The Sloppy Scholarship of Battles BC

I am an avid viewer of the Battles BC series on History Television. Last night, the episode was devoted to Moses.

I’ll just cut straight to it: there is no historical evidence that Moses ever actually lived.

It boggles the mind that a history-centric channel would overlook this, and then have a panel of experts film commentary, with straight faces, about the “realities” of Moses’ run-ins with other peoples. The show delivered details about the plagues which were visited on Egypt as if they actually were the work of Moses channeling Yahweh’s wrath. Assuming that such miracles really did happen is not just a stretch, it’s insulting to the educated viewership. The claim that the Israelites built Egypt “brick by brick” – also misleading.

I understand the importance of primary sources, and the Bible can loosely be used as one for some things, but the obvious near-complete reliance on Biblical authority completely removes this effort from the realm of history, and places it squarely in the bin of religious mythology.

To the show’s credit, the experts did touch on some actual facts such as the dating commonly accepted for the Exodus story (the setting, not the authoring), the Apiru (they referred to them using the Akkadian term ‘Habiru’), and they rightly pointed out that the Israelites would have crossed over the ‘Reed’ Sea (not the ‘Red’ Sea).

However, these factual concessions were not enough to satisfy. The remainder of the program was filled with utter speculation, reliance on mythology, and I cannot imagine what the point of this episode actually was. Was it to try to re-paint Moses as some sort of Warrior Priest? Was it to disparage the Ramesside Egyptian army by pointing out their ineffectiveness in civil and military matters? Was this some producer’s favorite Sunday School story, remembered with fondness, and accepted as fact simply because there are no contemporary sources claiming outright that it’s a fabrication? Perhaps the panel of experts don’t really believe that this is history, and perhaps they were simply conducting a “thought experiment” on how things would have gone down IF Moses had actually been a real, single person. Who knows?

Please don’t treat us like idiots. We watch History Television precisely because we do not want made-for-TV drivel that isn’t fact-checked. If you’re doing a thought experiment, tell us. If you’re speculating, tell us. If you’re working from premises that there is no historical evidence for, tell us. At least by telling us, you let us know that you’ve done your homework, that you know there are lots of loose ends in what you’re airing. Otherwise, you’re just being sloppy.

Still Exploring Ethics Within Existentialism

Sartre closed out the possibility for an existential ethics. But I’ve always believed that there had to be a way to think ethically within an existential framework. I’ve come to see that, if one follows a typically ‘moral’ line of thought, ethics are inherently impossible within existentialism. However, that line of thought implies thinking about what one should do or not do. This is, after all, our historically-rooted take on morality: commandments and scripture. I’m offering the suggestion that ethics isn’t about commandments or scripture or classed offenses, nor is it about community acceptance.

Rather, ethics is about what type of person one should be.

Utopia and Blogging Etiquette

Utopia.

We all have our own understanding of what this might mean. For some, it’s centered around ideas of justice or freedoms. For some, it’s a result of their martyrdom. We can all agree on a definition of the term, but when it comes to providing specific examples of what would constitute such a state, the answers are likely to equal the number of respondents.

Utopia, traced back to its Greek origins, literally means ‘no place’. It’s that mythical quality of the most-perfect-state that has kept us talking about it ever since. And we compare almost every aspect of our lives to such a state. We consider political utopias, cultural utopias, social utopias, moral utopias… the list could go on and on. But the origins of the word refuse to go away, no matter how much modern adaptation is forced upon the term, and regardless of the intentions behind its use. No place.

Today, I stumbled upon this blog as I was randomly surfing (when I should have been working), and the lead post questioned whether or not there exists a blogging utopia, with specific regard to blogging etiquette. That question alone wouldn’t have prompted me to write this, but the author’s take on blogging was quite interesting (and ended up sucking me into reading through a few other posts during my visit). Her list of qualities common to bloggers echoes what I’ve felt all along: the conversation is all that matters. Whether you’re the kind of blogger who only needs to talk to yourself, or whether you desire a larger circle with which to trade thoughts, it all boils down to conversation. The quality of that conversation is exactly what you make of it, the benefit exactly what you pull from it.

Etiquette seems to follow naturally behind the desire for genuine dialogue.

White Idiots and a Black President

For the record: I’m White. I don’t hate anyone for who they are. I do hate the state of willful ignorance though, regardless of skin color, and with an absolute passion.

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) released their annual report on domestic hate groups today. The figures themselves aren’t all that startling; the fact that there could be so much organized hate, in the US in 2009, is.

Check out their Hate Map. Look closely at this graphic. It’s pretty easy to see that those states which have a high population percentage of non-Whites are also the states with the most active hate group memberships. And I certainly don’t mean to imply that hate is a Whites-Only prerogative – there are certainly hate groups which hate Whites. They’re out there, and we all know it. But we also all know that the preponderance of hate groups are funded by Whites, attended by Whites, and supportive of the notion that non-Whites are fundamentally inferior to Whites.

According to the SPLC report, the number of hate groups in the US has jumped 54% since 2000. They speculate that this jump is due in large measure to two things: our economy is in the toilet, and we have a Black President.

Many hate groups, it’s reasoned, are swelling their ranks because of the economy. Specifically, they target Latinos, and advance the worn-out notion that they are stealing “our” jobs. This really rankles me. First of all, let’s look backward in time a bit. Most White Americans are only now beginning to have to take up menial labor jobs to get by. Fact is, for the last several decades at least, most White Americans simply weren’t willing to demean themselves by taking a menial job. Guess what? The recent immigrants, and not just the Latinos, were willing to. They did the work that no one else wanted to do, but that had to get done by somebody. They excelled, they worked their way up, they prospered, they paid their taxes, they participated in the American Dream™ just like the White folks did.

The idiocy these hate groups display on this subject is telling. To be frank, if you really believe that non-White immigrants are coming here and stealing our jobs, and that it’s put our economy into turmoil… you either need serious help or a tutor who can explain reality in terms that you can understand. Are you still intent on railing against non-Whites taking American jobs? Good! Don’t get racist, get nationalist! Voice your concerns with your wallet by choosing goods/services offered by companies that keep people employed in the US. Avoid goods/services offered by companies that move their operations offshore. That’s the REAL way non-Whites are taking your jobs! Historically, they work cheaper, with less representation, with less oversight, and with fewer regulatory controls – they become an attractive labor pool. Make your White Selves an attractive labor pool!

We have a Black President. And I’m going to get my bias right out here in the open: I think Barack Hussein Obama is the absolute best person on the planet to lead the USA at this time. He’s not perfect, no one is… but I think if we’re all honest with ourselves, we cannot claim to be able to do a better job than he, regardless of anyone’s skin color. So, color aside: why would having a Black President cause such uproar? To the racist, it’s obvious. To those of us who aren’t, it’s hopeful. I am confident that, whether at the end of this term or (hopefully) his second term, we’ll be able to thumb our noses at the bigots and say, “See? See what a duped fool you’ve been? Are you not better off than you were before? Can you not say you’re faring better under this Black President than you were under your White one?” It’s a certainty that you’ll fare no worse! Racists simply fear having a Black President. Why? They don’t know. Or, at least they can’t offer up any cogent argument to support their fear. It’s just fear, plain and simple. Like a teenager being old enough to know better, yet still shutting the closet door and keeping a light on at night just in case some disembodied bogeyman should visit.

President Obama has a unique opportunity over these four (hopefully eight) years. The ultimate barrier against non-Whites has been smashed. Our politics will never be the same, and neither will our race relations. I’m not naïve, I realize that we haven’t become a color-blind nation overnight, nor should we ever become color-blind. But we have started something noble. We’ve allowed ourselves to relax our perceptions of what a person’s skin color might indicate about their character. We’re giving someone a chance, and not because of some quota system which requires us to – we CHOSE to.

I’ve always believed that virtually all of our social problems stem from lack of education. I don’t just mean formal education, although that’s critically important. I mean social education, too. I mean cultural education. I mean ethics. I mean philosophy. I mean critical thinking. Minds don’t change easily, though, and sometimes not at all. Prejudices, no matter how acute our awareness of them, do indeed rule us. And, ironically enough, I find myself becoming more and more intolerant of mindless intolerance.

My own personal brand of hate? If ‘reasonable society’ is a river, flowing inexorably through history, I think I might be perfectly content to let some folks drown themselves in it. I hate groundless assertions believed with the force of fact. I hate opportunities to self-improve and self-educate which are squandered. I hate conclusions which are jumped onto and clung to for dear life like a floating ring, cooperating with the current that pulls you in the opposite direction of where your reason knows it should be going. Those are my personal prejudices. They center around chosen ignorance and static thought and blind acceptance of dogma.

We have the tools and the strength and the resolve to cure the disease of hate – so why haven’t we?

AlphaInventions.com Can Lead Horses to Blogs, But Can’t Make ‘em Participate

I’ve come to understand that lots of traffic isn’t necessarily a good thing can actually generate some quality conversations when you echo what others are noticing.

Of the 4000 12000+ hits I’ve received in the last couple days, thanks solely to alphainventions.com, I’ve received 0 around 40 comments.

I’ve always preferred dialogue to monologue. And I still think that alphainventions.com is a really cool idea. However, just because a blog gets huge boosts in traffic (some by actual humans) doesn’t mean it’s actually contributing to the conversation. If “hit count envy” is something that afflicts you, then by all means, alphainventions.com is a potent weapon supporting your ultimate dominance. But I would suggest that a high hit count alone does not make any statement about the quality of your contribution to the conversation.

From the stats that WordPress provides, I can see that folks are actually clicking around through some posts, clicking some links out of the blogroll… but no one is saying anything. Of course, that could be simply because I don’t say anything of interest to them…

Please don’t misunderstand. I think Alpha rocks, and I totally admit there is no way in hell anyone would have even found my blog, let alone would it have been found over 12000 times, without Alpha. My post isn’t indicative of any problems with Alpha. My post could just as easily apply to the “random blog” button. The issue I described is the difficulty in getting a conversation started when you don’t already have an audience of like-minds. Alpha cannot make a boring blog interesting – that’s not its purpose. Unless you’re reaching a like-minded viewer, a hit is a hit is a hit. To my mind, the “be all, end all” of blogging is the conversation, and hits be damned. Let’s all just love Alpha, and encourage further development on it.

Behind the Scenes at the Llano Estacado Winery, Lubbock TX

Some photos taken during my visit to the Llano Estacado Winery outside Lubbock, Texas in October 2008:

AlphaInventions.com

Like probably hundreds of other bloggers recently, I noticed that the traffic of visits to my blog were growing at a (pleasantly) alarming rate. Turns out, developer Cheru Jackson has created alphainventions.com in order to blog blogs by using the blogs themselves to blog themselves. Confused yet?

So far, I have to say that the extra traffic is certainly welcome, but there are some aspects of it that are still a bit wanting. Namely, the ability to fine-tune the blogs that are delivered to you when visiting the site (although this is certainly forgivable, and I probably wouldn’t change the randomness of it – that’s part of the charm, I suppose). However, the flip side is that most people who see your site can only do so for a few seconds, and since there is no way to filter the content you are shown, they have no real sense of whether they’d like to read your site or not. As they scan the window, they’re “thinking about it… thinking about it.. oh, hey, that looks like it might be intere…” and your site is replaced with the next one in rotation. They’re gone as a viewer, and they likely won’t wait around until your site pops back up.

Absolutely cool idea, though. And hopefully there will be a bit more development to fine-tune it. I’m thinking, even if there is no true filtering, maybe trying to grab and display the categories list? Or grab/display the tag cloud? Anything like that to make it a bit easier to determine, in the few seconds you have, whether you’d like to dig deeper into a particular site.

All the same, I’ll still take the traffic. Thank you!

From Plonk to Vintage Using Voltage?

Check this out. Apparently, using an electric current, you can turn an overly young and tannic wine into one that tastes as if it’s been aged for months or years.

Unfortunately, I don’t have access to the full details, but from what I gather, there are a handful of wines in China that are currently experimenting with this technique. I think that, of all the “instant ageing” techniques I’ve heard of, this one is probably the one I’d be more inclined to try.

A Note on Interpretation

NEW YORK (CNN) — Leaders of the NAACP on Saturday called for the firing of the New York Post cartoonist whose drawing lampooning the federal stimulus bill has drawn charges that it’s racist and encourages violence toward President Obama.
Speaking at the civil rights group’s annual meeting in New York, NAACP President Benjamin Todd Jealous said that if Sean Delonas is not fired, the group will call for protests of the paper and Fox television affiliates, which are owned by Post parent company News Corp.
“There is consensus that if the Post does not … get rid of the journalists who are responsible for this bit of hate speech seeing the light of day, that we will move this from a local, regional issue to a very national issue,” Jealous said.
The group also called for the cartoonist’s editor to be fired.
Many critics said the cartoon played on historically racist images by appearing to compare Obama, the nation’s first black president, to a chimpanzee that had been shot by police officers.
The cartoon references the mauling of a Connecticut woman by a chimpanzee who was later shot and killed by police.
In its caption, one of the officers says, “They’ll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill.”
Obama had signed the bill the day before the cartoon ran.
On its Web site Thursday, the paper offered a qualified apology, saying it was “most certainly not our intent” to express racism, but also accusing some of jumping at a chance to attack a paper they already disliked.
“To them, no apology is due,” the paper wrote. “Sometimes a cartoon is just a cartoon — even if the opportunists seek to make it something else.”
But NAACP Chairman Julian Bond said that explanation rings hollow.
“This is tastelessness taken to the extreme,” he said. “For the publication to suggest the only people who object to it are constant critics of the New York Post is beyond ridiculous.
“This was an invitation to assassination of the president of the United States and anyone who was not offended by it doesn’t have any sensibilities.”
source: http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/02/21/chimp.cartoon/index.html?eref=time_us

I saw the headlines before I knew the story behind them. I saw the cartoon itself before I read the details of the uproar it’s caused. My take was that this was an expression of the old adage about putting a room full of monkeys together, and seeing what masterpiece they could churn out. I didn’t get anything racist about the cartoon. I didn’t get any sense that this was a call to assassinate Obama. I think the overreaction is pathetic. I wonder, has anyone asked Obama for his thoughts on this yet?

Regardless, let’s look at what solutions have been suggested. Essentially, they call for firing people and boycotting a business. I would suggest that, in the current economy, firing people is likely the last thing that a company would want to do unless necessary for the survival of the business. Also, considering how tough times are for newspapers in general right now, boycotting any paper is an extreme economic choice. Which, of course, is likely the point of choosing to boycott right now.

But the larger issues aren’t really being looked at here, and that’s really bugging me. Namely, the (always attackable) freedom of speech, the power of a newspaper editorial, and the broader problems associated with interpretation.

Freedom of speech isn’t going away, despite what social conservatives would have you believe. And even the NAACP would recognize that folks have the right to say whatever they want in the USofA. Lawsuits/boycotts/blacklistings may follow, but you can indeed say whatever you want. [As an aside, since I just used the term 'blacklisting' in a pejorative manner, might this blog be deemed racist? Could my blog host be inundated with threats of a boycott and requests to delete my account?] The fact is, folks might not like everything we say, but without breaking the law themselves, they can’t stop us from saying it (gag orders and NDAs notwithstanding).

Newspapers have always featured editorials. Basically, they are the chance for journalists to shed their ‘objectivity’ and get a little more human. Some use the format to express the views/aims of their newspaper or magazine (or whatever), while some express their own views as a columnist contributing a piece of writing which may or may not actually reflect the views of the business. Sometimes, it’s hard to tell which type of source you’re reading. Sometimes, they don’t hold your hand and explain whose views you’re subjecting yourself to. Cartoons, and political cartoons in particular, are visual editorials. The message they carry is just as valid as their wordy counterparts. As editorials are expressions of opinion (whether representative of a business or not), they are protected speech. As cartoons are visual editorials, they too are protected speech.

So, if you don’t like it, protest it. That’s what the NAACP is doing, right? Right. But that brings us to my third point about the problems of interpretation. See, there was nothing overtly racist about the cartoon. Go ahead and look at it – you can easily see that there is nothing in it that screams racism. The logical thread that the NAACP is relying on here is that blacks have historically been derided with some form of ‘monkey’-related insult, we have a black President who recently passed an economic stimulus bill, and the cartoon says that, now that the chimpanzee has been shot by the police (referring to an actual current event), someone else will need to write the next stimulus bill. I’m sorry, and it’s possibly my ‘whiteness’, but I just do not see the obvious connection between cop-shoots-chimp and presidential assassination.

In short, this is likely an uproar that has been generated to make some folks feel relevant. The paper shouldn’t be boycotted, no one should be fired, and let’s all realize that our own prejudices extend to our own interpretations. We all have prejudices, and our views of moral rightness cannot be removed from them – whether we belong to a National Association or not.

Finca Flichman 2007 Shiraz

Go Argentina!

Real solid Shiraz. Color is typical of a Shiraz. Nose of red and black fruit (depending on temperature difference of only a couple degrees), freshly ground pepper. Palate shows as earthy, balanced by a crisp spiciness (again, nothing odd for a Shiraz), initial black fruit, and almost-curry-like bite before swallowing (because why would one spit out a wine that’s this pleasant?!). Finish is actually quite long, smooth, red fruit. Tannins are strong, but not even close to being overpowering – well balanced overall.

I give it … ummm… 83.