Inkblot Icon

Politics and atheism

2008-01-17T12:39:00.000-08:00

Obviously I haven't posted in forever, which is pretty typical. I suck at keeping up with blogs...I think my downfall was in graduate school--I didn't have time to sleep, much less update a blog. So yeah, I'm making excuses...sorry.

I've been meaning to write this post for awhile, but I keep forgetting/coming home from work too exhausted to do anything/procrastinating. This is something that's really been bothering me though, and I figure that I may as well use my day off work to finally do it. (Benefit of working at a school: snow days!)

In case you hadn't noticed, it's an election year. Don't get me wrong, I don't think that's a bad thing--I'm just a little bit of a political junkie, so I love watching the candidates and discussing with them with anyone who will let me. :) I'm a passionate liberal, and I though that maybe I could look forward to supporting a candidate who doesn't talk incessantly about their personal relationship with Jesus.

Wow, wasn't that stupid and idealistic of me?

While the democratic field isn't nearly as overwhelming with it as the republicans, it's still way too much of an issue and I feel alienated by all the candidates on either side. I agree with some of them on policy, but the fact that politicians now have to discuss their personal religion to have a shot at the presidency really pisses me off. Allow me to go into more (angry) detail.

First of all, if you have a personal relationship with Jesus, why the fuck aren't you keeping it personal? That is, after all what the bible says to do...

And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father in secret shall reward thee openly.
Matthew 6:5-6

For me, that just ties into personal vs. private life. To be perfectly honest, I don't give a shit who or what you pray for (or if you pray at all). I don't care about what politicians do on their own time, provided that they don't proselytize in public about the same things they do in private. But what politicians do that? Oh, right...Rep. Mark Foley, Larry Craig, David Vitter, Rep. Bob Allen, Michael Flory, Glenn Murphy Jr, Ted Klaudt (you should check that one out, it's particularly disgusting and reprehensible)...and that's just a selection of the more recent sexual hypocrisy scandals.

(note: yes, I know those are all republicans which seems awfully biased of me, but when I ran a google search for political sex scandals all the results were Republicans.)

So even once I get past the fact that politicians seem to be incapable of adequately separating their private religious lives from their public political lives, I'm still pissed off. I'm aware that the majority of Americans are religious, I really am. Statistically, politicians talking about their relationship with god, Jesus, and company is appealing to the majority of Americans. Basically, there aren't enough non-Christians in the population to make politicians think about alienating people with all the religion.

On top of all of that, there's the church-and-state thing. Bear with me here...I have no issue with an elected official being religious. Well, I usually don't. I'm not opposed to it in principle, but if the politician allows his/her religion to influence (or even outright determine) their policy decisions, that's a BIG FUCKING ISSUE. As far as I'm concerned, an individual who allows religion to influence their political/policy decisions is equivalent to having churches take a direct role in determining policy.

Finally (for now, at least), there are all the politicians and pundits who honestly believe that we are a Christian nation (we're not), that all the founding fathers were Christians (bullshit), that every president has been a Christian (more bullshit), and that atheists (an any other non-christian) cannot and should not be a patriot or an American citizen.

Alright, so this is clearly getting pretty damn long and I'm just getting really angry about it.

So, what's your opinion on this? Do you feel alienated by the role of politics in religion?

My atheism and my job...

2007-11-05T19:33:00.000-08:00

So it's been quite awhile since I last posted...in my defense, I started a new job in August and it's left me exhausted. I don't want to get too specific--I'd just rather not have my employer read this--but allow me to explain my conundrum and how I've dealt with it.

I work with moderately to severely impaired autistic and mentally retarded children. My employer is a non-profit christian organization that works with social services, adoption, and alternative educational settings for kids that public school's can't handle. I love my job dearly and I really can't imagine doing anything else, even though it's exhausting and I question my sanity almost every day.

So...what's the issue? Well, like I said, my employer is a christian non-profit, which I struggled with at first. There's no way I would quit my job over that, but it's something I had to reconcile for myself. Ultimately, I decided that regardless of the discord between my philosophy and that of my employer, we were working towards the same goals. My employer does great work and has for many, many years...I honestly feel honored to work for the organization. I really feel like I'm making a difference in my students' lives, and I know that the whole organization has that kind of impact every day.

So, what do you think? I think the good that my employer does--and the good I can do working for them--far outweigh the religious/philosophical differences. Does anyone else have experience with this?

Islam and free speech

2007-07-31T06:28:00.000-07:00

As usual lately, this will be a fairly brief post. I just heard a news story about a student at Pace University who apparently threw a copy of the Quran in the toilet...twice. I assume it wasn't the same copy, but who knows. Anyway, he's being charged with a hate crime and CAIR (the Council on American-Islamic Relations) is supporting these charges.

Why? Look, I love and respect books of any kind, and it bothers me when people do anything to destroy, harm, or desecrate them. (I suppose this is at least in part due to growing up with a mother who owned a bookstore.) I don't care what book it is--I hate to see them destroyed. I'm not arguing that what this student did was disrespectful and possibly intolerant...but he didn't harm anyone (to the best of my knowledge), he simply treated a holy book in a way that is offensive to the religion. I don't condone his actions, but is that really a hate crime or just disrespect and intolerance?

I view it as free speech, just as much as burning an American flag is free speech. Like it or not, the bill of rights protects freedom of speech--ALL speech, not just the speech that you might like or agree with. Look, I believe that it is the right of a white supremacist group to shout their message from the rooftops. That is NOT to say their message doesn't make me angry, disgusted, sad, and confused. Their message is terrible, it is based on blind, irrational hatred, and it is something I don't think I can ever understand....but it is their inalienable right to express their views, regardless of my (or anyone's) personal opinion of them.

I think the same goes for the student who desecrated the Quran. I disagree with his actions, I don't believe in deliberately taking actions that deeply offend any religion, and I think it speaks of disrespect and intolerance for Islam. Regardless, it is his inalienable right to express his views...how can an act protected by the Bill of Rights that harms no one be considered a hate crime?

What do you think?

[ end ]

Brief humor

2007-07-29T09:08:00.000-07:00

The Big Guy and I went to dinner with some friends of ours--a fellow nonbeliever as well as a Catholic couple and their baby. I don't know how we got on the topic of religion, but the 10 plagues of Passover came up. We were discussing the different plagues and how to deal with them, when our female Catholic friend suggested that the best way to deal with a plague of locusts would be to throw an atheist at them, because surely the locusts would hate atheists far more than any religious people.

The comment was made in good fun (of course), and I just think that the idea is brilliant and hilarious. Beyond that, it does suggest that the religious community should be more accepting of atheists--we may be their best hope of protection if we have any more plagues!

[ end ]

YouTube Debate

2007-07-23T18:26:00.000-07:00

Ok, so the big guy and I just watched the YouTube debate for the democratic presidential hopefuls. It was by far the most enjoyable debate I've ever watched, which says something--I've been a political junkie since I was in middle school. The format really changed things, some of the videos were really enjoyable, and I thought it was interesting to have the voters ask the questions to all the hopefuls, not just the final candidates in a single town hall meeting. Here are my thoughts (many of which are not politically insightful or relevant).

Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, D-Conn.
As with all of the candidates, I agree with him on some issues and some issues I disagree with him on some issues. That's about all I can say about him...I was just generally unimpressed with him. He didn't have much of a presence, he didn't seem to be really involved or passionate about any of the issues.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y.
Ok, I haven't ever really liked Hillary. I love Bill and I want him back, and I think that colored my perception of Hillary. In tonight's debate I saw her as a candidate who really wants change and who is passionate about it--not just a politician for the sake of politics. I thought she seemed the most presidential of all the candidates, which is impossible to define, I suppose. She seemed confident, poised, passionate, and competent. I also like that she's willing to go on the offensive, not just play nice. As long as she doesn't run a campaign based on attack ads I think that going on the offensive is a good thing.

Former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C.
Eh. I agreed with him a lot, but I just don't like him. He seems too much like a politician (no shit)--he seemed condescending to me. He talks about poverty all the time (and I agree that poverty is a huge problem that needs to be addressed), but he seems condescending even when he talks about the people he wants to help. He's too slick and doesn't seem genuine to me. He does get points for being honest about gay marriage--he said that he is against it personally because of his religious beliefs but that his religious beliefs will not impact his decisions as president. w00t for that--it reminds me of Gov. Kaine here in VA--he said publicly that he is against the death penalty but that he can't just take it away because he is a public servant, and he can only do his best to act on what the people want.

Gov. Bill Richardson, D-N.M.
I love Bill Richardson. I really, really do. He has the most experience with international relations (UN ambassador under Clinton, negotiated with North Korea and Iraq for hostage situations, negotiated ceasefire in Darfur in January of this year) and a fantastic environmental record, as well as federal and state government experience. Ok, I know that I'm showing who I really want to win, but I know he doesn't have a chance. He didn't get a lot of time in the debate, and I don't think he really got his points across--partly because of time restraints, partly because he just wasn't as clear and concise as he could have been. Still, I think he did pretty well.

Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr., D-Del.
He seemed condescending to me. He kept talking about what he has done before, trying to emphasize all of his accomplishments (even belittling his opponents at times), but not being as clear about what he would do if he were elected. He just didn't seem to respect the others and didn't seem to be looking forward as much as he was looking back.

Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich, D-Ohio
Ahh...Kucinich. I have a soft spot for him. He doesn't have a chance, but I love that he says what he believes, doesn't pull punches, and is proud of being very liberal. I thought he did a good job of getting his message through and being forceful when needed during the debate.

Former Sen. Mike Gravel, D-Alaska
I was scared. He was so angry and incoherent...I have no idea what his position is on anything, but I know that he feels strongly about it. The big guy liked him, but I was just scared and confused.

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.
I like Obama better than Edwards. He does seem very young and he doesn't have the most experience, but I'm ok with that. I'm not sure if I prefer Obama or Hillary better--neither are my favorite, but I could deal with either of them...I think I lean towards Hillary right now, though. I never expected that.

Best quote of the debate:
"What I like best about Dennis Kucinich is his wife."
--Sen. Biden, when asked to say one good thing and one bad thing about the candidate to his left (Kucinich)

[ end ]

Intelligent design

2007-07-06T17:34:00.000-07:00

This will be brief, because I'm already in a bad mood about ID and typing puts me in a worse mood (can't wait to get the splint off).

So, in the interest of not typing a lot and making myself even angrier (my husband will appreciate it), I will propose a thought and trust you, my fine readers, to make the logical conclusions and connections. Observe:

The Scientific Method:
Observation/Research
Hypothesis
Prediction
Experimentation
Conclusion

The scientific method is...well, scientific and is the basis for all empirical research and scientific theories, like you know...evolution. Compare that to...

Intelligent Design:
God did it.
In six days.
Then he was quite tired, so he took a rest.
This all happened 6,000 years ago.

Consider how those two concepts clash. Discuss.

[ end ]

How Bush could redeem himself

2007-06-29T16:59:00.000-07:00

Let me put this out in front: I am a liberal. Not a shocking revelation, but true. I hate the current administration and almost everything they've done. (I say "almost" because there might be something I didn't hate even though I can't think of an example right now.) I used to hate Bush. I say "used to" because...well, I don't anymore. I don't like him, and I would never vote him into any office higher than "guy in charge of picking up the keg".

I think I really stopped hating him when I watched this video. For the first time, I didn't see him as a cocky, defensive, incompetent asshole. I saw him as a man who has been defeated. He fought for his immigration bill--I think it was the first thing that he did as president. Not his staff, not his advisors--this was his bill, and he got destroyed. For the record, I thought it was a pretty good bill. It wasn't perfect, but nothing is--and like he said in the video, the status quo is unacceptable and we need change.

Bush is a great politician. He can campaign like no one's business--he was reelected in 2004 despite the fact that his administration screwed up, everyone knew it, and people were really getting pissed off. You have to respect that ability to win despite everyone's better judgment. So--good politician, horrible president. I don't think he's as dumb as he acts, I don't think he's a bad person, I just think he's an incompetent leader.

The shitstorm surrounding Dick Cheney has really shown that Bush has not acted like the president. He has consistently allowed his advisors and staff to make decisions, leaving him to sign the papers. He should have paid attention. He should have been well-informed. He should have been involved in these decisions. He should have been a leader.

He wasn't.

I don't hate him for it. I can't respect him because of it. I feel sorry for him because of it. I feel sorry for us because of it.

So, how could he redeem himself? Politically, I think that the best possible move for him is to force Cheney to resign and to apologize for what he and his administration have been responsible for.I think that if he just stood up and said "We screwed up. I screwed up, a lot. Dick Cheney will be resigning from his post, and we plan to move ahead for the next year and a half to try to correct some of our mistakes. I'm sorry." I think he needs to stand up, be a leader, and stand firm against Cheney. Honestly, I think that if he did that he would avoid impeachment. He would finally get the place in history books that he wants so badly--and at least that would be favorable.

If he did those things (and I doubt he will) I still wouldn't like him. It wouldn't undo the past seven years. We'd still be in Iraq, we'd still have warrantless wiretaps, we'd still have torture and abuse and secret prisons. But for the first time in seven years, I would have some respect for George W. Bush as a person and as a president.

[ end ]

I've been discriminated against!

2007-06-27T20:39:00.000-07:00

Ok, not really...I just thought it might make a good title. I've been tagged to do this meme (8 facts/habits) simply because I'm new on the atheist blogroll. Maybe the title should have been "Help! I'm being hazed!" Oh well, I'm too lazy to change it now.

We have to post these rules before we give you the facts.
Players start with eight random facts/habits about themselves.
People who are tagged need to write their own blog about their eight things and post these rules.
At the end of your blog post, you need to choose eight people to get tagged and list their names.
Don't forget to leave them each a comment telling them they're tagged, and to read your blog.

FACT: I partially severed the extensor tendon of my index finger about a month ago. I like to tell people I was bitten by a shark (in the mountains of southwest Virginia) because it sounds cooler than the real reason. I was actually being uncharacteristically domestic, washing dishes while dinner cooked. I dropped a (very heavy stoneware) plate on my knuckle, where it broke and partially severed the tendon. This has really slowed down my typing, so I'm not posting as much as I'd like to.
FACT: I'm a voracious reader. I've always read constantly--anything I can get my hands on. Right now I'm reading Uncle Tungsten (Oliver Sack's biography), which is the 2nd or 3rd nonfiction in a row--I need to find a good novel in the next day or two. If I don't have anything else to do, I can and will read a 300-400 page novel in a day. It sucks, though--that means I have to buy/borrow/check out a LOT of books.
FACT: I'm a speech-language pathologist, and I love the hard stuff. I love working with kids/adolescents with autism spectrum disorders, MR, developmental disabilities...it's a challenge and I love it. I've only been bitten once (and it didn't even break the skin). I love the kids that no one else knows what to do with--it keeps me interested and on my toes.
FACT: I violently disagree with the theory that vaccines cause autism. There's nothing to back it up, and it seems to me like parents just want (need?) to blame their kids' problems on something external.
FACT: I hate Noam Chomsky's theory of universal grammar. Thinking about it makes me angry, which makes my friends and family avoid talking about linguistics with me.
FACT: I could never marry someone who was deeply religious or politically conservative. I know that sounds bitchy...it's not that I don't want to be around opposing views--I think it's good and necessary to hear the opposing view! Religion and politics are just too important to me to be able to get past fundamental differences...my atheism and liberalism are too much a part of who I am and how I see the world.
HABIT: I can't leave the house without a book or something to read. Even if I'm just going to get gas, I always think "Well, what if...?" and I have to take a book with me. (see also: Fact #2)
HABIT: I suck at sitting in chairs. I don't know why, but I just can't do it. Sitting up straight with both feet on the floor is really uncomfortable to me--I perch on things. I'm always tied up in knots when I sit down, which kills my back.

Here's the shitty part--I don't have 8 people to tag, which is just sad. I could just pick some people at random, but that would be weird. Here's my two (but they each have to do it four times):

Anonymous Atheist
Atheist Self

[ end ]

of drugs and religion...

2007-06-26T20:40:00.000-07:00

I read this article on HuffPo and it really made me think about the use of drugs as a religious sacrament. Christianity, traditional Native American religions, and Rastafarianism all use drugs as religious sacraments--alcohol, peyote, and marijuana respectively. Where are the legal lines?

Let's look at Christianity first. Communion (traditionally) uses wine. I don't know how many congregations/denominations still do (especially in the US), but that's not the point. A core religious sacrament of Christianity involves a drug, which is provided to minors. How many priests. reverends, etc. are getting arrested for that? I don't think I've ever heard of it, even though it's illegal. (I'm not going to go into the fact that the concept of communion gives me a serious case of the heebie-jeebies...that's another post entirely.)

Well, peyote is ok for traditional Native American religions...the only problem is that you don't qualify unless you are at least 1/4 Native American--at least one grandparent. There are a few states that allow peyote use by non-Native Americans as a religious sacrament, but not many. This seems to make sense--at least on the surface--but that's some pretty serious racial/ethnic/religious discrimination, when you think about it.

Rastafarians regard marijuana as a religious sacrament given by god to enjoy. As with traditional Native American religion, practice of the religion involves an illegal substance. Rastafarians, however, can be arrested for possession of use of their sacrament, regardless of race or ethnicity. I'm not endorsing a racial requirement for Rastafarians--I don't think they should have to prove that they are at least 1/4 Jamaican--but it doesn't make sense to me.

For the record. I am not a recreational drug user and I never have been, nor do I condone the use of recreational drugs. Hell. I rarely even drink, and even when I do it's not to excess. Even though it's not my thing, I'm pro-legalization of marijuana. I think it should be legalized, closely regulated, and taxed to hell and back. To be completely honest, drunk people scare me a lot more than people who have smoked pot. Beyond that. alcohol is physically addictive, while marijuana is not (although it is psychologically addictive..but so are video games and wikipedia.)

I'm not sure where I stand on the use of drugs as religious sacraments...but I do feel that the rules need to be consistent across religions. If marijuana were legal then it would be a much easier issue, but that complicates things a lot for Rastafarianism. If it's legal for Rastas to smoke marijuana, then it would truly be a church to be reckoned with! Entire college towns would be Rasta strongholds.

As an atheist and a drug-free zone of one, I don't think I am in any way qualified to comment on these issues....but that hasn't stopped me yet. ;) So what do you think? Discuss!

[ end ]

Buddhism

2007-06-18T19:43:00.000-07:00

As an atheist, is it strange for me to consider using Buddhist mediation techniques and practices to find peace with myself? I don't think it is. Allow me to explain...

First of all, I think there is a question of whether Buddhism is a religion or a philosophy. Does religion require a deity, or can it simply be a cohesive philosophy on which one may base life? Does the belief in reincarnation qualify Buddhism as a religion, even though Buddha himself is not necessarily considered to be a deity? Personally, I think that as soon as a philosophy requires a leap of faith (deity, reincarnation, mysticism, etc.) it becomes a religion. So...yes, I think that Buddhism is a religion, but in a very different sense than western religions.

When thinking about applying Buddhist principles and meditation to my own life I do not consider it a religion, simply because I cannot make the leap of faith required to believe in reincarnation. I view it as a philosophy, and I have no compunctions about treating philosophies as a buffet. It's limiting at best to take only ONE philosophy to the exclusion of all others--there are good things in many philosophies, so why should I pick just one? (This is a huge, scary problem with religion, no?) If I think that there is something of value in a certain philosophy, I see no reason not to take advantage of it and incorporate it into my life and my worldview.

Here's the thing: religion or not, Buddhism makes some really good points about life that I think we could all benefit from. It's a good philosophical fit for me--the Eightfold Path is something that I tried to live even before I knew what it was. The major teachings of Buddhism are the Four Truths and the Eightfold Path.

The Four Truths:
Suffering: Birth is suffering, aging is suffering, illness is suffering, death is suffering; union with what is displeasing is suffering; separation from what is pleasing is suffering; not to get what one wants is suffering; in brief, the five aggregates subject to clinging are suffering.
The origin of suffering: The craving which leads to renewed existence (reincarnation).
The cessation of suffering: The cessation of craving.
The way leading to the cessation of suffering: The Noble Eightfold Path.

The Eightfold Path:
Right Speech — One speaks in a non hurtful, not exaggerated, truthful way
Right Actions — Wholesome action, avoiding action that would do harm
Right Livelihood — One's way of livelihood does not harm in any way oneself or others; directly or indirectly
Right Effort/Exercise — One makes an effort to improve
Right Mindfulness/Awareness — Mental ability to see things for what they are with clear consciousness
Right Concentration/Meditation — Being aware of the present reality within oneself, without any craving or aversion.
Right Understanding — Understanding reality as it is, not just as it appears to be.
Right Thoughts — Change in the pattern of thinking.

Disregard the bit about reincarnation and it's a great set of guidelines for living a peaceful, harmonious life. I have to say, it's much more clear, concise, and cohesive than a lot of religions! I think that as a philosophy, Buddhism is hard to argue with. Be moderate, be mindful of yourself and others, work to improve yourself by alleviating your own suffering and that of others. What part of that is negative? Presented without the label of religion, it's a set of instructions and a philosophy that's hard to argue with.

So why am I considering Buddhist meditation practices? Briefly stated, I want to find peace with myself. I want to be able to be without having to do all the time. I have a fortune from a fortune cookie taped right over my desk that says "To do nothing is to be nothing." That's how I live, and I'm really quite tired. I want to be able to exist for myself, not what what I do. I think that mindfulness meditation techniques might be a useful tool for me to reach my goal. We'll see what happens...

[ end ]

On atheism...

2007-06-16T10:24:00.000-07:00

Religion never really hit me on a spiritual and emotional level when I was a kid. It was a collection of stories, sometimes interesting, but still just...stories. I never felt that it was more than that, and I was always confused by people who thought it was true and a key part of their lives. I went to dinner with just my brother (also an atheist, but more closeted than I am) when I was in middle school. Somehow the discussion turned to religion, and he explained to me that he was an atheist, and that he saw god as a human invention to make people feel better. God can be used to explain ANY unknown--and isn't the unknown humanity's greatest fear? That conversation stuck with me and is really what made me first examine religion and my own beliefs.

I see myself as an atheist, a moral person, a humanist, a scientist, a skeptic. I do attribute my skepticism (at least in part) to the way my parents raised my brother and me. I can't remember a single time that they blew off a question or clearly made up an explanation--it was always "go look it up" or a true explanation followed by "go look it up." Our parents (and Montessori school) instilled a love of learning and questioning in me that defines a lot of who I am. I've pursued my education, written a thesis, and plan to do my Ph.D because I want to KNOW. I want to know just to have the knowledge. I don't have any goal, I don't see a finish line, I just want to know and understand. That gives me more joy and wonder about the world than any kind of faith could.

Morality has always been very important to me. Over the years, I've developed my own moral code--what is right, what is wrong, when things can be bent and when I must stand by my convictions regardless of the consequences. Because my morality is based on my own experience and intellect, I feel that (in many ways) I am more moral than the majority of believers. This may be presumptuous, but since I was not handed my moral code, I feel like mine is more true. I examine my morality and beliefs regularly--they are not static, but rather a work in progress and a vital, dynamic part of my life.

My atheism does not mean that I do not believe in anything, contrary to popular belief. I believe in many things--the power of science, the potential of all people, the intrinsic goodness of humanity (I'll explain that in a moment), the wonder and beauty of the natural world as created BY the natural world...the list goes on.

It took me a long time to come to see and believe in the intrinsic good of humanity. Looking around at the horrible acts committed every day, it's hard to see how people can be good. I realized, though, that (with the exception of sociopaths and mentally ill/incompetent people) that people universally do things because they believe it is the RIGHT thing to do. Distasteful as it is, if you look at many of the most brutal dictators in history--men and women who are responsible for atrocities--most of them committed horrifying acts because they thought is was the right thing to do. They were horribly misguided and caused unknown tragedy, but with few exceptions they did what they did because they thought it was for the greater good. I can't bring myself to believe that humanity is bad or that people are evil--I think that people want to do the right thing, but that intention is sometimes the reason for atrocities. Does that make sense?

Hmm....this seems to be running a bit long, so I'll stop here. I hope that this does provide some insight into my atheism, my morals, and what I do believe in.

[ end ]

[ insert title here ]

2007-06-13T20:56:00.001-07:00

I'm not really sure what I'd planned on posting about when I signed into blogger. Too bad for you, dear reader--I'm just going to make something up!

First of all, I hate typing right now. I partially severed the extensor tendon for my right index finger, which means a have a splint on and I have to type with just three fingers on my right hand. I'm used to typing quickly and without looking, so the modified 3-finger hunt-and-peck isn't fin. Maybe I'll just stop using words with the letter "n"--I hit "m" instead every time. It's really getting old, and it's another 3 weeks before I get the splint off. Not cool.

My husband (who will be referred to as "the Big Guy", since that's what I usually call him anyway) showed me a great article tonight--check it out here. The idea (in case you're too lazy to read it) is that there is a verse in the Bible--I Kings 7:23-26--states that god created the sea that was 10 cubits in diameter with a 30 cubit circumference. Since pi=c/d, the bible states that pi=3.00. As we all know, the approximation of pi that we all know and love is 3.14152etc... So, what does the biblical calculation of pi mean? Well, if you want to teach intelligent design in schools, then you should also teach that the bible says that pi=3.00.

So maybe this post is a preview of what's to come--a combination of uninteresting, trivial details about my life and political/religious/scholarly thoughts of the moment.

[ end ]

Brief (but non-test) post

2007-06-13T07:53:00.000-07:00

I'd love to use this as a chance to preview what's going to come of this blog. Unfortunately, I have no idea. I've jumped ship on my old blog. I felt like it had been so long since I updated that I really should just get a fresh start.

I'm hoping that being out of grad school will give me enough time to actually post. I've spent the past two years being too overwhelmed, busy, and exhausted to think about much of anything outside of school. Now that I've graduated I have time on my hands...scary. I'm hoping to update regularly, even if it's nothing important.

I'm off for now--errands are calling my name. Check back to see what's new and exciting in the life of a (currently unemployed) speech-language pathologist. Who knows, you might even learn something...

[ end ]

Test

2007-06-13T06:00:00.001-07:00

[ insert meaningless test post here ]