In addition to being a very smart animal, the octopus has no bones.  Hence, it can pull off this incredible manuver of sqeezing through a one-inch hole.

If you liked the first video, you’ll also enjoy this much more elaborate octopus video from National Geogaphic.

I was visiting a friend of mine in Vienna for the Easter holidays. Here are two things I did which I liked a lot - visiting the Karlskirche (St. Charles’s Church) and the Kunsthistorisches Museum (Museum of Art History). If you ever go to Vienna I recommend that you explore them, too (the Arcimboldo exhibition in the museum lasts until 1 June 2008).

Karlskirche:

The Karlskirche is supposed to be the most beautiful baroque church in Vienna, but that is not the reason why I liked it so much and feel the need to tell you about it. No, the reason why it excites me is the panorama lift that takes you to vertiginous heights to give you a really great view of the fresco paintings on the ceiling (also over the city, but with all the security wire netting occluding and limiting the view it was not really worth it). Usually, a normal visitor will never have the opportunity to see these paintings at such a close distance, but here the scaffolds that had been used for previous restoration works had been preserved to take visitors upstairs (not sure how long they will stay though, seems like they have been around for a while though).

The lift takes you to a platform, from there you have to take stairs (they look the same as the stairs in the first picture ) to reach the top. Let me just tell you, if you’re not a fan of heights and standing on a scaffold that surely was stable more or less, but well, not as stable as a nice stone staircase, you would also get the butterflies… (more…)

Because I have a tiny new camera (a Canon SD1100IS), I have lots of excuses for taking photos of familiar things.   It’s amazing how taking photos forces me to see.   It makes me appreciate many of those sights that I otherwise take for granted.  With this new little camera, then, I had an excuse to go see.  

BTW-my new camera, a Canon SD1100IS is a small moderately-priced consumer-level camera that is incredibly packed with features.  It has so many features that I would bet that I’ll never use half of them.  It’s an 8-megapixel, 3x optical zoom camera that measures only 3 1/2″ x 2″, small enough to take everywhere.  Some of its features (including image stabilization) allow it to handle existing light photos fairly well (for those of you who haven’t yet sworn off cheap flash units, you might want to consider turning off your flash and noticing the difference).   The problem with turning off the flash indoors is that many digital cameras do not offer a fast enough ISO to allow for a sharp image.

I admit that I processed these photos a bit, but only a bit.  The only processing I used were a few of the features offered by Picasa, a well-designed (and free) photo organizing program from Google.

Here’s a good way to start a weekend day in St. Louis.  It’s called “City Diner” (It was formerly “South City Diner”).  Located within walking distance of my home, this is where you must order the “Greek Omelet” for breakfast.  If you have young children, they will try to eat your omelet, no matter what they have chosen to order.

On the way back home from breakfast, one might happen to pass through Tower Grove Park, a large and  incredibly beautiful Victorian city park. This stern fellow is one of the many composers surrounding the Composer’s Gazebo.  

This is Busch Stadium.  I suspect that it’s some sort of church.

I needed to go to work today, even though it was a Sunday.  But that burden led to this opportunity to watch the evening descend upon the Gateway Arch and the Mississippi River.  In the foreground is the “Old Courthouse,” where Dred Scott was tried and given his freedom (before his victory was taken away by the United States Supreme Court).

(more…)

In 2006, Andrew Sullivan wrote that there are many forms of belief and that fundamentalism is only one of many forms of religious belief:

The alternative to the secular-fundamentalist death spiral is something called spiritual humility and sincere religious doubt. Fundamentalism is not the only valid form of faith, and to say it is, is the great lie of our time.

There is also the faith that is once born and never experiences a catharsis or “born-again” conversion. There is the faith that treats the Bible as a moral fable as well as history and tries to live its truths in the light of contemporary knowledge, history, science and insight. There is a faith that draws important distinctions between core beliefs and less vital ones–that picks and chooses between doctrines under the guidance of individual conscience.

There is the faith that sees the message of Jesus or Muhammad as a broad indicator of how we should treat others, of what profound holiness requires, and not as an account literally true in all respects that includes an elaborate theology that explains everything. There is the dry Deism of many of America’s Founding Fathers. There is the cafeteria Christianity of, say, Thomas Jefferson, who composed a new, shortened gospel that contained only the sayings of Jesus that Jefferson inferred were the real words of the real rabbi. There is the open-minded treatment of Scripture of today’s Episcopalianism and the socially liberal but doctrinally wayward faith of most lay Catholics. There is the sacramental faith that regards God as present but ultimately unknowable, that looks into the abyss and hopes rather than sees. And there are many, many more varieties.

Though I don’t agree with Sullivan’s insinuation that secularists are part of the problem, this excerpt from his article does illustrate an important point to me.   Many people would, if required to divide people into basic religious types, choose these two:  Believers in “God” and Skeptics (or Non-Believers in “God”).    Sullivan’s writing reminds me that there are many types of believers, many of them hard to distinguish from certain types of Skeptics.  

I am convinced that our culture war is not primarily between Believers and Skeptics, but between Fundamentalists and everyone else (that group of “everyone else” is a stew of believers and skeptics).   Two previous posts here at DI touch on the need to carefully define what one means when it comes to designating who is religiously distinct from whom.   Consider this post regarding Einstein’s God and this post, Yana Kanarski’s urging that we categorize types of Believers with utmost care.  It’s much more nuanced than the mass media proposes.   Also, keep in mind Jimmy Carter’s definition of fundamentalism.

My bicycle is not shifting smoothly.  The problem has developed over many months.   I’ve adjusted the cables repeatedly, without success.

I received some not so bad news today.   I took my bicycle into a neighborhood bike shop.   The crank teeth are worn down, as are the back sprockets and the chain.  This will be a substantial repair for a bike– more than $100.   This should put my bicycle into perfect riding shape.  I quickly agreed to go ahead with the repairs.

As I’ve described before, I often use a bicycle to commute to work.   I put almost 1,500 miles of wear on the bike every year.    Riding a bike (rather than driving a car) provides many benefits, including improved health and less stress on the environment.   I’ve described those benefits at this comprehensive post.   I also note that the IRS now reimburses workers about 50 cents per mile for use of a car.   Based on the IRS rates, I save about $750 per year by merely riding a bicycle to work.

To put my “big” bicycle repair bill in even better perspective, my neighbor (who drives a large gas-chugging vehicle) just told me that he now pays more than $100 to fill his tank one time.   He fills up that tank once every week.   My major bike repairs were needed for the first time after constant use of the bike over a period of seven years.

Here’s one other thing to consider.  It is often possible to ride a bike rather than driving a car/truck/SUV.   Most trips many people take require traveling only 5 miles from their residence, an easy distance to cover with a bicycle. 

With these thoughts, in mind, I decided to file this post to remind others of the many benefits of riding bicycles whenever possible.   Again, for a more fact-filled version of this post, check out this previous post. 

The disturbing part of this story is the reactions of so-called medical professionals to this couple’s situation and decision.

Now there are two ways to look at this. The one that might make more sense (though certainly no more palatable) is that these physicians et al are concerned with Insurance issues. What’s covered here? How does malpractice potentially enter into it? And while these folks are relatively well off and can carry their own expenses, what kind of precedent might be set here that will spread to the uninsured or Medicaid?

Unpleasant, but it would give a dimension to it that we could wrap our disgust around.

The other way to see it is as an example that, much as we might as a society wish to see ourselves as maturing, getting beyond such primordial reactions (namely—”Ugh! You different! You die!”), it turns out not to be true. That what we have is a facade and as long as no one really tests it, we can be what we think we are, at least to ourselves.

My reaction to what this couple is doing was initially (and continues to be) “Wow, cool!”

But I may well be in the minority.

What is a meaningful way of understanding the immense amount of money the United States spends in Iraq each day? This simple video by American Friends Service Committee compellingly gets this point across.

How does one most fairly frame this issue of what the United States is spending in Iraq? It’s not only a matter of whether we should be in Iraq for strategic reasons (every reason presented by the Bush Administration has proven to be untrue). It’s also a matter of whether there are vastly superior ways of spending that immense amount of money (there are, as illustrated by the video below).

I’ve previously tried to illustrate the immense expense we are incurring in Iraq here , here , here and here.

Check out the charts in this article by Mike Maloney.  His conclusion? 

 I think at this point I have proven my point beyond a shadow of a doubt… I think I’ve presented an air tight case… and I think it’s time to pronounce it “case closed”… the general equities markets (a.k.a. stock markets) are crashing, and have been since 1999-2001, depending on how you measure it. Even though the Dow is going up in price, if everything else is going up in price faster than the Dow, then the Dow is crashing in relative terms. In fact, I can’t think of anything you can measure the Dow with that doesn’t show it crashing… except of course, dollars.

Charlie Rose is having such a difficult time listening to his guests, because he has so obviously bought into the standard mainstream media view on the Iraq conflict (which is essentially the view developed by the Bush Administration).   He appears simultaneously ignorant yet preachy as two men with genuine familiarity with the people of Iraq repeatedly burst his bubble. 

This segment is well worth watching to hear the guests (Ali Fadhil and Sinan Antoon) uttering such an impressive stream of simple truths about Iraq.  Lesson number one:  what we call “Iraq” has little resemblance to the country the U.S. purportedly attempted to ”liberate.”  We’ve made a shambles of Iraq.

Marc Gunther created his blog to probe Corporate America for signs of social responsibility.   Hence, the name of his blog: “Marc Gunther - Corporate America: Making the World a Better Place . . . or Not.”

My sister-in-law (an architect who specializes in green issues) referred me to his site.   Marc’s posts are thoughtful and he has some impressive contacts with high-placed corporate types, giving him lots of good insight into the conscience (or not) of some huge and powerful organizations.

I especially enjoyed his post on the struggles of some well-to-do folks who are tired of even more well-to-do folks building houses bigger than theirs (the site of this squabble is the Hamptons).   This post is titled “Green Monsters.” The reference is to the so-called “green” luxury homes in the Seattle area (4,500 square feet) that were recently burned to the ground by eco-terrorists.  Though Gunther is sympathetic with the message of the eco-terrorists, he rejects their method. 

I do mean to suggest that those of us who are privileged ought to think and talk more about how much consumption is enough. Personally, I wish someone would find a way to raise questions about the morality of monster homes without burning them down. It’s probably too much to expect of the mainstream environmental groups that rely on donations from people living in big homes. Just look at who sits on the board of Environmental Defense or NRDC. Religious leaders could play a role, but they, too, depend on gifts from the well-to-do. Any thoughts?

Gunther is highly sensitive to the American consumption epidemic.  Although he is delighted to see some promising moves being made by some corporations, he is distressed that it is unsustainable business-as-usual for too many consumers.  The evidence?

I’d bet you didn’t spend any time at the malls or watching TV this past holiday season. Or realize that, for all the talk about climate change, roughly half the vehicles purchased in 2007 were SUVs and light trucks. Or see that despite the so-called credit crunch, millions of Americans continue to spend more money than they can afford to buy things they probably don’t need. Consider, for example, this shocking Los Angeles Times story about auto financing that, says, among other things that Americans are “slipping into a perpetual cycle of automobile debt,” that 45% of car loans are written for longer than six years, that the average loan is more than $30,000 (!)

The solutions need to happen at the grass roots level, but those solutions need to be inspired by those who are in positions to make a difference.   Will any of that happen?  It’s not going to be easy, because consumers appear oblivious and the big donors to prominent environmental groups “drive SUVs and own vacation homes.” 

I’ve added Marc Gunther to my favorites.   His driving interest in sustainable living, his unrelenting social conscience, his ability to write clearly, and his ability to serve as liaison to big corporations all put him in a unique position to communicate his worthy observations to us.

I will be in the Cincinnati area this weekend for fun and business. My only dilemma is to decide whether to spend the time and money to actually visit this edifice of counterknowledge?

I’ve written about this place on D.I. since before it was completed. (List of mentions of it on our own blog). Plenty of other bloggers have been there and reported on it with pictures and video. The hotel we are staying in is so close that they keep a block of rooms and a special discount rate for visitors to the museum.

Do I want to give these people my money, and tacit support, just to have better credentials to refute their claims? Do I want to miss out on some hours of dancing (and/or selling) in order to do this?

I was reading this ZDNet blog about the Browser becoming the new Desktop, and one question came to mind. What happened to the promise of inter-operable parts of your computer environment?

About 15 years back, when computers were going to create the paperless office, all of the operating system and desktop teams were promising this glowing future when you could mix and match components seamlessly. You can have one spell checker, one email program, one internet interface, one text editor, one math interface (as for spreadsheet formulas), and so on. But they didn’t have to be from the same source! WordPerfect would work with 1-2-3 would work with Usenet (email), and their respective parts could be called up by your schedule program. This didn’t come to be.

Now, for example, you have one spell checker for each brand of each component. Microsoft did follow the Lotus model, and integrated text, spreadsheets, and email so that they share a spell checker. But there is no way to use the Microsoft spell checker from (for example) your web design program (unless you do buy it from MS). Nor can you use it from your browser, even if you are still shackled to IE. Sure, FireFox comes with spell checking, but you have to train it for your special needs from scratch.

It would be nice if I only had to remember one set of special formula commands that do the same things in several different programs, too.

But sadly, this promise faded away, possibly buried under the tons of paper records that office computers now generate for (as near as I can tell) strictly CYA reasons.

Japan’s Kaguya lunar orbiter is sending back some incredible photos, including this photo of an earthrise.

Here are many other photos (click the HDTV tab).  Here’s a post (by NASA) discussing the lunar missions of Japan and China.

I have just finished reading Neil Shubin’s new book: Your Inner Fish: A Journey Into the 3.5 Billion Year History of the Human Body (2008). Shubin is one of those writers who writes to you as though he is speaking to you.  He manages to keep his sentences short yet friendly while he takes you on a mind-blowing journey from single-celled organisms up to his detailed explorations of human animals. Shubin is Provost of the Field Museum in Chicago, as well as a professor of anatomy at the University of Chicago.

The audience that really needs to read Shubin’s book will actively avoid reading it, of course.  Just think of the frustration that creationists already have with their idea that evolution teaches that “humans descended from monkeys.”  I hear this wrongheaded claim repeatedly and it gets quite tedious explaining to the creationist ignoramuses that no modern believer in evolution believes that humans descended from “monkeys.”  The irony of correcting creationists, however, is that the story of how the Earth’s creatures evolved is actually incredibly more interesting and challenging than the creationist’s simplistic version of evolution.  For instance, human ancestors include not only primates; they include fish too, and reptiles and worms.  Neil Shubin takes us on this awesome journey and there is much to share along the way.

I previously wrote about one of the incredible transitional forms discussed by Shubin, tiktaalik, an ancient fish that crawled out of the water. Tiktaalik, however, is only one of numerous transitional forms.  In fact, if there is a deep lesson to learn from reading Your Inner Fish, it is that every form, every plant and every animal, is literally and truly a transitional form.  Each of the earths living organisms is on a journey from what it used to be, heading toward what it is becoming.  Those who are on this journey include human animals, of course.  We can’t easily see where we are going, but the information provided by fossils, DNA and other objective evidence tells us where we’ve been.

One of the many transitional forms Shubin describes is the trithrledont, part mammal and part reptile, the telltale mark being tiny bumps and ridges on its teeth that included tooth-to-tooth occlusion (70). Shubin doesn’t only work in labs and classrooms.  He had a major part in finding some of the incredible fossils he describes, including trithrledont.   I especially enjoyed his description of how one develops an “eye” for finding fossils. 

Over time, I began to learn the visual cues for other kinds of bones: long bones, jawbones and skull parts.  Once you see these things you never lose the ability to find them.  Just as a great fisherman can read the water and see the fish within, so a fossil finder uses a catalog of search images that make fossils seem to jump out from the rocks.

Looking for fossils is hard work, but Shubin reminds us what is at stake:

Early mammals were small.  Very small.  Their teeth were not much more than 2 mm long.  To spot them, you had to be very careful and, more often, very lucky.  If the tooth was covered by a crumb of rock or even a few grains of sand, you might never see it…. occasionally… I’d hit the jackpot and see a deep connection for the first time…. I was seeing some of the first evidence of our pattern of precise chewing, only in a tiny mammal 190 million years old.  The power of these moments was something I’ll never forget.  Here, cracking rocks in the dirt, I was discovering objects that could change the way people think.  That juxtaposition between the most childlike, even humbling, activities and one of the great human intellectual aspirations has never been lost on me.  I try to remind myself of it each time I dig somewhere new.

There are many good lessons in Your Inner Fish.  For example, Shubin tells us about the non-obvious connections between teeth, breasts, feathers and hair: they all developed from skin (79).  He describes how worms are yet another good example of a transitional form. Evolutionarily speaking, it is from worms that we got our heads (96).  But don’t go thinking that we have evolved completely beyond the simple forms of worms.  In utero, each of us initially becomes a simple tube “with a fold of swelling at the head end and another at the tail” (101).  Those cells can unfold themselves into a large animal only by doing their extraordinary biochemical magic.  Most importantly, those tiny cells need to know how to talk to each other.  Such communication was a complex development that did not occur until halfway through the history of life on Earth.  Where is the halfway point?  Shubin illustrates how long it is taken for the human animal to get where it is:

Take the entire 4.5 billion year history of the earth and scale it down to a single year, with January 1 being the origin of the earth and midnight on December 31 being the president.  Until June, the only organisms were single celled microbes such as algae, bacteria and amoeba.  The first animal with a head did not appear until October.  The first human appears on December 31 (119).

We are reminded by Shubin of the many ways that we are still like single-celled organisms.  (more…)

This is a view on my way home from work tonight.   The 180-foot tall Compton Hill Water Tower is decorated, at its base, by traffic lights and the lighted traffic flowing by during this long exposure shot. 

Located near my home, in St. Louis, Missouri, the Compton Hill Water Tower:

is a remnant of another time. When it was built, William McKinley was president, and the population of St. Louis was just over half a million. The water tower was built on a 36 acre park, called Reservoir Park, where the wealthier families of German descent chose to make their homes. But the city was outgrowing the existing water delivery system. The pumps used to send water through the city created dangerous surges in pressure, making pipes rattle and shake. In an effort to equalize water pressure, a 5 feet wide, 100 feet tall standpipe was installed. For cosmetic appeal, the tower was built in 1898 to camouflage the standpipe. 

Drug War
Arcadio Esquivel, La Prensa, Panama, www.caglecartoons.com

Soldier Readiness Processing
Mike Keefe, The Denver Post

Money No Good
Mike Lester - The Rome News-Tribune

Heck of a job, economy
RJ Matson, The St. Louis Post Dispatch

Barbed Wire China Olympics
Alen Lauzan Falcon, Caglecartoons.com

Ambivalence
Ares, Caglecartoons.com

Cinco anos en Iraq
Adam Zyglis, The Buffalo News

[Note from Erich:  DI has a purchased a license from Cagle Cartoons to publish these cartoons.  We are proud to support the work of these cartoonists. ]

This is a no-brainer, or so I thought.  Before asking my extended family this question at a family gathering this weekend, I assumed that everyone would agree to my hypothetical proposal.  As distasteful as it might seem at first, I assumed that everyone in the room would (if given the opportunity) agree that they would eat nothing but dog food for one year in return for $1 million.

I write this post having tasted dog food on two occasions in past years.  On those two occasions, I’d chomped on a nugget of dry dog food, the kind that comes in a 40 pound bag.  I thought it tasted like cardboard, but it was not disgusting.  On the other hand, it was not food I would be inclined to eat again unless given an incentive.  Note: I have smelled canned dog food before, and I would not be inclined to eat that stuff.  The canned dog food I smelled had a strong disgusting odor to it.  It looked and smelled like it was no longer safe to eat.

So there I stood with various members of my family in my mother’s kitchen when I raised the question: who would be willing to eat nothing but dog food for the next year in return for $1 million?  To my surprise, the rejections and objections started pouring in, even though I went first and even though I proudly stated that my answer was absolutely “yes.”

Two of my sisters and my mother each rejected the idea out of hand. I listened to their excuses and I thought that I addressed all their objections, but they continued to reject the hypothetical offer.  One sister was concerned that if she went to all that work eating dog food for one year, they wouldn’t actually pay her the $1 million.  Therefore I changed the hypothetical so that it included an escrow account held by a person or institution she trusted.  Still, she refused to buy into the program.

Another concern (raised by a brother-in-law) was that even if dog food might provide most of the nutrition needed by a human being, it might not provide all of the vitamins and nutrients needed by humans.  Therefore, it might be dangerous over the course of the year.  Fair enough.  In response, I agreed that anyone engaging in this endeavor could take any vitamins or supplements that one might need (but that dog food might not provide).  That same brother in law then indicated that he might be willing to join the program, but only for $2 million.

I urged everyone to be honest.  We were talking about $1 million.  This is enough money to allow people to retire. I reminded everyone that they could buy their dog food at any supermarket or any pet store.  Their dog food could include any commercially available product labeled “dog food,” and this could include any type of dog food, dry or canned food, entrées or dog treats (I was hoping that the phrase “dog treats” would get everyone more excited about signing up for this hypothetical deal, but it didn’t).

I wasn’t suggesting that they would have to eat their dog food on the floor or that they would have to eat it out of a doggie dish.  They would merely have to agree to eat dog food, in any position.  They could light candles before dinner if that ambiance made the difference.  The main rule is that all of the food that they ate would have to be actual dog food.  The only fluid that they would be able to drink would be water, since that’s the only liquid that most people give to their dogs. (more…)

Imagine that a neighbor walks up today and tells you that he really cares about you.   In fact, he loves you like a daughter/son and he wants to show his love.  You might be delighted to hear such an expression of affection. 

Then imagine that he tells you that he wants to prove to you that he cares for you.  He wants to prove it in a way that you will never doubt the depth of his caring.  

You would probably be thinking that he’s going to do something nice.  Maybe he will give a big donation to charity in your name.  Or maybe he will go buy you something nice, or take you to dinner at a good restaurant.  But then he surprises you.

He reminds you that he has an adult son named Bill (which you knew, because you know Bill).  He then tells you that he is going to let a mob of goons torture and murder Bill in a bloody spectacle, for you!

You are aghast, but he continues on.

He tells you that he is going to let that mob drive large nails through Bill’s hands and feet, for you, to prove that he cares about you.   For a grand finale, he is going to allow this sadistic crowd to jab a spear through Bill’s side, to make sure that every drop of blood has been drained from Bill’s body.

It would be patently obvious to you that decent people don’t “show their love” by allowing their loved ones to be murdered.   At this point you are thinking that your neighbor is nuts and probably highly dangerous, because your neighbor’s logic points to an eternal regress.  If he lets Bill (his beloved son) get killed to show his love for you, then someday he might allow you to be killed to “show his love” to someone else. Where might this ever stop? 

The much bigger problem, of course, is that being complicit in murder is not a healthy way to show love to anyone.   Decent human cultures prohibit gratuitous murder.  We deplore those who allow mergers to happen when they could intervene and stop them.  Facilitating murder is a warped and disturbing attempt to demonstrate love.  

Similarly, the claim that God sacrificed his Son to show his love for us appears to be a blatant non sequitur.  It shouldn’t make sense for anyone, anywhere.  Except that it does make sense to Christians. Christians make a jarring and nonsensical exception for God, who is supposedly the most intelligent and loving Being in the universe.  (more…)

The place is the Denver Museum of Nature and Science.

The outcome is predictable, but this video is nonetheless worth watching to appreciate the extent to which the creationists intentionally deceive themselves. Along the way, the creationist teachers work hard to avoid considering evidence that disproves their bizarre religious beliefs.

At Daylight Atheism, Ebonmuse puts Rand’s theory of objectivism under a bright analytical light and finds it wanting:

Since Objectivists reject all notions of a social safety net, it’s natural to ask what would happen to the poor and needy in an Objectivist society. This is Ayn Rand’s answer: “If you want to help them, you will not be stopped” (p.80).

This chilling response, which carries with it the unmistakable implication that she will not be participating in any such effort, illustrates Objectivist philosophy’s cruel, heartless ethic of social Darwinism. Its guiding principle is not “we’re all in this together”, but rather “every man for himself” - and whatever misery strikes the worthless and the inferior as a result ought not to trouble the brave, heroic, superior souls whom Rand imagines are mankind’s salvation. The parallels between this doctrine and the beliefs of tyrants throughout history should be too obvious to need pointing out.

Rand based many of her conclusions on her unwarranted belief in the allegedly perfect wisdom of the “free market,” an (unfortunately) common belief that I have repeatedly criticized at this site.  

As a teenager, I was briefly enchanted with Rand’s writings.  I pulled away, though, for many of the reasons Ebonmuse eloquently raises in his detailed post.

Where are all the historical accounts of all of those dead people who climbed out of their graves and mingled with normal living people on Good Friday?  There’s only one plausible answer.  There are no such historical accounts because the Bible is incorrect.  Formerly dead people never crawled out of their graves and visited normal living people. 

Nontheless, Bible literalists (there are millions of such people) continue to claim that everything in the Bible is literally true. Then why aren’t there any historical (non-Christian) accounts of all of the incredible things that happened at the moment Jesus allegedly died?  

Supposedly there were earthquakes. Supposedly, dead people became alive again and crawled out of their graves, then “they began to walk around, appearing to many in Jerusalem.”  Nothing like this has happened before or since (except on zombie movies).  Why, then the absolute silence in reputable history books?  Why don’t the Gospel writers (other than Matthew) mention these incredible “events”?   This deafening silence is yet more proof that the Bible is not literally true. 

Here’s the relevant passages from Matthew:

27:51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
27:52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,  
27:53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many. 
27:54 Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God.

I recently spoke with two Bible literalists about these spectacular claims in Matthew. They both explained that these amazing events were obvious to everyone back then and people simply passed them off by word of mouth.  Thus, no need for any historical account of this incredible day.  I don’t buy this “explanation” for a second.  That would be like saying that there is no need for written acounts of 9/11 because we have a rich historical account.  Contrary to the claims of the two literalists,  if a man’s crucifixion really led to earthquakes and then many people climbed out of their graves and walked around, mingling with many “living” people, there would be many–MANY– (Christian and non-Christian) books written about these extraordinary events. 

If even ONE dead person really crawled out of a grave and walked around, it would be the story of the year.  Such an extraordinary event would be documented in millions of books, magazines and other documents.  

For much more information on the highly suspicious historical silence regarding the many alleged miracles of Christianity, spend a bit of time at Earl Doherty’s terrific site: Jesus Puzzle.  Doherty tells us to pay special attention to the lack of any Christian writings detailing the alleged life and miracles of Jesus for an eye-p0pping forty years subsequent to the alleged death and resurrection of Jesus (The above link takes you to Doherty’s home page–then click on “Putting the Jesus Puzzle Together in 12 Easy Pieces”).  Here’s the summary of Doherty’s main article (a link to the more detailed article is provided at that location):

The Gospel story, with its figure of Jesus of Nazareth, cannot be found before the Gospels. In Christian writings earlier than Mark, including almost all of the New Testament epistles, as well as in many writings from the second century, the object of Christian faith is never spoken of as a human man who had recently lived, taught, performed miracles, suffered and died at the hands of human authorities, or rose from a tomb outside Jerusalem. There is no sign in the epistles of Mary or Joseph, Judas or John the Baptist, no birth story, teaching or appointment of apostles by Jesus, no mention of holy places or sites of Jesus’ career, not even the hill of Calvary or the empty tomb. This silence is so pervasive and so perplexing that attempted explanations for it have proven inadequate.

I sit and watch the fluffy flakes
  descend this Easter morn.
My cat peers in and loudly states
  his distaste of this dawn.

I let him in and brush his fur
  with bare hand now quite dank.
His pleasure shows with a loud purr
  but, “Phew!” this cat has stank!

Here’s a snapshot of our not-quite-feral cat during the previous snow:

Today is Easter. Colorful eggs (pagan tradition), bunnies and chicks (pagan symbols), and consuming dangerous levels of foamy sweetener in scary yellow bites (Peeps™). Let’s not forget the “meaning behind it”: The anniversary of yet another demi-god risen from the dead. I enjoy this take on that subject.

Anyway, why not use this day to remember others of the many born-to-a-virgin half-breed godlings whose power was recognized at adolescence, who grew to great renown at maturity, who were persecuted, exiled, and/or executed by the powers that be, and died and came back to life, somehow earning eternal reward for themselves and others. Like Hercules, Osiris, Mithra, Adonis/Bacchus, Krishna, Dionysus…

I’ve sometimes wondered this, and this article in Discover Magazine presents the answer.  Four percent of men are raising another man’s child:

From the clinics to the courts, routine DNA tests uncover genetic identities—and even family secrets. British public-health researchers examined nearly 50 years of medical data from around the world and came to a startling conclusion: One in 25 men unwittingly raises another man’s child.

The researchers found evidence of mismatched paternity in each of 14 countries studied—from the United States to South Africa. Few socioeconomic groups seem immune, but the probability of parental discrepancy seems higher among unmarried couples, the poor, and women under 35 (who are more likely to have more than one sexual partner).

4% might not seem like a large number, but every big classroom probably has a student who is being raised by a man who falsely believes that child to be his child. 

It’s hard to know what to do with such numbers.   For instance, I am the father of two adopted girls.  To me, the fact that I am not their biological father is of no importance whatsoever when evaluating my relationship with them.   Then again, that’s how my wife and I planned it.   There weren’t any surprises sprung on us.

I would fear for those children involved, were it to become known to the man who is raising them and loves them that he is not there biological father, where he currently believes that he is.   I would hope that that relelationship wouldn’t change anything at all between the father and the children, but it would be naive to expect this.  

How important is it to people that they are raising children who are their biological children?  Just consider the vast amounts of money many couples spend on extraordinary medical treatment so that they can have their “own” children.

I understand that impulse, but it is clear that the great majority of our genome is exactly the same as that of every other person on Earth.   Rather than worrying about whose child is whose, it would be far healthier to acknowledge that we are all related to every child on the planet–they are all our children. 

Here’s R.J.Eskow’s story about how Hillary Clinton is so incredibly brave, or maybe not:

If you’re Hillary Clinton and you’ve just been caught in a “whopper,” the only thing to be grateful for is that it’s Good Friday and people are distracted. How bad could this story be for her? When you tell the American public you faced gunfire, and it turns out all you really faced was a little girl with flowers - well, that’s as bad as it gets. When you dramatically say you made a journey that was too dangerous for the President, only to have it revealed that he made the same trip two months earlier - and that your teenaged daughter was by your side - that only makes it worse.

–