Author: Joe Broadmeadow

What a Piece of Work is a Man…

/ Joe Broadmeadow / Leave a comment

The human capacity for self-delusion knows no bounds. We believe ourselves to be intelligent, rational beings yet are willing to embrace, without evidence or factual data, rumors, belief systems, urban legends, paranormal incidents, or even claims of near-death experience as true simply because we cannot, will not, or choose not to seek a more mundane or rational explanation.

Religion is the biggie. More than four thousand gods have been proclaimed throughout history, and most of the faithful gleefully ridicule all but one or two latest versions as false. While religion is probably just the most commonly experienced self delusion, there are myriad others.

Entire seasons of television shows are devoted to “ghost hunters” who, despite thousands and thousands of hours of low-light filming, faux eerie scenes of “spooky” noises, and claims of gusts of frigid air warning the “Paranormal investigators” away, have never managed to capture one incontrovertible frame of an ethereal being.

“Para” being the important part of the investigator appellation with normal as merely ironic hyperbole.

Big Foot, the Abominable Snowman, Swamp Man, Sasquatch and a hundred other named creatures allegedly roam our woods and mountains, yet not even one good picture, let alone a single strand of fur, lump of feces, or other substance we could independently analyze, has ever been produced or recovered.

The general cell phone user can take an image of the moon with remarkable clarity, yet we can’t get a picture of a bipedal apelike creature in our increasingly shrinking world or, the most popular urban legend, a quality video of an Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon (UAP), formerly Unidentified Flying Object (UFO), other than something that looks like a picture from a newspaper left in the rain or a an accidental video shot while driving on a bumpy road

Three billion cellphones in the world, not one live streaming event or image of an alien kidnapping, landing of a alien spacecraft, Big Foot roaming the Appalachian Trail, or the Abominable Snowman roaming the Himalayas.

Not one.

And the truly remarkable disconnect is the belief that the US government, which couldn’t prevent the disclosure of our most critical and deadly secrets, the process for producing atomic and nuclear weapons, has somehow managed to capture and co-opt alien beings and technology and kept this from the American public.

Not likely.

The must keep the maintenance staff at Groom Lake, aka Area 51, under lock and key until they die.

Despite all the entertainment media references, spurious books, and supposed “top secret” revelations to the contrary, there is no Presidential Book of Secrets. Because if there were do you think for one moment our current…ah, never mind, you know exactly where I was going with this.

Shakespeare had Hamlet say, “What a piece of work is a man…” about the character of humans. Indeed, we are a unique sort of species in the universe. Unique in the sense of embracing these self-delusions not unique in any special way compared to the myriad of others.

Being a big fan of the wisdom of the Bard, his words are infinitely better than mine is describing the human condition.

“I will tell you why; so shall my anticipation prevent your discovery, and your secrecy to the King and queene: moult no feather. I have of late, (but wherefore I know not) lost all my mirth, forgone all custom of exercises; and indeed, it goes so heavily with my disposition; that this goodly frame the earth, seems to me a sterile promontory; this most excellent canopy the air, look you, this brave o’er hanging firmament, this majestical roof, fretted with golden fire: why, it appeareth no other thing to me, than a foul and pestilent congregation of vapours. What a piece of work is a man, How noble in reason, how infinite in faculty, In form and moving how express and admirable, In action how like an Angel, In apprehension how like a god, The beauty of the world, The paragon of animals. And yet to me, what is this quintessence of dust? Man delights not me; no, nor Woman neither; though by your smiling you seem to say so.” Hamlet Act 2, Scene 2

We all enjoy some harmless delusions, Santa Claus and the concept of a (non-religious) Christmas Spirit being one example. Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, and other wonders of special effects being another. No issue in that mindless diversion from daily toils.

The others may be a bit more dangerous when we convince ourselves they are real because to do so we have to discard healthy skepticism and curiosity.

The important part of the term Unexplained Aerial Phenomenon is “Unexplained.” Unexplained does not mean “of alien origin.” It means we cannot currently explain it. Could it be of alien origin? Of course. But what is more likely? Are these events evidence that an advanced race of sentient beings from another star system or galaxy have found a way around the well-established limits of the physics of superluminal (Faster than Light) travel OR is it some sort of hardware or software failure within a military surveillance system or erroneous interpretation of something seen by a person?

It is just as likely that the artificial intelligence we are incorporating into our military surveillance systems is giving us what we seem to want. It is built to detect targets, it finds us a target by inventing one. This is not so far fetched. There is research of such “learned” behavior in self-driving cars becoming more aggressive. (See story here)

Here’s a thought, next time aliens take you aboard their spacecraft, while they are focusing on probing an orifice requiring you to face the other way, try grabbing something from the ship. Act like you’re just holding on and bracing for impact. Anything of alien origin will do. Then, when you can sit down again, post a picture online (of the object, not the focus of the probe) and offer to have others examine it for its authenticity.

Now that would be something to believe in rather than just a claim of kidnapping by an advanced civilization of extraterrestrial intergalactic proctologists.

Close Encounters of the Third Kind

Great to the nTH power Uncle Tiktaalik

/ Joe Broadmeadow / Leave a comment

In 2006, in the cold Arctic north, in an area on Ellesmere Island in Nunavut, Canada, the fossilized remains of our great, great, great to the nth degree uncle Tiktaalik were discovered. The name, Tiktaalik, is a Inuktitut word meaning “large freshwater fish.” The fossil was estimated at 375 million years old.

What this fossil did was fill in one of the “missing links” in the fossil record between amphibians and the tetrapod (four-legged animals.) The skeleton of the fish bore the unmistakable evidence of early formation of shoulder and wrist structure.

One of the scientists involved in the discovery, Jennifer A. Clack, a Cambridge University expert on tetrapod evolution, said of Tiktaalik, “It’s one of those things you can point to and say, ‘I told you this would exist,’ and there it is.”

Just as evolution described it would exist, it did. Uncle Tiktaalik is just one example. It filled a gap previously occupied by the intelligent designer fallacy, the god of the gaps.

The (inane) argument against evolution, the promotion of the teleological argument for the existence of god, aka intelligent design, is gaining ground in public education. It is the opening round of the dumbing down of America.

Proponents assume both are on equal footing and should be “taught” in school. Nothing could be more detrimental to education than teaching students unquestioning acceptance of information without proof.

It is not teaching, it is indoctrination. Science admits it cannot explain everything, but continues to seek the answers. Religion claims you can’t explain it so it must be god and no further inquiry is necessary.

The contradiction arises in what one considers teaching. In teaching science, one details not just the result or most comprehensive theory (in the scientific sense) but the process and the emphasis on skepticism. Science is based on the ability of independent verification, or falsification, of the conclusions. Nothing more so than the unquestionable evidence for evolution.

Teaching Intelligent design, the teleological argument for the existence of god, is the educational equivalent of “Because I said so…” As are most religious instructions. No fundamental understanding of the process is necessary. Understanding is an anathema to faith. As a matter of fact, I would argue the teaching of Intelligent Design specifically prohibits and discourages any questioning of the logic (or lack thereof) behind the contention and demands it be accepted.

It is similar to the argument for the god of the gaps. where “god” fills the gaps in scientific knowledge. This argument fails, of course, with each new scientific advance. And, to demonstrate the inconsistency of these arguments for existence of a supreme being, whenever science fills in one of these gaps, a new interpretation of Biblical verse is proposed, i.e. the Bible knew this all along.

Here’s one example.

“The idea is that as scientific research progresses, and an increasing number of phenomena are explained naturalistically, the role of God diminishes accordingly. The major criticism commonly states that invoking supernatural explanations should decrease in plausibility over time, as the domain of knowledge previously explained by God is decreasing.
However, with modern advances in science and technology, the tables have been literally turned. With the advent of electron scanning microscopes, we have been able to observe the intricate workings of the cell for the first time. What had originally and simplistically been thought to be nothing more than a “blob” of protoplasm is now seen to be far more complex and information-packed than had ever been conceived of previously…
…In reality, a belief in God can be derived by means of an objective assessment, rather than the subjective conjecture that may have been the case millennia ago. But many people simply deny what is obvious to them. The Bible addresses those very people: “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse” (Romans 1:18-20). The God-of-the-gaps argument is an example of “suppressing the truth” because it relegates God to a “backup” explanation for those things which cannot yet be explained by natural phenomena. This leads some to the faulty conclusion that God is not the omnipotent, omnipresent, absolute Being of whom Scripture testifies.
…There is much for which the natural sciences simply cannot provide an explanation, such as the origin of the time/space/matter continuum and the fine-tuning thereof; the origin and subsequent development of life itself; and the origin of the complex and specified information systems inherent in all living things, which cannot (nor ever will be) explained by natural means. Thus one cannot rationally divorce the supernatural from the observed universe, proving once again that “in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1).” https://www.gotquestions.org/God-of-the-gaps.html

They apparently can’t even recognize the inconsistency in their own writing. “God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen.” Ah, if they are invisible how can they be seen? Or that the fine-tuning argument has long been overcome by evidence. Nor can they get past the “uncaused cause, the unmoved mover, or the who created god” issue.

Nothing could be more detrimental to education than teaching students unquestioning acceptance of information without proof.

Joe Broadmeadow

This invasion of public secular education by the religious evangelicals was foretold by one of the most preeminent conservative Republicans, Barry Goldwater, and called out for what it was, a usurping and diminishing of public education, secular government, and the separation of church and state.

“Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they’re sure trying to do so, it’s going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can’t and won’t compromise. I know, I’ve tried to deal with them.” Barry Goldwater.

If evangelicals get full control of public education, we are in serious trouble. There would be blind acceptance of this type of nonsense, the devil in the smoke of 9/11. Another mythological creature “seen” by the hysterical faithful to justify their faith.

https://nymag.com/news/9-11/10th-anniversary/satans-face/

Something that can easily be explained by the behavior of heat and gasses and a powerful example of how our evolution made pattern recognition a key to survival. Better to think what you see is a danger, i.e. a lion, a snake, etc. than to ignore it because of uncertainty.

Given the opportunity, evangelicals would replace the periodic table with the decalogue, a map of the solar system with an earth-centered universe, and replace teachers who encourage students to question everything with parrots of the irrational who teach blind acceptance.

The Longest War

/ Joe Broadmeadow / 1 Comment

If you were to ask most Americans to name the longest war we have ever fought, they would say the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

They would be wrong by a factor of three. This one is still ongoing.

The longest war, a war the President declared at the time with the advice and consent of Congress, is the war on drugs. President Richard Nixon, in 1971, a few months before his fateful decision to authorize the Watergate break-in, announced drug abuse to be “public enemy number one” (don’t you miss the days when we declared public enemies?) and began increasing the funding for federal, state, and local law enforcement.

For ten years, the war on drugs was more public relations than combat. It took President Ronald Reagan, in 1981, fresh off his “success” with the Iranian Hostage crisis, to fully ramp up the effort.

Focusing almost exclusively on enforcement and incarceration, the number of people imprisoned for non-violent drug offenses went from 50,000 in 1980 to  400,000 in 1997. Reagan’s wife, Nancy, contributed in her own way with the wildly “effective” Just Say No campaign.

The U.S. Congress passed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, which allocated $1.7 billion to the War on Drugs and established a series of “mandatory minimum” prison sentences for various drug offenses. A notable feature of mandatory minimums was the massive gap between the amounts of crack and powder cocaine that resulted in the same minimum sentence: possession of five grams of crack led to an automatic five-year sentence. In comparison, it took the possession of 500 grams of powder cocaine to trigger that sentence. Since approximately 80% of crack users were African American, mandatory minimums led to an unequal increase in incarceration rates for non-violent Black drug offenders, as well as troubling indications that the War on Drugs was fundamentally racist.

This is not a Republican or Democratic policy issue; it is shared across the political spectrum.

When the use of civil process to seize drug dealers’ assets became available, it was like winning the lottery. We took cars and cash and, as the theory held, used them to enhance drug investigations. Making drug dealers pay for the investigations into drug dealing seemed genius.

It turned out to be our own form of addiction. Many agencies became more focused on seizing the assets to pay their budgets than on stopping drugs. They lost sight of the goal. If an agency became aware of a kilo of cocaine in a location, they could get a search warrant and seize it. But, if they waited a few days, they could seize the remaining cocaine AND get the money from the sale of the rest.

Don’t believe that happened? It did, all over the United States. A very astute Assistant U.S. Attorney in Rhode Island at the time predicted as much in a conversation we had one day.

Not every agency engaged in such questionable activity. Still, it was enough to create a challenge to effectiveness and a stain on the whole purpose.

Now I was a loyal soldier during these halcyon days of the war, having served in a police department and working in various units focusing on drug enforcement. But over time, it became apparent that we were fighting a single-front war on a multi-front battlefield.

The majority of people we arrested, while engaged in breaking the law, were as much slaves to the drugs as those in the higher echelons were to the revenue.

If one is going to fight a war, one needs a strategy that identifies the enemy’s strengths and weaknesses.

In the war on drugs, we face three enemies. First, those engaged in the manufacture and distribution of drugs, both domestic and foreign. Second, we face the powerful force of addiction. And lastly, we face an even more powerful force, greed.

Putting all of our resources into targeting just one aspect of this three-pronged front is self-defeating. Over the years, the type of drugs has changed, the methods of smuggling adapted, and the avenues for laundering the proceeds have grown more sophisticated. Yet we continue fighting with the same strategy.

It hasn’t made us drug-free. It has put us in the top five countries in terms of the number of individuals we incarcerate per capita. We are just behind El Salvador, Cuba, Rwanda, and Turkmenistan at 541 per 100k.

And, one might argue, one of the “benefits” to come from the war on drugs is private prisons. Now, there is something we should be proud to have invented. Good old capitalism at its best.

To put it in the context of a war. If we had focused all our efforts on fighting Japan during World War II, because it was the only nation that directly attacked us, what would have happened in Europe?

Some Presidential administrations and some state and local authorities recognize the need to expand the war to address these other fronts. But not consistently. Treatment facilities for addiction, alternative sentences for non-violent drug offenses, and targeting the banks, businesses, and financial institutions reaping the largesse of drug money are not conducive to public relations campaigns.

Blowing up boats makes for great theater, like a 21st-century Circus Maximus. It is all show and little substance. It makes people who don’t understand the complexities involved excited, gives the politicians a moment in the public spotlight (their own addiction,) and accomplishes nothing.

I dare say some would embrace the idea of putting drug dealers in the middle of a stadium and letting lions devour them for the entertainment of the masses. It would generate excellent TV ratings, even better than UFC. But it would have no effect on reducing the level of drugs being consumed in this country, would be another waste of efforts, and do nothing for the lions but make them lazy and fat.

 Our fifty-five-year war on drugs drags on, casualties mount—and not just the ones clinging to an overturned boat miles from shore—and we are no closer to our goal.

Angel’s glow

/ Joe Broadmeadow / Leave a comment

During the battle of Shiloh, April 6-7, 1862 in western Tennessee the combined casualties exceeded 24,000 with almost 3,500 killed.

Reports of a strange phenomenon came from the battlefield of wounded men with a blue glow emanating from their wounds. The wounded who exhibited this phenomenon had a higher recovery and lower infection rate.

It became known as the Angels’ Glow and was attributed to divine providence and supernatural intercession. The fact that the phenomenon occurred on both sides did not play a significant part in the stories, but this obviously divine intervention by God did. God apparently wasn’t picking sides in this war, which is another topic for discussion,

This legend thrived for almost 140 years.

Then, in 2001, an enterprising high school student named Bill Martin toured the battlefield with his mother who happened to be a microbiologist. Martin and a friend set out to find an explanation.

They first identified bacteria that are bioluminescent then examined environmental conditions for any that could have been present in Shiloh in eighteen sixty-two. They focused on the bacterium Photorhabdus luminescens which lives inside soil nematodes, microscopic worms.

The two have a symbiotic relationship. When the bacteria emits light, it attracts insects, allowing the worm to infect them. Once inside, the worm regurgitates the bacteria into the insects’ blood, killing the insect and other toxic microbes present. This may be what happened with Angel’s Glow. Soldiers’ wounds became contaminated with the nematodes. The worms likely released their toxins and enzymes, essentially cleaning the wound by killing pathogenic bacteria.
https://www.google.com/gasearch?q=angels%20glow%20battle%20of%20shiloh&source=sh/x/gs/m2/5

Now, this particular incident hasn’t had more extensive research done. And there are other bioluminescent bacteria candidates as possible explanations. But the story is illustrative of legends and stories of divine intervention, inexplicable at the time, that almost always turn out to be fully explainable by science.

And if they still defy explanation, that is more indicative of our limitations than proof of divine intervention. Occam’s Razor, seeking the most likely and simplest explanation, rather than leaping to the conclusion of divine providence, seems most appropriate. Perhaps, if someone thought it over at the time, they might have figured out what was causing it, even if they didn’t understand how, and saved more lives rather than offering prayers of thanks.

My grandfather used to tell me that thunder was the sound caused by Angels bowling. At five years old, this seemed a plausible explanation. I’m sure my grandfather knew better, and as I grew up and learned to think for myself, I came to see the reality.

The Twelve-Year-Cycle Redux

/ Joe Broadmeadow / Leave a comment

Coming up on the twelve-year-cycle I wrote about here, https://joebroadmeadowblog.com/2019/01/24/an-american-twelve-year-memory-loss/, I wonder what 2028 will offer us?

The last time I wrote about this, 2016, we had just elected Trump to his first term. Somehow we survived, chose not to re-elect him to a second term, had four years of relative stability, then exhibited the most common symptom of insanity by repeating an action and expecting a different result.

I will give him this, we are not engaged in any active combat at the moment, but it would seem he desperately wants to try out the effectiveness of his renamed Secretary of War department by starting his own. (A bigly, better war. They say it’ll be the best war we ever had.)

We now find ourselves acting in the manner of enemies we long despised, where someone in the military chain of command orders a second strike to kill wounded combatants (I’ll grant the assumption for now, absent evidence to the contrary) in clear violation of the rules of engagement.

We have a President who supports the Secretary of War’s assertion that the decision for the second strike did not come from him, but from a field commander instead. This raises important questions about accountability and the chain of command in our military actions. There is no denial of the order. No announcement that this field commander has been relieved of duty pending an investigation. Nothing.

And keep in mind, while the designation of these alleged drug runners may be lawful, it does not mitigate the rules of engagement. Even if we assume the initial strike is lawful, no one has ever claimed these vessels posed a danger to the military assets engaged with them.

No one was shooting back at the Navy and one would be hard pressed to claim that two likely wounded men floating in the ocean posed any hazard to a 100,000 ton displacement aircraft carrier. They wouldn’t have even left a spot of the hull had they been run over by the ship (which would have been a less messy explanation of their demise.)

“Come to heading 250,”
“Aye aye sir,”
Bump!
“What was that?”
“I didn’t hear anything”
“Sir, there’s a small red stain on the hull.”
“No worries, we’ll paint it later”

2028 is on the horizon. Let’s hope we regain our senses before then. A new President, not a recycled one, will (hopefully) take office. We have frightened the world enough for this cycle.

Religion: An Atheist’s Perspective

/ Joe Broadmeadow / Leave a comment

I write quite a bit about religion and the objections to it that I’ve developed over the years. My objections are not about religion itself, but the insistence on the dominance of one over any other.

When religion is defined “as an interest, cause, belief, or activity that is intensely or passionately held to,” or, “to turn to or adopt an enlightened course of action or point of view,” I have no quarrel.

Under this definition, embracing science as an enlightened course of action is a form of religion. There are distinct differences: science revises its texts when new evidence is uncovered, whereas most religions insist their holy texts are not to be refined or updated.

My main issue with what most people would consider religion—Christianity  or Judaism in this country, Islam in others—is the insistence that theirs is the only true religion and that there is a being who is the eternal overseer, has us under constant surveillance, and can intercede on our behalf if one engages in an appropriate level of worship, recites prayers seeking this intercession, and accepts the results, no matter what happens, as a “mystery.”

And in particular, when they insist on defining this country as a “Judeo-Christian” nation as if that is somehow both necessary and beneficial.

Now, to engage in one of my favorite practices, the Devil’s Advocate (which, under the title of Advocatus Diaboli, was once a position within the Catholic Church), I’d like to talk about some of the known benefits of embracing religion and misconceptions as well.

Study of the Benefit of a Religious Upbringing

In 2018, Harvard University published a study in the American Journal of Epidemiology that demonstrated that being raised with religious practices had a positive effect on early adulthood. (“Associations of Religious Upbringing With Subsequent Health and Well-Being From Adolescence to Young Adulthood: An Outcome-Wide Analysis,” Ying Chen and Tyler J. VanderWeele, American Journal of Epidemiology, online September 13, 2018, doi: 10.1093/aje/kwy142)

“Participating in spiritual practices during childhood and adolescence may be a protective factor for a range of health and well-being outcomes in early adulthood, according to a new study from Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. Researchers found that people who attended weekly religious services or practiced daily prayer or meditation in their youth reported greater life satisfaction and positivity in their 20s—and were less likely to subsequently have depressive symptoms, smoke, use illicit drugs, or have a sexually transmitted infection—than people raised with less regular spiritual habits.” https://hsph.harvard.edu/news/religious-upbringing-adult-health/

I would argue that these religious prohibitions on certain activities are a temporary measure, effective until one matures into a rational being. Religion then serves a diminished, or perhaps even an unnecessary, purpose.

Study of the Efficacy of Prayer

 1998. Herb Benson, a cardiologist at Harvard, led what became known as the “Great Prayer Experiment,” or technically the “Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP). (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16569567/)

The study consisted of three control groups.  A control group (no prayer) and two groups that received intercessory prayer from various Christian denominations. The two groups receiving prayer differed: one knew they were being prayed for, while the other did not.

“Complications did not vary as a function of prayer. But 59% of those who knew they were being prayed for experienced at least one complication compared with 52% who received no prayer, a statistically significant result. This might reflect the creation of unrealistic expectations from knowing one is the recipient of prayer and experiencing stress when those expectations are not met.” (https://www.templeton.org/news/what-can-science-say-about-the-study-of-prayer)

What does this mean? I suppose that would depend on one’s perspective. At a minimum, it challenges the belief that inexplicable things must be the work of an interested or faithfully petitioned god.

Perhaps it is the pageantry of religious ceremony in our formative years that provides a benefit. As I am writing this, I am listening to a mix of Gregorian Chant and Handel’s Messiah, works inspired by faith. No one can resist being inspired by the sounds of Plain Chant or the Alleluia Chorus from the Messiah echoing in a magnificent cathedral.

And I can still recite the Mass in Latin and remember the cue to ring the bell.

I think believing in something beyond one’s understanding isn’t necessarily bad, unless one insists, by persuasion or force, that others adhere to the same concept.

I have a good friend I’ve known since the 8th grade. Kent Harrop is a retired minister who fully embraces his faith. He and I once collaborated on a blog called the Heretic and the Holy Man, where we discussed our different perspectives on faith in a civil manner. I enjoyed it quite a bit. I’ll leave it to you to figure out which of us is the heretic.

Kent now coordinates a group called Pray and Paddle (https://www.facebook.com/prayandpaddle) and writes inspiring and intriguing articles for the Pray and Paddle blog (https://www.prayandpaddle.org/news)

I would encourage you to read Kent’s writing. He often turns me back from the brink of total dismissal of organized religion through his well-crafted words. Now that I am back in New England, I plan on attending one of these events. I hope Ken won’t mind if I go with the Fish and Paddle version.

Embrace your religion however you see fit, be fervent in whatever faith you embrace. But remember, no one path, not religion or science, has all the answers, and we are all seeking them in our own way.

A Childish Miscreant and Menace in the Oval Office

/ Joe Broadmeadow / Leave a comment

We live in a time of chaos with a President whose behavior mirrors that of a petulant child rather than a statesman. The Oval Office, once a symbol of dignity and deliberation, becomes a stage for tantrums, impulsive decisions, and self-serving theatrics. The “childish miscreant” is not merely immature; they are dangerous in their recklessness, wielding power without restraint or reflection.

Want to make America great again? Then recognize that the single greatest threat to the success of that goal is sitting in the White House like Jabba the Hut.

If you agree with his policies (why and how do you even articulate his T.A.C.O. gyrations), then find someone with a modicum of civility and put them in the position. This poisoned tongue, inarticulate, uncouth, uncivil, unkempt, unkind, uncaring, unrefined, unsophisticated, unintelligent, unworldly, inept shell of a human is an embarrassment to this country, to the world, and to humanity.

The terms idiot, imbecile, moron, and their derivatives were formerly used as technical descriptors in medical, educational, and regulatory contexts. They have fallen out of favor, but I think we need to resurrect them to accurately describe the individual currently occupying the Oval Office.

There is something seriously deranged with that man, and more consequently, with any individual who can, with a straight face, ignore, tolerate, or justify the unmitigated idiocy of the verbal projectile vomit expelled from his mouth.

This poisoned tongue, inarticulate, uncouth, uncivil, unkempt, unkind, uncaring, unrefined, unsophisticated, unintelligent, unworldly, inept shell of a human is an embarrassment to this country, to the world, and to humanity.

Joe Broadmeadow

That anyone, A N Y O N E, in this country can stand silent in the face of him calling their fellow human beings retarded, piggy, stupid, or any other epithets is abhorrent. There is no justification, no rationalizing, no mitigating the damage this causes.

That anyone voted for this man after he openly and publicly mocked a handicapped individual is disgusting. And for those evangelicals out there who find it convenient to embrace this man because he echoes (but doesn’t practice) what you want to hear, I hope, should your belief turn out to be true, that you’re working on your defense for when your God asks you to explain your tolerance of this most unchristian behavior.

Those who either laugh it off as Trump being Trump or think it harmless are enablers. Those who are shocked by it but remain silent are cowards. Those who embrace it are the lowest form of life in the universe.

Suppose a high school freshman were to call someone retarded, or piggy, or stupid in front of the entire school, or mock a handicapped person. In that case, they’d be suspended in a heartbeat. But if you’re the President of the United States, using these terms against those who disagree or challenge him is somehow acceptable.

Until everyone in this country recognizes this boorish and uncivilized behavior for what it is and challenges it, this country will never be great again.

A Presumption without Merit

/ Joe Broadmeadow / 2 Comments

One of the most striking differences between the United States and Britain is the level of religiosity paraded in the public square.

In England, which has an official church and a monarchy in which the King is the titular head of the church, religion is almost a sidenote in public discourse.

In the United States, which, by our Constitution, is a secular nation ostensibly devoid of any official religion, the faithful seem determined to infect and infiltrate every aspect of our public and private lives.

We are a Christian nation, they shout, apparently never having actually read the writings of the men who crafted the Constitution or noticed that, not once, is the word god in this founding document.

One would think that, if we are a “Christian” nation, god would at least merit an honorable mention. This fallacy of our founding causes unrelenting difficulties in our lives.

Government functionaries demand the right to refuse to perform their duties based on a faith-based objection to other lifestyles.

Companies demand to refuse health care coverage for their employees that provides contraception.

A significant majority of Republicans insist on the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits the use of federal money to fund abortions, being included in any revision of the Affordable Care Act. An objection substantially based on religious grounds.

I believe the government has no business in religion. I would also argue that religion has no place in government. 

Joe Broadmeadow

School boards seek to post the Decalogue, a fundamentally Judeo/Christian set of proscriptions by their god, as a sound basis for improving the educational environment.

Those who support these actions see it as their moral duty and an exercise of their First Amendment right to free speech. When the Free Speech argument fails because their speech is tantamount to hate speech and bigotry (God Hates Fags is one example), they rely on the religious freedom argument.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

I believe the government has no business in religion. I would also argue that religion has no place in government. 

But what about morality, justice, fairness, the religious might argue? We need religion as a moral guide. I would argue the opposite.

Herein lies the problem.

Every act by the government in enacting laws, defining criminal acts, and ensuring the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness should be based on open and frank discussions, empirical evidence, and a sound consideration of the benefits and costs of such legislation.

Yet when it comes to religious practices, we defer to the faithful simply because it is a religion. We offer a presumption of respect for the practice absent any offering of a basis in fact.

Suppose someone believes, as part of their doctrine, that offering a prayer is necessary before engaging in a sports competition or beginning their school day, or that they cannot engage in some aspect of their job because their religion tells them they cannot. In that case, we just accept that without restriction.

Why?

Why is it that we cannot question the validity of a religious doctrine or practice simply because it is part of a religion?

Why is it that we must accept practices or behavior that impact secular existence simply because some religious doctrine demands it from its adherents?

Why is religion never subjected to the same rigorous analysis or dissection of its foundations or presumptions in the same manner as we would question a proposal for a change in the law, or medical treatment, or the tax code when it directly impacts the public?

Why is religion entitled to any respect simply because it is a religion?

Why is it that we cannot ask this question? Can you prove your religious doctrine is the inerrant word of an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent immortal being?

It may well be impossible to offer such proof, which in and of itself should be enough to discount it, but I think this is still a valid question.

By this point, I know the Christians are up in arms, screaming about this as another example of the discrimination heaped upon them. They are joined by the Jews and Muslims in this outrage, although each group believes the others are worshipping a false version of god.

If someone came to a school board meeting and said their son or daughter needed to sacrifice a lamb before they could take to the football field or basketball court, no one would consider denying such a request as prohibiting the practice of religion.

We would consider it a prevention of animal cruelty and curbing insanity.

Or, even more dramatically, if an individual were seen brandishing a knife over their bound child on an altar, preparing to slit their throat because they were instructed to by an unseen voice, would we stand idly by and just say, it is a command from god?

I think not.

Why is praying to an invisible being, variously defined by myriads of sects and faiths in distinct and conflicting ways, any different?

Having traveled quite a bit, I’ve been exposed to a variety of religious practices. In Morocco and Turkey, whenever I saw someone laying out their prayer rug in response to the call for prayer, it seemed strange to me.

When I encountered Buddhist Monks in Thailand and Vietnam, their incantations and manner of dress seemed exotic.

Yet, if I were to encounter a nun or priest wearing the habit or the Roman collar, it would hardly raise a notice. This is just a matter of familiarity and the fortunes of geography, which is more determinative of religious upbringing than any special validity of the particular faith.

Since the Enlightenment, we have made steady, if inconsistent, progress toward a more rational existence. Science has become the sound basis for almost all human progress.

Most religions recognize this, even if a bit reluctantly. They stopped burning heretics for stating the Earth revolves around the Sun, for example. They also update their interpretations of their “holy” texts to accommodate the new information.

The scientific method works because it is based on skepticism, the ability to recreate or refute the contentions of a hypothesis, and the constant verification and validation of any developed theory.

 The three primary religious texts in our world, the Torah (or Pentateuch), the Bible, and the Quran (interestingly enough, all essentially plagiarized from earlier texts), are often used as the basis for arguments about the free exercise of religion and its applicability to secular matters.

Yet these works are rarely, if ever, subjected to thoughtful, thorough analysis of their origins or basis before acceptance. Instead, they are offered, with various levels of interpretation, as proof of the religious tenets.

Why?

If a school board wants to post the Ten Commandments in classrooms, shouldn’t we expect a demonstration that these were the word of god?

If a person wants to wear a T-shirt that says “There are Only Two Genders” because their faith demands it, shouldn’t they have to demonstrate the source of such commands?

The case above, L.M. v. Town of Middleborough, is an excellent example of how religion is a form of child abuse. While I admire the stand taken by the fourteen-year-old boy who wore the t-shirt to school, his indoctrination into the Christian faith began long before he was able to make any rational judgment or choice. This practice, taking innocent children and subjecting them to religious indoctrination before they reach the age of reason, is, in my view, an act of abuse.

What would happen to most religions if we let children grow to the age where they can intellectually choose to accept or reject their parents’ religious faith? I think everyone knows the answer to that.

The call to prayer sounds strange yet I often listen to Gregorian Chants, an artifact from my own indoctrination.

I think much of the fervor for these religious positions is the result of this early involuntary indoctrination. We should demand more than fervent belief before we accept something as a valid position.

Suppose a company wants to refuse health care coverage to employees because their faith opposes contraception. Shouldn’t there be something offered as proof for the origin and validity of the contention?

Where is the line in the sand where religious beliefs and practices cross from embracing a harmless philosophy into a dangerous practice capable of causing significant harm?

While sacrificing goats and one’s own child because you believe your god compels you to may be extreme examples, they are all well-detailed, and accepted as fact, in the very texts the religious would have us use as the basis for morality and practices in the public square.

Embrace your religion in any way you see fit. Argue, based on that faith, for the morality or immorality of laws and practices in public life. But if you choose to submit that faith or religious texts as the very foundation of the argument, you should be prepared to offer evidence of their validity, origin, and rational basis.

You may sincerely believe your god is well pleased by the aroma of burnt offerings. I think we need more than your faith before we accept, unchallenged, these practices in our secular world.

Perhaps Not So Intelligent…

/ Joe Broadmeadow / Leave a comment

I am fascinated by the various versions of AI currently flooding the market as the solution to everything.

It can write a Best-selling novel, a promotion guaranteed report for work, manage your finances to make you a billionaire, and, perhaps, someday, kill us all and replace us.

So I decided to give one system a little test and ask it a simple question.

Who is Joe Broadmeadow?

I found out things about myself I never knew. Here are some of the highlights.

“· Career: He served for over 20 years with the Warwick Police Department in Rhode Island, rising to the rank of Captain. His career provided him with a deep well of real-world experience that heavily influences his writing.
· Expertise: His roles included commander of the department’s Bureau of Criminal Identification, commander of the Detective Division, and he was involved in numerous major criminal investigations. This gives his crime novels a strong sense of authenticity.
Career as an Author
After retiring from police work, Broadmeadow channeled his experiences into writing. He is known for:
1. Crime Fiction Series:
· The Harrison “Harry” Starbird Mystery Series: This is his primary fiction series. The protagonist, Harrison Starbird, is a retired Rhode Island State Police detective who keeps getting pulled back into complex cases. The series is praised for its realistic portrayal of police work and its Rhode Island setting.
  · Titles include Slight of Hand, Collision Course, A Flicker of Light, and Echoes of Silence.
2. Non-Fiction True Crime:
· He has co-authored several well-received non-fiction books with his wife, fellow author and retired police sergeant Carolyn Broadmeadow.
· Their most famous work is Killing Johnny Fry: The End of a Notorious Career Criminal. This book details the dramatic 1994 shootout and killing of a violent, long-sought criminal, an event that was a major case in Rhode Island law enforcement history.
· Another notable non-fiction book is The Phantom of the River: The True Story of the Murder of State Police Sergeant James Leyden.
3. Other Writing
· He has also written standalone thrillers, like Silenced Partner and Illusion of Power.
· He frequently contributes to blogs and writes articles on topics related to writing and law enforcement.

As you can see, I apparently did not serve on the East Providence Police as I have long believed, nor is my wife’s name Susan.

It got one title of my nine books correct. But, on the positive side, I have several new titles to consider.

So instead of scrolling through Facebook or Snapchat, put your name into a AI system and find out what you’ve been doing in a parallel universe.

I Wonder Why?

/ Joe Broadmeadow / Leave a comment

Under the guidelines of our new gunboat diplomacy in the war on drugs, a bit of a contradiction rises to the forefront. I am hoping some of the stalwart supporters of the President can explain the situation.

If you are SUSPECTED of being a drug dealer in a boat in international waters we will terminate you with extreme prejudice.

If, however, you are a CONVICTED DRUG DEALER like LARRY HOOVER, who once headed one of the most violent street gangs in Chicago (the Gangster Disciples, a gang that caused a significant amount of the murders and violence endemic to the drug trade which Mr. Trump would like to address with military force) you get a pardon.

Here’s the language from the petition by the Justice Department opposing the petition for a Supreme Court review of Hoover’s trial and conviction.

After a jury trial in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, each petitioner was convicted of drug conspiracy, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 846. Hoover, Shell, Howard, Strawhorn, and Wilson were also convicted of engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 848(a); two counts of using minors to further a drug conspiracy, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 861(a); 15 counts of drug possession and distribution, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1); 20 counts of using a telephone to facilitate a drug offense, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 843(b); and one count of using a firearm during and in relation to a drug offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 924(c). In addition to the conspiracy count, Edwards was convicted on three possession and distribution counts, 19 telephone counts, and one firearm count; and Branch was convicted on two counts of money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1956(a)(1)(B)(i). Each of the CCE defendants and Edwards was sentenced to life imprisonment; Bradd was sentenced to 292 months’ imprisonment; and Branch was sentenced to 324 months’ imprisonment. Apart from vacating Branch’s sentence and remanding for resentencing, the court of appeals affirmed. Pet. App. 1-17.
1. Beginning in the early 1970s and for many years thereafter, the Gangster Disciples sold cocaine in Chicago, Illinois, and the surrounding area. The gang used violence when necessary to protect its territory from incursions by rival gangs. The gang also employed minors armed with guns to provide security for gang members.
Hoover was “chairman of the board” of the gang; Shell was Hoover’s second in command; and Howard was the third of the gang’s “directors.” Below them were several “Governors,” including Wilson and Strawhorn, each of whom was responsible for supervising the distribution of drugs in a specific geographic area. Governors supervised “Assistant Governors” and several “Regents,” and each Regent oversaw the work of several “coordinators” and “soldiers.” Edwards, Bradd, and Branch were “deeply involved” in the activities of the gang. The gang had approximately 6000 members and grossed approximately $100 million annually. Pet. App. 2; Gov’t C.A. Br. (Hoover) 2.

https://www.justice.gov/osg/brief/hoover-v-united-states-opposition

And then there’s this guy, Jonathan Braun. Another convicted drug dealer whose sentence was commuted by Trump in 2021, before Mr. Trump had to be dragged from the White House. Braun had been a high-ranking member of an international group that smuggled more than 100,000 kilograms (220,460 pounds) of marijuana from Canada into the United States, federal prosecutors said at the time.

 Braun was sentenced to 27 months behind bars. The Long Island man had been accused of swinging an IV pole at a hospital nurse and threatening to kill her, screaming at a member of his synagogue, groping his family’s nanny and evading bridge tolls.

I bet, once Mr. Trump finds out this new charge involved groping the family nanny (is that even a crime?) a new pardon will be on the way.

Can someone explain the logic, or lack thereof, for these striking contradictions?

Never mind, such idiocy and disingenuous actions are simply par for the course (which is another thing he never actually achieves through honest actions.)