Tuesday, January 2, 2007
It Comes In Threes

Some friends of mine often tell me that famous deaths occur in threes. Previous examples of this escape me, but a recent spate of famous deaths reminded me of it.

The first was the sad passing of James Brown, one of the best entertainers of the 20th century in my opinion. Next was Gerald Ford, certainly not one of the best presidents of the 20th century. In fact, one of Ford's most famous quotes was, "I'm a Ford, not aLincoln."

The last famous man to die was the worst: Saddam Hussein.Given the sensational nature of it all, it's understandable that his death is getting the most attention on television, the hanging video, the Kurdish nerve gas atrocity, the Baath party with it ties to the Nazis. All of it makes for ratings gold. What does surprise me is the outrage over his execution cropping up in the west.

First the Vatican issues a statement condemning the execution.The organization responsible for the deaths of millions of Muslims during the Crusades is outraged over the state-issued execution of Saddam Hussein? I know they've changed their stance on burning non-Christians at the stake, but what about all of the unjustly condemned people waiting on the world's death rows?We have Darfur and Afganistan and they're worried about Hussein? This does not make sense to me.

Secular critics are pointing to the video made of the execution, noting that at one point several of Hussein's enemies are shouting taunts as he stands on the gallows with a stoic expression, and worry that he will be seen as a martyr, especially by the Sunnis. Other critics say that the Iraqi prime minister turned Saddam over to the militia for vengeance, not justice. I can see the logic behind both of these arguments, and I completely agree that Saddam's execution could have been better handled. No videos of men with ski masks, for instance.

But it was up to people of Iraq to decide Saddam's fate, it's their country, and the entire world knew that Saddam's days were numbered the minute they found him hiding out in that hole near Tikrit. Considering how executions were handled before Saddam and by Saddam himself, this execution, bad as it was, is nowhere near as bad as it used to be.

What remains to be seen is if things will get better or worse over there now that he is gone.

Posted by Robert Williams 2007-01-02 23:54:20

Wednesday, December 13, 2006
Christmas 2006

It's hard to believe but Christmas has come around yet again. I suppose technically it isn't here yet, but judging by the fistfights that have broken out over the new Playstation 3, the season is upon us.Andhave I bought a single gift yet, as of the date I write this? Not a one. No minute like the last minute, I alwayssay.

Given some of the heavier subjects I've written about for the last few posts, I figured I'd go with something lighter as the year winds down, and just list some of my favorite things of 2006. (So far, that is. Let's hopesomething great happenswithin the next two weeks.) So here they are in no particular order or category:

Darren Aronofsky's beautiful, moving The Fountain made big impact on me. I know it wasn't to everyone's tastes, but I loved it. Comparisons to 2001: A Space Odyssey are inevitable, and I think eventually this film will develop a faithful, long-lasting cult following. Another big standout this year was Stranger Than Fiction, a clever, uniquefilm featuring a suprisingly good Will Ferrell. I suppose I could compare it to Talledega Nights to show his range, but I haven't seen that movie and I have no plans to change that situation.

Bookwise, I've got to mention Stephen King's Cell. No, it isn't Shakespeare, but any book about cell phones turning people into mindless, ravening zombies is darn good readin' for me. Still haven't read Lisey's Story, but it's on my list. Although they aren't new books, I finally read Mary Renault's The Last of the Wine, about life in ancient Greek theater, and The King Must Die, her retelling of the legend of Theseus. Everything she writes is so vivid andengaging, true works of art. I read many other books this year but those stick out in my mind.

NASA announced it's building a permanent space station on the Moon! It's about freakin' time. We'll see if it really happens...

The planetary alignment of Mercury, Jupiter and Mars on December 10th.A real beauty.

That's all I can think ofright now. If anyone wants to share their favorite things of 2006, please do.

Posted by Robert Williams 2006-12-13 02:42:21

Monday, November 20, 2006
Comments on the God Delusion

As I write this, one of the bestselling books in America is Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion, a treatise on atheism. I’ve not yet read it, so this isn’t a criticism of the book, however I have seen Dawkins speak about his book and lay out its central ideas, and I wanted to comment on it.

Aside from its title, which is obviously meant to be incendiary, Dawkins takes a strict and uncompromising tone in his discussions about God. He is an Oxford biologist, and lays out scientific rationalism as the only valid system of belief. Organized religion is taken to task for oppressing women and homosexuals, abusing children “with visions of eternal damnation,” and inciting worldwide religious violence and terrorism. As expected, the book has stirred up quite a bit of controversy.

This is hardly the first book critical of religion, but what is surprising is the amount of copies it has sold. While religious books consistently perform strongly, books critical of religion almost never do as well. Until recently. The God Delusion is the latest in a string of antireligious books published in the post-9/11 age that have seen strong sales. Just in the last few years Daniel Dennett’s Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon and Sam Harris’ The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation have all achieved bestseller status. How are we to interpret this?

The sales of these books shouldn’t be entirely attributed to their quality. I’m sure they’re all well-written and researched, but there are hundreds of well-written books that don’t make the bestseller lists. We should see the sales as a kind of social barometer to get a sense of what is going on in the mind of the book-buying public.

Certainly, part of this is a backlash of terrorism. Terrorists go on and on about all the “infidels” filling up Western civilization and there are religious overtones to almost all the struggles going on in the Middle East. The connection between violence and religion is as old as the Crusades. With the current problems in the world, it is coming to the forefront of people’s minds.

It would be incorrect to see this as sign of the demise of religion, as some have suggested. After all, Francis Collins’ The Language of God was a blockbuster earlier in the year. This was another scientist seeing evidence of God’s existence all around us in the study of nature. It stands to reason that even while people are reluctantly admitting the connection between organized religion and violence, a great need for spirituality remains.

There is a reason for this need. Some years back scientists discovered a part of the left temporal lobe in the brain that seems to be responsible for religious feeling. Stimulating it with a rotating magnetic field caused ecstatic feelings sometimes described as experiencing of the presence of God. The lobe was promptly named “the God module.” And as is usually case in this argument, both sides held up this evidence and proclaimed it proof that they were right. Atheists stated “See? It’s all just a biological delusion!” Theists stated “See? Human beings are hardwired to believe in God and it’s proof that God exists!”

The argument eventually went away because of a simple reason: the research was wrong. Truthfully, while the temporal lobes are involved, religious experience is extremely complex and involves many parts of the brain, including some that are “prehuman,” or parts of the brain that developed in animals believed to be our evolutionary ancestors. This is in fact proof that spiritual feelings are incredibly ancient, older even than the human species, and plays an important part in our survival. Very few people relied upon strict scientific rationalism to get through the 9/11 attacks.

So it’s a double-edged sword. Religious mania can lead to horrifying violence, yet a lack of spirituality leads one to despair. I hope you don’t expect me to resolve this in one blog entry, even if it is getting quite long now, but I will point out that there are billions of perfectly reasonable, good-hearted, intelligent, religious people in the world who walk a middle ground and seem quite happy there.

If it’s stuck in your head to find some kind of resolution between science and religion, I would only recommend that you rely upon your personal experience, and not scripture. I see so many people trying to bend scientific facts to prop up Bible quotes. If tomorrow the existence of a completely different kind of God were proven, where would that leave the Bible? At a certain point, it can be obstacle to God, not an aid, because people rely on it to tell them what to think. If God is truly in you, He will speak to you Himself to nurture your spiritual needs. To avoid delusion, rely on scientific rationalism to keep your feet firmly planted in reality. Then work out a balance between the two. If that sounds too much like relativism to some, well, play it as it lays.

Posted by Robert Williams 2006-11-20 01:33:16

Thursday, October 26, 2006
Elections and Stem Cells

As I mentioned in an earlier post, the mid-term elections are coming up, and as is the common practice, referendums are held at the same time. My home state, Missouri, is currently holding a referendum concerningstem cell research. Amendment 2 would provide some constitutional protections for embryonic stem cell research, and seems to have attracted the attention of the nation for it. Michael J. Fox appeared in an ad supporting Amendment 2, as well as the Democratic candidate for the Senate, Claire McKaskill. Opponents to the amendment later created their own ad featuring celebrities urging Missourians to vote no on 2.(That seems like a lot of political writing for a guy who doesn't like politics,but don't worry, I'm getting to the good stuff.)

The crux of the issue is that some stem cells come from human embryos, made from egg and sperm cells combined artificially in a lab. Some lines of research focus on cloning embryos, which brings about the subject of the ethical treatment of embryos, so this is a subject that touches on both the abortion and human cloning debates.

No one is more against human cloning than me, but I think more reason needs to be injected into this argument and less emotion.

Stem cells are special cells capable of changing into any other kind of cell found in the body. Human embryos are composed entirely of stem cells, which as the embryo develops change into bone cells, brain cells, skins cells, and so on.

Adults also make stem cells in their bone marrow, which are used in the repair and upkeep of the bodies tissues.Theoretically, they can continue dividing without limit, as long as the organism creating them is still alive.

A researcher with University of Pittsburgh performed an amazing experiment in which he took adult stem cells from bone marrow (not embryonic cells) and injected them into the hearts of some patients about to undergo heart transplants. After the patients had their transplants, the researcher took possession of their original hearts and examined them. (Gives new meaning to the phrase, "You stole my heart away!") In the spots where he had injected the stem cells, the tissues had grown stronger, and new blood vessels had formed. The gist of it is that stem cell injections might someday treat many types of heart disease. Similar procedures could be used to treat ailments in any other part of the body, including brain disorders like Parkinson's, which is why Michael J. Fox is a strong supporter of it. They could also be used to treat spinal cord injuries. Christopher Reeve was a major supporter of stem cell research before he died.

Compared with adult stem cells, embryonic stem cells are regarded as better equipped to become any of the specialized body tissues. Using them is the real hot button issue. Stem cells can be extracted from blood taken from the umbilical cords of newborn babies, a practice that in no way harms the infant or the mother, however it is my understanding that true embryonic stem cells, formed directly from a fertilized egg, are still considered superior to these cells.

There are currently 21 lines of embryonic stem cells alive in the United States. The cells are kept alive indefinitely and given to researchers and non-profit organizations for experimentation.This is referred to as the National Stem Cell Bank, whichis managed through the WiCell Research Institute operating out of the University of Wisconsin. They operate with federal approval as long as they stay within certain guidelines.

Every time we take a new technological step forward, problems and controversy always emerge. Banning the technology does not solve the issue. It is as much of a cop-out as the favorite line of biowarfare and nuclear weapons advocates, saying, "If we don't do it, then our enemies will!" (See my earlier post on North Korea.) Obviously stem cell research carries great potential for misuse. I can imagineprivate labs illegally cloning human embryos, and buyers purchasing illegal cells on the black market. Let's hope it never comes to that. But as long as people know a chance to save their lives exists, they will seek a means to find it. Embryonic stem cells will be used to treat disease,it's inevitable. I don't know about a constitutional amendment, but a system does need to be put in place so people can gain access to them in an ethical way.

Posted by Robert Williams 2006-10-26 23:11:38

Wednesday, October 11, 2006
North Korea Has the Bomb

Well, it was only a matter of time.

North Korea has tested a nuclear bomb. While the politicians blame each other and columnists (and bloggers like me, I guess) wonder just how crazy is Kim Jong-Il, countries like Iran are movng forward with their own nuclear arsenals.

Other people have already written about the possible political consequences of this much better than I could, the writers at Slate for instance, and I detest politics, so I won't touch it. But I still wanted to make a point.

The thing is, we have known how to make nuclear bombs for decades now. It's so much a part of the world's culture that almost everyone has a passing familiarity with the theory behind how they work, fission and E=mc˛ and all that.As time passes more countries are going to figure out the nuts-and-bolts of how to put a bomb together. North Korea will not be the last. Iran will not be the last. And yes, it is entirely possible terrorists will one day get ahold of one. We cannot go on with our heads in the sand hoping everything will turn out okay.

Hopefully this will give the international community the push it needs to get together and do something about this.

Posted by Robert Williams 2006-10-11 03:39:46