Daddy Time with Mr. Mom

Archaeology, Religion and Evolution

I have a co-worker who has been "Saved". I'm happy for this individual, but have become somewhat disillusioned by the results of his finding God. I was trained as an archaeologist many, many, MANY, years ago and consider myself a man of science. I take great pleasure in realizing and accepting the truths of the natural world. My fascination with nature and the order that it posesses started early in my life with the Chicken Pox. In the seventh grade, my sister (who was a Junior at the time) came down with the "Pox". After about a month or so, I too developed the lesions and fatigue. The result of this was my needing a tutor so that I wouldn't have to repeat the seventh grade. That was when my interest in the natural world really took off.

My tutor started a unit on dinosaurs. From that moment on, I could see myself digging in the earth and uncovering the hidden ruins of ancient societies and theorizing how they might have lived. I went on to study archaeology in college, and although I have yet to make a profession in the field, it will always be a fundamental part of who I am... But I digress.

That being said, I feel the Theory of Evolution is more fact than theory. Imagine my surprise when talking to said co-worker and having him reject the existence of dinosaurs and prehistoric man! Apparently, heathens like myself have been fooled by Lucifer into thinking we are no better than apes. Furthermore, God has put their remains ( dino-fossils and hominid bones ) on the earth to test man's faith. Apparently, there is no mention of dinosaurs or neanderthals in the Bible, and therefore they never existed. Using this line of thinking, there should be no Australia, North or South America, Antarctica, etc... Also, what of the wombat? Or the poor little platypus? Uranium isn't in the Bible, did the Devil make that one up too? When asked how he could rebuke a century of research, both geological and archaeological, pointing to the inaccuracies of the Bible, he could only claim "Faith".

I'm a big believer in Faith. Faith in my doctor, faith in the weather-man being right 50% of the time, faith in my pay-check arriving every other Thursday. I have faith in these things because they are tangible evidence of something. My doctor cured my poison ivy using steroids. It was sunny and didn't drop below 65 degrees today. The lady in payroll sent my check out on time. Empirical results of measurable phenomena. If I find a flint spearhead in the soil of my garden and it carbon-dates to 10,000 B.C.E., I have faith in the fact that a paleo-indian ( who was truly a Homo Sapien Sapien ) knapped it, bound it to a shaft with animal sinew, and launched it using an atl atl. I have faith in the fact that he sat around a communal campfire and shared it with his tribe. I also have faith in the fact that he most likely thanked the "powers that be" for providing him with food once again. After consuming a modest dinner of fish and nuts, I wonder if he was worried about being duped by the devil for existing.

God is my imaginary friend!

As human beings, we feel compelled to explain everything in our world. So reliant on language are we that we label and categorize everything in the physical and spiritual world. The drive to explain our environment is an innately human characteristic that not only hinders our understanding of that world, but also creates false preconceptions of the true nature of our reality! So, tell me, how is God any different than my imaginary friend?

Think about it. Can you see Fuzzy Freddie? He's sitting right beside me. He tells me not to hit my supervisor over the head with a frying pan, so I don't. He tells me that stealing olives from the olive bar is wrong, so I don't. Right now, he's dictating every word that I write. Can you prove me wrong? Can you say, for sure, that he isn't sitting here right now telling me what to say? No, you can't. I think organized religion is very similar. God supposedly tells us what is right and wrong, and also, he supposedly wrote the bible through its mortal authors. Doesn't this seem a bit fishy ( and not in a Episcopal way) to anyone else?

I believe in science. I have a certain amount of faith, and in my gut I know that my spiritual beliefs are valid. Yet, I also know that they are nothing more than speculation. Can anyone, beyond a shadow of a doubt, tell me what happens when I die? Can the Pope really paint me a picture of what God looks like? Religious beliefs, actual organzied precepts of God, are flawed in the sense that they are empirically unprovable. Schools of thought, like Buddhism, Taoism, and some of the other Eastern Philosophies, hold more weight for me. They do so because they are philosophies, not religions! There is an interesting notion in Zen Buddhism ( I don't remeber the term for it ) that basically sums up what I'm trying to say... The more you try to explain the unknown, the further it moves away from you. For every active step you take towards gaining enlightenment, enlightenment takes two steps away from you. Gnaw on that for a while...

Where are my readers???

It seems nobody is that interested in my blog. I've been posting (somewhat intermittently) for some time now, but I have very few comments to show for it! Maybe I'm just not involved enough in the blogosphere to harvest the kid of hits I'm craving. Regardless, if you're reading this, please, please, please, leave me a comment! Even if it's "Mr. Mom, you're a stupid, petty man." or "Who lets you parent children you uninteresting, long winded, conservative troglodyte."

Really, anything would be nice...

Dads and Daughters

A new site has come to my attention.  It's called Dad's & Daughters. I haven't fully explored this site, so I'm not about make any remarks about how good or bad the resources are. I will, however say that I agree with this article. Much like the Bratz dolls, I think that making a Pussycat Dolls line of toys would be folly and, ultimately, detrimental to the positive self image of young girls. However, the campaign that achieved the goal of pulling the toy from the drawing board isn't exactly up there on my list of "Infallible Concepts." The Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood seems a bit far fetched and unrealistic. Granted, I tend to lean towards the right when faced with children's issues.  I can't , however, fully accept a  campaign to eliminate commerce directed at children.

Like it or not, we live in a media driven society that is focused on consumer goods. Do I think it's right or acceptable to market directly to children? Not necessarily, but we have to understand that we live in a country that does! What's next, pull the candy out of the checkout line because we don't want to tell our children no? It's my opinion that we need to give our children the tools to deal with commercialism, not shield them from it entirely. This is the old "sugar bad, bananna good" argument. If we block our kids from all of the things that make up our culture, how are we preparing them to survive in that culture? Pardon my red colors, but I think it's time to let go of the feel good approach to parenting and deal with bigger issues. The Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood has its heart in the right place, but consumerism isn't a children's issue; It's a parent's issue. As a parent, we have the ability to filter (somewhat) what our kids see and do. We alone can limit the "bad" things our kids see. Furthermore, no 6 year old out there is gonna walk into a toystore, alone, and buy a toy! It just doesn't happen. The solution to "rampant consumerism" undermining our parenting is simple... Be an involved parent! See, I just saved The Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood an ass-load of time and effort. Now, where's my paycheck?

Illegal Immigrants

This post may frustrate some, but I feel it needs to be addressed. There is growing discontent among legitimate US citizens, like myself, regarding the status of illegal aliens. Currently, there is a debate about this issue in our Senate that is being labeled "immigration" related. Although, technically, the illegals that flood our country are considered "immigrants", I don't feel that is an accurate description. My grandparents were immigrants. They came over on a boat and waited in line to get their papers. They went through appropriate channels and gained legitimate, legal citizenship. They worked hard everyday and built a life for their families here. They didn't look for handouts or petition the government to change the national language to Italian or Dutch. They came to the United States to become Americans, not temporary guest workers. An immigrant, by definition, is a person who comes to a country to take up permanent residence.

Don't misunderstand me. I have no problem with someone coming to this country with hopes and dreams of a better life. This country was founded by immigrants, and for the most part, is populated by immigrants. My point of contention is the method by which illegal aliens enter our country and manipulate the system to their advantage. Working illegaly means not having to pay taxes. It also means collecting unemployment and government assistance for which they are not entitled. When lawmakers passed a bill in December making illegal aliens felons, it was taken as an attack on the Latino population that comprises 80 percent of the nation's estimated 11 million illegal immigrants. Unfortunately, this ammendment has been portrayed as racist because of these figures. If you banned ice cream because it was fattening, would it be considered exclusionary to chocolate lovers because the most favored flavor is chocolate? No! All ice cream would be banned. How can we develop a good immigration policy that doesn't include a group that comprises 80 percent of the target sample?

From a fiscal point of view, the illegal workforce is essential to the stability of our economy. The reason for this is the too little, too late actions of our Federal government. This has been a growing problem for decades! On the west coast, the face of the problem is Latino. And unfortunately, this has given the uneducated, ignorant masses of our population an inaccurate portayal of the dilemma. The result of this is a backlash that utilizes the most readily available tool of the insolvent and simple; Racism. In my neck of the woods, the "workers" are typically Eastern European, Irish, or Jamaican. I know many of them are here legally, because it's a long ass raft ride from Croatia. Granted, they could always come as tourists and never leave. I'd like to think that they went through normal channels to get here. Maybe it's just wishful thinking...

In closing, I'd like to make one last inflamatory remark. I think the government really dropped the ball on May 1, 2006 when they neglected to round up the "protesters" and see who was really legal and who wasn't... For deportation reasons. The question in my mind is... How can someone protest the decision of a government body that doesn't recognize them as citizens of that country? Their "protests" should have been deemed irrelevant since they're not a part of the system! Does our Constitution read "We the people of all countries..."? No! The Constitution issues rights to its citizens, not to the people of the world. If you want the right to public assembly, become a citizen and you can protest until your face turns blue. Until then, either go home or become a citizen legally.

My little girl's first day of school...

So today is my little girl's first day of school. I have been waiting with great enthusiasm for this day to come, but now that it's here, I realize another chapter in my life is coming to a close. I originally took my current job so I could stay home with my kids. It gave me the opportunity to be there for both of my little ones whenever they needed me. My son has been in preschool for almost 2 years now, going 3 full days and loving every moment of it. With the boy in school, I was given the greatest blessing a father could ask for; a special time we like to call Daddy and Binny Time. For those uninitiated into the sacred bond between Father and Daughter, I will explain...

I love my son very much, but he is very different than my daughter. We have a different kind of relatonship, Brynn and I, than I do with my son Beckett. She is a snuggler and seeks out that type of affection. Beckett was a colicy baby and has always been extremely affectionate, but not a "snuggler". When he went to school, I became aware of a shift in my day. Brynn was getting much more attention and things seemed to be much quieter around the house. I was getting housework done. I was enjoying more leisure time. Mostly, I was able to fully enjoy my little princess and all the tea parties that came with her. I know she's always gonna be my little princess, but somehow I feel like I'm losing something. All of that precious alone time is no longer.

On the plus side, she'll be in school with her brother! She has been focused on this day for weeks and weeks and weeks. For the past month, all she could talk about was "June 5th". My son told me the other day that I shouldn't worry about Brynn because it's his job to protect her. It felt like the proverbial passing of the torch; like I had been relieved of duty by a stronger, younger soldier that had been assigned my post. Although I will gain 2 whole days to myself (minus the evenings when I have to work), I still feel as if I'm losing something much more dear to my heart. I can't wait to sleep my morning away tomorrow. But no matter how much sleep I get, I will definitely miss High Tea with Princess Butternut and Rainbow Bear.