The Plus One Factor

I am tired of writing about (against) Barack Obama. So today, I’ve decided to post my “mathematical formula” proving the existence of God.

This is probably ridiculous since I only passed Algebra I in high school (on my second attempt) because I made the teacher laugh. But if you can follow along my thought process, you may find this interesting. And if you can point out where my theory is obviously BS, please let me know.

Otherwise, enjoy your impending headache.

The Theory

The number line is infinite — both as positive and negative integers.

We could express this opposite "ends" of the number line like this:
-∞ and ∞

All other numbers (x) fall in between these opposing expressions which could be expressed like this:
-∞ < x< ∞

More importantly, (and I don’t know how to express this) the relative value of x compared with -∞ is infinitely "greater than." And in this the equation, the relative value of x compared to ∞ is infinitely "less than."

Therefore the relative value of x is both -∞ AND ∞. The two simultaneous values cancel each other out, leaving a relative value of zero. (The same could be said for both ends of the spectrum in relation to each other.)

Though we're considering the number line in this equation, the equation holds for any thing in the universe which could in any way be measured (by weight, volume, mass, length … etc.). Regardless of how large something is, you could imagine it being larger. At the same time, no matter how small something is, you could imagine it being smaller. (Simply think half the size, or twice as big.) This puts anything that one can measure in the same predicament as x on the number line — that is relatively "infinitely larger than" or "relatively infinitely smaller than" and thus having an overall relative value of zero.

So everything in the universe has a relative value of zero next to a value that is, itself also zero. It follows logically then that nothing in the universe exists!

However, it's clear to me (at least) that in what we take for the physical world, something does exist.

Thus, there must be some value outside the universe that gives all things reality, that --- by its presence in our net zero universe --- brings all things into existence. I call this the +1 Factor.

God.

Stop Climate Change: Let’s Stay with Spring!

The effects of global warming are undeniable. Just three months ago, I could walk a mile or so to the nearby CVS Pharmacy for a carton of cigarettes and barely break into a sweat. Normally I drink diet cola exclusively, but after the trek today I came home soaked with perspiration, gasping for air and actually craving water. Bleeggh!

I guess it’s my own fault. I was one of those Floridians who mastered the difficult task of casting a ballot to help give George W. Bush his 517-vote margin of victory here in 2000. Gosh, if only the Democrats on the Florida State Supreme Court had been successful in achieving a count they liked, it wouldn’t be getting warm in June.

Yeah, I know 1998 was more of a scorcher, but that doesn’t count because Bill Clinton was president. And most of that heat was generated by the Monica Lewinsky scandal anyway (which, as everybody knows, was a Republican-orchestrated circus). And yes, 1998 was tied by 1934 but hello? … FDR.

Still it remains a fact that the temperature has skyrocketed an astronomical one degree Fahrenheit globally during the past 120 years or so. A few dips and rises along the way, sure, but overall it’s still about a whole degree hotter (or almost back up to where it was 74 years ago). And when you eliminate the sun as a potential source of heat for the Earth, maybe 0.05 of that one degree is attributable to non water vapor greenhouse gases — some of which are produced by people. It’s outrageous that after two terms in office, George Bush has done nothing to get us back to the really cool Nixon-Carter years. Deny that, dammit!

Of course, global warming is only part of the problem … especially since we’re currently in Year 10 of a suspected global cooling cycle. (We may want to hold off on publicizing this until a Democrat becomes president.) Rest assured it will be much, much hotter again, probably in about 20 years (or about the time the GOP finds its way back from the wilderness). Today the preferred term for impending doom is “climate change.”

And climate change is going to continue unabated unless we Americans renounce our sinful ways. No more air conditioners, no more cars, no more light bulbs that produce light. Unless we change, you can count on fall, winter, spring and summer giving us rain, snow, hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and droughts (thaws and freezes and big gusty breezes!). It’s all going to take place somewhere — like it’s never happened before.

So act now to stop the seasons, vote Obama08!

Note: I didn’t bother sourcing my facts because I’m lazy, not because they aren’t true. Just take my word that I’ve done some research and reached a consensus. Plus, I used a computer to write this. End of debate.

I Won't be Going for this 'Strain'

I first became impressed with Michael Crichton as a novelist after reading Andromeda Strain sometime in the early 1980s. I remember that I bought the paperback at a used book store in Auburn while I was in college. I didn't have cable so I read a lot more back then.

In short, the sci-fi novel is about an alien microbe that comes to Earth as a highly deadly and rapidly spreading virus. What I liked about Andromeda Strain, as well as subsequent Crichton books that I've read (The Sphere, Congo, Jurassic Park, State of Fear), is the level of scientific knowledge woven into this author's stories. In addition to a getting a good tale, I learn things.

A few years later when I finally got cable, I saw the movie adaptation of Andromeda Strain. (Sometimes I'll watch a movie version even after reading the book, but never the other way around.) I guess it was filmed sometime around the mid 1970s ... I could look it up, but don't feel like it. I thought the movie was pretty good, though not great. The nitty-gritty of the "science stuff" just doesn't translate very well to film. But there was something about the movie that I found very refreshing: there were no hot babes or hunky guys.

If I remember correctly, there was a core group of about five scientists and only one of whom was a woman. She was overweight, wore horn-rimmed black glasses and was probably in her early 60s. The guys were all average looking, down to David Wayne (the only actor whose name I know). Wayne was probably in his 60s as well, and I doubt he was ever considered a classic leading man. They were what "real people" look like.

I been catching promos lately for a re-make of the movie to be aired on A&E sometime soon --- maybe this weekend. Sure enough, it seems the new version will be going for the GQ meets Cover Girl look when it comes to casting a majority of their roles.

Last night I watched a horror film where the main character was an alcoholic sheriff. Think of a boozehound sheriff and you might think of Robert Mitchum or Dean Martin in a couple of westerns with John Wayne. (There were two John Wayne movies that were essentially the same film, just different actors and a different title --- neither of which I remember.) Maybe Mitchum and Martin cleaned up pretty well, but they were far from glamorous in those films. They looked liked you'd expect alcoholic sheriffs to look.

Not true of the "hot young chick" in the film I saw last night and I found the casting to be ridiculous --- way more unbelievable than a 900 year-old Aliens-ripoff monster killing everyone in a conveniently isolated tiny Southwestern town.

I won't be watching the latest version of the Andromeda Strain, though I'm sure the special effects will be much better. I feel I owe some loyalty to the fat old lady scientist in the first film ... as well as the legions of not-so-attractive folks who do most of the work in the real world, leaving entertainment fluff to the beautiful people.

What's that song about?

One of my favorite musical artists is Enya. She is an astonishing talent: a lovely vocalist and amazing muscian (she composes and plays all the instruments on her albums).

She sings in English, Gaelic and sometimes Latin.

When I hear one of her songs in a language I don't understand, I usually imagine I have a sense of what she is singing about ... with mixed success. There was one, entitled Smaoinim that I pretty well pegged as being about someone dying. Another one, called Ebudae, I thought was a song about going into battle, but instead it was about washing clothes. Eh, win some, you lose some.

Muzak is like hearing a song in a foreign language, except the words have been replaced by notes played on a musical instrument.

Now, have you ever noticed how many truly good people aren't affiliated with any religious faith? Some of them are atheists.

It is my belief that such people "hear" the music but not the words. They're listening to heavenly Muzak. And I think the tune they're hearing is beautiful enough to affect their whole outlook on life.

But they're missing the words. To a certain extent we all do ... so we make up some to fill in the gaps. So while it's nice to have so many music lovers, I do think we often have too many people just humming or possibly thinking about fighting when they should be more concerned with the wash. (If you've read some of my other posts, you'll see I'm consistently guilty of this.)

To get the words right, you really need to get in touch with the Composer. Of course, before you do that, you have to acknowledge that there is one.

Evil's Purpose

Humans are the only creatures on earth capable of imagining a Perfect Existence — our primary desire.

From an individual’s perspective, a perfect existence would be one where he has authority to establish Order by controlling all things (with obedience to nothing) and in turn having every wish (of his own choosing) gratified.

There are two components in the quest for absolute gratification: Liberty and Order. The vast majority of people grudgingly go along that Perfect Existence is not possible in the physical world. Because we are not alone, most of us understand we must compromise some aspects of the Liberty and Order components. Liberty becomes the province of Self, whereas Order is that which is imposed. Because we are simultaneously ourselves and the imposed upon, we seek a comfortable balance between freedom and security. This is the Great Compromise, and also, I believe, the practical essence of the "Golden Rule."

Rational people, accepting that Perfect Existence is beyond human capabilities, therefore seek the Perfect Balance between Liberty and Order. Establishing the parameters of such a balance is itself, establishing Order, yet this Order ideally preserves a significant amount of Liberty.

Depending on their circumstances, experiences, and instruction, individuals have different assessments of where the balance between Order and Liberty should be struck. To the extent that we feel secure or are confident in our abilities to resist chaos, the more we lean toward the Liberty side. The weaker or more threatened that we feel, the more attractive imposed Order becomes.

The lure of Perfect Existence, however, remains at the core of our being. It is a temptation to go to political extremes in search of Liberty or Order, so that one can achieve the other extreme as well. We can see examples of the latter in the form of robber barons who oppose regulation or laws in order to become “king of the jungle” and ultimately “buy happiness.” The other is the despot who runs the strictest police state, but he indulges in every whim. For both parties, the greater their success, the more they come to resemble one another.

Perfect Existence is attainable, but only through complete subjugation of self to God. In surrendering to God, union of our spirits takes place. Being one with God, we have ultimate liberty, and have achieved eternal, immutable perfect order. This is the Holy incarnation of the Primary Desire. Unfortunately it is the false version that most often motivates us.

There are two evils. The First is the desire to establish order for self aggrandizement. “I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.” Isaiah 14:14 (King James Version). It is the pursuit of the Primary Desire ... but without God.

The Second Evil is subjugation of self to Order that is not God. Not knowing God, and out of hopelessness and despair, we might place our faith in anything other than ourselves; viewing ourselves as essentially worthless. We have seen the effects of extreme subjugation demonstrated by people who commit atrocities only because they were instructed to do so. Or it may be seen in given one’s self over to the rule of drugs.

In this world, there is a sublime dynamic at work in that the First Evil is at war with the Second. Tyrants fall because inevitably abject subjugation becomes too much for the individual to bear — self interest drives rebellion.

Conversely, even the most seemingly utopian society will crumble, as some individuals come to desire more for themselves than others. And this should not be regarded as a loss. Perfect Existence, apart from God is The Great Lie. The failure to build our own Garden of Eden, as well as the fall of the most brutal dictators, brings us back to reality.

For temporal world, the twin evils of Selfishness and Subjugation to unholy authority drive us back to the Great Compromise.

And for the eternal world, the competition of evils is the mechanism drives us to seek God’s Kingdom.

It would be in your best interest …

Have you ever received an unsolicited suggestion as to what choice you should make? Doesn’t it sort of tick you off — even if you know they’re probably right?

Let’s say you’re a bit on the heavy side and you’re in a cafeteria line eyeing the Boston crème pie versus the peach cobbler.

Now imagine a total stranger (just for the heck of let’s say it’s a tall, lean, handsome, impeccably dressed African-American man) who says, “If you must eat dessert, you should have the sugar-free Jell-O.”

Any two-word responses come to mind?

We expect guidance from friends and family, whether it’s requested or not. They are emotionally invested in our welfare, so they get to exercise a “shareholder’s” two-cent option. Plus, they often know a good bit about us and our situation. The people who are dear to us — and we to them — also know something about our values and interests. They might know, as in our hypothetical situation that you’ve been on strict diet for six months and today, and today only, you planned to celebrate the milestone loss of 30 pounds by having dessert.

But regardless of your reason for wanting to eat something you “probably shouldn’t,” one thing you can be most positive about is that the busybody in line with you is probably more interested in trying to run your life than in keeping you “heart healthy.”

Oh sure, he may truly believe the world would be a better place if everyone would just shut up and do as he says. But remember, it will still be his vision of utopia, not yours. Maybe you think fat and died-happy at 70 beats 93 years old and drinking wheat grass juice, but any time you go against his grain, you upset the applecart of his ambition which is to make the rules.

Now as annoying as that stranger would be, imagine if he was in charge of the whole federal government and all the police powers that go with the job.

Now I’m not suggesting that you’ll be arrested for eating Boston crème pie if Barack Obama becomes president. (He may tax it, but that’s really not the point.) But what I am saying is that he doesn’t know a huge portion of this nation’s population and doesn’t understand the values of these people. Instead he “reasons" that they clutch their Bibles in one hand and their guns in another because they’re ignorant rubes who lack his omniscient erudition.

In Obama’s mind, we do not share his worldview because we are wretched, oppressed and misled. It is so clear to Him that we need His guiding light to lead us to the Promised Land.

He becomes disappointed when we don’t “get it.” You see, He is all wise and all benevolent. The “O” (be sure to say it with the appropriate touch of awe) knows what’s best for everyone. Once we submit in unity to His wisdom, Paradise will come to our land. We will finally, and at last without bitterness, beat our guns into plowshares, cast off the bonds of religiosity and welcome our “undocumented worker” friends without rancor or remorse.

Oh, who knows? The “O” may actually be wisest leader since Solomon, so go along if you want. As for me, I’m eating my pie.

Bringing in the Sheaves

Last night, Night of the Hunter appeared again on TCM. I watched it through the first hour before switching channels. I’ve seen it many times and own the DVD, so it wasn’t like I was missing out on a golden opportunity to see the film to its conclusion.

Robert Mitchum plays a murderous sociopath on the trail of stolen money. Masquerading as a preacher, he marries the widow of the robber, assuming correctly, that the woman’s children (a boy and a girl) know where the money was hidden.

After killing his new wife (leading to perhaps the most haunting image ever set in celluloid), “Preacher” comes after the children. But they escape by taking a boat down a river. Eventually they are given refuge by a loving but stern old woman, Mrs. Cooper (played by Lillian Gish), who makes it her business to offer sanctuary and guidance to lost orphans. And that’s “lost” in the spiritual sense as well.

The 1955 movie is often categorized as film noir and was produced in black and white, but there is no gray area to the characters: Good is good. Evil is evil. Innocence is innocence. Foolish is foolish … and foolish people are in abundance.

I can understand why it was essentially a box office bomb at the time of its release. This is an allegorical tale and the message is never diluted by nuance. It must have been difficult for Mitchum to play “evil” and absolutely nothing else. Students of film probably recognize certain stylistic elements, but I just call it “weird.”

I love the movie though, and I find the climatic showdown between Preacher and the Mrs. Cooper to be perfectly satisfying. Despite his treachery and viciousness, it’s made clear that he can’t stand up to her in a one-on-one match-up. That’s why Evil always goes after the weak.

There is one scene that struck me as odd the first time I saw it, however. Preacher is laying siege to the old woman’s home as she waits, on guard, inside. He begins singing, “Bringing in the Sheaves.” Mrs. Cooper sings along.

At first glance, this might suggest the duality of Good and Evil, or perhaps they’re kindred souls who took different paths. But I don’t think so. Coming from Preacher, the spiritual is blasphemy. And rather than recoiling in disgust, Mrs. Cooper meets the challenge and reclaims the song by singing it as well.

Through the centuries, atrocities have been committed while in the trappings of religion. This has led many decent people to turn away, and never sing “the song” again. Mrs. Cooper wouldn’t do that. She never gave an inch and rather than losing her faith to an ultimately wretched creature, she stood firm and crushed him.

And more …