Boy dies aftter refusing treatment on religious grounds

You can read the article here. Basically, the story is that a 14 year old denied a blood transfusion which had the possibility of extending his life. The boy was a Jehovah's Witness, and according to their faith, a blood transfusion would make on unworthy, or unclean to enter the Kingdom of God. Thinking universally, I don't know if the state should step in in every case to choose to extend life, however, these kind of deaths seem senseless. The question would then become where to draw the line. We will force blood transfusions, but not continue life support if the patient has indicated not to. Or, should these crazy, dangerous, religious beliefs not be tolerated anymore? Should that be allowed as a reason to refuse a treatment? Then again, should a white supremacist be allowed to refuse a transfusion because it may contain "impure" blood?

"Under the Banner of Heaven" Review

While on the way to Missouri, "The Show Me State," formerly Eden, and soon to be front row center to Jesus Part II, we listened to "Under the Banner of Heaven," by Jon Krakauer. If you have Mormon friends or coworkers, don't read this book. It has the effect of turning the image of Mormon missionaries into the most ardent Islamic fascists. Well, maybe not that bad, but the tone of the drum beat is steady and deep.

"Under the Banner of Heaven," examines Mormonism, scratch that, should have examined Mormonism. Rather then mainline Mormonism, Krackauer weaves a story of a 1984 murder of a woman and her baby by two members of an FLDS group with a pretty good history of Mormonism. This history that is presented is told in such a way as to be sympathetic of the polygamist groups who fall under a general banner of FLDS, or Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints. Picking on FLDS members, and tying them with the LDS church is a much of a straw man as making Creationists in Christianity representative of the majority. However, this book made me feel sympathy for the FLDS members and their plight. They feel that it is their duty to marry at least three women and have as many children as possible. Part if this comes from D&C 132. President Woodruff issues a Manifesto stating that the Church and it's members must follow the law of the land. The FLDS members believe this is a great apostasy, that the LDS church sold out to the government of the United States. They believe it is in their right to practice their religion under the Constitution, which they believe is divinely inspired. Anyway, what you have in the end, after 100 or so years of the abolition of the practice of plural marriage, are isolated communities of practicing polygamists, including plenty of sexual abuse, brainwashing, and abuse of the social welfare system. I don't need to describe what Colorado City is like, just picture as bad as it could be, and that's how Krackauer paints it. Although, at the end, when interviewing a former FLDS member, he did acknowledge that the people in the city, despite all of the hardship, are probably happier then people outside.

I think the key, and what should have been examined further, are the people who feel so strongly that God is talking to them, telling them to do things. This was brought up in the court case regarding the murder, because an insanity claim was made, because one of the men received a revelation from God that a list of people should be killed. He wasn't deemed insane, because plenty of people believe they talk to God, and many of people believe they get answers to prayer. Are they all insane too?

In Kohlberg's moral ladder, the highest level of morality involved acting rightly, even though you will be punished for it. Here is where one can find sympathy with those in the FLDS, and even those who commit horrible crimes because they are justified through their faith. However, by what basis do we judge an action as moral or not? If one follows secular law, and disobeys God's law, is that moral?

Now, I'm an atheist, I don't follow any God's law, and have only my own morals and secular law to live by. But, how can I judge someone who, say, prays and believes they should protest a war through nonviolent means, despite getting punished, or someone who keeps their 17 children isolated an illiterate, and happens to abuse a daughter sexually because God tells him she's to be a special daughter, and must submit. Now, that story is from Alaska, and I don't think that guy was Mormon. I judge the protester is moral, but the guy from Alaska is immoral, even though both use the same reasoning for their actions. Both are acting rightly, according to their beliefs. Is it because I would be sympathetic to the cause of the protester? Would I feel differently, if the protester were violent? What if the protester were shooting politicians in order to end further violence, at least in his or her mind? Are the actions moral? So, the answer to prayer, or revelation from God is not a good basis for determining morality. So, what use is it to pray for guidance for morality? I don't mean to say that the faithful toss a coin between violence and peace when praying, it's just difficult to judge morality based on that alone.

Here's another example, of acting on the top level of morality. Jeannette and I were in the hotel on Sunday morning, and watched EWTN, a Catholic TV network. One show, the Knights of St. Michael, contrasted the Killing of the Innocents of King Herod, with abortion. The show had a Roman politician urging people to act to prevent further killing, with a modern US politician proclaiming that since the last 100 years, over 925 million babies have been aborted murdered. About half of this show was about abortion, featuring another segment with the Devil and a kid. Fetuses and tissue should be used, rather then babies, according to the Devil, and murder is a choice. Also, a reenactment of Mother Theresa's speech accepting her Nobel Peace Prize was shown, including her statement that the "greatest destroyer of peace is abortion." There was also this appeal to follow God's law, that abortion should be made illegal, because this is God's law. That argument is very persuasive. I can imagine how people so strongly act when it comes to God's law, because it is something most noble, higher then one's self. And, it's something a large group can get behind, so one is acting in unison with fellow followers. Now, most will not turn violent because of some kids show on Sunday morning TV, and the show was not promoting violence, but I can see the point of view of someone who believes they are justified, who encourage punishment for their actions because their actions now are placed on that highest rung of morality. I have no answers to these questions.

Diet Coke Plus

Since we are out on vacation and I'm sick with a "common cold," we headed to a Walgreen's to get some magic pills to cure me. While there, they had Diet Coke Plus on a special 4 for $1. Being frugal, I had to pick it up. I had thought of the idea for Diet Coke Plus years and years ago, wondering with the stuff they already add into the drink, why they couldn't add some vitamins along the way. Just avoid ones which effect taste to sharply, and people would buy it up. Well, Coke did come through with such a product. However, now it makes me think of "A Clockwork Orange," where the Droogies are at the Korova milk bar drinking milk-plus which is milk plus vellocet or synthemesc or drencrom. Diet Coke Plus doesn't contain anything stronger then a mild stimulant to increase awareness, but made me think we are one step closer to the past / future of A Clockwork Orange.

1984 Arcade

We drove all day through Minnesota, Iowa, and Missouri to land in Springfield. Here are some quick impressions of the town. It must be the strip mall capital of the world. That is all there is, strip malls with blazing bright signs attempting to draw customers in. The signs are getting better, or at least more annoying. We drove past a couple of sleepy properties which had fancy LED full video screens promoting their stores. Also, downtown is indistinguishable from the rest of Springfield. Their downtown, surprisingly, looks much like most major urban centers, however, in that half of the businesses are up for lease, and it looks tired and run down, with a scattering of condos for sale. Yes, even Springfield didn't pass up the condo craze.

The 1984 Arcade was busy, very busy. At any given time, there were maybe 10 to 15 games free out of around 50. It was pretty easy to play what you wanted though, as there weren't too many people who stuck to one game. Because it's Springfield, the lease must not be that bad for the place, and the business model seems solid. Just charge at the door, and let people go nuts. Arcade games are pretty durable, even the old games, but you have to watch for the moving parts, like buttons and joysticks. So, I think it wouldn't be so bad for this model to expand elsewhere. The traditional arcade model fails because people have games at home which offer a more personal experience. I've never thought that an emulation, or even a classic game on a different platform was quite as good as the original. I think people would flock to a place where they could play older games, which have quality game play and spend a few hours mashing buttons. Of course, I'd like to see a 1992 arcade, with TMNG games, or various Simpsons games in addition to classics from the 80's.

If you are anywhere near Springfield, the 1984 Arcade is worth it.

Sick Haze and cutewithchris.com

I've been sick for the past few days. I stayed home on Monday,m and that did no good. I went to Mankato, and was out until all hours of the morning hanging out with August Berkshire and students of MSU on Tuesday. Wednesday, I went to work, because I just love work so much, I can't stay away for too long, plus I needed to get backups prepared for the weekend, because I won't be in the rest of the week. Now, this morning, I'm still sick. It's s an upper respiratory thing with unnecessary fluid in the form of mucus in my lungs, so I cough.

So, in my state, sleeping happens lightly, and for entertainment, there is the Internet. Ah, humanity's great resource, presenting the very best of human knowledge. Then there is cutewithchris.com. It's a hilarious video podcast / vidcast / video blog / vlog thing. The video's are short, entertaining, have pretty simple humor, and talking plastic horses. Here is the latest video featuring a dog with no eyes:

Ah, Bird Meat

I am not opposed to eating bird flesh, as Jeannette is, ever since she discovered an odd part of meat in a turkey sandwich which she called a "turkey aorta." So, this Thanksgiving, I will be consuming bird meat and so will many Americans. But what kind of bird meat will be consumed?

The choices are many now, with different definitions from the FDA then you may be expecting when you buy the "Big Bird."

Free Range

This indicates that the turkey isn't kept inside all the time, and allowed to roam outside if it would like. While I have the image of turkeys running around picking berries off the ground in a forest somewhere, what is usually the case is that the turkey isn't raised much different then other turkeys. True, the turkey has access to the outdoors, but that could consist of a small fenced in pen tacked onto the end of the larger barn where the majority of turkeys are. It's a tiny investment for a huge marketing spin, plus you can get more money marketing turkey as "free range."

Hormone-free

The FDA has not approved the use of hormones in poultry production. Even the Butterball is hormone free.

Cage Free

There's no real legal meaning, but is usually similar to Free Range, except the animals have no access to the outdoors. The turkeys are still packed breast to breast in the barn.

Organic

Certified Organic meat consists of a lot of paper work for the producer. This certification means that the turkey ate only organic feed, and was not unnecessarily treated with antibiotics, among other regulations.

Fresh

This means that the turkey hasn't been frozen, or at least hasn't had its internal temperature lowered below 26 degrees, which I guess is frozen, but not that much?

Natural

This definition is not regulated as heavily as the Organic label, and generally means that the meat contains no artificial colors and has been minimally produced.

So, what's the answer? We've become very good at producing lots and lots of meat with very few resources, and very small plots of land. I would prefer a good system, like Organic Certification, despite the heavy reliance on documentation, or the ethical treatment of animals meant for human consumption which had a strong focus on living conditions. This would mean less production, or more land required for production, and higher prices, but meat is already heavily subsidized by the government as it is. Bah, whatever happened to honesty, and just doing things right without so much oversight?

Man's Search for Meaning

I don't remember the moment I found out Santa Claus wasn't real, but I remember Christmas not being as fun without that belief. Recently I read a great book by Mary Roach titled "Spook". It scientifically disproves the afterlife. Up until this point I childishly held on to the belief of ghosts as some indication of an afterlife. After reading this book a lost not a hope for great presents, but hope that I won't just rot in the ground when I die. Needless to say that for a while this proved to be a very depressing prospect for me, haunting my thoughts at every thing I did. If there is nothing after this, what is the point of doing anything at all? As much as I wanted to lie to myself and ignore the facts, I couldn't turn away from the tangible proof that has been presented not only in this book, but other research as well. Just because I want something doesn't make it real, otherwise I'd have more money in the bank. However this book did more than depress me. It made me realize that if I only have this life, I need to make the most of it. This ultimately led to the question "What is the meaning of my life".
At about this time Bjorn recommended another great and influential book to me. "Man's Search for Meaning" by Vickor Frankl gave me an entirely different perspective on things. He was a victim of Auschwitz, and a proponent of logotherapy. I will briefly talk about some things that I could relate to. Much of it talks about living through suffering. As I have not had significant suffering in my life, I cannot relate.
The beauty of life. One often feels alive when they look upon a sunset or climbs a beautiful mountain. In Frankl's experience just a branch with the leaves on it was enough to make his day. Find beauty in life wherever you can find it. This ties in with keeping positive. Today people have such trite complaints. Frankl would find joy in the day by finding a piece of cloth, or working with a foreman who beat him less. Focus more on the good things than the bad. What is the point of making yourself feel horrible, unless your a sadist.
The thing that struck me the most was the possibility that life doesn't have one meaning, but many small meanings. There is a different meaning to one's life at any given moment. It is one's responsibility to the world to carry out these tasks. This is enough to personally get me going through life and take a Universalistic approach to it. Try to make every decision based on how it will positively effect other people. Don't end up a nihilist like Bjorn.
Frankl quotes Nietzsche "he who has a why to live can bear almost any how". This is a beautiful quote and means so much to me. Because I have one life I need to make the most out of it, not sit around depressed that in a billion years none of what I do will matter anyway because human kind will be no more. I don't know exactly what my why is but I have an idea. I only have so much time to implement it. I better get my ass in gear and live my how.