Nimrods

System Justification

2009-07-19T17:11:00.007-04:00

Olivia Grace

2009-03-16T00:32:00.007-04:00

Some things speak for themselves. My ~~little~~ girl came into the world this past Saturday, March 14th 2009, just shy of 10 lbs.

Capital vs Labor

2009-03-01T13:13:00.000-05:00

It is assumed that labor is available only in connection with capital; that nobody labors unless somebody else, owning capital, somehow by the use of it, induces him to labor. This assumed, it is next considered whether it is best that capital shall hire laborers, and thus induce them to work by their consent. Having proceeded so far, it is naturally concluded that all laborers are either hired laborers or what we call slaves. Now, there is no such relation between capital and labor as here assumed . . . . Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights.

Abraham Lincoln - first annual message to Congress, December 3, 1861

In-group & out-group bias

2008-12-04T15:10:00.008-05:00

I recently went searching online for a discussion on in-group/out-group dynamics and came across this post from a blog entitled An Evangelical Dialogue on Evolution. I attempted to comment, but then later found out that there was a special submit process and that.. get this.. I was part of the out-group since I am not an evangelical christian.

Here is my original attempt to post on the blog that did not pass the moderator:

(Nov 3, 2008 12:10am)
Is not the threat between these specific factions just one of sanity vs madness? A person who has a good grasp of their own individual identity and power in the world would have very little reason to lapse into madness no matter which group "wins" the fight. There is no blood being shed on this issue or people dying from lack of resources. But taken the quote above, one can see that the fight for sanity is connected to being more and more accepted by a group (even the one you are part of!).

How's the saying go? The man in doubt must knock on everyone's door, but the man who is certain lets everyone sleep.

Could it be that the warriors on both sides of this issue have their own identity circle seperate from the circles they fight for?

We are people who fear we are not accepted! Let us rejoice!

From Nimrods

When days past and I noticed that it did not post... I wrote Steve an email:

(Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 11:02 AM)
Steven,

I attempted to post a reply to one of your blog entries, and only realized afterwards that I had to email you first in order to post. I was about to send an email, but then noticed that you only accept Evangelicals. I was raised Roman Catholic, not Evangelical, and came across your blog while searching for discussions on in-group/out-group bias. (The post was this one - http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2008/09/ingroup-outgroup-bias-in-origins-debate.html)

Do you ever allow posts for people that are not of the Evangelical faith?

Sincerly,

Joe

Steve promptly replied:

(Sat, November 15, 2008 8:31 am)
Hi Joe,

Welcome. Just to clarify: My current guest-post series has comments turned off (mostly) but this is not the norm for the blog. Anyone can comment on any post (where the comments are open) ... and I have all kinds of perspectives participating including several RC's. So if you are looking to join the conversation, just wait for posts where comments are turned on again. Also, for the current series, I'm inviting readers to send me emailed questions to be addressed my George Murphy in an upcoming post (See: http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2008/10/evolution-and-original-sin-series.html).

Re: primary posts to the blog, yes I'd prefer to keep it to Evangelicals for the moment. (see: http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2008/05/invitation-to-contribute.html ). That is my primary audience & in these theological discussions, many Evangelicals tend to be suspicious of theology not blessed by one of their own. I don't agree with that attitude but think the limitation on primary posts it is a good practical choice for now.

Thanks for responding &, and I encourage you to join the conversations in the comment sections.

thanks,
--
Steve Martin (CSCA)

To which I replied...

(Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 12:41 AM)
Steve,

I apologize for taking so long to respond, but I have been very busy since my girlfriend and I are about to have a child in February. That has taken priority over everything else, as it very well should.

Thank you for your invitation to comment on future blog posts. Since my interest in your blog was solely limited to the topic of in-group/out-group bias, I am unsure if I will have another chance. My momentary encounter with your blog was primarily the result of a search for this topic.

All considered, our passing interaction seems to point to the heart of this general concept of in-group/out-group. My additions to the conversation were moderated out since as you aptly put it, "..many
Evangelicals tend to be suspicious of theology not blessed by one of
their own.."

You said you did not agree with this attitude. I agree with you. It seems the two of us, therefore, are part of our very own in-group. ;-)

I have not yet received a reply.

Yes We Did - Cigarettes

2008-12-04T01:22:00.003-05:00

My girlfreind just got a sticker in the mail from moveon.org to celebrate the Obama victory. Am I losing my mind or does this look like a new brand of cigarettes?

SHOULD WE KILL HEALTHY PEOPLE FOR THEIR ORGANS?

2008-11-20T11:38:00.009-05:00

Suppose Bill is a healthy man without family or loved ones. Would it be OK painlessly to kill him if his organs would save five people, one of whom needs a heart, another a kidney, and so on? If not, why not?
Consider another case: you and six others are kidnapped, and the kidnapper somehow persuades you that if you shoot dead one of the other hostages, he will set the remaining five free, whereas if you do not, he will shoot all six. (Either way, he'll release you.)
If in this case you should kill one to save five, why not in the previous, organs case? If in this case too you have qualms, consider yet another: you're in the cab of a runaway tram and see five people tied to the track ahead. You have the option of sending the tram on to the track forking off to the left, on which only one person is tied. Surely you should send the tram left, killing one to save five.
But then why not kill Bill?

This was listed as a serious question in Four philosophical questions to make your brain hurt , and I must admit that after reading this one my brain did hurt. Not because my brain was stumped with the complexity of this question, but by the sheer stupidity of the two analogies given to justify this argument. If you look closely, you will notice that both analogies are alterations on the Ticking Time bomb Scenario, and in truth have very little connection to the first argument. I will one day go into how I feel about the time bomb scenario, but for now I would like to just stick to this issue.

Let us try to solve this problem like adults. First, how will Bill be presented with this choice? I noticed no one asked Bill his opinion on the matter. Will he be sent a letter by the state that says he must turn himself in? Let us take it further.. if he says no, will the police hunt him down? Also, if he is captured and his organs are taken, will there be a place to go so that it is known that these five very important people now live by the forced sacrifice of Bill? A website where each of the five people can express their gratitude to Bill... the background image for the website can be Edvard Munch's The Scream.

You might have guessed that I'm against this idea already. Why?
I will answer that by writing an imaginary dialogue with the lonely Bills of the world:

If by chance you live alone, have no friends, and find it difficult to be social in general for reasons that seem mysterious to you.. go out immediately and get a gun. Protect yourself while you try to figure out why you are so alone. Purchase a couple of guns in case one does not work. If anyone comes to your door with what seems like official serious business, and you do not know them, just blow them away. Do not ask questions. You will need to keep on the run during this lonely portion of your life, but do your best to stay hidden while you try to make friends. Even if it is difficult, do your best to make at least one friend. Fake it if necessary. Tell a couple of people around you that hate your guts to at least say to the state that you are their friend. Get at least one of them to say that, in a way, they might even love you. You will definitely need at least one person that expresses love for you.. because in times of need the state might relax the law to exclude those who only have friends. A loved one might keep you alive longer. Get that friend! Make someone love you.. quick. Only large powerful majorities matter! Single entities have no meaning! And trust nobody.. because they might want your liver.

Suffering is incorrect. Being alone is incorrect. The greatest happiness for the greatest majority is the goal. Once we reach it, all will be solved.

Life that is unsocial is not life. Only the group is alive. There are no individuals in the world. The state is alive. Each person inside the state is not alive. A person that lives only for 20 years in ecstacy is of lesser worth than the person that lives for 100 years in a mild happiness. A person alone is the most worthless person in the world. The greatest of all of these is the person that lives the most years, with the most happiness, with the most friends and loved ones.

The goal of everything in the universe is a good feeling of being socially connected. Pop a pill to get along with people if you find it is difficult.

The Bully Hunt

2008-11-07T10:26:00.017-05:00

In the aggressive teens, areas of the brain linked with feeling rewarded -- the amygdala and ventral striatum -- became very active when they observed pain being inflicted on others. But they showed little activity in an area of the brain involved in self-regulation -- the medial prefrontal cortex and the temporoparietal junction -- as was seen in the control group.

One of the unspoken modern results of the enlightenment is the moving away from all forms of corporal punishment. We no longer feel that physically hurting another human being - to control their behavior - is acceptable. The master/slave dynamic, which is growing less powerful day by day, leans heavily on corporal punishment.

It is interesting that these things are interconnected - corporal punishment, self-regulation, and satisfaction. Some seem to have control over their physical body while others need external forces to control them. I wonder if John Brown's amygdala lit up when he punished his son, and why he suddenly wanted to be beaten as opposed to beating..

During an unruly phase in his son's life, John Brown kept an account of how much punishment was due from John Jr's various infractions: for disobeying his mother, he owed eight lashes; for telling a lie, eight more. When the time came, John Sr., as anticipated, applied the whip to his son's back. A third of the way through the allotted number of strokes, however, he stopped, handed the whip to his son, took off his shirt, and demanded that his son finish the beating. John Jr. recounts, "I dared not refuse to obey, but at first I did not strike hard. 'Harder!' he said; 'harder, harder!' until he received the balance of the account." Initially mystified, years later John Jr. realizes that his father was offering a "practical illustration" of the doctrine of atonement - that "justice could be satisfied by inflicting penalty upon the back of the innocent instead of the guilty."
- John Brown's Body

Could it be that the satisfaction that comes from corrective punishment on a persons body was never related to the crime, but solely from the joy of harming another? That atonement is not to teach the person receiving the punishment a lesson, which is commonly the excuse, but that the one doing the beating is doing it for their own hidden satisfaction?

Pre-enlightenment, the outcasts tended to be the physically weak, the diseased, those with grey identities as compared to the standard male and female. The sadist was part of the ingroup, and found joy in physically harming those that broke the law, and this was sanctioned by society. Is it possible that without having the ability to regulate their own actions, that these aggressive men, who obtain pleasure from harming others, will become the outcasts?

Golden Steam - EgoPHobia 19 Interview

2008-10-30T09:10:00.009-04:00

ε γ ω φ ο β ι α

http://egophobia.ro/19/experiment.html#15

GOLDEN STEAM

Chicago, USA/ Cluj, Romania, October 30th, 2008 -- EgoPHobia (www.egophobia.ro), an e-zine of the Romanian intelligentsia, is pleased to announce the release of the Experiment 19/20 issue. If you are a writer, editor, pubicist or broadcaster, Experiment will offer you food for thought and a spectacular material for your story.

EgoPhobia presents golden steam articles, translations and interviews in four languages, followed by lavish visuals about the emerging and controversial Steampunk subculture in the world.

The featured artists, and craftsmen are: Sean Orlando (Oakland, USA), Uri Hofi ( Ein-Shemer, Israel), Pierre Materr (Paris, France), RA Friedman (Philadelphia,USA), Shannon O'Hare (Berkley, USA), Joe Rosato (New York, USA) and Nicu Ilfoveanu (Bucharest Romania).

The controversy about the definition of Steampunk is covered by the translations of an article by Randy Nakamura (Los Angeles, USA), published in Design Observer, and the interview given to Bostodelphia by Steampunk spokesmen Jake von Slatt (Boston, USA)

Is Steampunk "humbug design, scrap-booking masquerading as the avant-garde" as was said by Randy Nakamura, or a"new aesthetic which lends itself to pre-existing industrial arts creative practices, including creative recycling, scavenging, and reuse", as stated by Sean Orlando ?

A Territorial Imperative

2008-10-28T10:25:00.012-04:00

We have such a natural predisposition for “birds of a feather” to “flock together” that even groups formed with no prior connection among the members (or no meaningful connection at all) can demonstrate a preference for their comrades over those outside the group. Social psychologists call this the “minimal group” paradigm: Individuals randomly assigned to one group over another, absent any rational justification, engage in self-evaluation that favors their new group and strengthens their affiliation with its members. In cultural, family, or political groups, our affiliation with others can provide a comforting means of evaluating the immense, complex web of incomplete information with which we are presented in everyday life. Psychologists have even found that identification of a policy proposal as being from one’s own party can be more determinative of an individual’s approval than the actual content of the proposed policy.

A non-thinking human being.

Quick sentence, easy to write. Born from a lot of analysis and painful personal experiences. Thinking and fear are connected in a bit of an inverse relationship.. the more scared someone becomes the less they are able to think. When someone becomes terrified the only actions are to protect the ground they are standing on with high aggression. The "group" that you side with (since we are talking about non-thinking humans) has to be an identity circle that is easy to understand. We wear the same pin. We raise the same flag. We have the same uniform. We have the same skin color. A "policy" is an abstract idea. I can touch a pin, flag or uniform. I can see skin color.

The world as perceived by the brain is the world in which you live. If you limit your thinking, you limit the world. Most people just sleep and feed, to steal from Hamlet, and do not look for any larger discourse other than a one way communication of obedience to a strict and cruel punitive authority - an alpha male 'beast' that protects us from the harsh realities of nature.

Money for nothing..

2008-09-27T01:10:00.005-04:00

I have always thought that the stock market was just a glamorous OTB. Both places are filled with men trying to get loads of cash for doing nothing of real worth in the world.

Here is someone that views the financial crisis from a different perspective.

Big changes and who really did it

2008-09-26T12:31:00.015-04:00

Here is a quote from Amusing Ourselves to Death by Neil Postman:

The first [great crisis in Western education] occurred in the 5th century B.C., when Athens underwent a change from an oral culture to an alphabet-writing culture. To understand what this meant, we must read Plato. The second occurred in the 16th century, when Europe underwent a radical transformation as a result of the printing press. To understand what this meant, we must read John Locke. The third is happening now, in America, as a result of the electronic revolution, particularly the invention of television. To understand what this means, we must read Marshall McLuhan.

I partially agree with Neil, but think that he has assigned the cause of change to the wrong people. I have always been interested in this idea, especially when whole countries or cultures change. When we talk about change, simplistically, we talk about moving from point A to point B. Neil assigns the first change listed here to Plato and the second one to John Locke, but I think he is talking about the B side of the change. I think the B side of the change is easier than the A side. The A side must dig down deep, find the change through difficult analysis of what is before him and stand alone since the status-quo, dare I say everyone, will try to thwart any progress. The A side must jump. Once that is done, it is easy for B to finish the work. The B side is just bookkeeping. With this said I would like to list the jumpers:

Heraclitus came before Plato and Socrates. He set the stage. Plato was just a follower who lived in the status-quo.

Thomas Hobbes came before John Locke and gave him all he needed. Locke just added God back into the thinking to make it more acceptable for the status-quo at that time.

As for the third change listed.. I must admit that this was my introduction to Marshall McLuhan. Too new for me, so I cannot really comment on it yet.

To Rat or not to Rat

2008-09-25T15:27:00.017-04:00

The women (Cate Colombo, Kathy Ellingwood) worked in different departments at the sprawling customer call center in Belfast, Maine, yet they share similar stories about aggressive selling tactics they claim they were told to use to push cash advances, sometimes getting customers to max out their credit cards.

Let us go back to Enron for a moment. The lid was blown on that and we now feel that this was a good thing. We all, now, feel that someone needed to do it and there are many people that would stand behind Sherron Watkins. Now they would stand behind her. Once again.. for those that might be deaf.. NOW they stand behind her. Most did not at the beginning because most human beings fear the wrath of the corporate gods that give them money to survive in this world.

Some questions:

Why is it always women? Do men innately feel that the world is a zero sum game, and that by default my gain always has to be your loss?

Also, how "honorable" is it to NOT blow the whistle and keep putting people into debt that they cannot afford? In other words is she a traitor to her ~~country~~ company?

Who will stand behind these women?

And finally - which is the ultimate authority that one should obey?

Here are some choices:

1. God using faith
2. Reason using logic
3. Your immediate boss
4. The owner of the company
5. Your conscience

This touches upon the compartmentalization that is very alive in todays world. Go to church and pray about sinners, then go out into the world and sin. Spend your weekends volunteering for an organization to help people who do not have medical insurance while going to work during the week to help design an HMO that will maximize your profits.

Come on all you cowardly weak men! Be brave! Speak up!
What punishment should we give these two traitors?

Waiting for a response

2008-08-08T06:08:00.020-04:00

A while back I posted Protecting Our Identity in response to an online article that did not allow comments. It made a claim about the biblical Nimrod that I did not find in my research.

I did not expect a reply, but Pastor Dan to my surprise replied quickly. He sent me a paper he wrote in 2001 entitled "Nimrod and Abraham:The Fall and Reformation of Human Community" which he had written for the class Pentecostal Explorations of the Old Testament at the Church of God Theological Seminary in Cleveland, Tennessee.

I emailed him back and thanked him. I read the paper. The paper was short, a total of 14 pages (3 consumed by title page and bibliography) and did not really answer the initial question of Nimrod's motivation. I was disappointed and so just let the issue die. In mid July I sent the following email with the hope of getting a more in-depth response.

Pastor Dan,

It has been a while since you emailed me your paper on Abram and Nimrod. I read it back in November, and recently decided to revisit the issue.

My concern back then was trying to understand Nimrod's motivation.

Your paper addresses this issue on page 8:
"...the problem with this building project is that Nimrod was building for himself a city, a tower, and a name. He was not ruling as God's regent - he was ruling as a god."

I could not search any deeper than this since there is no reference cited. Is this your personal view of Nimrod's motivation? Which is fine I guess, I am just trying to find out the truth.

I have tried to place myself in Nimrod's shoes, as best one can in their imagination, and tried to think of why I would be obsessed with building such a high tower. Could his motivation have been a result of the great flood that had just taken place? Could it be that Nimrod fears God's wrath might come again (another flood), and that he just wanted to build high enough so that God could not drown him? I myself am terrified of drowning. The idea of being punished by drowning for any infraction seems a little severe and I feel that I myself might try to find any possible way to avoid it.

My point is fairly simple.. maybe Nimrod was so afraid that he could hardly think. Who wants to feel like that all their life? Life is short. Maybe building the tower helped him to go further, and by creating a safe place he could possible think clearly and enjoy life.

Offical Truth vs Video

2008-07-31T19:00:00.010-04:00

The big question is does Patrick Pogan think that he sinned? Does he feel remorse for his actions, or does he think that his actions were correct in God's eyes? Does he think that his actions were correct in the NYPDs eyes?

If someone asked him these questions late one night in a bar, after a few drinks, how would he answer?

Feeling the Financial Market Crisis

2008-07-18T16:56:00.012-04:00

Most people that I know are feeling some small pains due to the financial market crisis, but for the most part it seems to be annoying pushes and pulls upon our lifestyles and not what one would label a depression. I have joked with friends that until I see someone selling apples on the sidewalk, I will not consider this too important.

The big question: Is there going to be a moment when the proverbial shoe drops?

I recently put some expensive equipment on craigslist, in the hopes of selling it, and noticed that there are no takers for three days now. I have sold equipment like this before and am usually emailing people back and forth with questions.. but now nothing. Is THIS part of the crisis? Who knows?

To be honest, part of me wants to see a catastrophe. I think most people in the USA have been on a conveyor belt of hypnotic conformity. People going to work, watching TV, going on their vacations, repeating the same jokes to one another in the office, popping pills to keep up with the frantic pace. Most too numb to even know they hate their lives. We need a change.

If we bothered to find some way to graph, per person, effort to consumption, we might start infighting pretty quickly. If we bothered to separate out individual effort from effort to conform and appease ones superiors, probably even more infighting would occur. Why do we keep looking upwards for answers? The top hides from the mere mortals while consuming the most, as middle management runs around terrified of losing their high place on the ladder, dedicating most of their energy to things that are usually more self-serving than for the company. And the workers? The workers are getting worked more and more for less and less. Could it be that we are seeing the negative result of what William H. Whyte warned about in his book The Organization Man

Precisely because it is an age of organization, it is the other side of the coin that needs emphasis. We do need to know how to co-operate with the Organization but, more than ever, so do we need to know how to resist it.

Think about it.. how many people just obey to get a paycheck? How many insiders thought something was wrong with Enron before it tanked? How many insiders thought the sub-prime loans were a problem before the recent debacle?

But you know why you will not speak? It is the same reason that "complete idiot" guides sell. We all feel we are idiots unable to understand the larger things in life. We keep looking upwards to people of authority as if they have the answers. Sometimes we fear their power to punish, and find obedience easy and simple.

Imagine you are 5 years old and your father tells you to put your hand on a hot electric stove. Though Dad might look like a god to you at 5, it is still possible that he is a madman. But yet we still keep looking upward, toward the gods that sustain our lives.

Bob Altemeyer's - The Authoritarians

2008-07-16T16:45:00.004-04:00

Get the book free online !

The G-8 talks about poverty, while eating

2008-07-09T14:09:00.016-04:00

I am a fan of all types of reductionism and love the irony and anger that Peter Hinchliffe points out in his article on a G8 conference. I myself would probably never write such an article. Why? Well let me see if I can possibly clarify.

The anger in his message brings me right back to one of my past posts on fighting over an apple. The anger is suicidally relational, and stuck in the zero-sum game.

I really, really, really want to join something like The Rebel Clown Army and be gloriously stupid and rebellious, but I am sure that after joining.. I would still, individually, get the feeling of being inside a hierarchical structure in which the leader does 'leadership' things that make me feel somehow secondary, or worse - humiliated.

Here is my reduction of this situation, bringing back the 10 apples. We can substitute the apples with three things.

1. Eating beautiful healthy food
2. Living in a beautiful land
3. Reproducing with beautiful women

With these three basic desires in mind, the end of which would be satisfaction (which, being alive, is never reached) we can graph the destruction of the human race on a simple but elegant logarithmic curve. Let us say that y=0 is total satisfaction. The more crazy we move to the right, the more ecstasy we feel as we race to total satisfaction.

I get an image in my head from some nature show I saw when I was young. A young male monkey gets hold of an old tin can that makes noise when he pushed it. It scared him and everyone else, but he approached it again bravely and in time found joyful satisfaction in all the attention he received by pushing that can everywhere. He obtained some sort of dominant position by being able to do something that filled the other monkeys with fear.

I'm really making this basic, but I think that is where the answer lies. Imagine that this group is about to plan an event, and the event is to be big! Huge! Fantastic! The leader, Bob, uses his rhetoric to get everyone behind him, and the energy is mounting. John, a member of the group, goes on his own to go get their masks, their face paint, their costumes! The group has been planning this for a while and it is about to finally happen! Cindy, John's girlfriend, helps Bob with some paperwork while John is out. Legal things in case they get arrested. She tells Bob, the dominant male, how great a man he is.. how wonderful this movement is.. how this will finally fix everything in the world and as she speaks, small cute little blue birds dance around her head, flowers in the garden outside suddenly bloom, she thinks of how boring John has gotten recently and how he always gets stuck with the menial work. (oh..incidentally, we are quickly moving to the right on the graph now)..

The next day, during the very big huge important world changing event that will finally, once and for all, solve all the problems of the world - both Cindy and Bob are strangely disinterested. They are holding hands. John leaves early, he feels sick to his stomach.

Then, 22 years later, John (who never was a really good looking man) is eating an expensive meal (1) in a beautiful location (2) at another G8 conference talking about poverty. Bob is married to Cindy (3) and they live in a trailer park. She is a lot older now, and he drinks.

George Carlin Dead

2008-06-23T11:50:00.004-04:00

There are those pompous asses with great authority and wealth that feel they keep the fabric of society from falling apart and then there are those rude, vulgar indecent people that actually do the work.

Klaus Kammer: A Report to an Academy

2008-05-06T10:05:00.003-04:00

This past week Drew performed the Kafka piece at a German woman's house. She had an album from another performance, by Klaus Kammer, who performed it in the early 1960's.

Thank you Monika for the album scans!!

Punching and eating

2008-04-11T11:07:00.012-04:00

...it is not that the healthiest naturally become dominant, but that the dominant stay healthier because of their privileged position.

There is also another study that was done that proved that social groups compete for relative return, not absolute return. What does that mean? If there are two groups of people and 10 apples, the groups will fight and in the process destroy 8 of the apples so that the victorious group can triumphantly stand on the dead carcasses of the vanquished while holding to heaven the 2 apples.

Foam Latex Mask

2008-03-28T16:03:00.009-04:00

I have been waiting to do this post. I have reached a certain amount of consistent success with making foam latex masks. The mask shown here is the second success with this mold. The first carried us through many performances, but it was time to give it a rest. Produced this mask on the first try, which is different from the first one which took three attempts. What were my mistakes?

First Problem: When I originally measured each ingredient - I would use a small scale and place each ingredient into cups which I poured into the mixer. Bad idea. The viscosity of the different ingredients meant that what was going into the bowl differed greatly for each addition. I tried scraping and pushing the liquid in but this is just time consuming and annoying. So I said goodbye to the small scale (except for measuring the gel agent) and placed the mixing bowl on a large scale. The scale was digital and measured in lbs, so I converted grams to lbs as follows:

Ingredient	Grams	Pounds	Action
Latex Base	150g	0.33069	(add 1st until scale reads 0.33)
Foam Agent	30g	0.06614	(add 2nd until scale reads 0.40)
Curing Agent	15g	0.03307	(add 3rd until scale reads 0.43)
Gel Agent	14g		(used small scale and set aside in small plastic cup)

I used a KitchenAid Stand Mixer. I placed the bowl on the scale and tare'd it out and then added the first three ingredients. Then I snapped the bowl into place and began the following schedule before adding the gel agent.

Speed	Minutes	Elapsed	Action
1	1	1	Mix three ingredients
10	4	5	Whip it up
4	1	6	Slow down to break large bubbles
1	4	10	Make foam consistent
1	2	12	Add Gel Agent

The second problem was my oven time. I tried 4 hours but the mold always came out with the center still not dry. You can tell this happens when the mask looks OK after demolding, but if you pinch an area the pinch stays. The center is still moist - that pinch is not going away. Your mask is destroyed. So I now leave them in for 5 hours. That seems to do it. Why so long? Well the place I am doing the mask making is cold, and the storage spot for the mold is cold. It takes longer to heat up the cold mold.

The third problem? Well this only occurs after first making a mold. If you cover your mold in an alcohol and wax mixture, and then let it bake into the mold, you need to do this a day before so that the mold can cool back to room temperature. When I tried to create masks with the newly waxed molds THAT WERE STILL WARM, a second skin formed on the mask. I attributed this to flash warming of the external layer when the foam latex was added.. the warm mask's heat cooks the outside of the mask but then runs out of heat. By the time the oven catches up, that first layer has been sitting too long and creates a second skin. What is the lesson here? The mask should be at the same room temperature as the foam you are adding to it so that they can both warm up at a similar temperature and speed.

These measurements come straight out of the gmfoam documentation, and I found that I did not need to alter them much. I have dropped some time off the end (finishing at 10 minutes, not 12) when it looked like the foam was as big as it was going to get and there were no visible bubbles.

Also - I finally processed the video when I used alginate to create Drew's face, to make the mask above. Take a look below:

Honour

2008-02-08T12:21:00.000-05:00

Crimes of the Community examines how ideas of honour can lead to violence. Examining forced marriages, honour killings, female genital mutilation (FGM) and honour-based domestic violence, the report explains why such violence is carried out and why it continues. Based on over 80 interviews with women's groups, community activists and the victims of honour-based violence, Crimes of the Community is the most comprehensive study of honour-based violence ever conducted in the UK.

Silent Fool

2008-01-17T12:58:00.001-05:00

Wow. Long time since I last posted. I think I got cold feet when I realized I would have to defend viewpoints presented here. As the saying goes:

Tis better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.

The quote has a snap to it that seems to be a great morsel of wisdom, but it is rhetorical trick aimed at keeping an insecure personality quiet. Why would the silent person be thinking that others regard them as a fool? Maybe they regard them highly, and are sad that they stay quiet so much. Also - remove all doubt can go both ways when the silent one opens their mouth:

I no longer doubt - he is an excellent person!!
I no longer doubt - he is a fool!!

Brother Tibbets' Mom

2007-11-02T05:14:00.004-04:00

Since I just talked about Einstein, the man that help create the bomb (and spent the rest of his life preaching against it).. I now leave you with Brother Tibbets who recently passed away. Who is he? Well, his mother's name was Enola Gay Tibbets, if that helps..

Below is a tribute from Sigma Nu's website in 1994, 50 years after that fateful day. I do not think that MEL (the author of the article) had an easy job here, and the title of the article "Duty, Honor, Country" gives me a hollow feeling in the stomach. He was just an average man obeying orders, not brave enough to be a coward in the eyes of his superiors. But in fairness the idea of Satyagraha was just beginning to see the light of day. He was a hero right up to the point the bomb hit. Like Charon he ferried everyone to hell, but couldn't enter it himself. Right up until his death he stood by his actions, never expressing regret.

Fifty years is a long time. It's more than just a half-century. In the context of history, it's how long it has been since the end of World War II. In the context of family, it spans at least three generations -- grandparents, parents, children.

A lot of things change over three generations: lifestyles, mores, values. They all differ from one generation to the next, and today they change at a faster pace than they did in earlier generations, largely because of advances in science and technology.

These differences among contemporary writers, visionaries, philosophers and historians seem to have provoked wide controversy during 1995, the 50th anniversary of the end of the war between the Axis and the Allies especially over the use of the atomic bomb. Those accused of being revisionists and those claiming to remember the tumultuous times firsthand appear to hold each other in contempt. Any endeavor to re-write history based on hindsight brings shouts from coast to coast, pro and con.

The debate came to a head with the Smithsonian Institution's display of the Enola Gay. Who is right? Those who served, supported, suffered, and survived the war or those distanced from the conflict who decry the dropping of the bomb on "innocent non-combatants"?

It has often been said that it is not what is true that causes real problems but what people think is true that really isn't. There is no doubt that the atomic bomb prompted the surrender of Japan. Evidence reveals that forces of resistance against an impending American invasion of the Japanese homeland were mounting, in hopes that if they could inflict unacceptable losses, the final assault would fail and a mutual disengagement would occur, the Soviet Union's entering the Pacific conflict notwithstanding. Evidence of American forces preparing to invade is irrefutable. Enormous loss of life on both sides was easily predictable, perhaps equaling, if not exceeding, that caused by both atomic bombs.

Twenty-nine-year-old Colenel Paul W. Tibbets, Jr. (Epsilon Zeta, Florida) and his crew of the Enola Gay, along with the crew that second aircraft, who dropped atom bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki respectively, were heroes to those ally prisoners of war in the Pacific Theatre. They were heroes to all the folks on the homefront praying that the troops would soon return safely and that their valor would bring the war to an end before younger sons and daughters were called into yet another battle.

Brother Tibbets, who for the past fifty years has kept a low profile, has understandably been a principal in the 50th anniversary debate. He was in Albuquerque, NM, for the 50th reunion of his 509th Composite Group, the 1944 unit he commanded that was trained to drop the bomb. That was a military order that came down from the Commander-in-Chief. That was his assignment. It was, therefore, his duty to be performed for his country, and he was honor-bound to carry it out.

According to Chicago freelancer John McDonough, who reported the reunion in the Wall Street Journal (August 11, 1995) "The ment of the 509th and many of their generation are tired of being scolded for insensitivity to ancient Japanese military-religious traditions, as if Japan's invasion of a neighboring continent were some king of free-exercise-of-religion right."

In today's world of political correctness, war in any form - agression, defense, vengeance - is an anathema. Yet, as McDonough points out, "Vengeance was a perfectly appropriate response in World War II. In fact, if a country doesn't hate its enemy in wartime, it is probably fighting the wrong war." That, McDonough suggests further, was exactly what was wrong with the Vietnam War. "A war is no better than its villain," he says.

That is why remorse over his action in 1945 is not plaguing Brother Tibbets or his fellow unit and crew members. "The decision to drop the bomb is entirely justified," Tibbets told the audience at a recent C-Span-covered meeting of the National Press Club. "I've never to this day regretted it," he attested. "I've never had a sleepless night."

When posed a question after his remarks to the National Press Club, Brother Tibbets implied that, in the controversy over whether or not the bomb drop was necessary, let alone humane, little appears to have been said about the forseeable outcome of the conflict has either Germany or Japan come up with the bomb first. As the record reflects, the race was on between Germany and the U.S. to develop such a weapon. One even has to wonder what the world would look like today if the former Soviet Union had had the bomb first. Would any of those nations have hesitated to use it? Would the killing of non-combatants in target cities like San Francisco, Chicago, New York, or the District of Columbia have been a consideration? In view of the priority set on reducing American casualties, perhaps even those questions crossed the minds of President Truman and his advisors when the agonizing, yet crucial, atom bomb was made.

If we are to justify re-writing the history of a war fought fifty years ago, what would be the conclusion had the allies lost the war? Would democracy and the free world as we know them be here today? How much better off would the world, especially Japan and Germany, have been? And, finally, would there have been a German version of the Marshall Plan? What would a Japanese "occupation" have been like for the conquered allies?

Are these not pertinent questions, relevant to the debate? War is an ugly and tragic thing. It is the saddest of all commentaries on the human condition. It leaves permanent scars: the death or maiming of innocent children, women, and men, old and young; survivors crippled or wounded in battle; the disruption of families; the destruction of cities, homes, farms, and industry. The aftermath of war is equally tormenting with its arduous and costly task of rebuilding shattered lives and desolate nations.

But to try to judge actions in World War II according to post-Vietnam perspectives is to acknowledge the fallacy of hindsight, particularly by those who cannot even vicariously relate to life in 1945. To fail to shower just respect and appreciation upon the men and women who were only doing their duty with honor in military service to their country, many making the supreme sacrifice in battle or in POW camps and leaving loved ones in bereavement, is as insensitive as taking a like under any circumstances. In fact, if comparisons make a valid argument, taking six million lives over a period of several years in concentration camps may be far more insensitive than causing the fewer, albeit many thousands of, lives lost at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

As time passes, it's difficult, if not impossible, to put any military conflict into an accurate perspective; but let it not be forgotten that returning veterans of the Vietnam War, also ordered to battle and honor-bound to fulfill their duty, have yet to recover from the lack of homage due them. And that conflict ended 25 years ago. Lessons of man's inhumanity to man come hard. By the time of the 50th anniversary of the end of the Vietnam War, let us hope that an uncontroversial, at least forgiving, public remembrance of that unfortunate chapter in history will be possible.

But for now, at the 50th anniversary of the end of World War II, let us all pay homage to those veterans and their families who suffered. Let us hope that future generations will not have to make similar sacrifices to preserve their free and democratic way of life. Let us pray that liberty and justice for all will not have to be defended against aggression or peace be secured by military action.

If, however, the destructive power of human frailty prevails, as it does in all wars, perhaps it would not be asking too much to hope and pray that men like, Colenel, now General, Paul W. Tibbets, Jr. will be there to do their duty with honor for their country. ---MEL

On the Official Website of Ret. General Paul W. Tibbets you can obtain autographed copies of memorabilia surrounding that fateful day for a price. The bottom of the page now reads.. We are sorry, but at this time General Tibbets will not be able to autograph your personal items.

That is worded incorrectly.. they make it sound like he is on vacation.

Protecting our Identity

2007-11-01T15:13:00.003-04:00

Nimrod, the great hunter-leader, to whom we attribute the building of the tower of Babel, was building a ziggurat to the heavens, to the glory of the gods. But the real purpose of the tower was to serve as a monument to Nimrod. The moral of the story is that when men attempt to rob God of His glory, a very jealous God pronounces judgment.

I occasionally feel that I need to defend the name chosen for the theatre group. I had hoped to leave a comment concerning this article on the biblical Nimrod, but the article does not invite comments. So I thought I would discuss the issue here, to argue a very simple point.

I must disagree with the Pastor when he states that the real purpose of the tower was to serve as a monument to Nimrod. The sentences in the bible that reference Nimrod say nothing of his motivations, and nothing about him building to the glory of the gods. As a matter of fact, it hardly says anything.

I do not want to secretly comment, or hide what I have to say from the writer of the original post - so I have at least made an attempt at communication by sending an email to the church's general email box since I could not find the Pastor's personal email address. I am keeping my fingers crossed that they do not take me for a crazy person since my email address does end in @nimrods.org.

It is difficult to be judged serious when one has chosen such a powerless identity.