I really do find it odd... I really think that on the one hand "Christian Science" is totally wacko. I totally disagree with people not getting medical attention and particularly with not allowing their children to get medical attention. I think it's child abuse and that their children should be taken away. But then truly I think fundamentalist Christianity—and probably a lot of other things, if I took the time to think about it—are forms of child abuse, and our system is already overwhelmed by children taken away from those who beat and rape them, so what good would it do to take more away? Often life in a foster home is as bad or worse than life with their original abusive parents...

But anyway, back to Christian Science. It has a lot of interesting ideas, at some level anyway, but then it's totally marred by the illogical, irrational suffering it causes. There is a woman who lives upstairs from me, who I don't know at all, but I've been told that she is a Christian Scientist and as such has refused a kidney transplant, and so she goes to dialysis 3 times a week and is physically in very bad shape...and she will go on that way until she dies... And it's so pointless! ...

But anyway, all of this is on the one hand, and then on the other hand, out of Christian Science comes the Christian Science Monitor, which is, from what I can tell, an excellent publication that seems to cover a lot of important issues in a really solid and professional way...

Oh well, the world is a strange place...

CNN has a ton of interesting content on the new Mars rover...

I love the Universe. I love space. I love exploration. I have nothing against Mars. I love the idea of NASA and of space exploration.

However, I think NASA and the money we give it consitute an indication (one among many!) of our misplaced priorities. The rush to get a man on the Moon had everything to do with the Cold War. I don't have anything against going into space. I simply believe that we have the moral obligation to ensure a basic, reasonable quality of life for every human being on this Earth [*] before doing so.

[*] And yes, we DO—and I repeat DO—as a human race have—beyond a shadow a doubt—the technological ability and physical resources to ensure a basic reasonable quality of life for every human being on this Earth. And why is it that we currently do not do so: we simply have the wrong priorities; we lack sufficient moral character to summon the will to make doing so a priority. And if and when we find said moral character and summon said will and set said priority, we will have no problem whatsoever doing so. We will simply create the necessary structures to ensure the proper allocation of resources, and no one will ever starve or die of an easily treatable disease again.

I firmly believe this, and I don't even think it's debatable! If we can put people on the Moon, send a rover to Mars, transplant hearts, and operate on brains, we can damn well end poverty and the pointless human suffering it entails. Poverty is NOT a given of the human conditions. The simplest and most technologically non-advanced societies—the ones we think of as totally primitive—managed to feed their members. We, the society of the planet Earth in the year 2004, sure as shit can too. We simply have to make it a priority.

Humor Link