An Ironicly Amusing Poison Girls Video

The Ball is in Your Court Hamas!

I am, reluctantly, beginning to agree with the Israeli criticisms of the Palestinian leadership, in particular, Hamas. Over the last two years, Israel finally began to make the good faith gestures necessary to end the conflict and work toward establishing a Palestinian state. They forcibly withdrew Israeli citizens from the settlements and began negotiating with the Palestinian Authority. They did, in short, all of the things many have stated would be necessary to get the ball rolling. And then, of course, Hamas began its dramatic rise to power, particularly in Gaza. Hamas has refused peace with Israel and has repeatedly launched rocket strikes on civilian targets.

I will not go into the "who is right" argument. The decisions that made a state of Israel, which then lead to the Arab attacks on Israel and Israel's subsequent occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip are in the past. Most of the people involved in all of that are dead now. A friend of mine, who is an Arab-American Muslim, always went into the anti-Israel propaganda that comes out of the hard-line Islamic media. Most of it is utter rubbish. I said to him on more than one occasion, "You can argue that Israelis have no right to be there and that they stole the land until you're blue in the face. If there is going to be peace and a Palestinian state, Palestine has to accept the fact that Israel isn't going anywhere. There has to be compromise on both sides." I've thought to myself so many times that Palestine would benefit from the model of Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King--if the Palestinians had embraced peaceful protest and passive resistance in seeking statehood, Israel would never be able to justify military incursions into Palestine. Eventually, international pressure would have forced Israel into recognizing Palestine.

On the other hand, I also have a friend, who is Jewish, who spouts the Israeli hardliner perspective. I've actually gotten angry at her on more than one occasion and I've accused her of being a racist. Her language is markedly different from the Muslim friend--he has never spouted an anti-Jewish sentiment in his life, and has friends of all backgrounds. His issue is specifically directed at Israel as a state. She, on the other hand, has come very close to suggesting that Palestinians are sub-human and ought to be eliminated--not in so many words, of course, but I can read between the lines. How anyone can have that attitude with relatives who lived through the Holocaust is beyond me.

I will be clear on one thing--the treaty which granted statehood to Israel set specific boundaries. When Israel invaded what is now the West Bank and Gaza, they did so to protect themselves from hostile Arab forces. Establishing a military presence in the area was necessary for their own security. But when they began building settlements in Palestinian areas, they crossed the line. In many cases, the settlements were built with absolutely no concern to the rights of the Palestinian land owners. Most people involved in trying to create a lasting peace have stated that Israel needs to remove the settlements.

Israel has removed many of the settlements. They have made the necessary steps. Perhaps Hamas sees this as a sign of weakness and they think that it is the first step in a long and slow Israeli withdrawal from the region. When Hamas took part in the parliamentary elections and won a solid majority, I thought, "perhaps they are ready to act as a legitimate governmental agency." It would not be the first time former terrorists became statesmen. It's far from an ideal situation, but not an untenable position, if the former terrorists make real moves for peace. However, Hamas has, over the last two years, clearly shown it will not make peace with Israel no matter what. They have gone so far as to try and brainwash Palestinian children by creating children's t.v. characters who spout virulent anti-Jewish sentiment (I avoid the term Anti-Semitic because Arabs are also a Semitic people).

I ask myself, what would I do right now if I were the Israeli government? What would I do if, despite showing my good faith concessions I've made showing my willingness to work toward recognizing Palestine as a state, my cities are still being bombarded? I can't see any alternative besides fighting back.

Palestinians: you have suffered so much for so long! But the ball is now in your court. Israel has shown its willingness to compromise. Now it's your turn. Remove Hamas from power and cease your attacks on Israel. Show the world that you are ready to stand on your own feet!

A History Lesson

Once, there was a tiny republic. The republic came about because a number of citizens were tired of serving kings, so they overthrew the monarchy and started a representative democracy. As time went by, the lower classes began to take an increasingly large role in their government, and that was good. In time, the republic came to dominate it's local region economically, and began building a large standing army. Soon, this republic began invading and conquering it's neighbors, and finally expanded out of its region and came to posses a vast territory. In time, the generals came to dominate politics in this republic, until one of them became the first emperor. Some of the trappings of the former republic were kept, one of them being the senate, but by and large, the republic had died. It functioned well for a couple hundred years, until things began to become unstable. A fanatical group of religious zealots began to influence people at all levels of power, until finally the empire officially recognized this religion as the only acceptable religion in the empire. At this time, the poor tribes who existed outside the empire's sphere of influence began to make incursions into imperial territory. The military found itself unable to protect all areas of the empire, and the provinces began to have to protect themselves. In time, the empire fractured, and finally crumbled under the hands of the barbarians, who also converted to the empire's fanatical religion. With disorder rampant throughout the empire, and a religious hegemony that little concerned itself with learning beyond theology, the former provinces of the empire fell into a dark age so complete, that later historians could only speculate as to what occurred in these regions during the first part of the dark age. It took a thousand years before the former provinces of this empire, along with the lands of the barbarians, came back to the technological levels they had had during the imperial age.

Does any of this sound familiar? Yes, I'm talking about Rome, of course, but do you see any patterns here? Give it some thought.

Is Agnosticism Intellectually Dishonest?

I recently (as in, this week) got involved with a fledgling skeptics society here in Modesto, called Central Valley Skeptics. There's only a few members so far, but it's off to a good start. Two of the Admins are self-described "militant atheists". I've always preferred to consider myself an agnostic, because I don't think humanity is even close to understanding the nature of the universe. Yet many people on both sides of the religion fence have claimed that, if one is to be logically consistent, one must either be religious or a materialist-atheist.

I recall reading an interview someone did with Dr. Richard Dawkins, the man who has just about made himself the poster-child for atheism today with his numerous books debunking religion (one of them being The God Delusion), wherein he claimed that one cannot believe in God and in science at the same time if one is being honest with oneself (and I'm paraphrasing here, since I do not have the article with me). Yet many people, ranging from modern day deists to fully-fledged theists belonging to established religions accept science and its findings to be valid. The evolutionary biologist, Dr. Greg Graffin, better known by most as the lead singer of the punk rock band, Bad Religion, wrote his dissertation examining Monism, Atheism, and the Naturalist World View (this link only shows the first several pages). In it he invited 272 evolutionary biologists, 151 of whom replied, to fill out a survey concerning their views of religion, spirituality, and evolution. While most of these scientists considered themselves to be atheist, Graffin's work showed a surprising number of respondents (many of whom must have been among those who were self-described atheists) allowed for the possibility of a spiritual reality, separate from the material reality. Based on this, and on other considerations from the survey, Graffin reported that, in fact, more of these scientists leaned toward deism rather than toward monist natural-materialism. Graffin has been reported to say that he finds this to be intellectually dishonest--if one believes in science one must be a materialist, meaning that there is no spiritual realm which exists outside the bounds of science's ability to describe.

I never understood this perspective until recently; after all, science can't prove a negative, either you prove something is, or you assume that something probably doesn't exist because you cannot find evidence of it, which is not the same as denying its existence categorically. But it finally occurred to me that, according to Graffin, and others, a materialist universe precludes a spiritual realm because it is assumed to be beyond the bounds of science. In other words, supernatural phenomena are really supernatural, meaning, beyond nature.

Regardless of the true nature of the universe, I firmly believe that there is no such thing as supernatural phenomena. Everything is natural--if we find something we cannot understand, we simply haven't found a way to explain it yet. If they exist, this would include spirits, ghosts, and whatever else you want to come up with, including the Creator, whatever that may be. Now, that being said, there have been some really good "paranormal" studies done, which seem to suggest that there are no ghosts, spirits, psychic powers, etc. There's a reason why no one in serious academic circles even studies these phenomena any more: it's been done, and nothing has ever been found. So until someone can come up with a convincing way of proving the existence of a so-called spiritual realm, as a skeptic, I am going to assume they don't exist. But as a skeptic, I assume that if they do exist, we will be able to find them using science, not religion. It may be that our instruments are as limited as we are, in that we aren't capable of detecting higher realities intersecting with our own, at least at this time. But this is speculation, suitable, perhaps, to idle discussion, but I must admit to being nervous about people turning conjecture and speculation into a world-view. In this regard, therefore, I am comfortable with the term, agnostic, because it literally means "not knowing".

The Unity of Genius: The Drive and Ability to Create

Plato considered the material world to be a dull reflection of the Ideal world. All things in the material world are mere copies of the Ideal. He also considered literature to be divinely inspired. His pupil Aristotle, not too horribly interested in such metaphysical concerns, noted that literature was more useful than history in its ability to teach. Since their time, philosophers, poets, and critics alike have debated, synthesized, and reformulated Plato and Aristotle’s works in a further attempt to understand the composition of great literature, what use it plays in society, and its source in the human mind. The source of literature in particular is of greatest importance because it is that same source which has driven the course of not only art, but science, technology, and history.

Thomas Kuhn noticed, in the mid twentieth century, that there was a minor fallacy in the way society viewed science and, indeed, in the way the scientific community viewed itself. The conventional view of science is that humanity has accumulated knowledge throughout history, and that science has gradually come closer and closer to representing Truth[1] by, through the use of experiment and observation, rejecting bad theories and hypotheses in favor of new ones which better fit the available data. Kuhn proposed that instead, science is primarily composed of refinement and, essentially, clean-up work for a select few group of remarkable minds who radically define, or redefine scientific principals for their fields of study. These geniuses create new “paradigms”, as Kuhn termed it, which, when accepted by the scientific community at large, serves as a road map for future inquiry. Within a paradigm, no new ideas are formed: instead, scientists work primarily on different parts of the same idea. Normal scientists reject any proposals which violate their paradigm’s rules categorically. The course of scientific achievement can be seen as, then, rather than a river flowing toward the ocean of Truth, a series of rigidly confining circles, which only narrowly connect with each other.

Kuhn’s skepticism toward “Truth” in science was predated (and no doubt influenced by) David Hume who wrote that “nothing has been experienced more liable to the revolutions of chance and fashion than these pretended decisions of science.” (495) In his search to define what attributes are inherent in “tasteful” art, Hume asserted that truly great art stands the test of time, while science and philosophy are transitory. “The abstract philosophy of CICERO has lost its credit: The vehemence of his oratory is still the object of our admiration.” (495) The atheistic and egalitarian Hume, however, was unable to explain just why some artists create these universal masterpieces while other’s works are doomed to obscurity. His substitution of “taste” for the Ideal, or Truth, serves to cover for a suspiciously Platonic looking notion of universality—a fact which, as a dedicated empiricist, Hume should have treated with suspicion.

To answer Hume’s suspicions concerning philosophy and science, naturally, if someone makes an assertion he or she becomes vulnerable to examination. In order to distinguish art from science, a quote from Sidney is helpful: “for the poet, he nothing affirms, and therefore never lieth.” (348) Shakespeare’s works can never be questioned because he is a poet: people commonly accept that he writes fiction. Einstein finally overturned Newton because Newton made descriptive assertions concerning the nature of reality. There is no metaphor in Newton, no, nor tropes to reveal multiple levels of meaning. Yet society holds both men as exemplars of genius. Society at large is taught that Newton is a genius while being given a very basic set of descriptions concerning his scientific achievements. We cannot, however, judge his work until we can understand it. We furthermore cannot truly judge the rational that led the physics community to reject Newton and embrace Einstein[2] until we can understand Einstein’s works. Roughly, this is science’s version of Hume’s “taste.” Genius in writing is as far from genius in painting as genius in science is from genius in writing. True scientific genius does not come from rational and logical process. The inspiration for Newton’s theory of gravity came from a flash of insight as he watched an apple fall from a tree (though it probably didn’t really hit his head (wikipedia)). How does this differ from the feeling of inspiration experienced by artists? Ultimately, Hume’s “taste” fails to truly address the source of genius. In his defense, however, it is nearly impossible to ignore the fact that there are artists who are, by the educated “elite”, nearly universally agreed to be “great,” or to use Hume’s own analogy from Cervantes, though one man claimed he detected leather in the wine and the other iron, at the bottom of the barrel was “an old key with a leathern thong tied to it.” (491) Hume claimed that anyone can train themselves to appreciate art with taste, should they work toward the goal “free from all prejudice.” (493)

As the Enlightenment ended and the Industrial Revolution began, Schiller, concerned with what he saw as a contraction in “the frontiers of art” (574) noticed the link between science and art. To draw attention to this unity, Schiller described ancient Greek society, which “combined the first youth of imagination with the manhood of reason in a glorious manifestation of humanity.” (575) For the Greeks, he asserts, “sense and intellect did not as yet rule strictly separate domains;… [b]oth of them could, when need arose, exchange functions, since each in its own fashion paid honor to truth.” (575) He feared that the divorce of the two had given, in his day, too much power to the supremacy of “Utility.” (573) The supremacy of utility, the lack of feeling and emotion in society served only to dehumanize the individual. He proposed instead that materialism was only one sort of utility, and that humanity needed tending in less tangible ways. Both art and science strive toward universality and “both rejoice in absolute immunity from human arbitrariness.” (580) Though both serve different needs, both attempt to discover, discern, or describe Truth.

Beyond this unity, beyond mere curiosity, is the central connection between science and art. This, then, is the force, if force it may be properly called, behind science, art, politics, and the advance of human civilization. That force is creativity. While this may not seem to be a particularly thunderous conclusion, the distinction between creativity and all other human behaviors is profound. To say it separates us from all other living animals[3] is only the beginning. Our most basic drives we share with all animals: Kant’s “agreeable” (508) form of liking is our most basic driving force, associated with instinct and stimulus. We also have the ability to think and to reason. Given a series of tasks, we can perform them as directed, going so far as to adjust as situation requires. When we recognize a pattern, we are wise enough to exploit it. Realizing that the sun sets each evening and rises each morning, we recognize that the sun will rise every day, in regular intervals. A more refined reasoning might entail the conclusion that we may reasonably assume that the sun will rise every morning, baring a catastrophe; it took Copernicus to place the Earth in orbit around the Moon. Experience and wisdom may teach a woman to measure her house’s shadow in order to use trigonometry to determine the height of her abode; but only Pythagoras enabled her to do so. A carpenter may build a house but it is the architect whose design makes it possible. Shelley claimed that “inspiration is already on the decline” (713) when a poet puts pen to paper. So it is with all creative acts. All at once, the sun illuminates the formerly dark valley, allowing the intellect to safely descend. Genius is creativity least tainted by old ideas.

We are awed at the beauty of a painting, the stirrings of passionate music, the sense of commiseration for characters in a novel. How stirred we become when we contemplate the majesty of Nature which we understand because of our science and how amazing is the technology that science has allowed us to create. Nietzsche noted the absolute circularity involved in the feelings inspired by scientific discovery.

Our laws are “not known to us… but only in [their] effects…. [T]hese relations refer only to one another, and they are utterly incomprehensible to us in their essential nature; the only things we really know about them are things which we bring to bear on them: time and space,… relations of succession and number… [A]ll of them must exhibit the laws of number, and number is precisely that which is most astonishing about things. All the conformity to laws which we find so imposing in the orbits of the stars and chemical processes is basically identical with those qualities which we ourselves bring to bear on things, so that what we find imposing is our own activity. (881)

This somewhat astounding assertion suggests that, since our math and our tools are our own creations, we cannot be surprised when they give us answers so perfect and elegant. Logically, this suggests that, to the degree that we anthropomorphize nature, that science is as much a representative art as painting, sculpture, or literature. In an endless self perpetuating loop, science changes perception, perception changes science, and society evolves in its wake, in turn affecting science and perception through culture.

In terms of paradigm theory then, science can be seen, rather than the combined efforts of thousands of years of intellectual achievements piled one on top of the other, as instead the joint collaboration of artistic inspiration and intellect. Art, like science, experiences bursts of development and changes in style, methodology, goal, and esteem. While artists learn from previous generations, they seek to distinguish themselves from their predecessors. In short, art too experiences paradigm shift. From the first Homo Sapiens sapiens tribes designing new tools and painting on caves, each generation has taken the previous generation’s paradigms and adapted them to their own uses. The societies of humanity work within a paradigm until it and the environment has changed their minds forever, and the paradigm no longer works. Then the forces of creativity reach their full potential, Genius leading the way.

Works Cited

Hume, David. “Of The Standard of Taste” The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. Ed. Simon, Peter. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2001. 486-499.

Kant, Immanuel. “Critique of Judgment”. The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. Ed. Simon, Peter. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2001. 504-535.

Kuhn, Thomas. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions: Third Edition. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 1996.

Nietzsche, Friedrich. “On Truth and Lying in a Non-Moral Sense” and “From The Birth of Tragedy.” The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. Ed. Simon, Peter. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2001. 874-884. 884-895.

Von Schiller, Friedrich. “On the Aesthetic Education of Man”. The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. Ed. Simon, Peter. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2001. 573-582.

Shelley, Percy Bysshe. “From A Defense of Poetry, or Remarks Suggested by an Essay Entitled ‘The Four Ages of Poetry’”. The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. Ed. Simon, Peter. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2001. 699-717.

Sidney, Sir Phillip. “An Apology for Poetry”. The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. Ed. Simon, Peter. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2001. 326-362.

“Sir Isaac Newton”. Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Isaac_Newton.

---

[1] Though it is probably an obvious statement, I am using the capitalized Truth to represent a notion of universal truth as opposed to a more relative and situational truth.

[2] True, Newton’s formulae are still used today. But not by physicists. Newton’s formulae have been relegated to being the tools of the Engineers and Technicians.

[3] My conclusion, though I don’t doubt that most biologists would agree with me.

Quantum Mechanics and "First Cause"

(please note: this was first published by me on centralvalleyskeptics.com. Please click on the title of this article to visit that site if this post interests you.)

I once read a rather fascinating little parable from a Christian who explained why he had converted to Christianity. As he tells it, he studied science all through college, and found it thoroughly engrossing, as any overly curious mind often will. One day, in a physics class, this eager young mind was suddenly struck with the realization that he, in all his wisdom, was missing a key piece of “the puzzle.” The professor had just lectured the class on what physics refers to as “Big Bang Cosmology.” As most of you know, the Standard Model of physics states that around 13.7 billion years ago, the entire universe was squished down into a singularity: a zero dimensional point in space. Actually, to be more precise, it was not even a zero dimensional point in space, because space itself was squished down into this singularity, and there was no “outside” where one could observe this singularity. At any rate, for whatever reason, 13.7 billion years ago, the entire universe began expanding into the familiar three dimensions of space and one dimension of time which we experience today. Big Bang Cosmology arises from the observation that all matter in space (when looked at on an order of size many thousands of times larger than our own galaxy) is moving away from all other matter in space at approximately the speed of light. We also know that, so far as our instruments have been able to measure, there is a constant background microwave energy that pervades the universe uniformly, which, for reasons that would take too long to explain, indicates that once everything was much closer together. So our intrepid young would-be scientist was, naturally, bothered. “What happened before the Big Bang?” he asked his professor. According to our narrator, the professor told him that “we don’t ask this question in science.” I can only imagine that the professor was trying to steer the narrator away from a fruitless pursuit. Or perhaps he did not wish to appear ignorant in front of an undergraduate. In any case, he wasn’t being completely honest with this young student, for reasons I will get to momentarily. After this, and a series of other “revelations” into the gaps of our current understanding, not to mention an epiphany which he attributes to God, this young man became a convert to Christianity, in part because he simply couldn’t handle the idea of a universe whose origins he could not explain.

The truth is, there ARE physicists who ask this question. They are limited, however, to educated speculation and hypothetical modeling (and very limited modeling at that) because physics has been in a paradigm crisis since modern physics’ first generation ended. Paradigm Theory was first postulated by Thomas Kuhn in his 1962 work, “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.” Kuhn began to look at science from a historical perspective, going back to the early Greek philosophers. What he found startled him; contrary to what we have all been taught about the progression of scientific knowledge, science is NOT a continual revision and improvement of knowledge passed down through the generations and improved with time. Instead, he found that science passes through cycles of paradigm shifts, where “normal” science works within a set theoretical framework, much like construction workers build according to a blueprint. This blueprint, which Kuhn called a paradigm, is the ONLY model in which scientific work is done. Anything outside this framework is not accepted as science. This works well until new data arises which the current paradigm cannot explain. Most scientists, during this time of crisis, work as hard as they can to try and fit their data into the theory. Eventually, someone comes up with an entirely new theory, one which takes the same set of information and looks at it in an entirely new way. If this theory passes experimental muster, it becomes the new paradigm in which all scientists eventually work (at least once the last stubborn remnants of the old school die). A classic example is the transition between the geocentric model of the universe and the heliocentric model of the solar system. We now take for granted the fact that the Earth and all of the planets move around the sun. Yet for thousands of years people assumed that the stars, the sun, the moon, and all of the other heavenly bodies moved around the Earth. Why? Look up at the sky! The sun and stars appear to move around us, do they not? Who would question something so obvious? And yet, there were anomalies in the orbits of the planets as they circled us, something which no one could explain and yet which was repeatedly ignored. Then one day, a monk by the name of Copernicus realized that the whole system worked much better if you placed the sun in the center of the solar system and put the Earth in orbit around it. A few decades later, Galileo proved it with his improved new telescopes and was labeled a heretic. But the proverbial cat had been let out of the bag, and within a generation, all astronomers placed the Earth in orbit around the sun.

Modern physics is in a state of paradigm crisis. The problem is that the two theoretical frameworks of physics, General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, are completely incompatible. This wouldn’t be a problem, since Relativity applies only to macroscopic phenomena, while Quantum Mechanics applies only to subatomic scales. However, when we talk about the Big Bang, we find that, at one point, all of space was so small that relativistic forces are squeezed into the subatomic scale. Since there are no experimentally confirmed paradigms which successfully describe a theory of quantum gravity, the central question that scientists concern themselves with is ontological, not teleological. In other words, before we can truly get a grasp of what caused the universe to be the way it is, we must first find a model that better describes the nature of reality itself. The first cause question, while interesting, is moot until that happens. This, naturally, leaves a void which the insecure must fill with something.

In all fairness, however, we are fairly well hardwired in modern society to look at everything from a teleological perspective. This seems to be a natural product of complex civilization–most traditional cultures have remarkably similar world-views which deal very little in the ways of purpose. The early and largely animist cosmologies concerned themselves primarily with ontological questions: Why is it cold in the winter and hot in the summer? Why does the sun circle the Earth? Why to the leaves fall off the trees in the autumn? These questions and their mythological answers, which serve both as early religion, and, if I may be so bold, early science, serve to describe the fundamental nature of the world in which humans find themselves. While they are deeply concerned with why things are the way they are, they aren’t so concerned with the purpose behind creation, and its ultimate goal. As society became more complicated, it appears that questions of the origin of the universe become more important. With that, a sense that there is a reason behind creation becomes more pronounced. The shape of philosophical teleology has its formal roots with the Greek philosophers, especially Plato and Aristotle. Aristotle, in his scientific investigations, came to the conclusion that form must follow function. One has eyes because one needs to see. He took this further to assume that the universe itself came into existence because of the needs of the “first cause”, or unmoved mover. Modern monotheism would call this God.

Teleology, however, seems to be a fallacy when taken to the absurd extreme of “ultimate causes.” Even in science, we make the mistake of using teleological arguments when ontological arguments would better suffice. In evolutionary biology, for example, we talk about organisms evolving to adapt to their environments. In fact, no such thing occurs. Notwithstanding current discoveries which suggest adaptive DNA, the reality is that mutations occur randomly all the time. When one of them happens to be beneficial to an organism, that organism stands a much better chance of passing that trait onto its offspring. Yet we cannot help but anthropomorphize nature. Thus, the ontological question, “Why do organisms change over time?” can be answered without a teleological explanation.

Modern monotheism is by nature inclined to teleological answers to ontological questions. Thus we get Anselm’s ontological proofs of God’s existence, that there is something beyond which “nothing greater can be conceived” and that is God. This argument is predicated on the notion that there must be something “greater” than anything else in the universe. But what, exactly, is “greater”? Naturally, it’s whatever caused the universe to exist (a teleological response). What causes the universe to exist? Why, it’s God, of course! See? I just proved it, right? By assuming a universal purpose to the universe, we cannot help but come to the conclusion that there must be a God. In short, our tendencies to attribute purpose to everything, a fallacy which even rational scientists are prone to, is that one quality which drives an otherwise rational person to find religion in a universe which is not, so far, showing any real need for it.

And if you stuck with me all the way through this convoluted argument, you deserve a beer.

More Rain Needed! California Kayaking Required!

As many of you are aware, we had a severe weather system a few weeks ago here in California. While the damage to homes and infrastructure was extensive, the good news is that our Sierra snow pack, which is the source of most of the water in California, is above normal, something we desperately needed after an extremely dry winter last year. For those of us who love snowboarding in the winter, and whitewater kayaking in the spring and summer, the storm has brought much needed relief to poor conditions.

Of course, the rivers are still running low. Why? For one, the reservoirs are still well below normal, and will continue to stay that way (barring a long series of severe weather) until the snowpack begins to melt. What really worries me, however, is Cache Creek, one of the best spots in California to kayak during the winter.

Cache Creek, which runs through the Sacramento Valley, is largely unaffected by snowpack, since the creek doesn't flow out of the Sierra. In fact, during the winter, you can often sit at your computer and, on the dreamflows.com website, you can watch the watter flow increase rapidly during a storm. So I was surprised to see that, despite the recent storm, Cache Creek's current flow is practically unrunable. I can only assume that Clear Lake and Indian Reservoir, two of its main sources of water, must be low right now.

It's disappointing, because I really wanted to take a one or two day trip down the river through the wilderness area for fun and photography. For those of you who aren't aware, the Cache Creek Natural Area and, inside it, the Cache Creek Wilderness Area, is a beautiful wildlife refuge which is completely inaccessible by motor vehicle. You can, however, hike, raft/kayak/canoe, mountain bike, and even hunt (at certain times of the year in certain areas) there. Right about this time of year, the Elk are foaling, which presents a unique opportunity for wildlife photography. There are also otters and bald eagles to see. But, of course, my favorite reason for going kayaking is always the rapids. In the winter, at decent flows, Cache Creek is a Class III run. When flows go beyond 3000 cfm, (that's cubic feet per minute) the creek becomes a Class IV, and somewhat dangerous because of strainers, fallen trees and other debris that can trap and drown swimmers, making it a run only for skilled kayakers. Right now, however, judging by dreamflows report, Cache Creek is little more than a rock garden.

So all of you, do some rain dancing! California needs you! (But be careful--we want nice normal winter storms, nothing crazy, okay?)