Two things that utterly depressed me this week:

1) Reading D. Dennett's NY Times Op-Ed The Bright Stuff. I really do wish this is in jest. The coining of the term 'Brights" is well, not so bright. First, like so much academic bs, it attempts to rehash and recirculate old ideas under a new banner. Richard Dawkins talks about it here in terms of its ability to "recognise the power and importance of consciousness-raising". Raising the consciousness of what? Well, that there are people who do not believe in God *gasp*, no shit? But for one reason or another do not like the term 'agnostic' or 'atheist'.

Dawkins remarks "Brights constitute 60% of American scientists, and a stunning 93% of those scientists good enough to be elected to the elite National Academy of Sciences (equivalent to Fellows of the Royal Society) are brights." Im not sure where this statistic came from, but doesnt it seem relevant to point out that materialists (in the true sense of the term) would be more likely to become scientists in todays age? If rational materialism is all you have, you surely arent going to be a theologian, now are you? While a belief in diety may make you less likely to invest your whole life into materialistic endeavors (PS. for all you sour-grapes people, I have a PhD and work in a medical school). Just a thought, Im probably wrong.

The terms itself is rather ridiculous in that it implies that if you dont believe in diety or the supernatural (or have those leanings- since Im not really sure where the dividing line for bright and non-bright is) then you are 'bright' - even if the coiners of the term insist that it should be used solely as a noun. By this definition then, I guess Ive met droves of not-so-bright brights.

Speaking about ridiculous, couldnt they come up with anything better than "bright"? Sounds like something that should instead be found in Burgess's A Clockwork Orange

Im not sure that the fact people dont believe in God needs conscious-raising either. All around us we have evidence of this. This seems to be really based on the inability of most people to understand what the separation of Church and State really implies. Most instead reduce this to something they can get their limited intellects around- "If religion/god is mentioned in/around/about a public place/event/thing, then cry but what about separation of church and state?" But thats another story.

I think if anything, someone needs to coin the term "Brighter" - membership based solely on the ability to recognize the idiocy of the term "bright" (yes, I see the irony).

As Dawkins said, "words are not trivial" - think twice before signing on.



2) The Bush Administration's use of military tribunals for terrorist suspects (The Economist's Unjust, unwise, unAmerican) - I cannot say it any better than this- it is a scary time in the US. These "military commissions" will judge these people innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, will be given the right not to testify against themselves, and have open trials- but as The Economist points out, these are not 'rights' byt 'priveledges' that are being granted by the Commissions, and can be revoked without any ability of interference by any other branch of the government.

I finished Godric, a pretty interesting book but I still didnt like it nearly as much as The Book of Bebb. I was thinking that I would write about more than just books, otherwise its depressing when you realize you do nothing except work and read.