Wanderings of the Mind

Superstition

Mon, 16 Apr 2012 11:29:00 -0400

This morning, I was watching the local news broadcast (local to the country, anyway). I was at once amazed, shocked, and dumbfounded by the content. I watched footage as Official Panamanian government vehicles were used to remove student desks, etc., from a government primary school building in a rural area. OK, well I guess it is news that a school is being closed/relocated/whatever.

But the reality is much more bizarre. I had to check the calendar, because even though I was watching a Japanese-built 40 inch LED TV in HD, the song from The Rocky Horror Picture show started playing in my head: "Let's do the time warp again ...". And perhaps we _had_ done a time warp. A quick check of the computer told me today was 16 April 2012 (and not b.c.). That check also ruled out "Day of the Innocents", the Latin version of April Fool's Day normally celebrated on 28 Dec.

OK, to cut to the chase, they were reporting on a school that was "possessed" and children that were the subject of demonic possession. And this was being reported with a straight face, by adults (mostly parents of some of the students). A couple of these adults were nearly hysterical. And not from laughing.

Well, I can understand that, I was almost hysterical just watching. Probably would have split my gut laughing, but they were serious! And calling for help from the Catholic Church! (I'd be very interested in hearing their official line on all this.)

The news also carried footage of some young girl (I'd say based on physique to be about 13 or so) having what appeared to be a seizure, spasoming on the ground. But not a word was mentioned of doctors or epilepsy (I assume those things are known of), only demons and demonic possession. Ugh. Talk about balanced reporting.

I must have died and gone to some kind of insane asylum last nite. Nope, still got a pulse -- not that that actually proves anything. So what's really going on here?

Well, so far I've ruled out belated April Fool's joke, time travel to the 13th century, and death/reincarnation into an insane asylum (at least, that is my fervent hope). I'm down to this being some kind of mass drugging (LSD introduced into the local water supply) or other mass halucination causing widespread stupidity.

I can't wait to see what tomorrow will bring. Will it be a televised exorcism of the school building? Perhaps witches burning at a stake? I hold out little hope for any kind of rational explanation at this point.

How can we (humanity) be at the cusp of scientific discovery into the beginnings of the universe, on the verge of understanding the physics of black holes and extreme gravities, about to discover just how full of life the universe (or at least our tiny insignificant little galaxy) is, and have folks blathering on about demons and demonic possessions? Incongruous doesn't even begin to describe this.

What's worse, I suspect the Catholic Church is behind the nonsensical religious fervor that causes pious adults to espouse completely superstitous drivel. Demonic possession. Really. And just what is the Ministry of Education saying/doing? Care to comment Minister Molinar? After all, it's your school they've closed/moved.

I give up.

David-

Beauty and the Beast

Fri, 16 Mar 2012 11:29:00 -0400

I love my wife. She's beautiful, intelligent, and she puts up with me (though the why of that is beyond my comprehension). But after over 18 years of marriage, some things do take their toll. She has lost patience with my driving. She will normally insist on driving when we are together, at least when it's an around town kind of thing (exceptions include in the pouring rain, dark of night, or worse, both).

Unfortunately, lately, she's been learning why my patience with Panamanian drivers is so low. Her tolerance has also dropped drastically. And as the traffic gets worse, and her fellow Panamanians invent even stupider driving tricks, she's started to sound a bit like me.

I guess I should be thankful for two things, the first being that I'm not the one driving, and the second that she's not (yet) as aggressive as I am at showing them in a somewhat dramatic manner how wrong they are (though I'm sure they're too stupid to ever see it that way).

My wife's biggest problem is that she has been out of the country. And while she was a bit timid to drive in the US, she got used to the high number (relatively) of cars on the road. She also got used to the way folks in the US drive, and will admit, when pressed on the point, that while she understands how her fellow Latinos drive, she's more than a bit embarrased by it.

While watching drivers here, I always think about the two four lane intersecting roads in Lacey, Washington, that has a four-way stop. I remember the first time my wife was with me when we came to it, and she was amazed at how everyone stopped, and methodically, two lanes at a time, cars went through the intersection, the rest patiently waiting their turn (I never saw an accident there). She would be the first to tell you that that intersection, located anywhere in Panama, would be called a junkyard.

But it may be time for me to stop letting her drive. Her screaming at the other drivers is starting to get on my nerves (although I think I only have one left). And while I'm not very complimentary, I think she may be getting worse.

At least, they don't scream back at her to go back to her country. Of course, I'm willing to bet that would only happen once.

Drive safe.

David-

E-mail Stupidity

Wed, 05 Oct 2011 11:18:00 -0400

Have you ever received an e-mail from someone that was one or two lines long, but at the bottom contained something like the following:

This transmission is intended to be delivered only to the named addressee and may contain information that is confidential, proprietary or privileged. If this information is received by anyone other than the named addressee, the recipient should immediately notify the sender via Email and/or by telephone at xxx-xxx-xxxx and obtain instructions as to the disposal of the transmitted material. In no event shall this material be read, used, copied, reproduced, stored or retained by anyone other than the named addressee, except with the express consent of the sender or the named addressee.

Note: Offending corporation's phone number deleted.

Apparently, someone, likely someone who should actually know better, like a lawyer, has dictated this be appended to all outgoing e-mails. Now, I don't know if anyone actually reads this drivel, I rather doubt it. Even less likely someone receiving this for whom it's not intended will follow the instructions. But just for the sake of argument, let's go through this drivel, line by line. I do want to warn you that I am not a lawyer, but this is not exactly rocket science either.

The first line. If I received this e-mail in my inbox, I _am_ the named addressee. Whether or not the e-mail is intended for me is another matter, but my e-mail address names me. Duh. So obviously, we can always stop here. But then the line goes on to say that the e-mail may contain confidential, proprietary, or privileged information. If that is the case, then it should have been encrypted!

Sending an unencrypted e-mail is like sending a postcard. Anyone that can handle it can read it. I have been advocating encrypting e-mail for almost 20 years. No one listens. They do the equivalent of writing all their secrets on a billboard on the Interstate highway, then wonder why the whole world knows their secret. Many a corporation has been embarrassed in court because of unencrypted e-mails, but nobody wants to encrypt their e-mails. Am I missing the obvious here? Sending me an encrypted e-mail is like mailing me a letter in a SAFE. Only I can open it and read it because only I have the key. And unless the sender encrypted it to themself as well, even they can no longer read it. This is just too simple, I guess.

Moving on to the second sentence. We already covered the part about being the "named addressee", but assuming this e-mail isn't intended for me, do I have an obligation to notify anybody (except possibly the media) about this errant communication? No. Not really. This is what makes this such a joke. No one has any legal, moral, or other obligation in regard to this e-mail. If it was unencrypted and not really meant for me, then I can still do whatever I want with it. If it was encrypted, I couldn't read it anyway, unless I somehow "broke" the encryption. If I did somehow manage to unencrypt a message not for me, then we have another matter -- I could be held criminally liable under various statutes. The sender and intended recipient did actually have an expectation of privacy. That is not the case with a postcard, a conversation in Grand Central Station, or an unencrypted e-mail.

Moving on to the last sentence. Can this get any dumber? I can't read the e-mail? First, your disclaimer is at the BOTTOM. Even if this wasn't intended for me, how the blazes would I know that without reading it first? And like most folks, I read from top to bottom on a page, not bottom to top. So, I haven't even read that "in no event shall this material be read ..." until after I've read everything.

Einstein said it best: "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." Well, this paragraph puts that case to rest.

The only reason I even bring this up is I have done a quick scan for these kinds of idiotic nonsense in my e-mails, and I have megabytes of it stealing hard disk real estate. It also jams my Internet connection with noise. In some cases, the signal to noise ratio is very high (like when 2k of a 3k message is this drivel). For those who've seen "A Bug's Life", Hopper hit it on the head. One or two is no big deal. But one or two hundred million is -- as a couple of his minions, and really all the grasshoppers came to find out.

David-

Fixing the Blame

Fri, 30 Sep 2011 11:18:00 -0400

I saw a commercial the other day on TV here. Let's just say, folks never fail to disappoint me. I had hoped for something more lucid coming from folks who work statistics, but then, if the question is wrong, or the input is wrong, the statistics will be skewed to support or discount the wrong question.

In the US, it has never failed to amuse me that folks don't see the illogic in the following: someone gets drunk, gets in their car, runs over a pedestrian; another someone (or perhaps the same someone) get drunk, picks up their handgun, shoots a pedestrian. In both cases we have two elements in common, the someone and the alcohol, but the cases differ in the instrument used to cause a death or injury. In the first case, most folks want to blame the drink, and in the second case, the handgun. Personally, I've never seen a bottle of whiskey drive a car or shoot a gun. I've also never seen either a car or a gun do anything unless operated by a person. So why are we blaming any of the car, the gun, or the liquor for the something obviously not their fault?

The commercial I watched blamed speed, alcohol, or talking on cell phones as the three leading causes of auto accidents here in Panama. Apparently, either the question or the input to answer the question is skewed. The real blame should be placed squarely on one of the following: arrogance, ignorance, or apathy resulting in a failure to abide by the traffic laws. The other day I found myself behind six other cars at a stop sign. Two signs, one below the stop sign which read (in Spanish) NO LEFT TURN, and a prior sign (about 20 feet before the stop sign) with an arrow showing a left turn and a big red slashed circle on top of it -- i.e., the international sign for no left turn. EVERY ONE of the six vehicles in front of me turned left. I don't know if the meaning of NO LEFT TURN has been changed to LEFT TURN ONLY or what (no I didn't turn left, but was wondering if I was the only one of the drivers about to get a ticket).

I have asked the question in previous postings what causes the apparently universal cultural attitude within the Latin community that laws are for everyone else, but for whatever reason don't apply to them. This includes the police who set only a bad example for drivers. I still don't have an answer to my question.

I can't compare this to anywhere else, as Panama is the only country where I've been to traffic court (on _way_ too many occasions), and even after the judge issues his findings explaining the point of law and everything, the offending party _always_ says they appeal. FACT: you ran the stop. FACT: you caused an accident. FACT: no mechanical failure caused you to not be able to stop. FACT: you've been charged with causing the accident based on the above and other facts. Why you ran the stop is irrelevant. So what are you appealing? Did the judge rule that you're ugly and you want another opinion?

Are any of the above transgressions fixable? Of course they are, but I don't expect to see it in my lifetime. First, folks need to stop blaming everything and everyone else (especially God) for their failures -- admit them. Second, recognize that you're NOT special/privileged/whatever. You have the same rights and responsibilites as everyone else, accept them rather than shirk them.

Will this ever happen? Will attitudes change? Will Ursus Americanus stop defecating in a stand of conifers? Stay tuned for updates (but don't hold your breath).

Meanwhile, let's see if we can stop blaming inanimate objects for actions they're not capable of. Then let's see if we can fix the problem rather than the blame.

David-

Loving Catholics (in a pig's eye).

Mon, 01 Aug 2011 11:18:00 -0400

Once upon a time I said I refused to discuss religion. Every single time I have to deal with "men of God" I come away wondering how so many folks can so proudly proclaim they are this or that religion. And the louder they proclaim, the more hypocritical they are.

Yesterday, 31 July 2011, a car came into the neighborhood full of teenagers from a local Catholic church. They were very proud to tell me they were Catholics. I wish I could remember which specific church they came from, but I told them they should learn how to read. The didn't live in the neighborhood, and it was very clearly marked at the only entrance/exit that non-residents were prohibited entry.

Guess their God told them they were above everyone else and could come in. They all finally left in the white station wagon that dropped them off, but not before, in front of all the teens in the car, and at the top of his lungs, the loving, tolerant Catholic yelled at me to go back to my own country, I wasn't welcome here in Panama.

The words that come to mind number among: ignorant, hypocritic, xenophobic, hate-monger, and more. Any wonder thousands marched off on the crusades at the whims a mad-man Pope? And those same sentiments remain, apparently. Wonder when the next crusades will start?

Now, if it were in my power, I'd grant this loving Catholic his wish. I'd leave, take all the other foreigners (US, Canadian, Venezuelan, European, etc.,) out with me. I'd also, by the way, remove the Embassy and all other diplomatic personnel, and all the money Panama receives in foreign aid. Then watch as the entire country imploded. Who would care? Panama is a third world nothing. It could easily be reabsorbed by Colombia and no one would care or even notice outside of Panama. I say, give this loving Catholic exactly what he's asked for.

Reminds me of the mandatory indoctrination required by another Catholic church when a dear friend asked me to be a "Godfather" to her daughter. I pointed out this was asking a bit much, but after some insistence on her part, I conceded (what could it hurt, I might even learn something about tolerance after all).

The talk was to be about being a God parent. It was supposed to be 3 sessions of 60 to 90 minutes. I didn't make it through the first session. After listening for about 20 minutes to some deacon (whatever that is) advocate -- no, encourage, child abuse, I stood up and told him what the law had to say about what he was encouraging, told him a prison sentence might do him some good if he really did treat children this way, and walked out.

The next day I saw the priest (I needed time to cool off). He listened but offered little in the way of an apology or anything that sounded like he would actually do anything. In fact, it sounded like this deacon ran the church. While they gave me the certificate to be the child's Godfather, I did not return to more of these lectures, and cannot believe this deacon was allowed to continue giving them.

Religion is something that should have died a horrible, agonizing death centuries ago, but I find it unlikely to happen as long as power-hungry religious icons can find fanatics willing to die or kill to support their point of view. If the intolerant, ignorant, xenophobe who called himself a loving Catholic had a gun yesterday, I'd likely be dead now.

Oh, religion is such a wonderful thing. Anything can be justified in the name of God -- and usually is.

David-