There were so many warning signs in this case which were ignored. Abdulmutallab’s father, a prominent Nigerian businessman, had gone to the U.S. embassy in Nigeria to express his concerns regarding the possibility his son was  a security risk. According to an article today, embassy personnel were equally concerned and relayed the senior  Abdulmutallab’s concerns to Washington. Instead of revoking Abdulmutallab’s Visa or even putting his name on a list for further scrutinization, Abdulmutallab’s name was placed into a database of 500,000 names the government believes are potential terrorists. That is the extent to the action taken against Abdulmutallab.

Yet, Andrew Sulilvan’s blog and The Times are now reporting that Abdulmutallab, who had been studying at University College London, had been banned from reentering the United Kingdom as a possible terrorist risk, and an application to extend his British visa had been denied. Yes, the British believed he could be a threat to their nation. Yet, none of this aroused the attention of Homeland Security. Not the British government’s misgivings. Not the suspect’s own father’s misgivings. Not the misgivings of the embassy in Nigeria. Not the defense of the Taliban following 9/11. What does it take to get the attention of the American government?

Should the Obama administration review security measures? Absolutely. Should Homeland Security be held accountable for how it handled Abdulmutallab’s case? Definitely. Will this make a difference? I don’t know.

The fact of the matter is that we live in a world full of people who can and do act incompetently. Many times threats like this are not given the full attention they merit until it’s too late. And for every threat we make impossible, a new one is found. This particular suspect had hidden the explosive in his underwear.

The moral of this story is this: If you are waiting for the government to make you safe on airplanes, you will be sorely disappointed. There is an inherent risk you take every time you board a plane. It’s no different than traveling by car, train, or simply walking into a convenience store. Each of these carries a possible risk you may encounter. The car or the train may be involved in an accident. The convenience store may be robbed. You take a risk because the possible convenience outweighs the risk.

I love traveling and this will not derail any plans I have to travel. I know and accept the risks of flying in an airplane. If the worst happens, the worst happens. The fact is that no additional security measures at the airport would have been likely to have stopped this man. What would have stopped him is if the government had listened to the man’s father and the British government.

I hope this serves as a lesson to Homeland Security. Something tells me it will not.

But just as a matter of tradition this is a Christian country. No matter how many times liberals tell us it’s not, it was founded by Christians. It was founded on Christian principles. America could have been discovered by the Buddhists or atheists or Jews. But it wasn’t. It was founded, it was created, the Constitution, the founding documents, the Declaration of Independence, were written by Christians.

We’ll leave aside the question of the founding fathers’ religion for the sake of this post (many were actually Unitarians or deists). Coulter’s argument assumes two things:

1. Non-Christians cannot celebrate Christmas.
2. The fact that some Christians founded the country sets the pace this country should follow for all eternity.

Now [2] is a logical fallacy, the argument from authority, not to mention the appeal to tradition. As such, I do not believe this thesis deserves any more attention than I have already given it, as it is patently false.

Now, as to [1], I argue that this thesis is also false. To quote one atheist’s defense of the holiday:

Having said that, why does this good atheist family cling to Santa and why is Christmas our favorite holiday? We explain this every year, because for reasons we don’t understand atheists aren’t supposed to like Christmas. But lots of us do. It’s not a Christian thing…We like Christmas for some of the very reasons so many people seem to hate it: it’s a great commercial and secular holiday that’s warm and pleasant at a dark time of year (that’s the idea, right?). We even like the commercialism. Sure it’s cynically designed to promote consumption. But encouraging people to buy things for their loved ones and friends to make them happy is not so bad. Even the religious folk can get in on the act. How can you not like a holiday whose main religious icon masquerades as The Prince of Peace? Sure it’s bogus. People routinely kill for The Prince of Peace. But a little willing suspension of disbelief doesn’t hurt one day a year. We can pretend that being The Prince of Peace is a good thing to be a prince of, right?

You don’t have to be a Christian to enjoy Christmas. And don’t worry: most of us (this writer included) have no interest in infringing on your right to celebrate the holiday as you see fit.

So, on behalf of one atheist to you and yours on this holiday, Merry Christmas!

The Skeptic Christmas Monkey wishes you a Merry Christmas as well!

After about a half hour one of the waiters brings out my food, and that’s when I realized they got my order wrong. Instead of haggis bites, they gave me a full portion of haggis on a plate with a bowl full of sauces that I have no clue what they’re present for. Now, it’s at this point I could have easily just pointed out the error of the serving staff and waited for the haggis bites. I decided to be a bit adventurous, though.

For those who don’t know what haggis is, think sheep’s stomach minced with oatmeal, spices, and salt. It’s not something that most people born and bred in southern Indiana would be quick to order. I had read so much about this traditional Scottish dish, however, that it seemed as if my first trip to Scotland wouldn’t be complete if I didn’t at least try the stuff. Sure, I may end up, in the end, hating it cursing myself for spending ₤5 on the stuff. The point was that I moved outside my comfort zone for just a minute to try something completely foreign to me. And isn’t that what life is all about: new experiences? We’re only guaranteed one shot at this life. We have to make it a good one.

When I tell this story to people, they generally look at me disgusted and ask how I could eat something like sheep’s stomach. My question is how could you not? Are you so complacent with McDonald’s culture that any form of meat other than a Big Mac is completely disgusting looking to you? You can go to a McDonald’s practically anywhere in the world and order food that most people would consider traditional American fast food cuisine. How often, though, do you get to visit Scotland and sample haggis with warm Scottish ale? And when is the next time I’ll have that opportunity, too?

As Andy Dufrense says in The Shawshank Redemption, “Get busy living, or get busy dying.” If you aren’t experiencing new things, if you just coast day to day doing all the same things over and over again with no thought of anything new, you might as well be dead to life. I mean it. You may never have eaten Indian food. So go to the local Indian restaurant and order curry. You may never have eaten African food. So go to an Ethiopian restaurant and order goat. Beyond food, you may never have tried rock climbing before. Find a local rock climbing wall and try it. You may end up hating it. On the other hand, you may end up with a new consuming passion.

If you’ve never seen Anthony Bourdain’s No Reservations on the Travel Channel, Bourdain, a bistro chef from New York, travels the world eating every country’s native foods (however exotic those foods may be) and experiencing the culture first hand. Bourdain knows that, to experience and understand a culture, you have to eat their foods, no matter how exotic. At a recent appearance in Louisville, he called Americans “culinary cowards” because of our unwillingness to try new foods. Is he right? Perhaps. For my part, though, I’m determined to go beyond the stereotype and be a culinary adventurer. I’d go further than Bourdain, though: I’d say we’re cowards for new experiences. We look at people living life and we laugh or even ridicule them because we’re too scared to do the same. I say seize the day! Go skydiving! Go bungee jumping! Tell the guy/girl you have a crush on that you like them! Eat haggis!

So did I like haggis? It tasted pretty plain to me. That’s not to say I wouldn’t try it again. After all, maybe I just ordered it at the wrong pub. Even though I didn’t find a dish that calls to me, it was the adventure that counts. I didn’t just wimp out and order fish and chips or, worse yet, go to the nearest McDonald’s. I tried something completely foreign to me. I stepped outside my comfort zone. And I’m richer for the experience.

To start, it’s not a surprise that with 931 responses from target faculty, 72.8% are atheists, and only 14.6% theists.  (That correlates nicely, one suspects, with the 13.7% who are libertarians about free will!)   On the other hand, when the survey includes another 900 or so philosophers who weren’t among the target faculty, the percentage of atheists drops slightly to 69.7% and the number of theists increases to 16.3%.   With 829 graduate students responding, a full 20.8% are theists, while 63.5% are atheists.  (And, perhaps unsurprisingly, among graduate students, 19.3% are libertarians about free will!)

I knew there were quite a few of us atheists in philosophy, but I never would have guessed the number to be that high. Guess you learn something new everyday.

At issue is a Louisville, Kentucky ad agency called Bootstrap, which bills itself as “the world’s first and only conservative ad agency.” The company has made a name for itself creating ads for Knob Creek Gun Range in West Point, Kentucky, a gun range boasting the largest machine gun shoot in the world. Gun laws in Bullitt County, Kentucky are some of the least restrictive in the country, attracting a large number of people to the range to practice what they believe to be their second amendment rights.

Now Knob Creek has hired Bootstrap several times in the past to produce ads for them that air on radio stations where the listener is likely to have a conservative bias (i.e. country and oldies stations). These ads frequently use half-truths, misinformation, and fear to sell the product they are intended to support. The latest ad, however, is downright frightening in how inaccurate it is and the ignorance it is intended to play on. Impersonating Obama, stuttering and all, the ad claims that Obama intends to outlaw guns in America:

Time and time again, the bitter non-believers, clinging to religion and guns, say I’m opposed to the second amendment and want to ban hand guns. But let’s be clear. I want to ban all guns. Hunting and assault rifles, too. Basically anything at Knob Creek Gun Range in Bullitt County I’d ban. From scopes, mounts, and reloading supplies to reasonably priced family, single, and unlimited yearly memberships, gun safety and concealed carry classes, gift certificates, and gun racks. Look, I’d ban Bullitt County just ’cause I don’t like the name. Change it to “Oopsville.” I like that. Knob Creek Gun Range in West Point, Kentucky…It could be your last chance to buy before Christmas or possibly ever again. ‘Cause, believe me, change is coming.

Anyone who knows anything about the constitution will know that Obama has no intention of repealing the second amendment and, even if he did, he could not do it without the ratification of another amendment to repeal the second amendment, which is unlikely to happen anytime soon because of the very people who are most likely to be affected by this ad. The ad seems to think that by not saying Obama’s name, they are skirting the issue of libel and slander. Yet, that is exactly what they are doing by implication.

So, who exactly is Bootstrap? A quick whois reveals an even bigger mystery, as they have chosen to register their domain through a company called Domains by Proxy, Inc. that allows them to register their domain without revealing their company’s contact information or the name of the owners. Instead, Domains by Proxy lists their contact information as the contact information for the domain. Their web site claims that

a  shortage of ad agencies and companies willing to promote traditional, American values means they’re also the most overlooked. This virtually untapped market is constantly seeking brands to help them share and express their beliefs. When they find one, it becomes more than just a product or service, it becomes part of a greater cause — one they’ll tell their friends about, go out of their way for, and even spend more to support. One that can even trump a slow economy.

But yet they claim that the majority of their ads do not express any political point of view. A quick scan of the company’s portfolio reveals a different story. Besides the Obama ad, they also produced a less sinister ad for Knob Creek making fun of Obama’s slip in saying there were 58 states, and an ad for a local chiropractor that implies the public health care option will allow doctors to force a diagnosis upon you (how dare a doctor presume to tell you what is wrong with you!) and that the government would prescribe ridiculous solutions to your illness (psychotherapy as a cure for the flu). The message: come get your spine adjusted before you have to get psychotherapy for the flu!

The purpose of these ads is clear: get people’s attention by massaging their misconceptions and misinformation that conservative pundits have already put down their throat. The dangerous thing is that stunts like this could potentially breed hatred for the president and further division in the political world than is already present. By presenting outright lies as the thoughts of the president, they are perpetuating misinformation that goes unchallenged.

It’s beyond belief that legitimate radio stations would allow this kind of crap to air. Yet, WRKA, a classic country station owned by Cox Radio, does air the ad. What message is Cox sending about the perceived intelligence of their listeners?

As I said at the beginning of this post, I strongly believe in the right to criticize the president. Yet, if lies like this were being spread about me, I would have the right to sue Bootstrap for libel. Why do these companies feel they can get away with the same exaggerations in the political realm? Because we let them, and that is why most of middle America doesn’t trust either political party at the moment. It’s become a game of rhetoric that needs to stop.

The rules for advertising in this country have become so open to interpretation. I say it’s time to close the gaps and make advertisers accountable for what they say in their ads.

So, yeah, I’m not a huge fan of the winter. It’s  a gray, depressing time of year when everything dies and we suffer through endless cold cycles and snow…at least until March. Plus, if you’re like me, you often feel more depressed during the winter. Psychologists don’t know why this is, but it is and it, in and of itself, is depressing. It’s an endless cycle of sadness. As if to make things worse, it gets dark at 6:00 pm in Indiana during the winter months. So, at 6:00 pm, I can be sitting at my house watching a Family Guy rerun and realize that my day is already over, despite the fact I’m probably not going to bed for five more hours.

But (and I’ll say this as many times as need be to get the point across) the universe does not exist to perpetuate our happiness. In fact, the universe really could care less that I don’t like being cold in the winter or that I prefer spring and summer. The universe just is, and whether I live or dies today is inconsequential to it. The only way to successfully live is to realize this and quit trying to expect the universe to conform to our standards, as if humans were what made the universe go round.

But Chris, aren’t we what makes the universe go round in a way?

Ah, young grasshopper, you have learned an important truth here. There is an old saying that questions whether a tree falling in the woods would make any sound if no one was there to here it. The answer is no. A sound imply someone to hear the sound. Without someone capable of hearing the sound, there is no sound to be heard and, as a result, we can conclude that no, the tree did not make a sound. It did make the necessary vibrations necessary to form a sound in a human or an animal ear, but it did not make a sound per se.

Yet trees do not exist to make sounds for us (or to serve as lumber for our building needs or to serve as shade for our picnics, etc.). Trees exist for their own sake. If we became extinct today, trees could go on living, just as they continued living after the extinction of the dinosaurs. Maybe there will be another species evolve one day with the capability of hearing the same sounds we did; maybe not, though. In either case, the tree will continue to exist for its own sake.

So, next time you’re complaining about the weather or the way things are, remember: other things do not exist for your sake; they are only usable by you insofar as you are able to manipulate them into tools (Heidegger’s concept of Vorhandenheit). But, even if you manipulate them into a tool, they still do not exist for your sake, but only appear that way in your perception of things.

Very often, we believe we understand how a person feels and proceed to judge them accordingly, but I don’t believe there are any two people who think alike. This makes it notoriously difficult to reach any kind of consensus on anything (just look at Congress right now and the health care bill). He believes that he can be a Christian and gay while at the same time actively sinning. It is a contradiction that will probably eventually catch up to him, but we all have to reach peace in our own way.

Andrew Sullivan posted today about a proposed law in Uganda that would make life as a gay person virtually impossible, turning family and friends into informants against gay people and criminalizing gay acts, but falling short, at least for now, of imposing a death penalty against gay people. Now, unfortunately, this is not the only place in the world where such regulation is enforced. The Middle Eastern nations are notoriously cruel to their gay citizens and, in America, religious bigotry continue to play a role in LGBT discrimination. Are my friends who are Christian and not prejudiced normal or are they the exception? I would like to say the first, but my personal experience makes me think the other may be true.

Now, I don’t mean to suggest that the government will anytime soon enforce the death penalty against gay people, but it is a constant reminder of how LGBT people could possibly be the most maligned group in the world right now. No scientific evidence backs up the notoriously long lived myth that sexuality is a choice, and the main reason given for denying equal rights to gay people are based either on tradition or religion, both flawed arguments.

Will there come a day when LGBT people the world over have full rights? I doubt it. After all, there are still countries in the 21st century where women are denied equal rights and slavery is still de facto legal. Unfortunately, rights are very rarely recognized in a universal sense as they are often subjective.

For many years to come, I fear that the young man I encountered will continue to believe he is a sinner because the environment he lives in continues to perpetuate this nonsense to him. What is the answer, then? I would like to believe that such people can be reasoned with, but history teaches us that prejudice can rarely be reasoned with. Prejudice is an emotional response based on suppositions the person believes to be true but, in reality, has no evidence to back up other than his own feelings. And, as Bobby Knight can attest, emotions can often get us into trouble if they aren’t tempered with reason.

I find it truly sad that a young man could potentially fall in love with someone and believe them to be a sinner every time they make love to the person they love. Yet that is still the reality for so many today. I wish I knew the answer. Unfortunately, I don’t.

And perhaps that’s why I want to write: because I want to be heard. This is certainly not my first attempt at starting a blog: those who have known me a while will remember my disastrous, drama filled LiveJournal (which I was tempted to post a link to here but quickly decided against). Even then, it was all about being heard. Which makes me ask: why should you want to hear me?

Well, I’m interesting for one. I’ve traveled to three continents and eight countries, lived and studied abroad, play a musical instrument, frequently philosophize just because I can, and enjoy good food and good drink. I could say I’m not your typical southern Indiana boy, but everyone says that. Instead, I’ll say that I’m a mixture of the hopes and dreams of most and the fears and damnations of others.

So this is my life. It won’t just be about me, though. It will also be about the world, about my views, and about whatever the hell I feel like posting here.  And who knows: maybe I’ll even find my fifteen minutes of fame along the way, simply because I’m arrogant enough to believe it’s there.