Coopernundrums

The founding fathers were a variety of beliefs, many were indeed deists with close ties to Christianity. It is important to keep in mind that even with these convictions they were intelligent enough to realize and defend the right to freedom of religion. They wrote our founding documents with the intention that choice of religion must be left IN THE MIND OF THE INDIVIDUAL. They also understood that this choice should be protected and not influenced by goverment favortism or persicution.

It is easy for atheists to sometimes inadvertantly lend credence to the fallacy that the founders of our country were not religious individuals and wanted an atheist run goverment. I understand that many were indeed deeply religious. I also understand that because of what they had been through suffering their own persecution that they did not want a Christian use only government with all others being mere guests.

I like to think of the First Amendment as an anti-trust law that should prevent monopolies on power. This means that our goverment is not allowed to favor Christianity or any other religion. It is supposed to protect both theists and atheists from persecution.

I get pretty sick of people who dont study their history and make unfounded claims that atheists want to make religion illegal. We simply want to get OUR GOVERMENT, back to the neutral position the founders intended.

Prayer for example has not been outlawed in schools like they’d have you think. What is unconstitutional is creating a captive audience and forcing others to participate or to be singled out for not participating.

In conclusion, our government institutions have to be free from religious favortism or persicution, so that we all can be free outside these neutral institutions to practice or believe what we want. Independance comes with the responsibility that it is not anyone’s right to use goverment to monopolize what it means to be a citizen.

   Working in the software industry for the last 10 years means I have had the pleasure of dealing with EVERY level of computer user you can imagine.  I firmly believe that our schools are FAILING our children in one enormous fundamental way.  THEY DO NOT SEEM TO TEACH KIDS ANYTHING ABOUT COMPUTERS!! 

    It seems very clear to me that we spend far more time teachin math and science and other sundry skills and almost nothing useful regarding the lubricant that runs our world.  I have talked to accountants that know nothing about how their PCs work. I have spoken to sofware developers that have no idea that there are other operating systems outside of windows XP.  I have talked to supposed IT administrators that have no idea what a command line code is.

    It is very frustrating to me to see these and other highly intelligent individuals CRIPPLED by their lack of knowledge regarding the very thing that pays their bills.

   I know I am ranting but I really believe that we need to speed a great deal more time educating folks about how PCs work from the inside out, not just what they can do.  PC support and repair should be as much a foundation subject as English and Physical Education.  Its a shame that in this day and age that we have so many people tha can not install simple software or uninstall it.

    Then again..it means I stay in work and will always have a job..

     I was just introduced to the most brain stimulating debate I have had in while and I thought I would share it with you.  It is not a new debate, certainly not when you’re dealing with millennia.  Late last night I sat at the old computer gathering info about the last ten years for my end-of-year blog post and I came to the frustrating realization that there is actually a great deal of debate about this subject.  It seems there is general confusion regarding how the decades and millennia are interpreted by the average Joe.

     I must admit that I fell into the trap of believing the hype and had it embedded in my mind that the end of the first decade of the new millennium is about to end.  Many people call this decade The Oughts or The ’00s. Clearly, then, the decade includes years that have zero as the third digit. Next year, that third digit turns to a 1, so the end of the decade obviously is at hand right?  Consider also the popular terms affixed to decades.  Since I am a child of the ’80s that would mean that can only years that include some derivative of 80 should be included.  In no way can 1979 be considered part of the ’80s. Using that logic, 2010 must mark the beginning of the next decade.   Webster’s New World College Dictionary defines a decade as “in common usage, a ten-year period beginning with a year 0, as 1920-1929.”  All of these factors prove that this decade will end on Dec. 31, 2009, Right?

     Another school of thought says that as we age, we are not said to be 1 until after living 12 months, and we do not celebrate a 10th birthday until after living 10 years. Logical conclusion: The next decade won’t begin until after 2010 concludes. If you think about millennia the first one thousand years started with the number 1 and thus ended with 1000.  This means those years 1001 through 2001 would equal the second millennium.  Following this logic the first decade of this millennium began with the year 2001, and the last year of the first decade of this millennium will be next year, 2010. This is a very compelling argument.

     Does that mean Webster’s dictionary is wrong? No, the definition mentioned earlier, pertained to the “common usage” of the word. The same dictionary also defines a decade as “officially, a ten-year period beginning with the year 1, as 1921-1930.” Webster apparently wants to make everyone happy.

   It seems like the debate itself will be lost in the sea of media outlets and emotional minds ready for this decade to be over.  I for one am happy, since it gives me two years to consider and be respectful of all the wonderful, wondrous and sad things that have occurred in the last ten years.

Happy new year all!