For years, I have been reading Newsweek. Nearly every time I am unfortunate enough to stumble my way upon one of her columns, I find myself exclaiming aloud “How can Newsweek legitimize sending this moron a pay check?”

In her piece, Arguing Against Atheists, she doesn’t really quite understand the argument at hand.

First, if 90-odd percent of Americans say they believe in God, it’s unhelpful to dismiss them as silly.

I’d like to point a couple of things out with the idiocy of that statement. Within her uncredited and dubious 90% number, I am sure many of the hundreds of world religions are represented. Each of those religions believes they are the true religion, and they have the EXACT same stance as atheists… everyone else is wrong. However, atheists have a very special philosophical right.. because they do not make any sort of claim on mysticism, they hold the right to throw stones without compromise. They have nothing to defend, whereas your religion has to defend why Jesus (or Allah or Moses or whomever you worship…) exactly exists. Why? Because you can’t just make shit up, that is not how the world works. Take this conversation for instance:

Lisa Miller: “Hi Scott, do you know what time it is?”
Scott V: “Sure do. Pancakes.”
Lisa Miller: “What?”

See, that is silly because I made it up. It doesn’t matter if I make it up, or if I convince 200 million people that the time is currently pancakes. The fact remains, it is silly.

Second, when they check that “believe in God” box, a great many people are not talking about the God the atheists rail against—a supernatural being who intervenes in human affairs, who lays down inexplicable laws about sex and diet, punishes violators with the stinking fires of hell and raises the fleshly bodies of the dead.

Wrong. When atheists argue against gods, they are arguing against any form or spiritual being. Not only am I arguing about your ambiguous-interfering-sex-pervert god, but I am also arguing against your do-nothing-can’t-get-off-the-couch-the-game-is-on gods too.

The problem with religion is not belief itself, which even in the most orthodox believers is inconsistent, but the (violent or oppressive) enforcing of one truth over another.

Wrong. The problem with religion is that it subverts logic and makes it seem acceptable. It lends a hand to those who want to disrupt REAL science with asinine beliefs, without proof, that the earth is 4,000 years old. Or that some magic creator made women subservient from men by pulling out a caveman’s rib bone in a jungle. Religion has been consistently used as a tool of power for longer than history has been recorded, whether or not those means and ends were violent is irrelevant, the fact that it happened is not.

They may provoke in believers a better, or deeper faith, but the number of converts they—or the atheists—can claim is undoubtedly small.

While I have no hard proof that Hitchens himself laid hands on a believer and cast the devil of faith from him, I can tell you that there is no moment of revelation within atheism. Its not as if someone is going to pick up a book on atheism and become a convert, because atheism is not easy like religion is. It doesn’t propose to solve your problems. It doesn’t promise eternal salvation. It isn’t comforting or warm. We don’t have meetings on Sunday mornings. As it turns out, atheism more frequently than not, comes with a simple education. The incidence of atheism in our population grows the more educated we are.

Submitting faith to proof is absurd. Reason defines one kind of reality (what we know); faith defines another (what we don’t know).

The only thing absurd is that sentence. Lisa is making two statements here. One, god exists. Two, we don’t know if god exists. If faith defines what we do not know, then we do not know that god or gods exist. At best, this does not make you a believer, it makes you an agnostic. Good work Lisa, welcome to your own philosophical conundrum.

I propose that we get rid of this rest in peace bullshit for atheists, it is meaningless for us. Instead, I propose we use JFD. Just Fucking Dead. That, in the least, makes me feel better.

Hitchens – A question I wanted to ask is this, we should ask ourselves what our real objective is. Do we, in fact, wish to see a world without faith. I think I would have to say that I don’t. I don’t either expect to, or wish to see that.

I don’t think it is possible, it replicates so fast, faith, as often as it is cut down or superseded, or discredited. It replicates, extraordinarily fast, I think for Freudian reasons. Principally due to the fear of extinction.

The other thing is, would I want this argument to come to an end? With all having conceded that Hitchens really won that round, and now nobody in the world believes in god. Now apart from being unable to picture this, I am not completely certain that it is what I want. I think it is, rather, to be considered the foundation of all arguments about epistemology, philosophy, its the thing that you have to always be arguing against.

Dawkins – I understand that you’re saying that it will never work, but I don’t understand why you wouldn’t wish it.

Hitchens – I think a bit like the argument between Huxley and Wilberforce, or Darrow and William Jennings Bryant. I want it to go on.

Dawkins – Because it is interesting?

Hitchens – I want our side to get more refined and theirs to be more exposed, but I can’t see it with one hand clapping.

I have to say, my appreciation of Hitchens is growing with every encounter. Buy the DVD here, and watch the exchange here:

A few months ago, I got an email from someone named Vicki, whom I did not know, regarding the declining health of Terry, another person I did not know. I ignored the first one, but then other people on the email started replying to it and thus to me. Eventually, I asked that they group please remove me from the list. Most complied, some did not. Eventually the mail stopped coming in about 2 weeks later.

On and off, I would continue to get updates from Vicki about Terry’s health. I would, now and then, email her and tell her that she had the wrong address and she would mail me back and apologize. One day, I got another update from Vicki that Terry had taken a turn for the worse and she was sending out a schedule for friends who were interested in helping to care for Terry at home. I didn’t reply to that one.

Last week, Vicki sent along an email about Terry coming home from the hospital to go into Hospice care. She will be taking FMLA leave for the next 3 months, and said “All of you have been so helpful the last 2.5 months. It is hard to ask for more. However, I would not bring Terry home if I did not know we had so many close friends and family to help out.”

I haven’t replied to this email either.

Earlier this summer, our friend’s father passed away abruptly. I didn’t know him personally, but I knew his son very well. It was sad. Very sad. He was a well known and well liked man, and had adopted 4 children of mixed race (including our friend) and before he died he had setup a scholarship fund to help minority students. His funeral was incredibly sad and moving, and I still think about it everyday.

This is different though, and I feel strange. I have watched this from afar as if it was some sort of soap opera, involving real life and death. It doesn’t make me feel sad. I just feel guilty, as if accidentally peering into their lives is invasive and robbing them of something from their last moments with Terry.

Well, Vicki, good luck with Terry. I am sorry for all you have been through.

Jyri identifies the increasing number of sites on the Alexa top 100 based on user generated content as what he calls a “megatrend swiping over web services.” He lays out three topics that he covers in this talk:

1. The case for social objects. What is the motive and driver for actually interacting online?
2. Five principles for building services around them. He formulates working principals for how to create your own site. How do you create a compelling offering online?
3. His take on the next wave

He uses social networks as an example, and examines the tendency for social networks to flourish and die out (FireFly, SixDegrees, the floundering Friendster). Why do so many of these services fail? How do we predict which ones will actually sustain themselves?

He uses Russell Beatties public cancellation of his LinkedIn account as an example. LinkedIn, at that time, was merely another social network. It was a game to see how many contacts each person could rack up, and he who has the most contacts wins.

The sites that work are the sites that are built around social objects. For LinkedIn, this social object is now jobs. Flickr did it with photos. Delicious did it with bookmarks. Amazon did it with books. The focal point of MySpace is music.

So then the question becomes, how do you build a service around social objects? He answers this with a quick checklist:

1. What is your object? How is it defined? How quickly can you understand what this object is?
2. What are your verbs? How do people act upon those objects? Can you create a new verb?
3. How can people share the objects? Can I email a permalink?
4. What is the gift in the invitation? What does the person you invite get by joining?
5. Are you charging the publishers of the spectators? Basic service should be free, people will pay to establish their own space. Charge the publishers.

His answer on disruptive technology is good, but his answer on “what will be the next big thing?” is rather lacking. The preconditions of a disruptive innovations are if the solution is simpler, cheaper, or if it frees the user from inconvenience. He believes that microblogging is part of the “Mass Starbucksization of Nearly Everything.” Social objects to go. He also says that it is like blogging for people with nothing to say.

I can see the angle of microblogging. I previously viewed it as a blogging replacement, but I get a better picture of it now and where it could fit in holistically. It doesn’t have any of the intrinsic values of a normal blog, it has a much more reduced shelf life. It is disposable blogging.

Jyri leaves us with these questions for your own services:

Is it free?
Is it quick and easy?
is it cross-device and multi channel?
Is it everyday?

Does it bring people closer together?

If I met you there, drop me an email.

Years later, I found out that the song had been originally penned by Shel Silverstein. Shel had an amazing comedic whit, and a great sense of irony. I’m not sure how my father would feel about the toughness of this song if he heard this sequel, Father of Boy Named Sue.

Yeah, I lef’ home when the kid was three.
It sure felt good to be fancy free
Tho I knew it wasn’t quite the fatherly thing to do.
But that kid kept screamin’ and throwin’ up
And pissin’ in his pants til I had enough
So just for revenge I went and named him Sue.

it was Gatlinberg in mid July
was gettin’ drunk but gettin’ by
Gettin’ old and going from bad to worse
When thru the door with an awful scream
Comes the ugliest queen I’ve ever seen
He says my name is Sue. How do you do?
Then he hits me with his purse.

Now this ain’t the way he tells the tale
But he scratched my face with his fingernails
And then he bit my thumb
and kicked me with his high-heeled shoe.
So I hit him in the nose, and he started to cry
And he threw some perfume in my eye
And it sure ain’t easy fightin with a boy named Sue.

So I hit him in the head with a caned-back chair
And he screamed, “Hey Dad,you mussed my hair!”
And he hit me in the navel and knocked out a piece of my lint.
He was spittin’ blood. I was spittin teeth.
And we crashed through the wall and out into the street
A-kickin and gougin’ in the mud and the blood

Then out of his garter he pulls a gun.
I’m about to get shot by my very own son.
He’s screamin’ about Sigmond Freud and lookin’ grim.
So I thought fast and I told him some stuff
How I named him Sue just to make him tough.
And I guess he bought it, cuz now I’m livin’ with him.

Yeah, he cooks and sews and cleans up the place.
He cuts my hair and shaves my face.
And irons my shirts better than a daughter could do.
And on the nights that I can’t score,
Well, I can’t tell you anymore.
Sure is a joy to have a boy named Sue.
Yeah, a son is fun,
But it’s a joy to have a boy named Sue.

What this song shows us is what Silverstein and Cash both knew. Johnny Cash was an icon, image, and salesman. The real Johnny Cash was tormented, addicted, and dark. Johnny Cash’s music is interesting to me, but his life long struggle with addiction and his ultimate path to Christianity is much more fascinating.

I’ve been told not to speak about religion in polite company, but I never really liked that rule and you will rarely find my company to be polite. I do not see a valuable lesson in Cash’s religion. He isn’t some prodigal son returning home. He is a man coping with addiction by giving up his own free will. I have never agreed with the 12 steps approach, and I don’t believe in a god. Cash gave up part of himself to keep his head above water and make his addiction manageable. I’m sure that even he would disagree with me if he were able to. He gave up an addiction to drugs to seek an addiction to absolution, and in each he gave up a part of his own autonomy and independence.

I prefer not to see anyone’s god in Johnny Cash. I see a man chasing redemption, not from god, but from the world. The thing about redemption is that it always seems as if there is something to be redeemed for. Who can’t identify with that?

So this morning, I am reading this article on CIO.com. It is close to being the biggest piece of trash I have ever read. I will save you some time, here are the main points:

1. Sell the benefits of Enterprise 2.0 to management.
2. Understand how IT can benefit from Enterprise 2.0.
3. Do your homework on tools and platforms.
4. Make sure you’ve covered your bases.
5. Find (or be) an Enterprise 2.0 champion.
6. Keep tools simple, and allow openness.
7. Realize the world of Enterprise 2.0 is the world of perpetual beta.

First off, I would like to point out to all of you budding CIO’s out there… for any project you ever do, I think it is safe to say that you have to make sure that management is on board, understand the benefits, know the tools and platform, cover your bases (?), market it, keep things simple, and know that the project lives. THIS IS NOT WEB 2.0! This is simple common sense. Honestly, I could not have written a more generic article if I had tried. I want my 8 minutes back.

Here are the points Diann seems to be missing. Wiki does not mean web 2.0. Collaborative documentation has existed in the enterprise since before Wordperfect. Wikis are just a great, newer way to write things down. That is it. We have all sorts of legacy collaboration utilities in the enterprise, most specifically groupware like Exchange and Groupwise. Simple collaboration is not web 2.0. I despise the term Enterprise 2.0. I am pretty sure that the same guy that came up with synergy and productized is behind that phrase.

So here is my advice on the world of Web 2.0. It is not about blogs and wikis. It is not about collaboration inside of your company. This has been happening for 15 years in some way or another. It is about taking the risk of opening up internal resources for global community gain in order to see a net result. It is about rewriting the corporate hierarchy and creating an environment that values data and gives status based on contribution.

A great example is IBM adopting Linux. They had to join the community, just as anyone else does, through contribution. They gained status by doing the things that no one else wanted to do, they gave up sensitive hierarchies, and communicated directly to the community. They gave up control, and that is the risk of the REAL web 2.0 technologies.

Adopting blogs and wikis is lame and easy. How about opening up some of your own intellectual property and talent so the rest of the world can contribute? You can take Diann’s recommendations, but they aren’t going to do anything for you. If you want to jump ahead, tear down some walls. That is the collaborative world, and it is likely that your company just does not fit into it.

E.O. Wilson is a biologist who recently won the 2007 TED Prize. Ed Wilson is a victim of his own circumstance, and in his environment, he sees that we live in an unexplored world. He understands that diversity is the same as stability. He knows that our collective knowledge in biology has not even remotely been cataloged. E.O. Wilson’s dream is to create an Encyclopedia of Life that helps us to track every living species on the planet.

I really like big ideas.

Here are the answer’s I’ve come up with for the questions:

In the future, how will we communicate?

Part 1.
Part 2.
Part 3.
Part 4.
Part 5.

Will we shift from the service of war to the service of life?

How will we eradicate poverty?

It has really been a lot of fun thinking through these questions. My cousin, and one of my best friends, Tom is being deployed to the middle east in a few weeks. We’ve been getting together for the last couple of months every Monday night for philosophy night at Happy Village. Lately, we have been using the Bruce Mau questions as conversation fodder, mainly for fun but also to keep the conversation from always steering toward his departure to active duty.

So even if I don’t get the job, or an interview, I have gotten a lot of value from these incredibly amusing questions. It has also given me a lot of great memories of Tom for the next year that he spends in the Middle East. I hope you all enjoy reading my answers as much as I enjoyed coming up with them. Wish me luck with the application. Here’s a picture of Tom eating fruit off the jungle floor in Costa Rica.