prior air traffic system? I imagine that the effect would be the same as with one thousand people killed per day.

Let's continue. What if it were one person per month? Or one person per year? What if the implementation of NextGen would cause the random death of one person per century? What if there were a one in a million chance that in any given year a person would die? It could be this year, or, it could be a million years from now. At what point would we say that was acceptable "collateral damage" for a new level of aerospace safety and efficiency? After all, even if the one death happened this year, it still probably wouldn't be you. Right? What number would you choose? Or, is there any number of deaths that would be deemed acceptable? If we knew for certain that the chances were one in a million, or one in a billion, or one in a trillion, would people be willing to live under flight paths? I live quite close to the Hayward fault. We are overdue for a major earthquake. When that happens, some number of people are likely to die. But housing prices in my area have never been higher.

What about the other end of the spectrum? What if airplanes were silent and invisible? What if they were undetectable without radar or other special equipment? Now imagine that some people living under NextGen flight paths complained that they were scared by the idea that there were airplanes above them. What if some people said that they were terrified by the possibility of an engine falling off of a plane, or an invisible airplane suddenly crashing into their house? What if they said that they couldn't sleep, their health was failing, and they could no long work, just from the thought of airplanes above them?

Would we expect the FAA to accommodate one person complaining that their life was being ruined by the fear of airplanes, even though there was no tangible impact on them? What if ten people were so effected? What if 10% of people under the flight paths were having their lives significantly affected by the knowledge that airplanes were flying over their neighborhood, even though there was no evidence of their passage? Would the FAA, Congress, and the nation declare that these people were just nuts? Would they say that progress should not be impeded by delusions? What if it were 20%? Or 50%? What if 100% of people living under NextGen flight paths indicated that they were being negatively impacted simply because there were airplanes up there somewhere? Is there any number of people complaining of "irrational" fears that would cause a change in NextGen?

To me the most important question is, who gets to make these decisions? The benefits are some amount of predicted increase in safety and efficiency*. The impacts lie somewhere on a scale from millions of deaths to the unfounded fears of one person. But who gets to decide the trade-off?

As it currently stands, Congress empowered the FAA to make the rules, and then directed them to develop a Next Generation air traffic control system with little or no further input. It was the FAA that decided how many decibels is "loud", and how much of a change in decibels is an "impact." The FAA themselves then concluded that the NextGen changes did not create an impact. There have been lawsuits against the FAA over NextGen, but they are failing, since there aren't grounds to sue. If you sue the FAA claiming that the noise is impacting you, and the FAA says that the numbers show no impact, then your suit is baseless. Is the fox guarding the hen-house, or does the FAA just not appreciate the true impacts of these changes in certain areas? How much do we trust the FAA to make the right choices, and who gets to decide?

I don't have answers to these questions, but, I find them inherently interesting. They help me to think about the actual impacts of NextGen and the FAA's lack of response. I would love to hear your thoughts.

* Note: According to the FAA's Environmental Assessment for Northern California Optimization of Airspace and Procedures in the Metroplex, section 5.7.1, "The Proposed Action would result in a relatively small increase in aircraft fuel burned: 0.40 percent in 2014 and 0.36 percent increase in 2019." This implies that NextGen is less efficient. However, it is not clear from the wording of the section if this refers to total energy use, fuel used by airplanes in while flying within the metroplex, or an increase in fuel purchased in the region for refueling of aircraft.Andrew Sigalhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8700793314658085909.post-68780333117993076532016-04-17T11:22:00.000-07:002016-04-27T21:11:17.477-07:00The FAA has taken my peace and quiet

<xmeta name="description" text="The FAA's implementation of NextGen, the Next Generation air traffic control system, has caused intolerable noise conditions in cities across the country. "></xmeta><xmeta name="description" text="
"></xmeta><xmeta name="description" text="The problem, and solution, begins with their mission statement."></xmeta><xmeta name="description" text="
"></xmeta>
Airplanes crash into my quiet life

My peace and serenity have been taken from me. Nine years ago I bought a home in a quiet neighborhood of Oakland, California. I then spent over two and half years designing and building my "dream house." I am very proud of what I created, and I love being here. But, recently, the FAA took the quiet life from me and my neighborhood.

For the past couple of years the FAA has been rolling out "NextGen", the "Next Generation" air traffic control system. I won't bother going into the details of NextGen – it is a very complicated set of changes, and is well documented elsewhere. Suffice it to say that NextGen has had noise impacts in every city where there is a major air traffic hub. The City of Phoenix, Arizona, was the first to sue the FAA over NextGen noise. Other citizens and cities have sued or threatened lawsuits. Congress-people are introducing bills to stop the changes and require the FAA to respond to complaints. Groups are organizing all over the country. The reason is that NextGen has changed flight patterns around airports, causing new routing of airplanes, and concentrating air traffic in narrow bands of high noise. Two of those bands go over my home.

The relationship between airports and communities

Since the start of commercial aviation, airports and communities have been involved in a conversation. Depending on where and when an airport was built, it may have been sited well away from the city (e.g. the new Denver International Airport), or, it may have been placed close in to facilitate easy access - the airport in Phoenix is downtown.Many airports are built on the edges of metropolitan areas.

But cities grow and change, and airports grow and change as well. Airports that were once on the edges of town may find themselves engulfed by the cities they serve, surrounded by commercial or residential areas that weren't there when the planners first chose the site.

During the 90 years since its founding, Oakland airport and the community have been having a conversation about noise and air traffic impacts. Sometimes it has been explicit: When neighborhoods were excessively impacted, the airport met with the communities and attempted to accommodate their needs. The airport has worked to be a good citizen, serving the needs of Oakland and the region.

The invisible conversation

At the same time there has been an invisible "conversation" going on. Businesses that serve or rely on aviation, and other forms of transportation, have located near the airport. Real estate prices in these loud areas are generally low, so operations such as warehouses and storage units, that depend on low real estate costs, find the area around the airport to be attractive.

Some people want to live near the airport. They may work for airlines, aviation support companies, or the airport itself. They choose to accept noise in exchange for proximity. Frequent travelers may also make this choice, and there are hotels that cater to travelers by being as close to the airport as possible. Some people might live near the airport because they don't mind the noise and choose lower real-estate costs over quiet. Finally, of course, there are far too many people who are forced to live in uncomfortable and unpleasant places due to financial hardship.

Others choose to live away from transit, airports, city centers, and other sources of disturbance. Such choices may mean long, difficult commutes; poor access to restaurants, shopping and entertainment.; they may face high real estate costs and property taxes. Some people are willing to go deeply into debt to purchase homes where there is peace and quiet.

This is not limited to the area around the airport. Any place in the metropolitan area that airplane noise can be heard will experience this kind of natural, organic separation. Residents self-sort by the priority they place on silence vs. other needs. Over years, people vote with their dollars and their feet to be closer to, or farther from, noisy locations. They also vote in elections for representatives that support their needs and desires. City planners establish zoning laws that enforce the decades old patterns created by peoples' choices of buying and selling, building and demolishing. These zoning regulations create the framework of stability that give residents and businesses the confidence to invest in the community.

This is not novel to Oakland. It happens everywhere in America. Through generations of explicit and implicit negotiation, a city falls into a certain shape.

The FAA upsets the apple cart

Then, suddenly, without any notice or conversation, the FAA upended the apple cart - showing no consideration for the delicate balance of quiet and noise worked out over the years. Formerly airplanes flight paths were spread out over a broad area. The NextGen system is now concentrating air traffic in narrow bands. Many of these fly above areas that used to be quiet - the very places where the most noise-sensitive individuals have settled.

As for myself, I have sacrificed proximity to transit, recreation, and city services. I have sacrificed time, effort, and energy. And I have sacrificed money. All because I place a high priority on peace and quiet. I would love to live downtown, with all it has to offer. But I can't stand the noise! So, I live in Montclair where it is quiet – where it was quiet.

The FAA's mistaken mission

How could this possibly happen? Our communities have had an ongoing relationship with our airports. How can the FAA ignore that? I believe the answer is in their mission statement, which reads:

Our continuing mission is to provide the safest, most efficient aerospace system in the world.
Period. Therein lies the root of the problem. NextGen achieves this mission. NextGen makes the aerospace system safer and more efficient. Mission accomplished. The problem is that while the FAA has succeeded in their mission, it was the wrong mission.

I propose that the first step in stopping the noise problems created by NextGen is to change the mission statement of the FAA. I believe that the FAA's mission statement should proudly proclaim:

Our continuing mission is to create and maintain an aerospace system that best serves the people of the United States.
If this had been the mission of the FAA, NextGen would have been designed very differently. The needs, comfort, and safety of people on the ground would have been every bit as important as the safety and efficiency of the system in the air.

The FAA is no doubt reluctant to meet with us, and take our needs into consideration, because NextGen is fulfilling their mission. Changing their mission to reflect the needs of the people will change the whole conversation.

The mission statement that I propose will not be alien to the FAA. Their "Vision Statement" says,

We strive to reach the next level of safety, efficiency, environmental responsibility and global leadership. We are accountable to the American public and our stakeholders.
Somehow that vision of accountability to the American public has been overlooked. The mission overran the vision.

How do we move forward?

We need to remind the FAA that we are their ultimate customers, and we are the arbiters of their success or failure. They should be reminded every day by putting this into their mission statement. The Federal Aviation Administration exists for the benefit of the American people, not for the benefit of abstract notions of safety and efficiency. Change the mission statement and NextGen will naturally change to serve the new mission – one that enhances the lives of all Americans, in the air and on the ground.

Andrew Sigalhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8700793314658085909.post-77732765122663494012016-04-04T10:24:00.001-07:002016-04-04T10:24:38.061-07:00Dukkha

Life is dukkha.

The hummingbird does not know this.

Oh to be a hummingbird.

Andrew Sigalhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8700793314658085909.post-16034382558199334772016-03-20T22:50:00.000-07:002016-03-21T10:01:18.689-07:00The Second Amendment in an Alternate Reality

<xmeta name="description" text="A thought experiment:"></xmeta><xmeta name="description" text="
"></xmeta><xmeta name="description" text="How would those that advocate for gun rights vs. gun control behave in an alternate reality with a different Second Amendment?"></xmeta><xmeta name="description" text="
"></xmeta> The second amendment to the constitution of the United States states reads,

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Gun rights advocates vigorously support the Second Amendment. They point to writings by the founding fathers to bolster the argument that the amendment was well considered and precisely expressed their intent. These advocates maintain that along with the Constitution itself, the Second Amendment has helped this Democracy survive for over two hundred years. Consistently they use the Second Amendment to the Constitution as proof against regulating gun ownership.

Meanwhile, those that support gun control suggest that the Second Amendment is flawed. That it is outdated. That the authors did not mean what it said, or were not in agreement about its content and how it was written. Gun control advocates maintain that the founding fathers could not have envisioned the power of modern weaponry – if they had they would not have used such strong and absolute language as, "shall not be infringed."

As a thought experiment, I like to imagine an alternate reality, or parallel universe, in which the Second Amendment has different text. Let's call it "Amendment 2A" (i.e. "Amendment 2 Alternate Reality.")

Weapons, being capable of creating great harm and suffering, Congress shall strictly regulate the manufacture, possession, and use of arms, and shall enact and update laws from time to time to ensure that new weapons may not circumvent the regulations hereby compelled.
I wonder if, in this alternate reality, gun control advocates would support the 2A Amendment with the same kinds of arguments that gun rights groups use to advocate for the 2nd Amendment in our universe. Would people fighting for the rights of gun owners attack Amendment 2A, claiming that their founding fathers couldn't have foreseen the dangers of the modern world – thieves, rapists, terrorists, and drug-lords. Would they suggest that Amendment 2A was outdated? That the authors hadn't meant it to be so strongly worded? That gun rights should be expanded in spite of the 2A Amendment?

I ask this because there seems to be a strong correlation between conservatism, the belief in the fundamental rights of gun ownership, and originalism (the doctrine of interpreting the Constitution's meaning as fixed at the time of its enactment.) Conversely, Liberals usually favor gun control and also tend towards loose Constitutional interpretation [except with respect to the first amendment, for which Liberals will fight to the death for the rights of the worst people in the world to say horrible things about them.]

I wonder to what degree these sets of corresponding attitudes are based on underlying beliefs. Is strict versus loose interpretation of the Bill of Rights simply a tool to defend or attack on this specific issue, or, do opinions on constitutional interpretation and gun ownership live within the people on the two sides of these issues, regardless of whether or not the constitution supports their position on guns.

If the Bill of Rights contained Amendment 2A, compelling gun control, instead of the 2nd Amendment that we actually have, would gun control advocates favor originalism and strict constitutional interpretation? Would gun rights groups call for loose interpretation? Or are attitudes towards guns, constitutional interpretation, and liberal vs. conservative values, connected at a deeper level. Would conservatives who favored gun ownership rights fight for strict interpretation of Amendment 2A, in spite of the fact that it would weaken their claims with respect to guns? Would liberals call for loose constitutional interpretation, even if 2A was the tool they used to compel gun control?

I wonder. What are your thoughts?Andrew Sigalhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8700793314658085909.post-35558803507056457652016-03-02T09:10:00.000-08:002016-03-02T09:10:07.684-08:00Punxsutawney Phil Says

Punxsutawney Phil says, "There will be 30 more winters before groundhogs become extinct due to global climate change. Then you'll have to predict your own damned weather."

- Cartoon by Andrew Sigal -Andrew Sigalhttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8700793314658085909.post-83132350606403804112015-12-20T23:17:00.002-08:002016-01-06T12:51:59.669-08:00Vote SIGAL for President 2016

<xmeta name="description" text="Vote for Andrew Sigal for President in 2016"></xmeta><xmeta name="description" text=" "></xmeta><xmeta name="description" text="A New Candidate for a New Day!"></xmeta>
SIGAL 2016 – A NEW CANDIDATE FOR A NEW DAY

I have been watching the Republicans for some months now, and I've learned a lot from them. I am now ready to announce my candidacy for President of the United States of America.

I will be running as a Republican. Some of you might be asking what qualifications I have to be President, and why am I running on the Republican ticket. Clearly you are not familiar with my record, so let me fill you in.

I spent 16 years as the chairman of the Republican National Committee, during which time I took that organization from a $3 million deficit, to a $14 billion surplus. Using those funds, I personally increased Republican voter registration to unprecedented levels.

I have outstanding executive experience from my time as governors of both Massachusetts and Alabama. My fiscal policies in Massachusetts allowed me to lower taxes in that state to the lowest in the nation, while I tripled job growth in Alabama.

As for foreign policy experience, I was the chief negotiator for the Allies at Versailles. Later, as Richard Nixon's Secretary of State, I was instrumental in bringing about his famous 1972 visit to China and meeting with Mao Zedong. I have a proven track record that shows that I know how to manage foreign leaders. In fact, just last year Vladimir Putin tried to kiss me in a bathroom at de Gaulle airport, but I was able to say to him, "No, Vlad. Not here. Not now."

Don't bother to fact check any of this, I promise you that it is all 100% true. Besides, only a terrorist would question the veracity of a Republican.

[Oh, and I happen to know that Donald Trump and Carly Fiorina are having an affair.]

Thank you. I look forward to your support.

SIGAL 2016 – BECAUSE 14 CANDIDATES AREN'T ENOUGH

SIGAL 2016 - BECAUSE STRENGTH MEANS NEVER HAVING TO SAY YOU'RE SORRY

My fellow Americans, my candidacy is rooted in a platform of freedom and liberty. Nothing is more important to Americans than the freedom to have liberty when they are free. I will safeguard your liberty and make sure that freedom freely rings across this great land - a land grounded in the free expression of that liberty. I will liberally use the word "freedom", and freely speak out for freedom and liberty in this land of the free. I will use the freedom that I feel when liberty courses through my veins to inspire free liberty and freedom for all.

Thank you for your support. Stay free.

SIGAL 2016 - WILLING TO SAY WHAT YOU WANT TO HEAR

SIGAL 2016 – A WORLD APART

As your President, first thing, day one, I will make it illegal to give a child a name that is hard to pronounce. I will also direct the office of homeland security to stop letting anyone into the country whose names involve funny letters like that "O" with a slash through it. What is that anyway? My name is made up of good old USA American letters. That "O" with a slash through it, I just don't know about that. No one whose name contains an "O" with a slash through it, or unnecessary dots on top, will be let into the country until our representatives are able to investigate what that is all about.

SIGAL 2016 – OUR ALPHABET IS OUR FIRST LINE OF DEFENCE

SIGAL 2016 - KNOW YOUR BORDERS AND BORDER YOUR KNOWLEGE

As your President I will secure our borders. I will set up a 3000-mile-long row of piñatas across our southern border, since it is well known that no Mexican can pass a piñata without having a party.

SIGAL 2016 – BECAUSE LAUGHING IS BETTER THAN CRYING

SIGAL 2016 – IF YOU VOTE FOR SOMEONE ELSE, THE TERRORISTS WILL HAVE WON

Under a Sigal presidency, you can rest assured that I will punch terrorists right in the nose!

SIGAL 2016 - FAKE IT 'TILL YOU MAKE IT

SIGAL 2016 – BOLDLY THINKING WHAT NO ONE HAS THOUGHT BEFORE

When you make me your President, I will bring American jobs back to the US from China using a bold, three-part plan:

I will move all the people from China to the US.

I will give them jobs.

I will mandate that lists of 3 things may include only 2 things.

I will do this on my first day of as your President.

Vote Sigal!

SIGAL 2016 - CRAZY RHETORIC FOR A NEW AMERICA ®

SIGAL 2016 - KNOWING WHAT YOU WANT IS HALF THE BATTLE

Nothing is more important to Americans than feeling that they are safe. No other President will give you the sense of security that I will. I pledge to you that first thing, day one, I will work tirelessly to improve the perception of security that all Americans hold so dear.

SIGAL 2016 - MAKING YOU FEEL SAFE BY ENHANCING YOUR SENSE OF SECURITY

SIGAL 2016 – GREETING SAFETY FOR OUR CITIZENS

As your President, I promise that first thing, day one, Walmart greeters will no longer be allowed to use the internet.

SIGAL 2016 – I KNOW A THREAT WHEN I SEE ONE

SIGAL 2016 - PUTTING THE PEE BACK IN PANDERING

I am deeply angered by my opponents' baseless accusations that I am an atheist. According to Wikipedia, Christianity is the #1 most common religion in America, with Protestantism being the #1 form of Christianity. Evangelical Protestantism is the #1 sect of Protestantism, making up more than one quarter of the citizens of this great nation - the greatest nation that God has ever put on earth.

In keeping with my pledge to uphold American values and the American way of life, I say to you today that I have never been more proud to be an Evangelical Protestant.

SIGAL 2016 - IF ITS GOOD ENOUGH FOR PINOCCHIO, ITS GOOD ENOUGH FOR ME

SIGAL 2016 - EVERYWHERE YOU WANT TO BE

Andrew Sigal is the only candidate that has been endorsed by both Rush Limbaugh and Rachel Maddow.

SIGAL 2016 – BRINGING AMERICA TOGETHER BY SPLITTING IT APART

SIGAL 2016 - STANDING UP FOR NOTHING BY STANDING UP FOR EVERYTHING

I am the only candidate who has the guts to tell our enemies, and our friends, across the globe, that we don't like them. Other candidates are willing use strong language to condemn those that would attack this country. But none among them will come out and say to our allies, "we hate you too." It is easy to stand up to your foes and threaten retaliation for their actions. It takes a really strong leader to go up against our supporters and let them know that they are on thin ice too.

SIGAL 2016 - STANDING UP FOR EVERYTHING BY STANDING UP FOR NOTHING

SIGAL 2016 - BAKING COOKIES FOR A BETTER TOMORROW

I want to be known as the Education President. I won't do anything to improve education in this country, I just want to be known as the Education President.

SIGAL 2016 - AN APPLE A DAY IS A HELL OF A LOT OF APPLES

SIGAL 2016 - TALKING TOUGH WHILE TALKING

The stature of this nation on the world stage has fallen embarrassingly low. World leaders no longer want to come here to meet with our President. Even religious leaders such as the Pope refuse to visit America.

As President I will be committed to reversing this deplorable situation. To show the world that I mean business, I will direct the office of Homeland Security to deny entrance into the country by any foreign leader who refuses to come here.

SIGAL 2016 - CIRCULAR LOGIC IS BETTER THAN NO LOGIC AT ALL

SIGAL 2016 - WHERE FACT AND FICTION ARE ONE

I want you all to know that I know you are in pain, and I feel your pain. So, you rub my back and I'll rub yours - if you catch my drift.

SIGAL 2016 - WISHFUL THINKING FOR THE NEW MILLENIUM

SIGAL 2016 - THINKING THE NEWEST THOUGHTS

All of the candidates from both parties are old. I mean really, really, old. None of them understand the internet and technology the way I do.

As an engineer at Bolt, Baranek and Newman, I invented the internet, the mouse, and the iPhone. I am the only candidate who knows how to send an Evite to ISIS. Ask yourself, would you trust Jeb Bush to get the invite list right? Would Bernie Sanders know how to send out a reminder message? Does Ben Carson know what a computer is?

I don't want a President that might be tricked into giving the nuclear launch codes to a Nigerian prince. Do you?

SIGAL 2016 - DELUSIONS ARE JUST CREATIVE THINKING THAT YOU DONT UNDERSTAND

SIGAL 2016 - ALL CAPITALS ARE FOR SLOGANS

On my web site you will find an eleven-point plan for developing a 14-point plan for reducing the deficit. All of the other candidates will tell you that they have a plan for reducing the deficit, but, when pressed for details, they always evade the question. This is because in reality they don't have a comprehensive plan for developing a plan for reducing the deficit.

With my detailed eleven point plan I am ready to hit the ground running, day one, to develop a plan for reducing the deficit.

SIGAL 2016 - A SLOGAN IS A SOUNDBITE WITH EMPHASIS

SIGAL 2016 – A TOUGH LEADER FOR TOUGH TIMES

Never before in our nation's history have we faced more certain destruction. This country deserves a strong leader to lead it through these dangerous times. I am that leader.

My fellow Americans, as President, I will do whatever it takes to keep our country safe. Nothing is more important than the safety of this, the greatest nation on earth. Not even the first amendment is more important than our safety. Not the third, forth, or fifth amendments. Not even the sixth through 27th amendments to our Constitution are as important as our safety. After all, if we don't feel safe, how can we enjoy those liberties that we each take for granted every single day.

As your leader I will act strongly, swiftly, and decisively to protect America and its Americans. If those in Congress won't act with me, I will appoint Congress-people that will. It has never been more important for the Congress to line up behind their Republican leader.

Everyone knows that there is nothing more patriotic than supporting your democratically elected Republican President. As my mother told me, if anyone in Congress or the media doesn't have something nice to say about their Republican President, then they shouldn't say anything at all.

Now is the time for all citizens, young and old, tall and short, Christian and Catholic, white and tan, boy and man, to pull together as one. With Congress and the Judiciary solidly supporting a true leader - one that knows that leadership means leading - we will restore the safety and security of our country once more. I am that true leader.

SIGAL 2016 – LEADING THROUGH LEADERSHIP

SIGAL 2016 - COOL IDEAS FROM A HOT HEAD

I am the only candidate that really understands the threat that global warming poses to America and our American way of life. As your President, I will face this threat head on. I will direct the Army Corps of Engineers to build a wall across our southern border to stop the hot air from Mexico entering our country. I will also build a wall of fans along our northern border to keep our country cool.

I will do this first thing, day one.

As for the impact of global climate change on other countries? Let 'em buy their own damned fans.

SIGAL 2016 - BREAKING WIND FOR AMERICA

SIGAL 2016 – A NEW RELATIONSHIP WITH THE TRUTH

The other candidates for President have shown time and again that they cannot be trusted. They will lie for absolutely no reason whatsoever.

Tonight I want to assure you that I will always tell you the truth - except when you don't want to hear it, or when it would be bad for you, or when it might hurt my chances of being elected.

A Sigal White House will have a policy of 100% transparency about every issue where we feel that you need 100% transparency. With Andrew Sigal as your President, you need never worry about discovering something terrible that you didn't want to know.

This is my pledge to you.

SIGAL 2016 – WHEN THE TRUTH JUST ISN'T GOOD ENOUGH

Vote SIGAL in 2016

Thank you for your support!

#SIGAL2016

SIGAL 2016 – TINFOIL HATS FOR EVERYONE

Andrew Sigalhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8700793314658085909.post-85699545793260791922015-12-16T20:32:00.000-08:002015-12-17T09:32:37.452-08:00Do You Know That There Are 52 States in the USA?

<xmeta name="description" text="Some people think there are 52 states in the USA."> </xmeta><xmeta name="description" text=""> </xmeta><xmeta name="description" text="It's been suggested that this is because they unknowingly slipped into our time-stream from one in which there actually are 52 states."> </xmeta><xmeta name="description" text=""> </xmeta><xmeta name="description" text="Uh. No. Not quite."> </xmeta>

I recently stumbled across a blog post discussing the idea that a lot of people think that there are 52 states in the United States of America. Apparently, the purpose of the blog, "The Mandela Effect", is to consider why it is that different people remember the same event or historical fact differently. The blog's author has a theory that people may have different memories because they slide back and forth between alternate realities (or something like that.) I think that the author is serious about this idea - but to be honest, I'm not entirely sure.

In the post in question, she wonders if people might think the US has 52 states because they mistakenly believe that Puerto Rico and Washington D. C. are states. She asks "is this simple confusion or a glimpse into alternate geography in another timestream?" [sic] To stimulate the conversation, she provides illuminating anecdotes from a number of readers.

I would have just left this alone, but, after a brief internet search I found that the question of 50 vs. 52 states has come up repeatedly. You can find it on Ask.com, Yahoo Answers, and even a site entitled "Debunking the Mandala Effect". Even though I am not a cartographer, sociologist, or psychologist, I couldn't resist throwing my ring into the hat.

As on The Mandala Effect blog, in the attempts to answer the question, "why do people think that there are 52 states", one of the most common themes is that some people believe that Puerto Rico and Washington D.C. are states. [FYI – they aren't. At least not yet... in this time-stream. ] I find it highly unlikely that misunderstandings about Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia is the right answer. Here's why: the intersection between the set of people that believe there are 52 states, those that know that Puerto Rico is related to the USA in some way, and those that know that Washington D. C. isn't just a city, is vanishingly small. Here is a Venn Diagram to illustrate:

The intersection isn't zero, but it's pretty close.

Granted that my only qualification for answering this question is that I possess a functioning frontal lobe, I believe that this has more to do with two other factors. The first is visual. Here is a fairly ordinary map of the USA – the kind that people run across all the time:

If you have heard that there are 50 states, but you don't really know much about the geography of the US, you see this big blob cut up into pieces. It is unlikely that you are going to count them. It is easy to assume that there are 50. Then there are two other sets of blobs. I doubt that many viewers think about this consciously, but, somewhere in the back of the mind, over time, it is easy to turn a blob assumed to be made of 50 pieces, plus two other blobs, into 52 states.

The second factor is the way peoples' memories work. Our brains are bombarded with vast amounts of information, some important and some not. It is normal for humans to remember approximations, unless, for some reason, they really need to know a fact with precision. If you don't have a compelling reason to know how many states make up the United States of America, your brain is likely to store it as a fuzzy "50-ish". This would be true for a great many non-Americans, and a terrifying number of American citizens as well.

In "western" nations we have the number "52" trained into us, because there are 52 playing cards in a standard deck. This exact number is stored because you learned it while playing cards - especially if your father ever taught you "52 pickup." (Aside: why do I say "your father" and not "a parent"? Because I don't think many mothers are that cruel, and besides, they know that they might be the one that has to "pick up.")

If someone asks you how many states there are, you may recall that it is about 50, but, of course, you want to give a precise number. Your brain's memory systems start looking for the number. Along the way they bump into the big, bold, shiny number 52. You don't want to appear "slow", so as soon as you come up with a number that seems right, you use it. Fifty-two is about 50-ish, so that is the answer you give. If questioned about your answer, self-justification circuits kick in which solidify it in your mind. Also, you just heard someone say that there are 52 states. Even though that someone is you, brains sometimes don't realize that, and furthermore, as far as your brain is concerned, you are an authoritative source. If you said something, you can believe it.

Voila. A pair of really solid reasons why a person that doesn't need to know how many states make up the USA could easily think there are 52, and feel quite convinced that they are correct. No need to slip into a different timestream, the answer is right here.Andrew Sigalhttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8700793314658085909.post-13958775878441041582015-12-15T09:18:00.001-08:002015-12-15T09:23:46.757-08:00Donald Trump Withdraws from Presidential Race

<xmeta name="description" text="Speaking to a capacity crowd at Trump Tower, Donald J. Trump announced today that he is withdrawing his name as a candidate for President of the United States."></xmeta>
New York (AP) -- December 15, 2015 -- Donald Trump withdraws from presidential race.

Speaking to a capacity crowd at Trump Tower, Donald J. Trump announced today that he is withdrawing his name as a candidate for President of the United States.

Earlier in the day the Trump campaign put out a press release saying only that he had an announcement to make, and that "it's going to be huge." Expecting a signature remark insulting a major ethnic or religious group, the media packed the lobby of the 68-story tower venue. But no one knew how "huge" this announcement was really going to be. Trump's surprise statement drew gasps from the crowd.

Trumps speech was uncharacteristically brief. He noted that his goal in running for the nomination as the Republican candidate was to ruin the Republican Party and demonstrate what a "bunch of numbskulls" they had fielded as candidates. He stated that by taking positions that were "idiotic", "unconstitutional", and "wildly inflammatory", he was able to prod the other candidates into showing their true colors as "demented and even demonic."

"Trying to meet or beat the nonsense that I was spouting off, each of the other Republican candidates have made statements that pretty much guaranty they could never be elected", said Trump.

After his prepared statement, one member of the press regained their ability to speak long enough to ask Trump what made him decide to withdraw from the race at this time.

"My work is done here," he stated flatly. "I expected to have to stay in until Super Tuesday, but this was a slam dunk." He added, "Everyone knows I am the greatest in the world at selling people shit, but even I didn't know I was this great." Though he did concede that "no one could have predicted the impact of that lunatic Carson," in helping to unhinge voters, candidates, and the party. "Every time I made a crazy statement, Carson would reply with something even more off-the-wall. That was a gift that kept on giving," said Trump, smiling broadly.

"I'm really excited about getting this thing put to bed so I can get some golf in over the holidays," he noted.

Mr. Trump turned from the podium as audience members variously fainted, cried, reached for hip flasks, or began speaking gibberish into their microphones.

But Trump had one more surprise up his sleeve. Turning back to the audience he made a final comment. "Before I go, I just want to apologize to women, Mexicans, Muslims, golfers, and thinking people everywhere," he said. Trump then ripped off his toupee and used it to wave to the crowd, while stepping onto the up-escalator of the building, ascending into the tower from which he had emerged just six short months earlier.

The Republican Party was not immediately available for comment.

# # # # # # #

Andrew Sigalhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8700793314658085909.post-31013850687422433042015-12-12T15:50:00.000-08:002015-12-14T10:26:29.012-08:00A Brief Primer on the Eight Nights of Hanukkah
<xmeta name="description" text="A rundown of the true meaning of each of the nights of Hanukkah."> </xmeta><xmeta name="description" text=" "> <xmeta name="description" text="If you really screw up measuring holy oil, you'd better prepare to cover your head and CYA."> </xmeta>
</xmeta>

With Hanukkah just ended, I have received many inquiries asking what the heck that was all about. More specifically, people want to know what the significance is of each night. I am happy to provide this brief primer to help everyone understand this important holiday.

The First Night:

This is the first night that we remember a time when a bunch of idiots in the desert (my cultural ancestors) failed to correctly calculate the burning time of a vial of oil. However, celebrating the first night of Hanukkah is really pretty stupid. After all, the oil was supposed to last one day. At this point it had, in fact, lasted one day. So what else is new? I recommend skipping the first night.

The Second Night:

Happy second night of Hanukkah. The second night of Hanukkah is important because it represents the first night on which the Jewish people realized that they had underestimated how long oil burns. As noted, for the entire first day, they were burning a vial of oil that they expected would last for one day. No big whoop. But, by the second night they had to be saying to themselves, "Hey, look at that! The oil is still going. Guess we were wrong."

It was this famous miscalculation that caused the Jewish people to conclude that maybe they should learn to be accountants.

The Third Night:

Shalom! It's the 3rd night of Hannukah, or is it Chanukah, or Hanukkah? Whatever. As long as you've got some h's, some n's, some k's, and some phlegm, you're good.

By this point there were a whole bunch of Maccabees scratching their noggins under their yarmulkes, wondering who measured the oil and what they were smoking at the time. Everyone knows that smoking and oil don't mix, but hey, they were under attack. Smoke 'em if you got 'em.

This is the night when modern Jews make a special blessing that Hanukkah happens at about the same time as Christmas, which is very convenient for piggybacking on Christmas sales.

For those of you that don't know, "Christmas" the holiday in which Christians celebrate the birth of yet another Jew. No one knows how much that particular Jew understood about volumetric measure and the combustion rates of lipids, but we do know that his parents appear to have had a rather shaky understanding of the relationship between sex and conception.

The Fourth Night:

It's the 4th night of Hanukkah! Woo hoo! Half way, baby!

You might be wondering why we light the candles from right to left. Well, go ahead and wonder. I could tell you, but then I'd have to convert you.

Hanukkah Episode V - The Maccabees Strike Back:

By now it was becoming clear that there was a major fuck-up. The oil had lasted five days. All along the big machers were going on and on about the calamity of running out of oil. No doubt the people must have been pretty peeved that they were warned about this huge, fat emergency, but it really wasn't a problem at all. Clearly this is when someone penned the first version of the parable of the "boy who cried wolf."

[BIG MACHER, n - Hybrid English-Yiddish term for big shot. A man who is (or thinks he is) really important. Usually refers to someone who is showing off in some way.]

The <yawn> 6th Night <yawn>:

If you're not Jewish, by now you should be just about as sick of this whole thing as we are.

If you are Jewish, yes, we have to keep on doing this, and no, gifts for the final nights aren't going to be crappy, and we don't appreciate that kind of language in this house. It's not easy coming up with eight nights of gifts for each of you. Your mother worked very hard finding presents that will be fun, educational, age appropriate, non-violent, locally made, hypoallergenic, and avoid gender and racial stereotypes. I think you owe your mother an apology, or you can just give back the gifts right this minute!

The 7th Night:

I'm out of ideas, and making this post format correctly is getting on my nerves. Here's a quarter and some mediocre chocolate wrapped in gold paper that's supposed to look like coins.

Don't spend it all in one place.

The 8th Night:

Amongst much bickering over who was going to lose their job from this massive screw-up, someone came up with the brilliant idea of declaring it a miracle. The true miracle was the whole lot of them weren't fired.

Hanukkah is celebrated for 8 nights because that's how long it took to come up with an explanation that covered their collective asses.

I hope this clears things up and puts the eight nights of Chanukah/Hannukah/Hanukkah in an appropriate historical perspective. Regardless of your faith or anti-faith, may you all have an entertaining holiday season.

A-men.

[PS: Thank you to the many web sites from which I stole the images used in this post.]

Andrew Sigalhttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8700793314658085909.post-70842658446200084502015-12-12T13:46:00.003-08:002015-12-13T00:40:12.092-08:00Technology advances

<xmeta name="description" text="Last night I was made aware of the rate of technological advancement in a way that I had never thought of before."></xmeta>

Last night while watching VSauce, I was made aware of the rate of technological advancement in a way that I had never thought about before (of course, I did more research and added to the original germ of the idea.) I knew all these facts, but hadn't put them all together.

For all of the history of human kind, and probably well before historical times, we have imagined flight. But, for countless thousands of years no one ever got more than a few feet into the air (unless they jumped off a cliff.)

That was true until the first successful balloon flight in 1783. It then took another 120 years for the Wright Brothers to create a viable airplane (1903.) But here's the shocker - from the time of the Wright Brothers' first flight until Neil Armstrong stepped on the moon in 1969 was just 66 years.

In my mind the first flight at Kitty Hawk was ages ago. But, It wasn't really that long. According to Wikipedia, there are 43 people alive today that were born before Orville Wright took flight in a powered airplane on December 17, 1903. Meanwhile, I was alive when Armstrong made a "giant leap for mankind." On August 25, 2012, Voyager 1 became the first man made object to leave the solar system - 43 years after we got to the moon. If you are reading this anywhere near the time that I wrote it, you were probably alive when that happened.

Thousands of years of dreaming -> 120 years from balloon to airplane -> 66 years from airplane to moon walk -> 43 years from moon walk to leaving the solar system.

Wow.Andrew Sigalhttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8700793314658085909.post-38234005371817206902015-12-07T11:51:00.001-08:002015-12-15T09:32:54.117-08:00The Ten Commandments?

<xmeta name="description" text="I have a lot of problems with the Ten Commandments. Here's why."></xmeta> I have been giving some thought to the Ten Commandments and I've gotta say, I have a problem with them. It's fairly common for people to say that regardless of which religion you believe in, or even if you are an atheist, we can all pretty much agree on the moral validity of the Ten Commandments. But the Ten Commandments probably aren't what you think they are, and their morality is questionable. Furthermore, according to a Reuter's article, a survey done in 2007 showed that more Americans can name the ingredients in a Big Mac than can list the Ten Commandments. That was true of me until just days ago. So, when people say they agree with the Ten Commandments, it's not clear what they think they are supporting.

Let's look at the Ten Commandments, shall we? First of all, for the vast majority of people, what they think of as the Ten Commandments, aren't actually the Ten Commandments. According to Exodus – which is hardly an historically accurate document – God wrote a set of rules on two tablets, but Moses smashed them before anyone else ever saw them. Later, God wrote a completely different set of Ten Commandments on two new tablets. The second set of commandments were given to the people, so they are the Ten Commandments. But they're not what you think. Those commandments relate almost entirely to the proper worship of God, containing almost no moral or ethical content. If one believes Exodus (and why would one?) the second set of commandments are the true Ten Commandments. The first set were smashed and thus were kind of an "oh by the way" first draft.

Nonetheless, it is the first set of "Ten Commandments", described in Exodus but never actually handed down to the Israelites, that the vast majority of people refer to as "The Ten Commandments". It is that set that people talk about, or hang on a wall, or engrave onto a set of tablets to place on the grounds of an Alabama courthouse. But even within that set, there is disagreement. Wikipedia provides a table showing the somewhat different sets of Ten Commandments held by different religious groups.

But I'm not interested in errors of understanding about which set of commandments are "The" Commandments, or even about the exact language of each commandment in the set. The important questions relate to what people think of as "The Ten Commandments" - considered to be the underpinnings of Western morality.

To talk about them in any sensible way, I have to choose one version. Since they originally appear in the Old Testament, I am going with the basic, Jewish, first-edition Ten Commandments:

1) I am the Lord thy god, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
2) Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.
3) Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
4) Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.
5) Honor thy father and thy mother.
6) Thou shalt not murder.
7) Thou shalt not commit adultery.
8) Thou shalt not steal.
9) Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
10) Thou shalt not covet anything that belongs to thy neighbor.
The First Commandment isn't even a commandment. It's just a salutation. I don't understand why it is listed as a commandment. It really belongs in a preamble or a signature line. Perhaps God put it there so the Israelites wouldn't think Moses simply made up the other nine on his own.

Thinking about the Ten Commandments as an atheist, the next two are null and void. If there is no God, then they are meaningless. The Fourth Commandment fits into the same category. If there is no God, then the seventh day of the week is just the seventh day of the week; it is not "the Sabbath" and "keeping it holy" is pointless. Even if you believe in a God, then these are rules about how to worship one particular god - they are not ethical statements about how to live a moral life. They are not a guide for how to behave in society.

So, four down and six to go.

I find the Fifth Commandment to be terrible. "Honor thy father and thy mother." Okay, sure. Of course I will honor them if they are good people, and were good parents, and did their best to raise me. But what if they were drunk and abusive? What if they molested me? What if they abandoned me, beat me, or sold me into slavery? What if they sent me to work in the coal mines at the age of 7? Am I commanded to honor them? That's absurd.

On the other hand, if my parents were wonderful people and worked hard to raise me kindly and well, then of course I will honor them for their excellence. Doesn't it diminish my honoring them by telling them that I was commanded to do so?

I cannot accept the Fifth Commandment, even though it sounds good at first. Honor thy father if he deserves it. Honor thy mother if she deserves it. Honor your grandparents, aunts, uncles, nannies, neighbors, mentors and teachers – if they deserve it. If they don't, then defend yourself against them; tell them not to hurt you; tell the authorities that they are molesting you; and so on. Other than in establishing a patriarchal society, a commandment to honor your parents is worse than useless.

We're half way through the list and there is not one that I can accept.

Number six commands that "Thou shalt not murder." Sounds great. But did you really have to tell me that? Furthermore, if we were to believe the Bible, in Exodus 32, no sooner does Moses receive the Ten Commandments than he orders the Levites to slay the Israelites who worshiped before the Golden Calf. So, the Sixth Commandment should really read, "Thou shalt not murder unless your leader tells you to." The juxtaposition between receiving the law from the Lord, and the murder described in the Old Testament, utterly calls into question the Sixth Commandment; arguably the one which should be most universally accepted.

"Thou shalt not commit adultery", says Commandment number seven. Why is that a commandment? Isn't that between you and your spouse? Wouldn't it be better to say, "You are commanded to treat your spouse well; you are commanded to treat your spouse the way you want them to treat you." We are told, "Thou shalt not commit adultery", but feel free to beat your wife, take your spouse for granted, henpecked them, criticize them, browbeat them, or subject them to any form of physical or mental torture. Just don't have sex with anyone other than them. Oh, and by the way, you're not commanded to make sure they enjoy it. I'm going to give the Seventh Commandment a qualified OK, because generally speaking committing adultery probably wont make your partner happy, but as is, I hardly think it is worth the stone its written on.

The Eighth Commandment says, "Thou shalt not steal". Good. I'm good with that… kinda. Obviously I could come up with a dozen examples of when you should steal: you should steal if you're starving to death, or if you know that someone is about to commit murder and you steal their weapon, or if someone has stolen something and you "steal" it back, etc. But that's not the point. The point is that the Ten Commandments are generally considered to be the bedrock of Western civilization's morality, but the eighth Commandment is just about possessions. It's about private property. Shouldn't the moral basis of our society be reserved for ethical statements about how to live your life and how to treat each other, rather than about material goods? This commandment is fine; it just doesn't deserve a spot in the top ten.

Wow, only two to go and I haven't found a single commandment that I can really advocate for.

Commandment number nine: "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor." All right! Finally! A real statement about how to behave in a civilized society. Thank you. The Ninth Commandment works. Whew.

The last commandment reads, "Thou shalt not covet anything that belongs to thy neighbor." Depending upon your source, it might specify your neighbor's house, wife, servants, animals, etc. Once again, other than your neighbor's wife, this is really about material goods. [For the versions that specifically mention "your neighbor's wife", the implication that she is a possession presents a whole extra set of problems.] I find this Commandment to be much worse than the materialist Eighth Commandment, because this Commandment is about coveting. To "covet", is to yearn to possess something, to desire wrongfully, or simply to wish for eagerly. But yearning, desiring, or wishing are thoughts, not actions. So the Tenth Commandment is commanding you not to think something, regardless of whether or not you're going to act upon that thought. This is the work of the thought police. I can't accept the Tenth Commandment at all.

[Note: if your set of Commandments includes the "your neighbor's wife" clause, it has to make you wonder if the 10th Commandment doesn't apply to (heterosexual) women. In fact, do any of the commandments apply to women? Of course I am being ridiculous. Though it's a bit late to be pointing out that the Bible is utterly patriarchal and misogynistic, it is clear that nothing in the bible applies to women, slaves (!), animals, children (even male children), unbelievers, or members of other tribes. As far as the authors of the bible were concerned, they were all sub-human.]

In summary, of the Ten Commandments, one isnt a commandment at all; three are meaningless (or if you are a theist, they are meaningful but not useful as moral precepts); two are terrible; two are OK, but morally ambiguous; one would be good if it weren't nullified by the context of the Old Testament; and one, just one, as written in the Bible, truly deserves to be a grounding principle of our culture.

Meanwhile, in reading the Old Testament and learning the circumstances of Moses supposedly receiving the Ten Commandments from God, I have to conclude that Moses was a sanctimonious moron with serious short-term memory problems. If we are to believe Exodus 32, he went up Mount Sinai and there received the stone tablets inscribed with the Ten Commandments. He was up there for a long time - God knows what he was doing all that while. Because he was gone so long, the Israelites lost faith in him and created the Golden Calf. In Exodus 32.9-10 we are told that God looked down from Mount Sinai [Huh? Isn't God everywhere? Why does he need to "look" in any particular direction?] and saw that the people were praying to the Golden Calf. He was furious, declaring that he would destroy the people for what they had done. But in Exodus 32.11-13, Moses talks God out of it. [Huh? God is infallible and omniscient, but you can talk him into changing his mind?]

Moses then descended the mountain and saw the people praying to the Golden Calf. He became enraged. He, "hurled the tablets from his hands and shattered them at the foot of the mountain."(Exodus 32.19) Are you kidding me? God told Moses that the people were praying to a false idol. But Moses forgot while hiking down the hill? I know Moses was old, and likely forgetful, but that sounds like something he might have kept in mind. We are told that he was so peevish that he smashed the gift that The Lord created with His own hand. Really? I don't care if they were fornicating with the Golden Calf. Smashing God's tablets is more than a temper tantrum. Then, having just talked God out of killing the Israelites, Moses calls the faithful to him saying, "thus says the Lord, the God of Israel: each of you put sword on thigh, go back and forth from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay brother, neighbor, and kin" (Exodus 32.27). Uh, Really? So Moses talks God out of his fury, then goes down the mountain and is so furious himself that he destroys the tablets containing the Ten Commandments, and orders the faithful to kill "some 3000 of the people" - which, we note, is a violation of the Sixth Commandment that he just received. Did Moses have a stroke while hiking down Mount Saini? If so, Exodus doesn't mention it. The Lord then makes what is supposed to be a copy of the first tablets, but turns out to be a completely different set of Ten Commandments. Maybe God also suffers from memory loss? Moses successfully gives the new-and-improved Commandments to the remaining people.

So that story is pretty psychopathic, but here's the worst thing about it: The Commandment that the Israelites had supposedly disobeyed, and for which they were put to death, hadn't yet been given to them at the time of their transgression. The first set of Ten Commandments says, "thou shalt have no other gods before me," but when the Israelites made the Golden Calf, and prayed to it as a God, they had not yet been told that they must not do so. Therefore, wiping them out, as God had wanted to do, or killing 3000 of their number as Moses did, is utterly unreasonable. We don't retroactively punish people for breaking newly minted laws. Why should God, or his servant, Moses?

OK. So, the Ten Commandments that we speak of aren't theTen Commandments, and no one remembers what they are, and only one of them is worth the stone its written on, and the circumstances described in Exodus are indicative of sociopathy. Well, how have we done obeying God's Commandments? Lousy.

Every second of every day, somewhere on earth, millions upon millions of people are breaking at least one of the Ten Commandments. Every moment someone, somewhere, is taking the Lord's name in vain. I'm hard-pressed to believe that there is a millisecond that goes by when someone isn't making a graven image or regarding one. Go to any city or town anywhere in America on any given Saturday or Sunday, and you will find businesses that are open. We can argue about which day is the Sabbath, but there is no questioning the fact that it has not been kept "holy". The statistics on murder are stunning. Robbery, theft, and burglary are even more common than murder. Sociologists have shown that adultery is commonplace. People bear false witness, gossiping and lying about each other, all the time. Everyone, everywhere, (with the possible exception of the of the Dalai Lama) covets things. In most of the world, encouraging people to covet is a major industry.

So really, rather than engraving the Ten Commandments on two tablets of stone, God might as well have sent a card. We would've read it, said, "yeah, sounds good," and thrown in a shoebox with birthday, get-well, and sympathy cards.

The Ten Commandments? Don't be ridiculous. Just do unto others as you would have them do unto you, and we'll all get along just fine. Or, if you want a better set of Ten Commandments, check out Ten Commandments That Would Have Changed the World.

Andrew Sigalhttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8700793314658085909.post-22694146156949550492015-12-04T16:37:00.000-08:002016-06-13T09:55:05.396-07:00#WhatIsOurFuckingProblem

#shootings + #massacre + #Pulse + #AuroraShooting + #JeSuisCharlie + #PrayForNewton + #ChapelHill + #PrayForParis + #PorteOuverte + #SandyHook + #PrayForMoncton + #UCCShooting + #SanBernardino = #WhatIsOurFuckingProblem.

<xmeta name="description" text="A Facebook cover photo for your use"></xmeta><xmeta name="description" text="#WhatIsOurFuckingProblem"></xmeta>

Presented here for your use, a Facebook cover photo, 851x315 pixels.

PNG Format

JPG Format

PSD (Adobe Photoshop) Format

#WhatIsOurFuckingProblem by Andrew Sigal is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Andrew Sigalhttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8700793314658085909.post-87921429584590946872015-12-04T08:53:00.000-08:002016-01-13T20:33:36.553-08:00San Bernardino

<xmeta name="description" text="A thought experiment about the reaction to the San Bernardino shootings in an American without a history of gun violence."> </xmeta>
I've been thinking a lot about the San Bernardino shooting and I've been discussing gun violence issues with friends that are both pro- and anti- gun control.

Last night I came up with a thought experiment that has been heavy on my mind: Imagine that there was almost no history of gun violence in America. Pretend that there had never been a mass shooting in this country, and that domestic gun violence and accidental shootings were something that happened once a decade, not multiple times each day. In this fictional America there isn't a problem of gang shootings, the most recent Presidential assassination was Lincoln, and no bank or gas station was ever robbed at gunpoint.

Try to picture that scenario, then visualize the reaction to the San Bernardino shooting. The entire nation would collectively flip out. It would be the biggest news story of the year. There would be televised congressional hearings. We would stay home from work to watch the proceedings. We would all want to know where, when, and how the perpetrators got the guns and ammunition that they used.

It would be Watergate, Iran-Contra, and the Teapot Dome scandal all rolled into one. There would be marches on Washington. Someone would suggest that President Obama should be impeached since the tragedy happened on his watch. We would demand that mechanisms be put in place to make sure that nothing like the San Bernardino massacre could ever happen again. A modern day Upton Sinclair would write a modern day "The Jungle". Within six months, bookstore shelves would be filled with volumes on the subject. There would be three major motion pictures dramatizing the event.

Now come back to the real world. We hear about San Bernardino and say, "oh crap, another one." We create a hashtag. The NRA has a $10 off sale on membership. We go on with our lives.

I put it to you that #SanBernardino isn't the right hashtag. The right hashtag is #WhatIsOurFuckingProblem.

Sigh.Andrew Sigalhttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8700793314658085909.post-81543344700201196282015-11-26T10:37:00.001-08:002015-12-02T08:13:39.022-08:00Could Trump's campaign be a net profit for his enterprises?

I've been thinking about the presidential campaign of Donald Trump. That's hardly a surprising admission, since it's almost impossible to live in America without hearing about The Donald on a regular basis these days. This morning I was reading about one of his golf courses. It got me to wondering what his campaign is costing him. According to the Wall Street Journal, though claiming to be funding his campaign himself, he has spent only about $100,000 of his own money as of 9/30/15.

Trump's Federal Election Commission report shows that in the quarter ended Sept. 30, he spent only $100,800 of his own money, while raising $3.8 million from what his campaign called "unsolicited" donors, 119 of whom gave the maximum $2,700 contribution. He received 317 checks for $1,000 or more.

But, the question I wonder about isn't donations he is receiving, or the disposition of funds from selling hats, t-shirts and mugs. I wonder about the benefits to his lodging and entertainment properties as a result of his run for the presidency.

[Note: I am not an investigative journalist. I have not researched Trump's finances, nor do I have access to any information other than that which has been reported by news agencies. This is purely a thought experiment.]

Obviously, Donald Trump is no stranger to the benefits of publicity to his brand. His garish branding is either the height of narcissism, or a brilliant business move, or both (or a fortuitous accident.) The free publicity of his reality show, The Apprentice, undoubtedly helped the Trump brand among his customer base. If a viewer were a fan of The Apprentice, they might well choose to stay at a Trump casino, resort, or hotel for their next vacation. It is clear that, had his many properties each borne unique names, The Apprentice would have been far less helpful to Trump's businesses.

Is Trump's presidential campaign helping his business empire in the same way that The Apprentice did? My guess is a resounding "of course." Further, I doubt that Trump is unaware of this effect. Though his campaign appears to be nothing more than a narcissistic fantasy, I can't help wondering if it is, in fact, a well planning publicity ploy – months of free advertising for his enterprises. Though he may be a dummy, he is no fool.

Those who feel that Mr. Trump is a buffoon are unlikely to have ever wanted to patronize any of his establishments. They won't vote for Trump, and they wouldn't have stayed at his casino, so the bigotry and egotism he is showing on camera is not alienating them from his customer base. Meanwhile, people that were already Trump patrons are likely entertained or enthralled by his rhetoric. They may even be inspired to add a Trump destination vacation to their calendars, as they are ever reminding of his existence. A third group are the "undecideds"; not those who are undecided about who to vote for, but rather those who are undecided about where to go on vacation.

I recall several years ago sitting in a favorite Mexican restaurant in Boulder, Colorado, located right near the campus of the University of Colorado. I was seated near a large group of students who were planning a Vegas vacation. They were debating, with great volume and enthusiasm, various details of the trip, especially where to stay. They discussed what place had the best price, the cheapest food, the best location, the best disco, the best pool, the cheapest drinks, and how many people they could pack into a given room (curiously, the casino didn't seem to enter the conversation.) While they were very concerned about cost, the number one consideration that came up, time and time again, was which place would be the most fun. I can imagine that conversation happening today. I have no doubt that Trump Las Vegas would be given serious consideration. Not only would the name Trump be on everyone's mind, but staying at the Trump property would be a lark – it would have that extra element of fun and excitement, and the next 100 times The Donald appeared on TV, the students would be able to recount staying at Trump's casino hotel.

I can only guess about how Trump's campaign might be effecting his pocketbook. The $100K reported in the WSJ is clearly chump-change to Trump ("Trump-change"?) But Trump's comments about Mexicans did lose him his relationships with NBC, Univision, NASCAR, PGA, Serta, Macy's, ESPN, and a host of others. It has probably also lost Latino customers for his businesses. That is likely to be real money. I wonder if those losses are being offset by increased attendance at his properties by people that he has not actively offended. There is an old adage that says that there is no such thing as bad publicity. Michael Jackson's pedophilia charges, Lance Armstrong's admission of doping, and the recent discovery of Bill Cosby's predilections, may call that maxim into question.

I find it interesting to ponder whether Trump's campaign will be a net gain or loss, and whether the campaign itself is a calculated publicity stunt. I'd love to hear your thoughts.Andrew Sigalhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8700793314658085909.post-58721876741862323572015-11-25T10:54:00.000-08:002015-11-25T10:54:32.138-08:00On the Internet no one knows you are Bozo

<xmeta name="description" text="On the Internet no one knows you are Bozo."></xmeta><xmeta name="description" text="A collage/cartoon by Andrew Sigal."></xmeta>

On the internet no one knows you are Bozo

Collage/cartoon by Andrew Sigal

Andrew Sigalhttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8700793314658085909.post-40124593942886537982015-11-21T10:36:00.002-08:002015-11-21T10:38:16.361-08:00What makes a flan hate another flan?

<xmeta name="description" text="Another cartoon by Andrew Sigal"></xmeta><xmeta name="description" text="(inspired by Depeche Mode)"></xmeta>

What makes a flan hate another flan?

Cartoon by Andrew Sigal

(inspired by Depeche Mode)
Andrew Sigalhttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8700793314658085909.post-85474203785290911122015-11-19T10:01:00.000-08:002015-12-15T09:40:03.227-08:00How bored is God?<xmeta name="description" text="I have some questions about God and they're making my brain hurt."></xmeta>

I have some questions about God. That is to say, Yahweh – the one true God, the monotheist Judeo-Christian God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob - not one of those crazy pantheist gods.

The bible tells us that God created the universe, and the heavens and the earth, and light, and that he separated the light from the darkness, and so on. Cool. But, what was God doing before he created everything? God is eternal, so he existed forever and will exist forever. How long did God exist before he created the universe? The universe is somewhere between 6000 and 14 billion years old. God existed forever. Therefore, God existed for an infinitely long time before he created the universe. Where did he exist? What was he doing?

The Gods of the Greek, Roman, Norse, and Hindu pantheons have always had their own parties going on in their own spiritual planes. Earth and human affairs were just side shows. Sometimes they would notice us – generally to either fuck us or fuck with us, but basically they had their own shit going on, which we would experience as earthquakes, wars, the changing of seasons, and so on. But we all know that is nonsense. There is no god but God, right?

So, back to Yahweh. We were create in his image, so, he has some kind of body with head, arms, legs, torso, naughty bits, etc. For an infinitely long time before the creation of the universe, he was… where? In heaven? But wait! Didn't he create heaven when he created the heavens and the earth? If heaven existed before God created "the heavens and the earth", where did it come from? Did God create it? If so, when? Where was he before he created heaven? If he is infinite, then where was he before there was a place for him to be?

What was he doing? Was he alone? Or were the angels keeping him company? Did he create the angels? If not, where did they come from? If so, when did he create them? Were there a pantheon of other gods that God hung out with on a Friday night? If so, what happened to them? Might there have been some foul play that we should know about?

Basically what I am asking is, wasn't God bored? An infinite amount of "time" spent nowhere, alone. Of course, maybe he hadn't created time yet, so maybe he didn't spend an infinite amount of time being bored.

OK. Those questions are hurting my brain, so I'll press on to other issues. God is infinite and existed forever before creating the heavens and the earth, and all the plants, animals, and people. How did he think of it? The heavens and the earth didn't exist. God existed forever, but one "day" he decided to create this incredibly complicated universe out of nothingness. Based on what? We are created in his image, but, what is everything else created in the image of? There was no universe. No suns, no planets, no trees, no water, no advertisements for underarm deodorants, no odors to be deodorized.

After an infinite existence, God suddenly starts creating stuff. Maybe he created Heaven and Angels to have a place to exist and some company, or maybe they already existed. But, out of absolutely nowhere he began creating novel stuff. Why? How? Based on what? Why then? Why not sooner, or later?

OK. My brain is hurting even more. One last question and I will go get an aspirin. Why six days? God existed forever, then out of nowhere gets the idea to create the universe, and does it in six days. Why the hurry? A trillion years one way or the other, what does he care? He's existed forever, and will exist forever. Six days seems a hell of a rush.

You know what, I have another question. I'm really needing 3 or 4 Advil right about now, but, I am not infinite, so I'm gonna ask another question. After God created everything, he put himself in the business of watching all of us all of the time. He keeps track of everything that everyone does or thinks. When we die he judges us and either accepts us into heaven or sends us to hell (unless we go to purgatory.)

The Population Reference Bureau estimates that about 107 billion people have ever lived. Presumably by now God has seen every action that humans can perform, and listened to every thought that can be thought. Oh sure, new specific thoughts come up all the time, like "I want a new iPhone 6", but practically speaking that is the same as "I want a new kilt", or "I want a new spear." How bored must he be now? We can also presume that he's let a hell of a lot of us into heaven at this point. For an infinite amount of time he was alone, now he's utterly inundated with happy, smiling, harp-playing souls.

Do you think that's really what he had in mind when he created the heavens and the earth, then Adam, and then Eve, and told them to go forth and multiply? Oh wait. He's infallible. I guess an infinite amount of time going forward watching every human and recording their thoughts and actions, and a heaven filled with billions of souls, must be what he wanted. He doesn't make mistakes (with the possible exception of the duck-billed platypus.) Still, it seems like a rather extreme over-reaction to loneliness. Perhaps God is a manic-depressive. That would explain a lot. I'll have to ask him if I ever get the chance.Andrew Sigalhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8700793314658085909.post-39153802096565818632015-11-18T08:32:00.001-08:002015-11-18T10:22:35.702-08:00Please don't pray for Paris

<xmeta name="description" text="I hope that instead of 'praying' for the people of Paris, people 'care about', 'empathize with', 'stand with', 'mourn for', and 'have their heart go out to', Parisians."></xmeta>

Someone posted my "Coming out as a militant atheist" to the Facebook group "Religious Tolerance", along with a negative commentary. Another person commented on the post, noting that they were praying for the people of France and that they didn't see how praying for France was a bad thing; that they shouldn't be criticized for prayer, and that praying for Parisians was showing solidarity with them.

I would like to suggest to that person that instead of "praying" for the people of Paris, they instead "care about", "empathize with", "stand with", "mourn for", "have their heart go out to", etc. I propose that they should announce that they intend to take action, active or passive, now or in the future, to help make sure that such things never happen again.

When someone says that they are "praying" for France, there are two possibilities: one is that they actually mean "care about", "empathize with", and so on. The other possibility is that they truly mean that they are stopping what they are doing and saying words, aloud or to themselves, requesting that a deity take action.

In the first case, the word "pray" is being used as a synonym for "wish." I think it is more valuable, and conveys more substantive meaning, when people speak of their emotional connection with the French and express their grief and anger at the terrible actions that happen last week. I believe that it is a much more forceful statement to say "I feel emotionally connected with you and care about you" than to say "I am praying for you, i.e. I wish that hadn't happened." So, you should stop using the word "pray" and instead unambiguously express your direct human empathy for the suffering of others.

The second case, actually "praying" to a deity in the religious sense, is at best a waste of your time. If you encourage others to literally pray, then you're actively doing harm. Your prayers, and the prayers of others, will not be answered by the deity that you are beseeching help from. By encouraging others to pray, you are encouraging them to waste their time and offload their opportunity to give tangible assistance onto a mythological being. When you say "I am praying for the people of France," what you are really saying is "I hope that some force (other than myself) will take care of them." Imagine what could actually be achieved if everyone in the world who is "praying" for Paris actually did something physical, substantive, and material to assist the Parisians, or to actively prevent future heinous acts perpetrated in the name of "god."

If in your anguish you cry out to the giant teapot circling the sun, asking it to help the people of France, your pleas will not be answered. The giant teapot circling the sun is not listening, and it's not going to do anything about the terrorist acts in Paris, and most importantly, there is no giant teapot circling the sun! If you think there is a giant teapot circling the sun that you can call to in time of need, then someone should sit down with you over hot cup of tea and explain the nature of reality. If you honestly believe that praying to a deity to help the people of France will actually achieve anything at all, then you really need to take some time and think about reality, actions and actors, that which is measurable and that which is imaginary. If you don't actually believe in a deity, then you really, really, shouldn't be praying.

Back to the first case again, if you say that you are "praying" but actually mean that you are demonstrating empathy with the victims of terrorism, then you may inadvertently be causing harm. By using the word "pray", you are likely to be encouraging others to pray in the religious sense. As described, this is wasteful and harmful. Don't use the word "pray" if you don't mean it, and if you do mean it, stop and think about reality – then stop praying, because really you are just wishing, and wishing things were different wont help anyone.

I hope that everyone is pained by the terrorist acts in Paris. I hope that everyone feels positive emotions for those who were hurt, and negative emotions towards those who committed these crimes. I hope that everyone will be driven by those feelings to take actions to help in any way they can, no matter how small. And, I hope that no one will "pray" for Paris.Andrew Sigalhttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8700793314658085909.post-10645358933982547752015-11-14T09:38:00.005-08:002015-11-17T23:37:14.219-08:00Coming out as a militant atheist

Cartoon by Bradley James Peterson

<xmeta name="description" text="I am coming out as a militant atheist."></xmeta> For years I have been sitting on the fence about religion. I have called myself variously an "agnostic", or "spiritual but not religious", or I've said things like "I believe in God but not in religion." But I'm realizing that those statements are classic equivocation. I must come out as an atheist. Not only that, the time has come to be what Richard Dawkins calls a "militant atheist."

Some years ago I was talking with my friend Bill. He is an atheist and asked me about a comment that I had made about God. I told him that I believe in God but not in religion. He asked me how I, as a thinking person, could possibly believe in God. I told him that I found it to be too much effort to be an atheist in a theist society. That I felt an emotional pull towards the various ideas of God and an afterlife. That it wasn't important enough to me to be confrontational with true believers. But, I must admit that my responses basically boiled down to laziness.

Whether or not there is a supernatural being orchestrating it all, I desperately want there to be an afterlife. I can't bear the thought that my loved ones who have died are simply gone. My brain cannot wrap itself around the notion that when I die there is nothing – that it will be so nothing that I won't even be aware that there is nothing. There won't be an "I", and there won't be "aware", and there won't even be "nothing." I have no way to even think about such a thing (or such a non-thing), so, I desperately want there to be a heaven, or reincarnation, or some kind of afterlife. But guess what, I want a lot of things. I want to have the body of a 25-year-old again. I want vast wealth, power, and fame. I want to have dinner and/or sex with a long list of interesting, attractive, intelligent people. I want my cell phone to get better reception. But guess what, I'm probably not going to get any of these things, and even though I want there to be an afterlife, that doesn't mean there is one. Just as with poor cell phone reception, I'm going to have to accept it and learn to live with it.

I recently watched an outstanding Ted Talk by Richard Dawkins from 2002 in which he talks about being a militant atheist. He made many important points. Among them he notes that all believers in Yahweh are atheists when it comes to Zeus, Poseidon, Mars, Odin, Thor, Osiris, Seth, Horus, and 100's of other gods of the Greeks, Romans, Norse, Native Americans, Inuit, Pacific Islanders, etc., as well as, Vishnu, Shiva, Durga and the whole Hindu pantheon. Dawkins says that he takes atheism just one God further. Implicit in this I found the idea that when learning about these non-Judeo-Christian gods, most people find the stories to be anywhere from quaint to ridiculous. The Maori of New Zealand believe that the Polynesian demigod Maui pulled up the north island of New Zealand with a fishing hook. When modern worshippers of Yahweh hear that story, they find it cute and silly. But no thinking person could critically read the Old or New Testaments, or the Koran, without finding the stories held therein to be equally naïve and even absurd.

Dawkins' Ted Talk was not my first exposure to atheism. Years ago I watched Jonathan Miller's BBC series A Rough History of Disbelief (aka "A Brief History of Disbelief"), many of which can now be found on YouTube. I found it fascinating, so I followed it up with the equally brilliant, "The Atheism Tapes". I subsequently read my friend Valerie Tarico's, The Dark Side: How Evangelical Teachings Corrupt Love and Truth. Each of these are highly recommended.

Even after all these convincing arguments I couldn't give up my wish that there be some kind of god with a promise of some kind of afterlife. I didn't care about the religion that was bestowed on me, and I was well aware of the atrocities committed throughout history in the name of virtually every deity conceived by the mind of man. But being an atheist was just too much trouble and I wanted an afterlife, so, I remained "spiritual but not religious." The lazy man's escape hatch.

Yet I live in a world where I am daily bombarded by the nonsense promulgated by pandering politicians and other pious pinheads. The very people who should be most impartial – politicians, newscasters, and even some scientists – either believe in and proselytize for some version of god, or pretend to do so.

And then there were last night's terror attacks in Paris, committed in the name of Allah. Dear God, where are you that you let such atrocities be committed? Dear God, why do you command your followers to perform such acts in your name? God? God? Hello?

So, OK, I'm "coming out" as an atheist. But, why a "militant atheist"? Because I can't just admit that I am an atheist and sit back wiping my hands clean of terrible acts done daily in the name of "god." Noted atheist Christopher Hitchens says that he is offended by the notion that he needs to read a 2000-year-old book to know right from wrong. I agree. The subtle nuances of behavior in a polite society, and the laws that pertain to my slice of the world, are created by my particular culture. But the more fundamental questions of right and wrong, good and bad, come from my own empathy with my fellow creatures. I know that the attacks in Paris last night were evil. I don't need to read the Old Testament or ask my rabbi to understand that it was a wrong act. I don't need to read the Koran or ask an Imam to receive the opinion that the Paris attacks were a holy jihad and therefore good. I am a human being, so I know that the slaying of other innocent human beings is wrong. If some religion tells me that I need to read their book to understand that truth, then the religion is wrong - dangerously wrong.

No God either promoted, or stood by and watched the Holocaust, the Cambodian genocide, the endless African genocides, the atrocities in the former Yugoslavia, the attacks on 9/11, last night's terror attack in Paris, nor wars, atrocities, and inquisitions going back to antiquity. By sitting back quietly, secure in my blameless atheism, I am indirectly complicit in the terrible acts committed in the name of religion – be they horrors like terrorism, war, and genocide, or simply suppression of freedoms such as an individual's decisions about how to treat their own body.

Thus, not only am I coming out as an atheist, but as a militant atheist. Sign me up.Andrew Sigalhttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8700793314658085909.post-74503451471351546092015-11-03T10:23:00.001-08:002015-11-03T10:26:04.943-08:00Quantum Pie
<xmeta text="Quantum Pie: How much pie did Schrödinger's cat eat?" name="description" />

Quantum Pie: Pie that was eaten by Schrödinger's cat. Pie that was not eaten by Schrödinger's cat.

How much pie did Schrödinger's cat eat?

Illustration by Andrew Sigal
Andrew Sigalhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8700793314658085909.post-29959571389966460042015-11-01T20:14:00.001-08:002015-11-02T09:29:03.716-08:00From the World Wide Web to the Global Sponge<xmeta name="description" text="The "World Wide Web" has become so ubiquitous that saying "World Wide" is redundant. Furthermore, the way we use internet services is so broad that calling it a "Web" no longer makes sense."><xmeta name="description" text=" "><xmeta name="description" text="The "World Wide Web" is gone. Long live "The Global Sponge.""> </xmeta></xmeta></xmeta>

I started using, studying, and building tools for "The Web" in 1996. Back then we called it the "World Wide Web." I attended the "W3C" (World Wide Web Consortium) Conference. The addresses (URLs) for the most commonly visited sites started with "www", which stood for "world wide web". This differentiated them from other types of addresses such as "ftp" (file transfer protocol), "nntp" (network news transfer protocol), "pop" (post office protocol), and so forth. We tended to write and talk about the "world wide web" to distinguish the universe of web sites viewed in web browsers from the other ways that the Internet was used. Casually we would refer to it as "The Web", though curiously, web sites themselves were often called "home pages." Over the years, with its universality, the "World Wide" part of the "Web" has pretty much gone away. Lately it seems like the word "Web" is waning too.

Way back when, people got really good at typing "www." It didn't take long to realize that 99% of everything anyone wanted to see started with "www.", so servers (which we used to call "web servers") and browsers (formerly "web browsers") were changed to either automatically add "www." to URLs, or assume that was what was meant if there was no prefix to a URL. Now you only need to add a prefix if it is something special such as "ftp", and most people don't even realize that "www" used to mean something.

Since the World Wide Web is ubiquitous, saying "World Wide" is redundant. As with the "www" prefix, the only reason you would specify which "web" you are referring to is if you are talking about something different, for example the "Dark Web", or some other experimental, alternative, or private internet.

Even the word "web" is in decline. Where it was always "web this" and "web that", people are now much more likely to refer to "online" or "the Internet". We used to say "Have you checked the web"; now most say, "Have you 'Googled' it", or "Have you looked online." Often, we refer not to the web as a whole but to a specific site or class of sites - Facebook, Google, Twitter, Weather.com, Wikipedia, Amazon, Uber, online dating, blogs (formerly Web-logs), etc. More and more often we use neo-verbs that refer to the act of using a specific site - Google (as a verb), tweet, post, pin, Uber, etc. [It is interesting to note that of the most used sites, Weather.com - having chosen a common English noun for its name - is always referred to with its ".com" suffix and hasn't been verbified.] There is the curious inverse case that today the term "home page" sounds quaint or even archaic. Now we call everything a site (unless it is a 'blog'), as in, "Hey, check out this new site for buying groceries online."

There is an argument to be made that we should stop using "web" to refer to sites on the Internet. In the early days before search engines, it really was a web. The only way to find anything was to traverse ("surf") the "web", following links from one page to another. If you didn't know the URL of any web sites at all, then the "World Wide Web" was completely useless to you. You had to step onto the web somewhere. From that starting point you could only get to other pages that were linked to from there, or pages linked to from those links, or the next page's links, and so on. Since pages further down the path could and often did link you back to previous sites, it was a web of pages, rather than a chain or a tree.

My original "home page" was just a list of links to web pages that I found useful, with descriptions of each. In 1996 an online magazine listed my home page in its list of World Wide Web resources. Not long afterwards, Yahoo! came to the rescue with its professionally curated card-catalog of web sites. That innovation begat the portal-wars, as AOL, Microsoft/MSN, Netscape, Yahoo!, and others competed to become your portal to the web. People set their browsers' start page to be the portal of their choice; they would get to the rest of the web from there. But portals weren't long lived. Soon search engines emerged as the beginning for almost every online foray, followed by a blend of searching, personal bookmarks, links shared through social media, and well-known site names.

Nowadays, by and large, people no longer traverse a web of Internet sites. The word "web" persists in our lexicon, and arguably there is still an interconnected set of links out there, but that is no longer how we interact with it. People now go directly to a site they know about or were pointed to, or use a search engine to find information they want. The webiness of The Web is less and less important. The online world has grown and morphed to become more like a sponge, sucking up all that is digital. It is a squishy, amorphous matrix that holds everything we pour into it, seemingly forever. It has become "The Global Sponge".

Based purely on personal nostalgia I miss the "World Wide Web", but, I have to admit that "World Wide" is redundant, and "Web" is irrelevant. The "World Wide Web" is gone. Long live "The Global Sponge."

Andrew Sigalhttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8700793314658085909.post-61755774970546783392015-10-06T09:18:00.001-07:002015-12-02T08:24:56.488-08:00A Few Thoughts About the Second Amendment

Amendment II: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I was sitting around on this beautiful morning reading the Bill of Rights, as I am want to do. I noticed something about the Second Amendment that hadn't struck me before. It is the only one that provides a rationale. It's not just the only such amendment in the Bill of Rights, it is the only one of the 27 amendments to the Constitution that specifically states why the rule is there.

I went online to learn more about the Second Amendment. There are no end of resources for analysis and opinion about each and every word:

What does "well regulated" mean? This is pretty easy; in the 18th century "well regulated" meant something that functions properly, like a wristwatch that keeps time or a well-oiled plow.

Why did they use the indefinite article "a" instead of the definite article "the" in specifying "a well regulated militia"? At the time of the first Congress most people in America saw the country as a confederation of states. Just as today, the representatives considered themselves to represent their own state as much as, or more than, the nation. Each state had its own militia. Thus, the authors were obviously thinking of their own state militias, rather than the national army.

What does "militia" mean? What does it mean to "keep" arms? What does it mean to "bear" arms? And so on, and so forth. I leave it as an exercise to the reader to study up on any of these terms that interest you.

I have my own opinions on the interpretation of the amendment based upon historical linguistics. I also have opinions as to whether or not any of the amendments to the Constitution should be re-amended or reinterpreted in the light of modern society. But that's not what I'm interested in this morning. I'm wondering why it is that this amendment comes with an explicit reason when none of the others do, and what it would mean if that reason were no longer valid.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state…" Why? Why did the first Congress of the United States give a rationale for the Second Amendment but not for any of the others? Why didn't they just say, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"? Alternatively, why doesn't the First Amendment say, "Because we're a nation with many different religions, and we want people to be able to speak their minds, and we were escaping religious and intellectual persecution when we came here in the first place, Congress shall make no law…" Why doesn't the third amendment say, "Because we believe in private property, no soldier shall, in time of peace…"? Etc.

Moreover, they gave one and only one, very specific, reason. They didn't write "Because we haven't yet established an effective police force so people need to be able to defend themselves, and because people need to be able to hunt for food, and because practically everyone has weapons …and since a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state…" No. For this one amendment they gave a reason and it was both singular and specific. What were they thinking when they chose to write this amendment in this way? What is it about the right to bear arms that compelled explanation when other amendments, no less important and no less worthy of justification, did not?

The authors of the amendment say the reason that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" is that "A well regulated Militia [is] necessary to the security of a free State." If by "the security of a free state" they meant protecting the United States of America against foreign enemies, then clearly we now have that covered, with or without citizens keeping and bearing their own arms. The current Armed Forces of the United States is the most powerful on earth. When young men and women enlist, they are extensively trained in the use of whatever weapons are appropriate for their service. Prior experience with arms does not necessarily improve the quality of our national security. Most people entering the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, or National Guard, will never have had any experience with the actual weapons they will need to use. Even gun owning families are unlikely to have fully functional, state of the art, US military armaments. Yes, some do - but as a percentage of gun owners, that number is small. Even if they did, the amount of time most youth will have spent training with such weapons is likely insignificant in comparison to what the government will provide once they don a uniform. Arguably, the hundreds or thousands of hours that kids (and adults) spend playing video games might be more valuable training than the actual possession of such weapons.

Also, our Armed Forces do not currently expect volunteers or draftees to show up with their own guns. That was the case at one time, but no longer. The US government provides our soldiers with the weapons that they are expected to use. Bringing your own Winchester to Desert Storm would be unnecessary.

Others suggest that "the security of a free state" should be interpreted in the context of the early days of the country when the states thought of themselves more as a confederation than a nation. The country had only been around for a few years and no one knew how it was going to work out. Many states had long been rivals. With that context in mind, "the security of a free state" could mean that the individual states wanted to maintain their ability leave the union and even to potentially fight each other. Thus, they wanted to make sure that the federal government couldn't make a law that would stop that from happening. I seem to recall that we gave secession a try and it didn't work out so well. In almost 250 years we've gone that route a grand total of once. I hope that no one wants to do it again.

But even if they did, would individuals keeping and bearing arms, and well regulated state militias, really do the job in 2015? For the sake of argument (and so as not to piss off anyone residing in other states) I will pick on my own state - California. Let's say that California decided to violently secede from the union. We would need to have modern, military grade weaponry to even attempt such lunacy. Fortunately, a fair amount of military manufacturing occurs in California. So, we might be able to raid Lockheed Martin and other manufacturers for armaments with which to take on the US government. But that doesn't mean that individual Californians owning small arms would give the state much of a leg up in this battle. We would need tanks, airplanes, drones, bombs, rockets, etc. The Second Amendment does protect our right to own such weapons, but how many of us do, and how many of us know how to use them and use them well? I think it goes without saying that even taking advantage of military hardware that's manufactured within California, and even given the state's large population, we wouldn't have a prayer against the combined might of the other 49 and the well trained, well equipped US Armed Forces.

It is common to hear people speak of the Second Amendment as meaning that individuals, and small militias, should be able to overthrow the government should it fall into tyranny. But clearly this has never happened, and given modern defenses this cannot happen using conventional weapons. Through our history there have been numerous terrible assassinations, and attempted assassinations, of our leaders. Fortunately these events are getting less common - probably due to the formidable security we provide to those at the highest levels of government. There are certainly no fewer people that have hated each of our recent Presidents, but based on results, killing them with a firearm appears to be impossible.

Even if we consider past attacks on Presidents, cabinet members, and congress people, the assailants were virtually always insane individuals. Regardless of the attackers and their motivations (rational or otherwise), no assassination has ever changed our government in any way other than personnel. Perhaps JFK was killed as part of a conspiracy that disagreed with his policies. Maybe John Wilkes Booth's action echoed the sentiment of a contingency of Southern confederates. But even in these cases, though the Presidents were killed, the structure and policies of the US Government continued.

In recent decades there have been some noteworthy attacks on the US government by citizens who had ideological agendas. Ted Kaczynski (the "Unabomber") and Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols (bombed the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in downtown Oklahoma City), are just two that come to mind. It is important to recognize that the Second Amendment did not help either of them in their attempts to stop the government which they viewed as tyrannical. Further, their actions served only to increase the fortification of government buildings - they achieved none of their goals in terms of changing the way our government functions.

There have also been militias that have formed and used their Second Amendment rights to stockpile munitions for purposes such as seceding from the US, creating their own laws, or refusing to pay taxes. Supporting the USA and the Constitution is generally labelled "patriotic." We have a different word for the actions of such militias - we call it "treason." Is it unpatriotic to suggest that militias shouldn't be able to use the Constitution to help them commit treason?

If one wanted to image nightmare scenarios of attacks on the Federal Government, one could speculate about the use of non-conventional weapons ala The Unabomber, McVeigh and Nichols, etc. Chemical or biological attacks, nuclear weapons, dirty bombs, poisons, and the like, might, possibly be able to take down the government. I would like to believe that there are agents at the Secret Service that spend their careers trying to think up such things, and then devising counter measures. In any case, even if an individual or group were able to conceive, create, and successfully execute such an attack, the right to bear arms would be irrelevant to their plans. The weapons protected by the Second Amendment wouldn't come into play. The government has proven defenses against those - a successful attack would come from some other quarter, as Al-Qaeda showed so terribly in 2001.

So, I believe that the explicitly specified rationale in the Second Amendment is no longer valid. Therefore, the prohibition against infringement upon which it is based is no longer valid. This leaves two options before the American people: (1) allow the government to infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms, or (2) craft a 28th amendment that guarantees this right without any justification or qualification.

I find myself wonder what the authors of the Second Amendment would say if they were alive today and heard my argument that a "well regulated militia" will no longer provide for the security of our free state. Would they agree with me? If so, what would they then say about the right of people to keep and bear arms? Would they conclude that this right may now be infringed since the purpose of the amendment is gone? Or would they insist that there were other compelling reasons to protect the right to bear arms? If they felt that this right must still be maintained, would they agree that a new amendment must be crafted, since the Second Amendment is rendered invalid by its obsolete rationale?

I wonder.Andrew Sigalhttp://email@example.com