OK. Almost to week out. Gym week is over and I sallied forth this morning to the park for constitutional. First time in a while with no discomfort other than the usual stiffness. Quite muggy and calm there. I found my forearms and brow sheened with a thin dihydrogen oxide (plus impurities) layer, the kind that you never want to drive on since it is just the right thickness to totally fraculate friction.
The podcast was dull but at least diverting enough to let me transcend the ache of stiffness. Walking is different from machine exercise. And I got to think about some other bits.
Since OPM is so fraculated, why don’t they put Eric Shinseki in charge? Its not like he has much to do and if he can get them up to the level of incompetence of the VA that would be at least a 100 dB improvement.
I did run across a neat article [Link] yesterday. It’s about a study at a New Yawk U about why the vast majority of Amerikans dislike “atheists” more than terrorists, pedophiles, and rapists. Turns out it’s insecurity although the academics don’t phrase it that way.
I should comment on why the quotes around atheist. That’s because a lot of christianists consider anyone who doesn’t subscribe to their specific belief structure and organization to be an atheist. I have had evangelical protestant politicians tell me that Roman Catholics are atheists. So some care needs be taken to determine whether the “atheist” referred to is someone who does not believe in deity or is just someone not of their sect/denomination/cult.
Getting back to the insecurity, evidently the problem with atheists is ideological; that is, it is related to the idea of someone who knows they are going to die and accepts that. Evidently christianists do not like to be reminded they are going to die because they have slyly evaded thinking about such by immersing themselves in religious doctrine/dogma/…
Of course they can’t stand up and protest that atheists make them admit that they doubt their own tenets and beliefs, so they sidestep by claiming that atheists are immoral and evil and should thus be beheaded or some such. Never be accurate when inaccuracy is easier. It’s more a bog thing than a religionist thing. Maybe.
This does, of course, lead us to ask whether religionists can be trusted to be accurate on any subject and if so, how one can observe the difference. Rather destroys the trustworthiness of their religion-ness, doesn’t it?
Now the question is whether this offers any insight into the insanity of society. We have a modern idea that people who are mentally unsound, unable to cope with reality, are sick and have to be treated. Except when that lack of reality is religion. Based on the standard definitions of psychology and medicine, something like 0.75 of Amerikans are mentally whacked.
And I’m one of them so it may be something we humans drag along with us naturally? The World seems to NOT Wonder.