March 3, 2009

Hate Me If You Want To

Buon giorno. I've been thinking about love and hate. No, not the big deal stuff that will answer the questions that philosophers have asked for thousands of years. Rather, why am I loved or hated when I write things? I think it's because people have a shallow response to the viewpoints of others. They'll love me if I write things that they agree with, and hate me if I go the opposite way to their viewpoints. People are emotionally vested in their viewpoints, and I have been known to discuss some hot-button topics.
  • When I write about the flaws of evolution, I get hate "mail". I think it's because I'm challenging the Darwinian orthodoxy, and they don't want to admit that their anti-God approaches may be wrong.
  • My unapologetic, admittedly emotional, politically Conservative views are sometimes inflammatory, but they, too, challenge entrenched Liberalism.
  • I have discussed the historical accuracy of the Gospels regarding the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
  • When I wrote about the silliness of conspiracy theories, I received a hateful diatribe that I did not want to subject my readers to.
  • Even writing about my favorite browser, Firefox, has brought me some hate mail!
I don't want to be too long in this, so I'll stop that list.

Listen, if you want to hate me, fine, I can give you plenty of other reasons: I have more girlfriends than you, make more money than you, listen to music you don't like, have the respect and fear of criminals and government agents, I think ethnic jokes are funny, and more.

"A long time ago, I made me a rule. I let people do what they want to do."
— Hondo Lane (John Wayne)

If you want to hate me, I can't stop you. But my suggestion is to drop the emotional involvement over something that should be discussed intellectually. Disagree all you want. I can respect honest disagreement, especially if there is support for your viewpoint. Or, you can simply say, "I disagree and don't want to discuss it further". Fine. No hate, or love, in that, but at least it's a mature approach.

As Toby Keith sings, "Hate me if you want to, love me if you can". It's a challenge to love me. Are you up to the challenge? The truth is, I don't care if people hate me for what I say. There's nothing I can do about it except hope that they grow up enough to be able to carry on a rational discussion.

February 25, 2009

Streng Verboten Part 2

Edited for wording 9-21-2012

Guten tag, again. If you missed our last episode, you can read Part 1 here, or scoll down if it's on the same Web page at the moment.

Within hours, I received some venom-enriched hate mail that proves what I'm saying about the intolerance and emotionalism of Darwinists. It was a personal attack, including my religious beliefs (which is pretty low of them), but there was no "religion" in my previous article!

Evolutionism as a world view has led to a host of problems. It has led to a loss of faith because people chose to believe in the philosophy of evolution. “Survival of the fittest” is a frequent excuse for economic and social injustices. It leads to a liberal view of euthanasia and abortion. Eugenics, the sterilization and extermination of the “unfit” people of the world fits Darwinism. Marxism is hard-core Darwinism applied politically.

So is Nazism. Hitler was a devout Darwinist, and thought that he was doing the world a favor by eliminating the unfit and building a perfect race. He wanted to apply Darwinism to society, and “create the new man”.

I’m not saying that evolutionists are Marxists or Nazis, don’t misunderstand me. I’m saying that those philosophies go hand-in-hand with Darwinsim.

With this prevailing viewpoint comes the suppression of scientific freedom (“You cannot believe in or promote Intelligent Design”), and is not only growing, but dominating rational thought in society today. We get evolution crammed down our throats at every turn. Watch a science channel and it is spouted as absolute fact, with none of the flaws presented. And yet, there is no “equal time” for those of us who want to present Intelligent Design as a valid scientific alternative.

Evolutionists actually want to eradicate Intelligent Design. I have had discussions in person and online with people who belive it's their duty to eliminate "religion" from public life. Amazing. If they cannot have religion completely removed, they want to “put it in its proper place” so it won’t bother anyone. Richard “Daffy” Dawkins hates any concept of God, and wants to see him eliminated. (Dawkins is a lousy philosopher.) It's not that the evidence is nonexistent for Intelligent Design. Instead, evolutionists are unwilling to believe the evidence (or even allow a presentation of it) because it threatens their world view.

Too bad that common sense is not scientific, because I feel that I have to put my own observations, questions and sensibilities on the shelf in order to believe in the blind, gibbering, mad god of random chance and natural selection; evolution is intellectual castration.

America, with it’s Judeo-Christian ethic, has a long history of helping the helpless and the oppressed. We have charities for medical purposes, for housing, for feeding the hungry. We help victims of natural and political disasters all around the world. What if we say, “Tough rocks, Roland? Survival of the fittest, so you can just die so the strong can continue”?

The logical conclusions of Darwinism are alarming. The discussions of scientific alternatives are strongly forbidden.

Addendum April 28, 2009: Thomas Brewton has a chilling reminder of how this comes together in modern society and politics. Click here.

There may be a Part 3 to this, I'm not sure yet. If there is, it will be about the logical fallacies that I encounter when dealing with evolutionists.

Streng Verboten Part 1

Edited for wording 9-21-2012

Guten tag. I've just gone through Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed for the second time, and I'm glad I bought the DVD. The first time through, I had to walk away because the logical conclusion of what the movie presented was very upsetting. I'm not much of a fan of documentaries, but this one sings a song that I've been doing for many years. It shows the flaws of the philosophies of evolution, and the discrimination of the scientific establishment against anyone that dares run against their orthodoxy and say that maybe, just perhaps, Intelligent Design (I.D.) should be considered an alternative explanation of the facts.

Some of what I'm writing now is a repeat of previous postings. Get over it, because it's important, capice?

Important point: Defining the term “evolution” is the gradual development of life over vast periods of time, with transitional forms leading to completely new species of life. I am not talking about microevolution, which leads to small changes and adaptations. Also, there is some disagreement about creation science. Many creationists will use science to explain things in the Bible, but are fully able to present a strictly scientific framework for their views without invoking anything religious. In this way, both the creationist and the proponent of ID can work in a similar manner, exhibiting just the science (no room to for someone to use that ridiculous "GodDidIt" accusation).

Nobody is quibbling about facts.
A fact is a fact. It's the interpretations of facts that have the disagreements. You show me a fossil. Great. It's a fossil. You tell me that it was formed over millions of years and is evidence for evolution, and I'll laugh in your face and say that there are other possible explanations. You show me a drawing of archeopteryx. Then you say that archeopteryx is a transitional form, and I'll give you a scientific slapdown because you're being ideological and out of touch, because "Archie" has been reclassified as a true bird. Your starting point, your world view, influences your interpretations of evidence. Let’s be honest here. Scientists are human, even though many want you to believe that they’re somehow superior to us mere mortals, they interpret facts according to their biases and presuppositions.

Evolution is not science.
It is a philosophy of the interpretation of facts. In the same way, Intelligent Design is not science, either. Now, hear me out! Both approaches have to take existing facts and interpret them. It annoys the sap out of me when evolutionists get all uppity and say that “creationists and ID proponents are not scientists”. Yes, they are. Just because they do not agree with your worldview does not disqualifiy their credentials, capice? They have their credentials from accredited schools, just like their Darwin-loving counterparts. F’rinstance, creationist astronomer Don DeYoung did not get his Ph.D. from “Billy Bob’s Backwater Bible Barn”, he went to “real” schools. Hey, Don, I still have the autographed book!

Intelligent Design and creationism are ridiculed, misunderstood and flat-out maligned. I do not come across many believers in evolutionism that have examined the evidence for I.D. and the abundant evidence against evolution. Evolutionists are arrogantly biased in their assertions that they are right, and anybody has a grain of sense cannot argue with them. But true science will pursue any line of questioning and follow the evidence to wherever it leads.

Evolutionists jealously guard their philosophies and make excuses. They do not examine the flaws in their own theories except to make excuses. Listen to some of their nonsense, and you’ll hear a great deal of “maybe”, “could have”, “perhaps”, “nobody really knows”, and yet they insist that evolution is true and is to believed without question. Guesswork, speculation — but Intelligent Design is still wrong in their minds. (Edit: March 3, 2009. Look at the guesswork and speculation in this article.) Daring to suggest that evolution has flaws is strictly forbidden. If any scientists dare to question the religious orthodoxy of Darwinism, they risk losing their jobs and are blacklisted.

Ironically, many of the greatest scientists were believers, and many were Creationists.


February 23, 2009

Trust in the Business World

Trust in the business world. In a word, fuggedaboudit. Or, to borrow from Tony Montana, "What, are you nuts?"

I've learned from my own experiences, from the experiences of co-workers and from simply reading articles that trust is not something you give away freely. You have to be slow and sparing when you give trust in the worlds of government, espionage, counterespionage, organized crime and big business. All of these have elements in common in their organizational structures and interactions.

Trust has to be earned, and it has to be earned slowly. I trust some members of my crew more than others. Some of them, I trust with my life. But guess what? I do not trust anyone one hundred percent! That is "thinking" with emotions, frankly. And in my businesses, you can't let emotions interfere.

"Can I trust anyone at all, Uncle Bob?"

It depends on how much you want to survive (literally or professionally). If you're not interested in friendship at the work place, you have to play rough. If you want to stay at the bottom and just get a paycheck, you can be more willing to trust people and take greater chances. If you get burned, I hope you learn from your mistakes. You have to learn who to trust in the first place. Then, you have to determine how much trust you can safely give.

When you're at the bottom of the feeding chain, you cannot believe someone higher up that says, "Speak freely, you can trust me". Yeah, sure, Cupcake. I made that mistake once. Once. Never again. The more "important" someone is, the more dangerous they are because they've probably sold their souls to the company; you can be thrown under the bus, as they say, along with your entire family, then your organs sold on the black market — if it'll make Joe Superior look good to his own superiors. You have to keep your guard up and your trap shut. Watch, listen and learn.

The immediate supervisor can probably be trusted more than the person one level up. If you get a good feeling and have good experiences, you can open up a little to them. Carefully. I know some people that I'm giving more trust to than I would normally give because I trust my inner voice and my experiences. Still playing it safe, though, but not quite as much as I normally would.

Also, you have to be on guard against co-workers. They'll steal your ideas or take credit for your successes, so make sure that you get the credit that's due before you open your mouth. That pal in the next cubicle may have sent you a sympathy card when your goldfish died, but can stab you in the back to get that promotion that you deserve. Watch, listen and learn.

Of course, if someone is in a different department or does not affect you directly, that gives you more leeway than otherwise. I mouth off to the guy in shipping and I know he won't rat me out to my superiors. What, you thought I ran the entire company myself? Nope. Just my own crew.

You can gauge your trust by giving a little and seeing what happens. If your trust is betrayed in a small thing, you know you can never trust that individual in something of importance. At least, not right away. If you feel that you can try again, feel free and let a little bit of trust go and see if it's justified. Then, back off and see if you can give a little more trust, a little more information.

The guys at the top? Don't even think about trusting them. Their souls have been sold, remember? If you're heard by them at all (perhaps like a gnat buzzing in their ears), you'll be either used and discarded, or forgotten.

So, play it safe in your business trust levels. Give and take. Act slowly. Know who to trust, and how much.

You can trust me, I can't hurt you.

February 18, 2009

More Cheapness and Incompetence

Today's thundering rant has some advice for business executives.

Uncle Bob has been hearing some unpleasant things from Neil and his friends. Too bad I can't get them to join my crew. It's dangerous and sometimes borderline legal, but my organization shows appreciation. Well, I do, anyway.

Neil's department at a huge Fortune 500 soulless company is run from ivory towers with incompetent stronzos. They have to process forms in a "timely manner", and the semi-sentient subhumanoids that run the show have made the situation worse by quadrupling the work load and not providing extra staff to cover the work. The amazing thing is that the upper managers have no concept of how the work is done! They just come up with schemes and make things worse. And yes, the people that actually do the work resent the meddling of the ivory tower managers.

Let me interject something that puzzles me here. How is it that his department resents having a manager that has no experience in the field, but is willing to vote someone into the highest office in the land who also has no experience in the field?

A friend of Neil is in a different department. She has worked for the company for thirteen years, and had a few years in her current position. A supervisory position opened up, and she applied for it. Her supervisor said that there was not anything else for her to learn about the position, yet he did not feel that she was ready for it! What a load of merda.

The fact is that this company is cheap and incompetent. They do not reward good work and do not promote from within. How stupid can you get? I sure don't want some college edjamakated clown with no practical experience telling me how to do my job. Does anyone? And how much sense does that make, anyway? Those situations always get worse.

Do you know why they do this? So they can pay less! If I was working there for $250,000 USD and wanted a promotion, but was turned down because some bright and shiny face got the job for half of what I'm worth, sure, they save money. But it's short-sighted. When you take the cheap way out, you pay more in the long run. There's training, mistakes from inexperience, more training, fines are paid, lawsuits happen (both of these apply to Neil and his pal's company) — if you take the cheapest way out, you often get bitten in the keester in the long run.

Do you know what a "resource" is? It's something that you take, use, bend, shape, squeeze dry, force fit, abuse and throw away when it's no good to you anymore. I hate the term "human resources", because it implies "using" people. The problem with having people working for you is that people have lives to lead, needs to be met, events in their lives. So, executives, deal with it. You can't change that fundamental fact of life.

And this is not the economy to get cheap in. Sure, be frugal when it's justified. But don't hurt the ones you depend on to get the job done. Work intelligently, instead. Or the job won't get done at all, and you'll really lose out. And get out of that ivory tower so you can see what the job entails. Then, maybe, you'll have a better idea of what you're demanding from people.

February 16, 2009

Grave News

Buon giorno. Yes, I'm back and ready to rock. Nicky and Lela didn't let me down and kept the crew in line in my absence. Good thing, I didn't need to come back from my father's funeral and deal with extra stress. I didn't even have time to visit any of my Michigan goomahs while I was away!

I've talked about my feelings on funerals and memorial services in another post, so I'm not going to rehash that here. But what I will do is tell you how I deal with these things.

Don't hide from it
This is probably an extension of the Buddhist approach of facing your problems. What works for me (and I wish my surviving brother would try this instead of putting it out of his mind) is to face it head on. There were feelings to sort out and there was sorrow to face. There was regret because he didn't know me when I last saw him, and did not have a chance to see where my spiritual and mental development have taken me.

I'll admit to shedding tears, but I contained myself to keep the worst of it when I was alone. When I was actually at the funeral, it wasn't so bad for me. Back when my mother died a few years ago, someone wisely told me that sometimes things will creep up on me and set me off again, and that proved true. It was nice to know, and I won't be surprised when it happens again.

Talk about it
This is almost a "part B" to the first point. There were a few people that I could express some deep inner feelings with. Also, there were memories to share with friends and family members. I looked at the pictures and remembered things, and talked about them.

Don't be afraid of the humor
My father liked a good joke, and would have had a good laugh at the, uh, colorful ties that my brother and I wore; they were his ties! (In fact, I believe that he was there, watching.) Some of the pictures were reminders of some good times, and worth discussing. Other people were sharing memories of funny situations as well as meaningful events.

Here's some of the humor of the situation. My father (as well as my brother and mother) was cremated. My brother had the box with his remains so that we could take it to the military honors at the national cemetery. But my brother also had plans; he and his wife were leaving after the interment for a long-planned vacation. I helped them pack their car. My sister-in-law said, "Do you want to put Dad in the car?" So, I grabbed the box and stowed it next to their luggage; my father spent the night in the back of their car.

On that note, I was about to hang my clothes in the guest room closet and asked my brother if the closet was empty. "Yes. No! It is, but it isn't." It turns out that our brother was in the closet. Yep, his remains are going to be intered in April, and he's in a box in the closet. That first night in the guest room, I wondered if his spirit was going to "prank" me, but he's long gone and having a good time in Heaven.

Celebrate the life of the departed (unless the person was a total stronzo, then you can privately celebrate your own freedom). In my heart (yes, I do have one, despite what political opponents and my ex wife will tell you), I celebrated his release from this life and entry into Heaven, and the reunion with my mother, my brother, my father's brother and parents...

Keep the seriousness when it matters
That one is rather hard to explain. You can get too solemn and serious and bring everyone down, but you also have to clam up when someone just doesn't feel like easing off from the sorrow, capice? It's a meaningful time, and the overall attitude should be respectful.

I did some serious things, such as wearing his World War II dog tags at both services.

Listen, everyone has to do what works for them. I happen to believe in my approach. Thanks for reading.

February 9, 2009

Another Time of Grief

“I wasn’t there that morning when my father passed away I didn’t get to tell him all the things I had to the living years.”

If you’re looking for thunder and lightning, try the archive or come back another day. I have some things to work through. Friends and family may be interested, and casual readers may still get something out of my experiences. Uncle Bob is sad lately.
My father died two days ago (February 7, 2009). If he could have lasted another two months, he would have been 86. He went quietly in his sleep in a home in Michigan, and I am in New York. Naturally, I felt sadness. This cowboy has no shame in admitting that he wept.

My oldest brother died on December 21, 2008. Before that, my mother died in November of 2003. And before that, my father’s brother died in March, 2000 (while I was going through my divorce). No wonder I don’t like winter... My parents were both reasonably sound of mind for that funeral. I learned things about my uncle, and realized that I missed out on a really great guy. At least my surviving brother is in good health, so it's reasonable to hope he'll stick around.

However, this grieving process has helped me learn some things about myself and my relationship with my father. We had an awkward and somewhat strained relationship. Part of the reason for that was his job. He was a pastor from 1951 until he retired in 1985. (Retired? He kept active for a few years in Florida after that.) In his church system, relocation was expected and frequent. I lived in five different towns and cities before I moved out on my own, so I did not have deep roots. Also, he had a hectic schedule with meetings, hospital calls, counseling, preparing for and doing the actual preaching, weddings, funerals and everything else that goes with it. So, the usual father-son things that are typical did not happen much with us.

I always felt like I let him down. Not so much in the way of my character and integrity, but that I was not a “success” in life. But he did not say that to me at all, and wanted me to be happy. Still, he had high hopes for what I would become...

He had his inner demons, but that was kept locked away inside him for the most part. It was not until very late in his life that we learned of some conditions that could have been medicated. And my own suspicion is that he had adult ADD. I saw the Alzheimer's and dementia forming years before they were full blown. Later on, Parkinson’s Disease was added to the mix. The last time I saw him (I think it was three years ago, damn the distance and financial difficulties that kept me away for so long), he did not know me at all.

Part of my grieving was from an awareness of my own failings; I did not feel like I was a good son, and was judgmental about his weaknesses. No, I was not abused per se, but his parenting skills were lacking. Perhaps that was because he was human. At any rate, some harsh words were said. I had said and done things to hurt him as well. Perhaps that is because I have human tendencies myself.

My father was always reminding me not to “shame the family”. I remember him going to the jail to talk to someone who shared our last name and talking to the guy to try to straighten him out! There were a few times that I had made some bad choices and fully expected to be disowned. He surprised me by putting those things aside and we went on with life. (And if you think I’m going to be so transparent as to tell you what those were, fuggedaboudit!) But I will add that I expected him to be very upset when my then-wife and I left his denomination and became Baptist. Not a ripple. If that’s where we felt we needed to be, that was fine with him. But I don’t think he’d approve of my lack of church-going now.
I have to point out that he hated it when I would put myself down.

He tried to teach me right from wrong (and succeeded for the most part) so that I was able to know the choices that I was making. Also, he believed in his duties as a pastor. No, he did not always like his job, though. One church, which shall remain nameless, gave him ulcers so severely that he almost died. His doctor wanted him to sue that church, and offered to sign papers! Also, I remember him bluntly saying in another one, “You're a bitchy church.” Hey, maybe his influence is one reason that I can be so direct.

Having pastored so many churches for so many years, he made many friends (so many hours spent talking and playing cards). In fact, he had friends that were clergy of different faiths as well. Many of these friends kept in contact over the years, even after his moving from town to town, and eventually to Florida. Perhaps I envy that, because I’ve had friendships that died out after we parted ways. I’m thinking of a line in a song by Boston: “You’ll forget about me after I’ve been gone...”

One of the greatest benefits that I had from his pastorate was the “ministerial exchange” to Loughton (suburb of London), England. They were in our house for six weeks, we were in theirs. Truly amazing. One drawback for me was that it was in 1975, and my depression (which would not be diagnosed for several years yet) was making my behavior rather quirky and morose. Even so, it was a great time and remains one of the best experiences of our lives. The shorter return trip in about 1980 was also great!

Something that really saddens me is that he did not know my development and where I am now. I think he would laugh that I'm listening to music that he would like, from Sinatra, Big Bands, bluegrass and more (plus stuff he would really loathe). Although he said he was a Republican, I feel that he was “moderate”, and it was not discussed much at home; my interest and Conservative development happened much later. But he did know that my theology was much more conservative than his liberal theology, and we had a few brief discussions on that. He was in Florida when I was teaching creation science in Michigan churches; he wanted me to become a pastor and would have liked to see some of that happening, such as it was.
It’s kind of funny, he also thought I should consider going into journalism. Hey, Dad, does Weblog writing count? At least I can write what I want, here.

My father would also appreciate how I’ve learned to see the bigger picture, and try to see where someone is coming from. I’d like to think that I’m being much less judgmental now. He had different experiences, teachings and so forth, and I have my own. Distance, resentment, mental illnesses, my late intellectual development, his own changes all add up somehow.

So anyway. Thoughts are still spinning in my head, and I’m still discovering what I can learn through all of this. But a conversation yesterday with someone who had a strained relationship with her father revealed something to me: He’s at peace, so is she, and there’s nothing to gain by holding onto unpleasant thoughts, memories and imaginations. I need to apply that to my own life. Not only forgive him, but forgive myself as well. After all, it’s done and he’d want me to be happy.

It may be difficult, but if you’ve read this far, I hope that things I’ve learned will help someone else. I've learned about communication, seeing someone else's perspective, forgiving them, forgiving myself, and I don't know what all, yet. But I think I "may just be OK". And, Dad? At ease, Sailor!

One last thought. There's a grand reunion going on. (Oh, Lord, just set myself off again...) A wife had been waiting for her husband of many decades on this earth. Their mentally retarded son is there, now perfect. The husband and father has now joined them. The holiday commonly called Easter, where Christians celebrate the resurrection of Jesus and the defeat of death, is coming. There's an even more grand celebration coming

Before I go relax and watch a cowboy movie, I’d like to close with a song. Mike and the Mechanics did something that touched me years ago. Now I realize just how close to home it actually hits:

The Living Years

Every generation
Blames the one before

And all of their frustrations

Come beating on your door

I know that I’m a prisoner

To all my father held so dear

I know that I’m a hostage

To all his hopes and fears

I just wish I could have told him in the living years

Crumpled bits of paper

Filled with imperfect thought

Stilted conversations

I’m afraid that’s all we’ve got

You say you just don’t see it,

He says its perfect sense

You just can’t get agreement

In this present tense

We all talk a different language

Talking in defence

Say it loud, say it clear

You can listen as well as you hear

Its too late when we die

To admit we don’t see eye to eye

So we open up a quarrel
Between the present and the past

We only sacrifice the future;

Its the bitterness that lasts

So don’t yield to the fortunes

You sometimes see as fate

It may have a new perspective

On a different day

And if you don’t give up,
and don’t give in
You may just be OK

Say it loud, say it clear
You can listen as well as you hear

Its too late when we die

To admit we don’t see eye to eye

I wasn’t there that morning
When my father passed away

I didn’t get to tell him

All the things I had to say

I think I caught his spirit

Later that same year

I’m sure I heard his echo

In my baby’s new born tears

I just wish I could have told him in the living years

Say it loud, say it clear

You can listen as well as you hear

Its too late when we die

To admit we don’t see eye to eye

Subscribe in a reader