I Knew I Was Smarter Than The Average Person

Do you think you're smarter than the average US citizen? Have you had too many mind numbingly stupid conversations with idiots on message boards? Have you read too many unintelligible comments at other blogs? Would you like proof that you are, indeed, better informed about US government and history than most other people? Would you like to be decidedly disappointed by intelligence level of your elected officials? Well, then just visit this fun quiz when I stumbled across this nifty blog.

According to the results of this quiz, I am smarter than you. I scored 29 correct out of 33, giving me 87.88%. I don't think that's too bad at all. Especially considering I was fine with all the historical questions, but was very unsure of all the economic policy questions.

Did You Really Think This Through?

So, back to the subject of Christmas, and the celebratory symbols surrounding it. Don't worry, I'm not ranting today. When I left work tonite, I decided to drive home through the city rather than take the highway, because it rained all day and then the temps dropped below freezing and I was worried I would slide off the highway. Driving the route through the city takes a little bit longer, but it meant I got to pass the Rutland Town Town Hall, on the front lawn of which is displayed a giant Christmas tree brightly lit with coloured lights. It was very pretty. I always have enjoyed Christmas trees and simple outdoor lighted displays. Net lights look particularly gorgeous draped over full hedges and then lightly dusted with snow.

Seeing the Rutland Town tree got me to thinking, though. Tonite I was driving home after 10pm and there was that tree fully lit. Obviously, it would be lit all night. I couldn't help but think of all the electricity being wasted to light a tree that probably won't even be seen by very many people. I found myself wondering if it was really necessary. Sure, the tree is pretty, and yes it lifted my mood when I saw it, but is that worth wasting limited resources? Especially in a time when towns (and the state) are having to re-evaluate their tax bases, cut their budgets, and find any way possible to save money. And at a time when Efficiency Vermont is constantly reminding people to find ways to conserve energy. Is lighting a superfluous symbol all night really the thing to do? Maybe we should find a different way to decorate it.

I got to thinking about how I decorated the first tree I had in my own apartment. I couldn't have it inside, because the apartment was too small, and I was very worried how Colyn would react to it. Instead, I put it outside on the tiny porch, and then I begged my mother to make me a ton of little, red, velvet bows. I wired those onto the tree as the only decorations. It promptly snowed, giving my tree a nice coating of white to mix with the green and red. It was the prettiest tree. If I ever manage to move into my own apartment again, that's probably what I'll do for a tree.

It occurred to me that maybe we could do that for a town tree, instead of using lights. Then again, making all those bows would be pretty expensive. Besides, a bow covered tree is only pretty in the daylight, and this time of year there isn't much daylight. So, my mind got to working, and spinning, and even smoking a little, trying to come up with a cheaper way to have a pretty night time Christmas Tree. And I lit upon the idea of reflectors. What if someone could design a kind of reflector that could be put on a tree, maybe like the traditional ornaments, or like the old fashioned tinsel. Then, as a car passed, the headlights would light up the Christmas tree and the driver would get to enjoy the tree without costing the town money. I imagine it glittering and glowing and looking wonderful. I also imagine myself becoming fabulously rich as the inventor of the Christmas Tree Reflector Lights. Too bad I don't know anything about inventing. I should probably just stick to my book idea and hope I get rich that way.

When History Becomes History

Rude Cavewoman managed to find some chocolate and is now feeling much more Peaceful. Thus, today's post will be calmer and friendlier, albeit much sadder.

Yesterday, on my way home from RCHS, I heard a distressing bit of news on NPR. The Vermont Historical Society has announced that it has cancelled, suspended, put on hold, or however you want to say it, the Annual History Expo. Nine years ago The Vermont Historical Society sponsored the first History Expo. Since then the Expo has occurred each year in mid to late June and it has become hugely popular and informative. The Expo is as it sounds: a exposition featuring any and all local historical societies throughout Vermont, and any other historically related groups. It is held at the Tunbridge World's Fair Grounds, a site rich with it's own history. There is usually a turn out of half or more of all the local Historical Societies in the state, as well numerous museums and related non-profit organizations.

Aside from the booths for all these organizations, often each having it's own mini-presentation, there are author presentations, military presentations, an auction, old-time children's games, skilled workmanship presentations, an archealogical dig and lots of other fun stuff. Last year the History Expo was the kick off for the first ever Vermont Barn Census, the goal of which is to document all the barns throughout the state. This event has been embraced by Vermonters and out of staters alike greatly beyond anyone's original expectations. School children attend with their families for a fun and educational event. History buffs volunteer with their local historical societies to share a new story each year. Re-enactors arrive in period dress

I have attended all but one Expo. The last three years I have volunteered at the Expo, helping out in whatever capacity they need. I revel in this event. It is the highlight of my summer. Last year I went so far as to use paid vacation time so I could attend the event. The stories are wonderful, the presentations are wonderful, the people are wonderful, the entire event is just plain wonderful. I am devastated that there will be no History Expo in 2009. I think it is extremely sad that after all the work done year after year to draw people to this event that we won't be able to have it next year.

Yes, I hate Santa Claus, too.

It's Christmastime in the U.S., which means that all the wingnuts are out in force. Oops. I'm sorry, wingnuts is not PC. I'm going to be open and honest right from the beginning of this post, so that you don't think I have some ulterior motive or hidden agenda or anything. I hate Christmas. And when I use the word hate, I really, truly mean hate. This is, by far, my least favorite time of year. I hate the stress, the commercialism, the materialism, and, yes, the blatant, in your face religiousity that I am forced to live with for 6-8 weeks. All the same, I still find myself celebrating it, if only for one more year.

My family, just about as unreligious as they come, has always celebrated a traditional, secular Christmas holiday, complete with tree, lights, garland, and presents. The extended family joins us and we give each other meaningless gifts that we all pretend to like and then immediately discard or hide in the back of the closet. We all rush around in a grumpy haze trying to bake and shop and decorate and remain cheerful all the time. And when it's all over, we breathe a huge sigh of relief and remind ourselves to start sooner and be more organized next year so that it isn't as stressful and we can actually enjoy the season. So, there you have it, that's the reason this particular atheist celebrates Christmas.

And every year some where in this grand U.S. of A. there is a heated debate between the Christians and the atheists about the Christmas parapharnalia. Should there be a Christmas Tree at school? A nativity scene at the town hall? The singing of Christmas Carols at the Selectboard Meeting? Ok, so I've never heard of any controversy surrounding that last one, but I'm sure it has happened somewhere. If not, someone write it down and use it next year. Considering how much I love the holiday, I'm sure you're not surprised to read that I would just as soon have all these decorations disappear from all the public spaces. Similarly, I'd love to have all the retail stores stop playing those disgusting, sappy, overly reworked Christmas songs. I don't care if you're Elvis or The Chipmunks, I don't want to hear one more word about what Santa and Mommy were getting up to under the mistletoe last night.

Except, as an atheist, I'm in the minority in this country (as I'm constantly reminded) and I don't get to have an opinion about the matter. I'm not allowed to be bothered by the fact that my local, state, or federal government is celebrating one religious holiday, complete with all the corresponding religious whatnot, to the near exclusion of all other religions. I'm simply not allowed to think that, or believe that, or say that. Because if I do, then I'm just being petty and I'm shoving my beliefs in your face. Which makes me a hypocrite, because that's the very thing about which I'm complaining (having your beliefs shoved in my face.)

Truly, I think there are a lot of arguments that can be made. Many, if not most, aspects of Christmas have become completely secular. The tree, the songs, Santa Claus; all those things are basically without religious meaning. So, it's difficult to argue for their removal from public space based on the whole separation of church and state bit. And, I can admit that the forced inclusion of atheist beliefs in the Christmas holiday celebrations is a bit of an....oddity. Really, atheists are marked by their non-belief in all the hoo-ha. The (forced) inclusion of a negative belief is something of an insult to those who believe.

But, here's my question to those who celebrate Christmas for it's religious meaning and think that it is imperative that religious symbols be present in all public spaces, including government space, during this holiday season: what are you celebrating, and why does that celebration require the display of your religious symbols in my public space? Please, with honesty and sincerity, explain what it is you are celebrating during this Christmas season. Is it the birth of Christ, whom you consider your savior? Is it goodwill toward man(kind)? Is it just a warm and fuzzy feeling? Or are you just following along with tradition and reveling in the rampant materialism that happens?

Now that you know what you're celebrating, please explain to me why it is necessary to have the trappings of your celebration displayed in my public space? If you're truly celebrating the religious aspect of Christmas, then I think I can safely assume you have all the religious symbols displayed in your home, where you can see them daily. I would imagine all those same religious symbols are displayed at your chosen house of worship, where you can see them weekly, daily, or as often as you like. If this is all true, why then is it necessary to have all these same symbols displayed in my public space? Is it detrimental to your celebration to be out of sight of these symbols for even a few moments? If it is not, then what is the purpose of demanding they be displayed on public property? Would it not be kinder, more tolerant, more understanding, more accepting and non-judgemental to simply leave the public space as it is for the rest of the year? We certainly have enough government supported nods to religion throughout the rest of the year, do we really need the added religiousity during Christmas? I'd like to think no.

And, yes, I hate Santa Claus, too. I hope the dog bites that sneaky little, chimney sliding, animal enslaving, height discriminating bastard this year.

I Prefer Whole Wheat

Recently, while I was supporting my Dancing With The Stars habit, I endured a particularly obnoxious television commercial. I'd never seen it before then, and I haven't seen it since. I can't find a video link to show you, which is probably better for you. I can't even provide very good details about it. What I can tell you is that it was for some religious insert more polite word than "nonsense" here from Our Daily Bread. Which is some sort of daily dose of bible quotes and religious analysis to help those who have lost their rose coloured glasses to find them again.

The commercial involved a woman, who identified herself as the wife of some famous Nascar driver, explaining why the Our Daily Bread publication was so meaningful and important to her. As it turns out, Nascar drivers daily risk their lives driving very fast cars in circles with packs of other very fast cars all in the effort of going around faster than everybody else. The wives, and I would assume fathers, mothers, and children, must deal with the fact that any day her beloved Nascar driver goes to work, to put food on the table, he could be gravely injured or even killed. And, while it is difficult to face that knowledge on a daily basis, this woman has come to terms with it. Because she is so at peace with her husbands choice to put himself in danger for no better reason than fulfill his testoterone driven need to drive faster and be more macho than the other boys, she would like to share with all of us, the viewing audience, what tool helped her reach this peace.

And this is where we discover that Our Daily Bread is an indispensible part of her life. And we should all consider subscribing to this wonderful publication so that we, too, may be at peace with the dangers and difficulties in our lives. Blah blah blah.

Now, aside from the general annoyance generated by all things religious, I am down right offended by the idea that a woman who chose to marry a man who chooses to perform a dangerous but wholly frivolous job, deserves my sympathy for her troubles or my awe because she has overcome those troubles. Our Daily Bread could easily have chosen someone who truly does have difficulties in her life. Our Daily Bread could have shown a woman dealing with the loss of a child or a spouse, or a woman watching her child die, or a mother of 3 evicted from her home and forced to live at the homeless shelter, or the single father working 2 jobs and stopping at the food shelf on the way home so that his children can eat, or, even, the relative of a military person currently serving overseas. Any one of those people have real, and true troubles and need real and true help getting through the day in a positive, hopeful, and forward looking manner. But, the wife of a man who willingly chooses to put his life in danger for a testosterone game, is not someone who has real and true troubles or who needs real and true help getting through those troubles. She's a woman who needs either a psychiatrist or a divorce lawyer.

If that commercial was aimed at making your religion look even more foolish, unnecessary, or focused on the wrong things, then you've succeeded.

Talk About A Sore Loser

This is the headline buried in the local section of my local newspaper today: "Defeated County Treasurer Blames College Students." I expected to read a story about a group of college students who actively canvassed for the winner. I did not expect to read about a 66-year-old dis-elected county treasurer referring to the supporters of her opponent as brainwashed. Even worse, this loser thinks that her supporters were the only "real" people. So you lost your re-election bid, Ms. Carol Elliott. That's sad. So you lost to a college student. That's slightly embarrassing. So you completely lost your cool and insulted not only your opponent, but also another elected official, who you referred to as a buffoon. That's just unacceptable. Please, Ms. Elliott, instead of throwing a temper tantrum and screaming that the other girl didn't play fair, maybe you should analyze what she did and what you did and figure out why you lost.

Furthermore, this idea that college students can be brainwashed is foolish. And especially those students at such a well-regarded institution as Dartmouth. You're seriously suggesting that a group of people who spend most of their time thinking, analyzing information, forming conclusions, supporting arguments, and communicating with each other are easily brainwashed? Which is to suggest that the rest of the voters were not easily brainwashed? This whole idea is as absurd as the idea that a 20 year old is not capable of fulfilling the duties of the office. Or is it that she'll be too busy going to Britney Spears concerts with her teeny-bopper friends to bother fulfilling the duties of the office to which she was just elected?

And all your local Republican County Chairman has to say about the situation is that he's concerned about the effect college students are having on local politics, because college students are only in the area for a short length of time. Does that short length of time not have any effect on their lives? Does what happens in the community, which effects Dartmouth College, not have any effect on the students at the college? Does what those students do for the community have no effect on the community? Perhaps they should stop volunteering in the community, considering how detrimental their effect on the community is. Obviously, some one who is only going to be living in the community for the better part of four years shouldn't have any interaction with the community. That person shouldn't have any voice in local politics. Only those who can be proven to have a stake in the community should be able to effect the community.

Now, how to prove a person has a stake in the community? Well, obviously, s/he needs to have lived in the community for more than 4 years. S/he probably needs to own land as well, considering that somebody who doesn't own land doesn't really have a stake in issues like property tax rates and budgets and what not. S/he also needs to have a child in the school system, otherwise s/he doesn't really have a stake in the educational system. Yes, in order to have a voice in local politics you need to own land in the community, have a child in the local school system, and have lived in the community for more than 4 years. Even then, if Ms. Carol Elliott or her chairman, Mr. Ludlow Flower, think you do not have enough of a stake in the local community, then you don't get a voice in the local community.

Ms. Elliott, your behavior has made it very clear which candidate was the more mature choice. Fortunately, the voters were able to see, and choose, the mature candidate.

Like A Death

“I would equate it (McCain losing the presidential election) with a death.” That’s how Victoria S. Gelais feels according to an AP story in today’s Rutland Herald. Rationally, it is difficult to believe that someone would be so devastated as to equate the loss of her favored presidential candidate to the death of a loved one. Are we really so split as a country that we truly believe the other presidential candidate is that dangerous? I’ll be honest, when I hear people say they are afraid of Obama as president, when I hear people say they think he is dangerous, I cannot rationally understand it.

Dangerous is the drunk driver flying down the highway in his Suburban. Dangerous is the slightly unhinged individual walking around carrying a loaded weapon. Dangerous is the loose dog running free in the neighborhood terrorizing young children. Dangerous is not the other presidential candidate.

I have to be honest again, though, and admit that I’ve said about myself, “I’ll be devastated if Obama loses.” And I will. It’s not because I’m afraid of a McCain presidency, nor because I think McCain is dangerous. It is more that I am worried about a continued reliance on bully tactics and military force to solve problems around the world.I’m worried about the rhetoric making this an us vs them society. I’m extremely worried about McCain’s pandering to right wing evangelicals. If we were just talking about differences in tax policy and the role of the federal government, I don’t think I would be as worried.

But, my devastation would be about more than my personal dislike of the other presidential candidate. It would also stem from the sad realization that a majority of the citizens in this country truly do believe that the other candidate, with his stated policies and senate record, is the better choice. It would mean that people who support the anger, hate, and bully tactics that have been and currently are part of the process, are the majority. That scenario deeply saddens me and, yes, it is devastating.

A political race doesn’t have to be this potentially devastating, though. Here in Vermont we have a very similar race for governor. We have an incumbent republican governor, who is running for reelection, up against two strong candidates, one democrat and the other independent. I plan to vote for the independent. But, if the republican incumbent wins again, which is likely to happen, I won’t be devastated. I’ll be unhappy, but not devastated. Is this because I expect the incumbent to win and I’m not as invested in the thought of my candidate winning? Is this because I am not as invested in my gubernatorial (pronounced goober-natorial) candidate as I am in my presidential candidate? Or is it simply because my gubernatorial candidates differ mostly on tax policy and the role of the government?