Patron Saint of Ham Radio?

Well, sort of. Learned about Fr Maximilian Kolbe from Jerry G. Taylor's (KDØBIK) Practical Amateur Radio Podcast v54.5.

Listen to Jerry Taylor’s Podcast 

Who was Saint Kolbe?

"Saint Maximilian Maria Kolbe OFM Conv ... was a Polish Conventual Franciscan friar, who volunteered to die in place of a stranger in the Nazi German concentration camp of Auschwitz, located in German-occupied Poland during World War II." Wikipedia 

However, although Fr Kolbe held an amateur radio license (SP3RN ), and is regarded as the patron saint of amateur radio, I couldn't find anything official confirming it. Then again, I'm not Catholic, so maybe patronship (if that's what you call it) is not a formal part of beatification.

Kinda cool if it is, but probably just frilly details folks add for laminated bookmarks and such, if the Catholics are anything like the Baptists, and down deep, I think we are a lot alike, in good ways and bad.

 

Started: 2012-04-13

How a Diasporant Handles Verb and Number Agreement

English formally has no pronoun for referring to an unknown number of people or a single person whose gender is unknown.

We do this every day in practice, though puritanical grammarians shiver in revulsion. Eg:

Knock knock.
Person 1: Who's at the door?
Person 2: I don't know, but I see a car out front.
Person 1: Go see what they want.

"They" can be he, she, or combinations thereof.

I find this use perfectly acceptable in spoken and informal written English, but if you're accustomed to listening for it, you can't stop hearing it, and it becomes like aural diverticulitis.

There are many (poor) alternative, like he/she, she/he, s/he, pluralizing the subject and verb, or worse, choosing a gender and sticking with it, which often sounds like a political statement more than grammatical agreement.

I was recently however able to skirt this issue myself, which I like to do if I can (and if I can't, I don't worry).

This is from my recent post here :

Before
The distinction between the religious and nonreligious (or irreligious or atheist or progressive or skeptical - any will serve, it depends on the person identifying themself this way) can be illustrated by a few broad examples.

After
The distinction between the religious and nonreligious (or irreligious or atheist or progressive or skeptical - any will serve, it depends on the person claiming the title) can be illustrated by a few broad examples.

I could have pluralized both ("it depends on the people identifying themselves this way"), but that sets up a plural agreement I didn't want to maintain if I needed to continue talking about "them"; and since skeptics probably more than any other group don't want to be identified with a group, a grammatical solution is the wrong solution.

(Now look what I went and did, I generalized about skeptics to illustrate why I didn't want to generalize about skeptics.)

[1]
An incidental footnote with no referent - that means there is no [1] above:

While listening to atheist talk on WPRR  recently, I was struck by how sympathetic I am to civil discourse on both sides, and how often I want to take the other side regardless of which side I'm listening to.


That is, when listening to Christian theology, I am always thinking of how I disagree, and the same is true if I'm listening to the atheist/skeptic, especially if those sides are making fun of the other, which is all too common. (Probably says something about my Judeo-Christian dichotomous mindset )

As I mentioned to an old college roommate this weekend (Mark Jorristma, who looks great and brought his terrific and talented son along), I said I want to be able to worship in a conservative community while having the flexibility to disagree.

(I find I'm less comfortable being conservative among progressives than vice versa; not because progressives are especially mean, but because my religious roots are conservative and I'm more comfortable and able to handle discussion among conservatives. Since I worship nowhere, but serve rather as a Sunday taxi for my family, I suppose these are just mental gymnastics at this point.)


As much as I want to feel and say I'm comfortable believing what I will, I still feel like I don't belong to either side; I am part of a progressive diaspora that entertains ideas across a wide spectrum, but is not welcome at any one place across it.

And yes, there's a very real and unhappy emotional component to this, like being the only one not invited to a party.

There are some personalities and forums with which I am thoroughly at home, because it's all about inquiry, not the shortcomings of the other guy. One of my favorites: Brian Dunning, http://skeptoid.com/

Current reading/listening; a little lopsided, adding more science soon; Evolution of God so far seems to echo sentiments I’m already inclined toward, but refreshing to hear someone saying some of the same things I am already thinking and also saying these ideas may be insufficient. I love that moment where I learn I may learn something new.

 

 

 

Started: 2012-04-12

If you're having trouble playing Martin and Lewis's F-Bomb...

Apparently the player isn't showing for everyone.

You can play or download from here...

Martin and Lewis _date unknown_ faux arg.mp3
http://www.divshare.com/download/15212360-d00

Dean Martin and Jerry Lewis _1953_ Drop t.mp3
http://www.divshare.com/download/15212358-170

(There is a bandwidth limit for free divshare account, but don't think I've hit it.)

--c0

I need a break: Martin and Lewis Drop the F-Bomb.

(Originally posted July 1, 2011; minor edits.)

A little levity from one of my favorite comedy duos.

Brother Tom and I used to stay up late and watch old Martin and Lewis movies on the Late Late Late Show, keeping our laughter down to muffled giggles so Dad wouldn’t yell upstairs for us to go to knock it off and go to sleep.

Dean Martin and Jerry Lewis drop the F-bomb during a taping of a radio promo for "The Caddy," 1953

 

Dean and Jerry Fake Argument
In this clip, Dean and Jerry have a fake argument; very funny, but IMHO narrowly skirts some of the subtle cruelty that gets you asking "is this a little real?" Some homo-erotica insinuation that was (and is still) common among male duo acts.

Where Perception Meets Speculation

This is in regard to my last post in which I indicated I had more to say but needed more time to assemble my thoughts.

This is what I wrote:

It's a need, like eating, breathing, procreating. It can be ridiculed or applauded, but that doesn't change its nature. Just as some folks control what they eat (calories, animal products, lactose), so anyone is free to control their beliefs. What they can't stop doing is believing, just as no one can stop eating (without undesirable consequences).

These are my thoughts:

As elementary as it sounds, and as much as I don't like it (because it's overused and simplistic), this really distills down to "everyone believes something."

That much is true.

The point where perception meets speculation is where it gets messy.
Speculation is necessary for survival, advancement, and understanding ourselves and the world around us. ("I wonder if tigers eat people?" "I wonder why humans and primates have so much in common?" "I wonder what's on the other side of those mountains?")

The distinction between the religious and nonreligious (or irreligious or atheist or progressive or skeptical - any will serve, it depends on the person claiming the title) can be illustrated by a few broad examples.

For the sake of this discussion, I'm going to term the two sides this way:[1]

1. Supernaturalists
2. Naturalists

This is how each might respond to these familiar questions:

Who built the pyramids?
Supernaturalists:
     Ancient astronauts.
Naturalists:
     Tens of thousands of Egyptian slaves.

How did we get here?
Supernaturalists:
     God made us.
Naturalists:
     Evolution, electrochemical processes, panspermia, etc.

When does life begin?
Supernaturalists:
     At conception.
Naturalists:
     At personhood.

Each of these questions probably got you thinking about about how wrong one side or the other is, or you may have been debating my sample answers, "No, Clarence, you got that wrong, there's more to it than that." If you didn't believe anything, you wouldn't have engaged any of these question on any level.

So we can dispense with if we believe; it's the what that's interesting, even if you believe only that you don't believe what others do.

I've come to the point where I can entertain ideas others consider stupid and not be worried.

I'm also to the point where I can exchange one idea for anther and be quite happy that I've found an explanation and an internal response that is more satisfying than the last (both are important - the cognitive and responsive aspects). It's a sort of scientific method for self-awareness, and we all do it even if we think we don't[2]. (Read that paragraph again.)

It's no coincidence that a milestone on my path is Dad's death, and another Easter; anyone looking for earthly signposts along my journey will find them; but they are collective nudges. not forks.

Faith starts as internal transformation, through which others are transformed. Too many Christians view Christianity as primarily a tool to transform others ("win souls," as they say).

I am sorta kinda assuming a parallel path to where my family walks and has walked for generations, but it is not due to the pastors and churches and services I've experienced. It's despite them, and that is too bad.[3]

I'm still looking for a compelling secular ethic. There are many attempts at it, I just haven't found one that convinced me it's anything more than a delusional feelgood ethic for skeptics. And I don't believe those that espouse them believe them or, if they do, have critically examined them. And if the skeptic says he has simply "found an explanation and an internal response that is more satisfying than the last." he's on the same road I'm on, and I welcome him along for the ride.

In fact, we're all on that road. And that's okay. Maybe recognizing that is the first step towards less fear, less shouting, less hate, less killing.

[1]
Lots of options here, like noumenists, numenists (different concepts), phenominalists, etc. I want the words to remain accessible and not slow things down here.

[2]
This is especially true of extremes, eg staunch Christians and staunch atheists. I've also found it to be the case that one can turn into the other rather easily; my guess is that personality traits accounts for this.

[3]
A number of years ago, I told a former friend, "If this were the 60's, I'd've been a Jesus Freak." He said, "Oh? How's that different from now?" He was not being kind.

Don't know where else to put that observation, so I'll end this post with it.

Started: 2012-04-08