Thank God the 10 Commandments are Against the Law

Maxim #13:Taken as a whole, the Ten Commandments would be unconstitutional as laws in the United States of America and are demonstrably NOT the basis of American law and society.

Here’s one of the Marooned Astronaut’s favorite quotes from that supreme venal imbecile, Sarah Palin, uttered during her appearance back in May on Bill O’Reilly’s The O’reilly Factor:  “Go back to what our founders and our founding documents meant– they’re quite clear– that we would create law based on the God of the Bible and the Ten Commandments, it’s quite simple.”

Here’s a theory on why Sarah Palin cut and ran from her job serving the people of Alaska as governor: she woke up one morning and realized she was grossly incompetent in the duties of that office. The above quote is a case in point.

In the United States of America, it is against the law to base any law on the God of the Bible and the Ten Commandments.  This IS actually quite simple.  And it shows that Sarah Palin is so impaired of reason that she should not be allowed to operate heavy machinery (such as a snowmobile); and certainly not handle a firearm.

Let’s not focus on the entire bible.  You are busy and have things to do.  Let’s just take the Ten Commandments as a telltale example.  There are other sites that explain in depth how, as a whole, they are UnAmerican on principle.  I’ll do a quick summation. But first, let’s refresh ourselves on the text of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America:

“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.”  (Mmm.  Every time a read it or hear it, it’s like my sense of justice and affection for humanity take a jacuzzi.)

Now, let’s take a look at those Ten Commandments, one at a time:

1. “I am the Lord thy god; thou shalt have no other god before me.”

A person may BELIEVE this and may SPEAK about it all they want.  But it cannot be made the law of the land. It would establish a religion. The first commandment, as a law, is unconstitutional.

2. “Thou shalt not worship graven images.”

This can’t be a constitutional law as it blatantly reverses the “free exercise thereof” clause. If I want to worship a Campbell’s soup can, in America I am entitled to do so BY LAW.  If I want to worship a god named GOD SUCKS!, I may do so freely. So, commandment number 2, as a law, is unconstitutional.

3. “Thou shalt not take the name of the lord in vain.”

God dammit! Jesus fucking Christ, sideways on a popsicle stick! What effing Yahweh motherfuckin’ Jehovah said THAT was supposed to be a law?  None, as evidenced by the fact that the thought police are not kicking down my door right now.  Commandment number 3, were it law, would be a blatant violation of the “freedom of speech” clause of the first amendment.  The third commandment, as a law, is unconstitutional.

4. “Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy.”

The fact that on both Saturday (the actual biblical Sabbath) and Sunday (the Sabbath as revised by Christians) I can go out and hire just about anybody to do any job I want (that is, if the Marooned Astronaut actually had any real money), including strippers (I have seen it done), shows that this is not actually the law of the land.  The fact that it would constitute the establishment of a religion means that it can never be the law of the land until the Constitution is overturned and burned.  The 4^th commandment, as a law, is unconstitutional.

5. “Honor thy father and thy mother.”

This one’s a push.  Technically, it is not illegal. But it is also sure no law in the United States of America. Let’s put a dash through the score box on #5: a 50/50 split.

6.  “Thou shalt not commit murder.”

Well, nothing unconstitutional here.  Murder (so far as I know) is illegal, without challenge, in the lower 48 plus Alaska, Hawaii and all the territories and protectorates.  Yay!  The Bible gets up on the scoreboard.  You go, God.  It’s your birthday! Its your… eesh. (Incidentally, the written injunction against murder predates the Mosaic “Big Ten.” It is found, among other places, in the code of Hammurabi in 1790 BC and in the code of Ur-Nammu in 2100 BC. The 10 Commandments are thought to originate no earlier than 1450 BC. As an unwritten law, I’d say it’s been considered a pretty good idea ever since two people lived near each other.  Say, between 10,000 and 1,000,000 years before the Bible.)

7. “Thou shalt not commit adultery.”

While it once was Illegal in many states (just like harboring escaped slaves), it is no longer against the law. So, though it is not strictly unconstitutional, it does not appear in the foundation of law that holds up our society today. Just ask many of the politicians who love the Ten Commandments but who are also guilty of adultery and are not in jail.

8. "Thou shalt not steal."

Score one, God.

9.  "Thou shalt not bear false witness."

BIG score here.  Not because it’s more important than murder or stealing, but because it’s subtler, and a lesser god (say, Kthulhu or Baal or Satan) might have missed it.

10. "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s shit."

Okay.  Forgetting that this is unenforceable, it is not strictly unconstitutional.  However, it is decidedly UN-American. The United States of America is a consumerist, capitalist free market economy. It is predicated on consumers knowing what their neighbors have and wanting to possess those self same luxuries.  The media universe which defines and bounds our modern society is utterly subsidized by advertising dollars, dollars spent to elicit one’s envy of his and her neighbor’s shit. If #10 were law and were enforceable, the day after it was ratified, every last trade group and industry in the nation would have their lobbyists in Washington working for its repeal, and the court cases would instantly pile high as the sky, based on a quite-valid claim of restraint of free trade. In any case, this commandment has no analog in the law of the land, nor in the constitution.  It is the foundation of nothing in this country.

So, here’s the final score. From among the Ten Commandments:

3 are actual law.

1 is neither legal nor illegal (the father/mother thing).

2 are decidedly NOT law; and

4 are blatantly unconstitutional. 

As a document, the Ten Commandments cannot be found in the foundation, or the roof, of our laws.  Period.

The Ten Commandments are not the law of this land.  They are not the “basis” for the law of this land.  They are PROTECTED by the law of this land, and thank Satan (or whoever – the Marooned Astronaut really doesn’t get you guys and this whole religion thing) for that.  Because you cannot make the Ten Commandments law without instituting a religion. And the moment the law against instituting a religion goes out the window, the law against the prohibition of the free exercise thereof goes with it. 

The next time you’re watching the news and some politician remarks offhandedly that the Ten Commandments and/or the Bible (and we’ll have another post looking at just what’s unconstitutional about the rest of the Bible, were it law) is/are the basis for America’s system of law, tell everyone watching with you this is just demonstrably wrong.  Even if you are watching by yourself.

Oh, yeah, and Sarah Palin?  You’re a moron.

Glenn Beck Seems to be a Nincompoop

Today, Saturday, Agust 28, Glenn Beck holds his “Restoring Honor” rally on the steps of the Lincoln memorial.

The Marooned Astronaut admits, I do not watch Glenn Beck much.  What little I have seen of him makes me not want to watch more of him.  Based on what little I have seen of him, if forced to make a determination, I say I do not like him. So there’s your grain of salt for what follows.

That being said, let’s assume (maybe I’m wrong) that among the many intended purposes of today’s “Restoring Honor” rally,  is to make Glenn’s followers feel good about themselves, and to draw the attention of and (ultimately) the support of people who are not yet numbered among his audience. So, let’s assume (until he tells me otherwise) that he hopes I participate, at least as viewer, in the event.

I am fairly sure I shall not.  And here are two thoughts on why:

Glenn Beck contends that he did not know, before booking the affair, that it is on precisely the same date as MLK’s most memorable and celebrated moment, and the encapsulation (if there could ever be one) of that martyr’s great contribution to humanity, August 28.  Beck’s exact words, from his show of June 28, “I had no idea until I announced it.”

This amazes me.

If I had even an inkling that I might be making a speech (let alone holding a huge rally) in the shadow of the Lincoln memorial, the first thing I would do, even as I checked my date book, is look up information on Dr. MLK Jr.’s speech and on Marian Anderson’s performance of My Country, ‘Tis of Thee (April 9, 1939 – took me 18 seconds to find), just because I am a cretin and those are the only two people who come to mind as my hypothetical predecessors there. I’d want to know whose footsteps I’d be following, playing at such an A-list house.

Glenn Beck claims passionately to be a devotee of the foundations of American democracy and liberty.  When he was informed about, and then challenged for insensitivity over, his choice of August 28 and its coincidence with King’s speech, he became defensive, insisting (on that same June 28 show) “…Whites don’t own Abraham Lincoln…Blacks don’t own Martin Luther King.” 

True enough. Actually, an excellent point.

But, as someone who represents himself as an expert to be listened-to about the American ideals that Lincoln and King represent, one might expect Beck to be a little more up-to-speed on some of the particulars regarding the most influential speech made at the memorial of the former and the most influential words ever spoken by the latter. If you go up those steps on August 28 of any year to make a speech, and you didn’t know ahead of time that this was the date and place where Lincoln sat in audience of a synthesis of King’s great vision, you have nothing important to say about either Lincoln or King.  Because they are obviously not subjects in which you are versed.  QED.

So, as someone who styles himself an expert on American ideals, but claims ignorance of one of the seminal, inspiring American events ever, which occurred at a shrine to American ideals where he is having a rally to celebrate those ideals, Beck seems to be a nincompoop.

Secondly, I take some offense at the event’s name. Restoring Honor. I doubt this is Beck’s intended reaction if he wanted me to participate, or at least watch on TV.

As I say.  I’m just your average Marooned Astronaut, cast here from another world. I know much less about your culture than I should.  While I assume that the honor Beck refers to is America’s honor, I was unaware that America had lost any of it.  As an interested observer I shall go now to Beck’s website and find out what I can of this erosion in American (or some other) honor which is in such need of restoration.  Give me a moment.  I’ll be right back.  If you want to come with me, here’s the link:

http://www.glennbeck.com/

…Whew.  There was nothing there, right?  It took me two links to find out that the event benefits the Special Operations Warrior Foundation (That sounds pretty cool.) and three links to read, “Help us restore the values that founded this great nation.”  But no mention of why these values are in need if restoration.  Or even THAT they need restoring. I’m all for celebrating, extolling and exercising them. So why not name the rally with something like that? I’m not saying he was required to do so. Just that he should have if he wanted me to hearken to his message. (Incidentally, the name of the event at which MLK spoke was “The March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom.”  No mystery there.  And an agenda I can sign up for blindfolded.)

Maybe the need to restore fallen honor (here I’m still conjecturing that it’s American honor) is on the event’s Facebook page.  Let’s take a look:

http://www.facebook.com/restoringhonor

Nope.  Nothing there either.  The rally’s stated mission is, “…to recognize our First Amendment rights and honor the service members who fight to protect those freedoms.”

So why isn’t  it called, “The Rally for First Amendment Rights and to Honor Spec Ops Warriors” or "The Rally to Honor our Rights Protectors"?

RESTORING honor.

Where and what is the nature of the broken, shattered, dishonored honor Beck invokes? Special Operations Warriors?  I strive to honor them every time I speak of them.  I can’t THINK of the last time I even heard anyone say anything bad about them.  Since even LONG before 9/11.  So, is it American honor?  Internationally? I dunno, but I think America is doing fair-to-midland in the international honor department.  At least compared to how the nation was perceived, say, 5 or 6 years ago.  Domestically?  Well, everybody, everywhere wishes their society behaved more honorably than it does.  But I wrack my brains trying to think of some recent crisis of honor that would spur a Lincoln-memorial-rally in order to revive it.  Honor of the 1st amendment? Well, so far, though it has cast a light on America's embarrassing, cravenly bigoted side, the "Ground Zero Mosque" has yet to precipitate a breach of that Bill of Rights faith: The free speech debate about it is open and lively and, so far, the State has taken no measures to restrict anyone's free practice of religion. Now, maybe Beck knows something I don’t. Again, I am not a regular viewer.  But, just as a curious citizen, one would hope that he presented clearly, up front, just what has so dishonored whom that warrants Beck’s divisive name for this event.  And that’s kind of my point.  

"Restoring Honor" is a provocative, if not inflammatory, name, especially for something to be held in front of a memorial honoring one of America’s most honorable sons. And this weirdly confrontational name is backed up, quite literally, by NOTHING in Beck’s own first-tier literature on the event. I’m not saying Beck is wrong in presenting his case for the dishonored.  I’m saying I don’t see where he states any case at all. So, it appears he's having a rally named after a non-cause. In other words, he really seems to be a nincompoop. And I don't feel inclined to spend any time hearing him out. I'm not being facetious here. If he wanted my ear, he should not have proven himself such a nincompoop straight out of the gate.

 Maybe he’s trying to restore his own honor?  His website lends as much evidence for that as anything else (ie: none).  I don’t know.  I’m not a regular viewer/listener, so you tell me.  Has Beck done anything dishonorable lately for which he needs to beg forgiveness at the hem of Lincoln’s robe and in the long shadow of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr? If so, I wish him the best of luck. That must be some BIG dishonor on his part.

WWJC

Back at the end of June, in response to the Supreme Court overturning Washington, D.C.’s handgun ban with their District of Columbia v. Heller ruling, NRA chief lobbyist Chris W. Cox mentioned that, “All law-abiding Americans have a fundamental, God-given right to defend themselves…”  Without getting into one of Cox’s numerous and exhaustive scholarly dissertations upon how a non-law-abiding American forfeits any of his or her rights as granted by God, or whether (and why) non-Americans are denied the benefit of such divine fiat, the Marooned Astronaut has been thinking a lot about God’s specific take on arms for personal defense and to wonder how the Deity might express this, His own given right, were He ever to walk the Earth in human form.

I began to wonder, in essence:

This artist’s impression depicts Jesus wielding a suppressed Glock 17 9mm parabellum, as described in the Gospel according to Luke. 

As so often is the case, biblical sources are not unanimous on the Lamb of God’s preferred sidearm.  The Gospel according to Matthew is quite specific, “And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain, and carried there, and did conceal in the midst of his loins, yea, even unto his very thigh, a Walther PPK, inserted within a garter of black.” (Matthew 5:1-2)  While Mark is somewhat less explicit, he makes over 70 references to Jesus wielding a firearm of unspecified manufacture: “Jesus entered the temple area and began driving out those who were buying and selling there with his gat.” (Mark 11:15)

There has been much scholarly speculation over the reason Jesus is not reported to have been carrying on the day of the Crucifixion, though a prevailing school of thought suggests he was torn with indecision whether to go “old school” with a Colt .45 ACP Model 1911 or “heavy” with his now-famous S&W Model 29 .44 magnum. Medieval and Renaissance depictions of the Crucifixion showing Christ packing a Colt .44 single action Army “Peacemaker”* (as seen in “Christ on the Cross,” El Greco, 1600) are almost certainly apocryphal and were most likely intended as allegory.

* - Credit to renowned Neoclassical Art Historian P. Gorkin for this excellent citation.

The "Mosque" "at" Ground Zero, Installment #1

First, some housekeeping.  I know the images pasted into my last post are not appearing.  This is simply because Earthling blog tech is still in its infancy and I shall remedy it as soon as I figure out what I’m doing wrong.

Now, new topic.  The “mosque” (which is not a mosque) “at” (though it is nowhere in sight of) Ground Zero, item #11 on the growing list.

On my home planet, one of our founding laws states that the government “…shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…  …or the right of the people peaceably to assemble...”  It is probably why I think the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America is such a nifty thing (see post #1).  On my planet, this is a precious, jealously guarded right.  It is treated as if it were impossibly fragile because so often in our history, as I gather is also the case in your world, it has proven so easy to destroy.  Children on my world of all creeds are taught from a very young age to react to any threat to anyone’s, even a stranger’s, rights to freedom of religion and peaceful assembly as if that threat were made to them personally.  For, at least on my planet, and certainly among all the astronauts serving aboard all its spaceships, we understand that we hold all our lives in each other’s hands; that, if I do not zealously defend my fellow citizen’s and crewmate’s basic inalienable rights, I should have no expectation that anyone will protect mine.

I have recently had the opportunity to correspond with someone, an Earth woman, about the hubbub downtown.  While acknowledging that legally there is nothing she can do to stop the planned installation of the Musilm Park 51 cultural center two blocks (and around a corner) from Ground Zero, she insists that the commitment to go through with the building is “tacky” and that “They” are being inconsiderate of  “us” (she actually uses these words) and our sensitivities in the aftermath of 9/11.

When pressed, she claims that she harbors no ill will towards Muslim’s per se.  However, she insists that a Muslim center 2 blocks (forget that you can’t even see it) from Ground Zero would pose an affront to anyone who suffered loss in that calamity.  She suggests that 10 blocks might be a minimum distance to contemplate such a center, but implies that no matter where it was placed, it would rub salt in our national wounds. Had she the ability to do so, she would tell “Them” not to build where they intend to build.  Because they are Muslim.

Forgetting the numerous ways in which these positions are offensive, contradictory and, in part, nonsensical, I could not help think of a scenario parents use to teach young children on my world the basic meaning of religious tolerance.  I’ll rephrase here using the particulars of this situation.

Keep in mind (as I mentioned) that we all hold each other’s lives in our hands, and that this blade cuts both ways.  If you are among the many, many people who acknowledge the Park 51 group have a legal right to build at 45-41 Park Place, but who support – even if only in words – the campaign to make them move from the location, you may, today, indeed succeed in intimidating, coercing or cajoling the project into going elsewhere.  But what happens when, some day, your basic rights, or your very life, or the rights and/or lives of your children, depend on the goodwill of a Muslim?  When some loud majority of strangers of another faith try to stop you from having your house of worship in place X because they find it offensive, how will you explain your actions of today to the Muslim neighbor you may then desperately depend on for help?  Will you be able to say, “Hey, friend, remember when I had your back down at Park 51?  I need your help now.”? 

On my planet, every Muslim knows that he or she has a right… a RIGHT… to expect me to hide them in my basement to be safe from ethnic or religious violence.  And I know I enjoy that same right among them. I ask you, Earthling, when they come for you, and the only door you find belongs to a Muslim whom you told today, “Move your mosque where it doesn’t offend my sensibilities,” will you have the temerity to knock and demand safe haven?  They may offer it to you, but I’m not sure you will have the right to expect it.

I SAID you people need better spaceships!

Alright. When I started this blog, I intended my first topics to be things like:

11. Only self-destructive weirdo cultures would forego the social benefits of allowing ALL adults to marry whomever they want, including same-gender couples.

and

12. Anyone who does not enjoy the prospect of pogroms in the United States of America should really speak up in defense of the plan of New York’s peaceful Muslim-AMERICAN community to build a cultural center at 45-51 Park Place. (Really, you people are playing with fire there.)

But something else has come up, so for now we’ll just add those to the list of how things work in the real world of the civilized galaxy and come back to them later.  Native Goddess has brought my attention to a new study of astronauts on the International Space Station:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100820/ap_on_sc/us_sci_space_weaklings

It seems that long-term exposure to the microgravity environment on the ISS turns athlete astronauts into virtual geriatric weaklings.  Duh.  See item #8 on The List  -- You people need better space ships. As with so many news stories in your media, there’s almost no news here.  The headline should read: Astronauts STILL BECOME as weak as 80-year-olds in space. Every experiment, going back to the days of Skylab, has shown how, despite whatever exercise regime you use, muscle mass, bone mass and heart function all atrophy horribly after any appreciable amount of time spent cooped up in the crappy tin cans you call “spaceships.” 

The above-linked article crystallizes how you guys are needlessly stuck in the stone age of space travel when it asserts that a mission to Mars will take “a minimum of three years,” and that the way to fight the effects of microgravity disease is exercise and eating right.

Um, no. One fights dehydration with water, malnutrition with food, and microgravity disease with (all together now) gravity. In space, that means artificial gravity, something you have known how to do this since the ‘40s and tested as long ago as Gemini 11 in 1966.  Here’s how you prevent microgravity disease in spacecraft and space stations: you spin them, or at least that part of them where the crew lives.  The centripetal force of a correctly spun spacecraft can very closely mimic the effect of Earth gravity on the vessel’s interior walls.  It’s easy.  You’ve seen it in sci fi movies from 2001 to Green Slime. Now take a look at American spacecraft launched since the Gemini program: Apollo, Skylab, Shuttle, ISS, the proposed Orion craft.  No spinners. But continued research into the effects of, and how to combat, “Zero g.”

Okay.  Slow learners.

And here’s ANOTHER important component of any anti-microgravity disease regimen: don’t spend so long in the microgravity environment.  Does that mean astronauts will never be able to endure the “minimum” 3 year round trip to Mars?  Here’s a new flash from the 1960s: Mars round trip doesn’t have to, and shouldn’t, take 3 years.  Back in the 60s they had a WORKABLE plan to send 8 astronauts to Mars and back by 1975 in 450 days.  The program offered moonships the size of Navy destroyers with crews of 20 men. All safe, affordable, fast as all get-out; and doable with then-current technology.  It was called Project Orion (no relation to the crew vehicle now being designed as the United States of America’s next manned access to space after Shuttle retires next year.).  This is what the 1975 Orion ship would have looked like:

( Learn all about Orion here: http://www.lepp.cornell.edu/~seb/celestia/orion/index.html  , with actual technical and design reports from the program!)

Boss ride!  Even on my planet. 

Instead, here’s what your tax dollars are paying for, and it won’t be ready to fly til at least 2015, and it probably won’t be going anywhere but the ISS in Low Earth Orbit to ferry home microgravity disease-suffering weaklings in case of emergency:

You can get the gist of this giant leap backwards for righteous, American, space-faring hardware here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_crew_vehicle .  A lame horse-n’-buggy ambulette for lame spacemen. 

But, the upshot of all this is: you people really need better spaceships.

The Marooned Astronaut Starts a Blog

Greetings.

I won’t bore you with a long explanation of how I became stranded here in your world.  Suffice to say I am from a planet other than Earth, I got stuck here quite some time ago, and, while rescue and return to the civilized part of the galaxy is more or less certain, it still also appears to be some way off.

When relief does come, the crew of the search and rescue vessel will first inquire after who is in charge here on Earth (and, hence, responsible for handling matters such as missing persons and castaways like myself).  Finding no one actually running the place, their next strategy will be to search for me on their own, starting with the most obvious places, those which stand out from all the rest of the world clutter.  To assist them in this I make my home here in New York City – it is the first place I’d check.  I can’t wait to see the look on the rescue team’s faces when they see just how far I have gone native.  I even married an Earthling with whom I have had two kids!

Speaking of my Earthling bride, it was her idea that I start this blog (ineed, she set it up for me), weary as she is of me going endlessly on about how much more sane and friendly and prosperous the civilized part of the galaxy is.  For both her sanity and mine, she has asked that I find some additional outlet, other than her martyred ear, in which to deposit my observations and contemplations about Earth, how it should fit in its place in the cosmos, and where it too often falls short of the mark.

Not sure what level of anonymity I’ll maintain as I cultivate the blog.  Characters will come up, the real people of my experiences.  I won’t give their real names.  I’ll try to use initials, for starters, except for the spouse, whom I shall refer to as Native Goddess, for reasons that will become radiantly clear as time goes on.  Except for that, I will only offer factually accurate information here, and strive to lie no more to you, constant reader, than I do to myself.

I’ll devote the rest of this inaugural entry to the laying down of some policy, so that you can get a gist of where the Marooned Astronaut is coming from, intellectually (if not galactically) speaking. 

First, I don’t believe in anything.  I use the world “believe” a lot, but please know I’m still learning your language and it’s just the easiest way I’ve been taught to say “I think to a point of relative certainty.”  But I don’t believe in anything absolutely, and I question, scrutinize and evaluate everything I encounter.  Except when I am being lazy – and I am almost always lazy. 

I don’t believe in morals.  I do believe in ethics.  I believe that the 1st amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America may be the single greatest passage of writing produced by planet Earth.  (Let’s take a look, shall we?  “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.”  Man, that is good stuff!).  I believe human history on Earth is trending in a good direction, but that this requires a constant struggle against nefarious, selfish forces and there is no guarantee culture will not, at any given future time, begin to slide into retrograde.  I believe if this does happen, it will be bad for me (if I am still here), bad for all humanity, and bad for the non-human residents of the  planet.  I believe that anyone who thinks the world is coming to an end in 2012 has their head up their ass.  I don’t believe anyone can love anything as much as I love my wife and children.

Now, some housekeeping:  Since my arrival, I have noticed there are a number of commonsense principles the rest of the civilized galaxy has accepted as being self-evident, but which the people here on Earth, very often here in the United States of America, either forget, actively reject, or even seek to reverse; at their very own peril and to the common detriment of all.  I’ll start a list from memory of how things really work in the civilized world and will have to add to it as I go along and am able to recall more.  These are not articles of faith (as I have none), but simple, manifestly demonstrable rules to abide in the interest of long, healthy, happy and prosperous life.  In later posts we may discuss, in great depth, many or even all of them.  But, for now, I offer the following:

1. Belief in anything supernatural is counterproductive and dangerous.

2. Imposing supernatural beliefs uninvited upon others, especially the vulnerable and the young, is criminally culpable.

3. School-age children should be required to attend superbly-funded, Federally regulated public schools during the school day while private and home school alternatives should be outlawed.  Parents can send kids wherever they want from 3 o’clock on.

4. Long term, large-scale use of fossil fuels is bad for a planet’s humans and should be avoided.

5. Corporate interests should never enjoy parity with, and should always be subordinate to, the common good of all and individual rights.

6. In the United States of America, the keeping of powerful weapons in one’s own home carries certain, rationally unacceptable health risks.

7. Homeopathy is crap.

8. You people need better spaceships.

9. The Battle Flag of the Confederacy is a symbol in support of racism, slavery and treason against the United States of America.

10. Whoever came up with KFC’s “Double Down” sandwich, wherein the role of “bread” is performed by two batter fried pieces of meat, should never be allowed to make decisions for anyone about any thing ever, ever again.

I’m sure I’ll come up with more ere long.  Til then, be well, fellow astronaut.