About Me

If I had to describe myself in just two words: always thinking.

I’d much prefer not having to spend time writing about myself. However, since any prospective philanthropic backer willing to consider gifting me seed capital will surely want to know something about me, here’s my attempt to “paint” something of a self-portrait, but with words.

My list of accomplishments isn’t long or impressive. I hold a bachelor’s degree from Hofstra University — where I studied English — but since 1990, I have worked as a security officer. I prefer it over many other types of employment, because it allows me to conserve my mental energy, to better focus my thoughts and attention toward whatever projects or mental activity I happen to be engaged in when not at work. I’ve never really doubted, that someday, I will eventually get to the point where I can quit my job and immerse myself fully in my lifelong pursuit of working to ‘save the planet.’ That is the only real career goal I’ve ever had — too bad there’s not even a name for it.

Over the years, my choice of employment has left people who know me puzzled. Therefore, I was gratified when the story of Chris Langan surfaced in the news. The television show 20/20, in doing research for a planned on-air report focusing on people with high IQs, learned of Langan.  His IQ was measured at being at least 195. But he never finished college, often lived on less than $10,000 a year, and worked as a nightclub bouncer – previous employment included working as a farmhand, construction worker, firefighter and lifeguard. I’m not suggesting I have an IQ within his range – I don’t – but my situation reminded me of his in the sense that he, too, chose to have a simple (not too mentally-challenging), low-paying job, so he could devote his time and attention (when at home) to doing work he personally finds invaluable or enjoys. In other words, he avoids occupations where he would have to take work home with him or invest time in learning new skills.  As such, when he is off duty, he is free to spend his time as he chooses.

Incidentally, imagination is an example of a mental quality not measured by IQ tests; and “Imagination,” as Albert Einstein famously declared, “is more important than knowledge.” Chris Langan, in an article appearing in Newsday (Dennis Brabham, “The Smart Guy,” 21 Aug. 2001: B6), stated that his “intellectual self-opinion has very little to do with” IQ scores. He states it has much more to do with his theories and ideas. Marilyn vos Savant expressed a similar sentiment in one of her “Ask Marilyn” columns, in Parade Magazine. She stated — if I recall correctly — that creativity is a better measure of genius, and yet, no test can truly measure creativity and originality. Her column’s by-line used to mention she is listed in The Guinness Book of World Records Hall of Fame for ‘Highest IQ,’ until Guinness did away with that category.

Many years ago, I asked myself:  “What do I truly value most in life?”  “What is most important to me?” My answer came quickly: Nature, Knowledge, Truth, and the Golden Rule.

But gratitude is also important; and here’s what I mean by that: By mere virtue of the fact we were born (are receivers of “the gift of life”), I believe we ought to feel obligated to lead ethical lives (and ought to strive towards making this world a much better place). Just as I believe every day should be regarded as Earth Day, I similarly believe every day should be seen as a day for Thanksgiving. This needn’t entail prayer or ritual. Just maintaining a mindful awareness that, at any given moment, there are countless things we take for granted. Most of us live far better today, than did kings and queens of centuries past, for example. Think of just some of the things we take for granted: language (the ability to transform our thoughts into words), the fact we even have vocal cords, consciousness, food, water, electricity, antibiotics, anesthesia, heat, shelter, clothing, indoor plumbing, eyeglasses, music, movies, radio, television, phones, computers, internet, emergency services (fire, police, ambulance), schools, hospitals, the air we breathe, pets, our family, our senses, memory, and so on. Even when something is a bone of contention — such as the gasoline-powered automobile — we could still show appreciation for the act of transportation it provides (getting us from point “a” to point “b”). And think of all the times we get from point “a” to point “b,” safely. Think of all the knowledge the average citizen possess today. In the words of Richard Dawkins, if you gave Aristotle a tutorial, you would “thrill him to the core of his being.” I don’t believe we express or demonstrate near-adequate appreciation, commensurate with all that we have been given. I love the sentiment expressed in that adage: “To those whom much has been given, much is expected.”

Much can also be said about the importance of having a positive attitude and the right frame of mind. To give an example of the power of positive thinking, in my own life, I once achieved a draw in a simultaneous chess exhibition, against International Grandmaster Edmar Mednis. And years earlier, achieved the same result against Susan Polgar — before she gained the title of Women’s World Champion. No matter who my opponent is, I never play with the expectation or assumption that I am going to lose. In fact, in my game with Polgar, even though I had blundered away a pawn in just the first few moves, I didn’t let that squash my resolve to prevent her from winning. And I succeeded!

To add more depth and detail to this word portrait, let me turn to a popular personality typing system: the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). Upon finishing the second chapter of the international bestseller Do What You Are: Discover the Perfect Career for You Through the Secrets of Personality Type (by Paul D. Tieger and Barbara Barron-Tieger), I discovered I am what is called “INTP” (Introverted iNtuitive Thinking Perceiving). The INTP profile struck me as profoundly precise. INTPs are portrayed as “conceptual problem solvers,” who are “intensely intellectual and logical, with flashes of creative brilliance.” It goes on to say that while they are “outwardly quiet, reserved, and detached,” they are “inwardly absorbed in analyzing problems.” The book describes INTPs as being critical and skeptical. They prefer “conversation to be logical and purposeful” and “are usually ingenious and original thinkers, (…) primarily interested in seeing possibilities beyond what is currently known, accepted or obvious.” The book states that INTPs “think in extremely complex ways,” and “occasionally, their ideas are so complex they have difficulty communicating and making others understand them.”

Part Three of this book lists potential career opportunities for each of the sixteen personality types. “Ingenious Problem Solvers,” is the thumbnail phrase Part Three uses to describe INTPs. The occupation I find most appealing, among those listed for INTPs, falls under the “Creative” category: “Columnist, critic, commentator.” I would love having a nationally-syndicated column. That would be a perfect way to establish my credentials as someone capable of leading an effort to save the planet. And disseminating my ideas to a wide audience, would also breathe much-needed life into subjects that are almost never discussed. But what newspaper would hire an iconoclastic, social critic, with strong anti-consumer-culture opinions? Advertisers might not appreciate that perspective, don’t you think?. And is the public, in general, ready for such honesty? Incidentally, my overall assessment of the MBTI can be summed up this way: some see too much relevance in it, some see no relevance in it; I believe its usefulness lies somewhere in between these two extremes.

Another personality typing system, described in Gary Null’s book Who Are You, Really?: Understanding Your Life’s Energy, breaks people down into seven different “energy types” (based upon what he calls “natural life energy”). The chapter on “The Mind-Powered World of Dynamic Assertives,” absolutely describes me to a “T” – virtually every word, every sentence, every paragraph. For example, Null writes that “the be-all and end-all for Dynamic Assertives is ideas.” I can certainly attest to that. In fact, hardly a day ever goes by where I haven’t jotted down numerous ideas. These ideas can be sparked by something I see as I’m driving, a photo, an article, an article heading, something someone says, or a new experience. It could be an idea for an invention, a way of improving an existing product, a shortcut way of doing something, an idea for a blog post topic, or something related to one of the book ideas I have, or it could be an idea for a sculpture, a film, song lyrics, an idea for a T-shirt design, a theory, a way to test a theory or claim, an idea for a book, or a title for a book, a newly coined word or phrase, or an idea related to whatever project I happen to be working on at the time. I go through thousands of sheets of four by six-inch memo paper a year, in this way, jotting down thoughts and ideas, potentially useful in the future.

Still, while quantity is good, it is important to recognize, quality is king. Imagine you have a candidate — candidate ‘x’ — running for high elective office. That candidate hires two political consultants. Both receive a $50,000 consulting fee. One shares dozens of brilliant ideas. The other, just one. Still, couldn’t that one, be the one which ultimately enables the candidate to win? That one idea, could prove more valuable than all the others, combined. The bottom line: I’m a big believer in the power and potential of big ideas. And if one big idea can be invaluable, just imagine how invaluable numerous such ideas, combined, can be.

Here is Null’s “thumbnail description” of a Dynamic Assertive: “the kind of person you could have a conversation with and then write an article about it.” Null writes that Dynamic Assertives “serve as the ‘correctors’ in society.” They are “the people who can identify wrongs and have the courage to correct them. Think of Mahatma Gandhi, Robert Kennedy, Nelson Mandela, Margaret Mead, Thoreau, Spinoza. Plato, and Socrates.” They “break the ground for new roads upon which everyone else will eventually travel.” In other words, they are pioneers, trailblazers, iconoclasts, nonconformists. Here are some additional attributes the author associates with the Dynamic Assertive life energy (all of which, I strongly identify with): they have tremendous raw energy, they are introspective, conceptually creative, non-materialistic, intellectually honest, have a strong disregard for limitations (“one of their most distinctive qualities”), are highly independent, “happy to be loners at times,” and “do not have the same need for permanent relationships.” Indeed, I deeply cherish the quietude of solitude – for reading, concentration, contemplation – and live my life predominantly as a loner. Solitude, to me, is as natural as sunshine – especially considering how so few people care about this planet, in the same way that I do. The author speculates that about one person in a hundred is a Dynamic Assertive. It is also worth noting that Dynamic Assertives tend not to be the marrying kind. As the author states, a “Dynamic Assertive’s first relationship is with life (…) they want to dedicate their energy to the life process, not to maintaining a relationship.”

In all of the chapter’s thirty pages, probably the only part that really surprised me, was where Null writes “More than any other energy type, Dynamic Assertives live in the moment. They are spontaneous …” Spontaneous? I had never thought of myself as being spontaneous. In fact, it used to annoy me to see how effortlessly people could drop whatever it is they are doing, to accept an invitation to go out to a movie, dinner, or to a party. With me, the weight of the problems of the world are too heavy on my mind, to so easily discard my sense of mission to set things right.

But the more I thought about it, the more I gained a deeper sense of understanding. For example, my financial circumstances, for as long as I can remember, haven’t really afforded me much freedom to be spontaneous. And, having for so many years, cars that are not highway worthy, also contributes to this lack of freedom. But also, as stated, I do feel a very strong sense of mission, which I am faithful to – and that, among other things, keeps me perpetually busy. This also happens to be something Null cautions against: “Remember that there are negative consequences to a self-sacrificing commitment to any cause, no matter how worthy. If you are not careful, you can develop a ‘martyr complex’ … This can kill your spontaneity, joy, and creativity – the driving forces in your life.” Those are wise words. But perhaps the world needs self-sacrificing commitments from people such as myself, (a) to counterbalance the freewheeling, insouciant masses, and (b) to compensate for all those people who do have that “energy,” but don’t push themselves – for whatever reasons – to tap into it, in an effective, altruistic way. Think about it. The major problems in the world aren’t going to resolve all by themselves.

Just consider these sobering postulates:

(a) the problems are very serious (e.g. global warming, deforestation, loss of biodiversity, pollution, overpopulation, desertification, proliferation of nuclear weapons technology, etc.),

(b) something needs to be done,

(c) nothing substantive is being done,

(d) I have little or no faith in our leaders,

(e) I have little or no faith that people will put sufficient pressure on their leaders to get them to act on these issues,

(f) this assumes that either the people, or their leaders, even know what needs to be done (which I don’t believe is the case), and let us not forget

(g) that by continuing to ignore these issues, these problems only get worse and increasingly more difficult to eventually resolve. And…

(h) all of this could be pushing us further to the point where geoengineering might be seen as the only viable option – which, by way of the Law of Unintended Consequences, could wind up being akin to throwing gasoline on a raging fire.

Is there anyone, anywhere in the world, who is really addressing (proposing solutions for, or seeking solutions for), all these problems, in an effective, holistic, substantive way – and where the results obtained, are commensurate with the funding received? I certainly don’t know of anyone I would consider placing in that category.) And yet doesn’t the world desperately need such people?

As I have stated previously here, and in the Read This First! section, I am a loner. But let me briefly expand on that. Something I read about Albert Einstein – expressed in Einstein’s own words – rings true for me, as well (to somen extent). Here is what he said:

My passionate interest in social justice and social responsibility has always stood in curious contrast to a marked lack of desire for direct association with men and women. I am a horse for single harness, not cut out for tandem or team work. I have never belonged wholeheartedly to country or state, to my circle of friends, or even to my own family. These ties have always been accompanied by a vague aloofness, and the wish to withdraw into myself increases with the years.


Such isolation is sometimes bitter, but I do not regret being cut off from the understanding and sympathy of other men. I lose something by it, to be sure, but I am compensated for it in being rendered independent of the customs, opinions and prejudices of others, and am not tempted to rest my peace of mind upon such shiftless foundations.

Substitute the phrase “saving the planet,” for “social justice and social responsibility,” and this would ring even truer for me. It also seems evident to me that while I feel very energetically driven (in a creative, idealistic and intellectual sense), most people I meet just don’t appear at all to be anything like that. To put it another way, “isolation” is one way to become “independent of the customs, opinions and prejudices of others,” but another direction one can go in life is to gravitate towards attempting to change that milieu altogether — to steadfastly resolve to do all one can, to change the direction in which mankind is heading. I might feel like I was born ahead of my time, but I also see it as a universal truth that everyone would be better off if they too had been born into a very different world than the world that they were born into.  Contrary to that axiom “People (in a democracy) get the kind of government that they deserve,” I don’t believe people ever get the kind of government that they deserve. Circumstances are delivered to us by a confluence of myriads of factors that are entirely beyond our control.  Still, how many are motivated and committed towards changing the way things are, in a big, foundational way? Not many, I suspect.

Some other famous loners throughout history include Leonardo da Vinci, Sir Isaac Newton, Henry David Thoreau, Rachel Carson, John Lennon, and interestingly, Johnny Carson, considered himself a loner.  I like how Thoreau put it:  “I never found the companion that was so companionable as solitude.”  According to Anneli S. Rufus, who wrote Party of One:  The Loner’s Manifesto, as much as 25 percent of the world’s population are loners.

Putting up this website and advertising it, accomplishes at least two things: (a) it opens the door toward receiving the philanthropic funding I need in order to be able to begin to move forward with my strategies and plans for saving the planet; but (b) it also allows me to finally be able to shift the onus onto others. I don’t know how long it will take to receive funding. Days? Years? But I do know this: In the meantime, it will feel as though much of the weight has been lifted off my shoulders. I am ready and eager and chomping at the bit, to do my part. But someone else has to step up and do their part, by providing funding. I can’t begin to really move forward, in a big way, without funding. As I’ve stated in the Afterword section of this website, “Now the ball is in your court (so to speak). It’s up to you!”

To round out this page, I have assembled a collection of some of my observations and thoughts on a variety of topics.

One reason I choose to include this material is because I had bits and pieces left over from when I assembled the first main draft of this website — things I wanted to include, but couldn’t find a way to fit in. This gives me an opportunity to include some of that material here, and do so in such a way that it does not appear too out of place.

And of course, please feel free to quote me (Paul A. Reinicke):

    • The next time you hear someone say it is arrogant to think that our species – our highly consumeristic species – can have a measurable impact on this planet, try explaining it to them this way: If everyone alive today, lived out their lives, and then we tallied up all their ages, the grand total (total number of years lived) would be far, far greater, than the estimated age of the entire universe (13-14 billion years); and keep in mind, this period of time (hundreds of billions of years) would not be spread out over those many years, but rather, would be compressed into the lone lifespan, of just one single centenarian.
    • What motivates me to care so deeply about the subject I feel most passionate about (saving the planet)? Perhaps it boils down to this: While I don’t necessarily fear death, what I do fear is that someday, when I am on my deathbed, there will still be no real signs of hope that we are heading in the right direction. Seeing some real signs of hope that humankind is at long last finally heading in the right direction, would give me immeasurable solace when I am breathing my last breaths.  For all I see now is more and more evidence that we keep running faster and faster, in the opposite direction, towards a very steep cliff.
    • Just as the famous quotation of Edmund Burke states “All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing,” it can similarly be stated that all that is necessary for us to succeed in destroying the planet, is for us to be blind or inattentive to the fact that we are doing so.
    • We want environmentalism to fit into our definition of what we think environmentalism should be; but nature wants us to fit into its definition of what it thinks we should be. It’s kind of like nature is a round peg, but we’re trying to force it into a square hole; while at the same time, we’re a square hole, but nature needs for us to be a round hole.
    • We speak of “global warming,” but what about “global landfilling?” We’ve heard the term “population explosion,” but what about the “pollution explosion?” We’re told there’s an “energy crisis,” but what about the “extinction crisis?” We need to see environmental problems in a holistic sense, and address the oneness of the problem.
    • Our number one priority – these days, and in the foreseeable future – needs to be focusing on finding ways to maximize our ability to live harmoniously with nature.
    • Saving the planet requires making that goal a daily habit, not deceiving ourselves into believing that infrequent acts of planetary goodwill can do the trick.
    • If it is okay for me to own an SUV, it is okay for everyone to own one; but if it is not tenable for everyone to own one, then it is not tenable for me to own one. We don’t like thinking that way, but that is the way we must think.
    • Rather than capitulate to the demands of society, it is better to capitulate to the demands of posterity. If society is a drop, posterity is an ocean.
    • Both “Biosphere II” missions (1991-1994) — funded by billionaire philanthropist Sam Bass — were deemed failed experiments. However, I thought they very effectively demonstrated how completely inept we are at duplicating what this planet does so effortlessly.
    • As human population expands and man’s collective voice grows stronger, nature’s voice becomes ever fainter.
    • Seeing all the many ways in which we mistreat ourselves and our fellow man, should it be all that surprising that we are mistreating the biosphere as well? Imagine if we all lived by one simple precept: Treat the earth (anthropomorphically speaking), and others, as you would want to be treated.
    • Go back five hundred years, and was there anyone who predicted the Apollo moon landing, the advent of computers, artificial intelligence, cell phones, television, airplanes? Some would argue that this provides evidence that man can accomplish feats that surpass even our wildest imagination. I would suggest it is a stupefying example of mankind’s collective lack of prescience. There are two sides to this coin: lack of prescience concerning the marvelous examples of what the human mind is capable of; and lack of prescience concerning the potentially apocalyptic consequences of what the human mind is capable of.
    • Just as the world we live in today (a world of internet-connected-computers, air travel, Mars rovers, the Hubble telescope, towering skyscrapers, and so forth) was unfathomable to antecedents like our founding fathers, perhaps, similarly, so too is the world that we need to create (to save the planet), unfathomable to those who are alive today.
    • What humanity is doing to the planet, religion is doing to humanity — humanity pollutes the planet, but religion pollutes the mind.
    • If someone truly believes that to be a nonbeliever is to not appreciate what God has created for us, then isn’t it hypocritical to stand idly by, watching or condoning the systematic destruction and dismantling of everything that they believe God created?
    • Science is an infinite quest for knowledge, not a quest for infinite knowledge.
    • That same capacity for grandiose optimism, which enables so many people to believe in things like angels, miracles, divine intervention and heaven, might also explain why so many people believe there is no dire need to be concerned about the consequences of things like pollution, climate change, and burgeoning human population.
    • Man is an anomaly; but so is a giraffe.
    • Any rigidly-held belief, has a tendency to establish an ever more entrenched foothold in the mind.
    • Changing the world can sometimes be easier than trying to change the mindset of one impenetrably stubborn individual.
    • Isn’t it ironic, that while our brain is what sets us apart from all other animals – and in no small measure – very few people genuinely enjoy using it.
    • Perhaps one answer as to why humanity fails miserably to live up to its potential, can be found in the fact that in our schools, there is so much fiction that is assigned and discussed, but very little, if any, engagingly-written nonfiction.
    • What I would really like to see in politics, is this: If you are going to criticize a member of an opposing political party, then use precisely the exact same languaging you would use, if that person were of the same political party as your own.
    • What if some madman, cult, or rogue nation, were to drop (or threaten to drop) several (or several dozen) nuclear warheads, onto the North and South Poles, simultaneously? And what if that resulting impact could potentially compress a century or more’s worth of global warming, into just one 24-hour period? If that were the case, then even the mere threat to do so, could potentially hold the entire world hostage to any group capable of executing such an act.
    • I’ve always considered it ironic and disturbing, how television can show any number of people being shot, stabbed, punched, beaten, drown, suffocated, run over, pushed out of planes or off of rooftops, beheaded, tortured, machine-gunned, and so forth, but it can’t show two people making love. Even the image of a woman breast-feeding a baby, is deemed too impermissible for broadcast.
    • When one reflects upon all the violence that has been perpetrated throughout man’s brief recorded history on this planet – hundreds of millions of men, women and children, shot, stabbed, bombed, beaten, raped, tortured, murdered, butchered – shouldn’t it be regarded as a godsend that there are men who genuinely love other men? Isn’t that infinitely superior to those alternatives described above?
    • One of the things that has always struck me, ever since I was very young, is the fact that a world map is divided up into so many different countries. If we are one species, shouldn’t we be able to live on this planet as one species?
    • As we are one species, we must eventually evolve to the point where we can live together on this planet as one collective family; and yet, amazingly, I have never heard any discussion on this topic, ever!
    • Music lets us experience the sensation of immortality, even if only for some three minutes at a time.
    • All of our problems and accomplishments, should seem small, viewed against the backdrop of the universe; yet it is the universe, that all too often, appears insignificant, by comparison.
    • If our nonexistence was not cause for dread before we were born, why should it be regarded as such upon our death?
    • Free will is the name we give atoms and molecules, when they are waltzing in that Grand Ballroom we call consciousness.
    • If we don’t have free will – and I would argue we don’t – then in death, what do we really lose? Might this liberating thought, instill in us, the liberating awareness that there is very little we stand to lose, since there is very little we actually have, in the first place?
    • “We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience.” Those are the words of Teilhard de Chardin. But neither of these two views correctly hits the mark. The simple vanilla truth of the matter is this: we are human beings, having a human experience.
    • Most of what I read neatly fits into one of these categories: (a) I knew that;  (b) that’s ridiculous; or (c) why do I need to know that?
    • Technology is a lion;  fail to tame it, and it will devour us.
    • I once read a Hungarian proverb, which states “The believer is happy; the doubter is wise,” and then immediately scribbled in the margin: “The believer seeks comfort; the doubter seeks truth.” Which offers better prospects for saving the planet: truth-seeking, or pleasure-seeking? And is man basically inclined toward seeking truth, or seeking comfort? Is man basically inclined towards expanding his knowledge of how the world works, or mostly uninterested in engaging in such pursuits?
    • Lots of environmentalists are of the mindset that all we need to do is be the Paul Reveres, to alert society to the impending doom, and then society will take appropriate action. But what if that basic premise is all wrong? What if people just don’t care — don’t care about finding out the truth, don’t care to hear views that run counter to their own, and don’t care to concern themselves with environmental issues in general?
    • I am frequently intrigued by the seeming contradiction that there are noted atheists, loudly sounding the alarm about religion, and there are noted environmentalists, loudly sounding the alarm to save the planet, but it seems never the twain shall meet – I don’t know of any personages championing both causes; and yet, I do see the two issues as being connected – both need to be part of a dynamic, complementary approach towards saving the planet.
    • To save the planet, part of the challenge is creating a blueprint that can successfully wean people off of, away from, and out of the jaws of religion.
    • I find it frustrating when theists state that God might exist, because, after all, you can’t know that God doesn’t exist. One could equally point out, for example, that a sadomasochistic God (one who wants us to harm, or kill, one another) could equally exist, since, after all, we can’t know that such a God doesn’t exist. There are countless things we can’t know. Could you, the reader, be God, and all of this be part of a very long dream, from which you will at some point awaken? Similarly, you can’t know that is not the case.
    • If more than three quarters of adults believed Santa Claus exists, wouldn’t you find that deeply disturbing, regardless of whether or not that belief made them happy?
    • Just because something can’t be disproven, doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be discounted.
    • Ronald Reagan pointed out that “Abortion is only advocated by people who have already been born.” But so too it can be pointed out that abstinence is only advocated by people who have already been born.
    • Since in vitro fertilization often results in multiple births, then couldn’t conception sans in vitro fertilization, potentially, be tantamount to having an abortion?
    • When a spouse says “Not tonight, honey, I have a headache,” this potentially adds to the ranks of the unborn; and as such, this should be regarded as pro-choice.
    • “Not tonight, honey, I have a headache,” could, potentially, have the same exact ramifications as having an abortion. Thus, those hours of pain, are deemed more important than those succeeding generations of descendents who might now not be born. Why isn’t this selfish (in a literal sense) act viewed through the same lens through which many pro-lifers view abortion? If someone can choose not to bring a baby into this world because of a headache, why can’t they choose not to bring a baby into this world because they don’t want to endure nine months of pregnancy, and then the pain that is entailed with labor (which can be substantially worse than a headache)?
    • Not only am I pro-choice, I would like to see zero human births over the course of the next decade. Perhaps, that might buy us enough time, to think long and hard about what we need to do to change how we live on this planet. Incidentally, ten years is not a long time.  Horseshoe crabs, for example,  have been around for 400,000,000 years!
    • How can anyone call a twenty-four hour day “intelligent design?”
    • If God were on trial, I wouldn’t want to be His attorney.
    • Which is more absurdly ridiculous, believing in Santa Clause, or believing in God. One is said to live at the North Pole, manufactures toys, with the aid of elves, then delivers them, with the assistance of flying reindeer. The other is said to have always existed, is omnipotent, created all living things, Earth, and the universe (in six days), is everywhere (all at once), and can see and hear everything. Which is more absurd? It’s like asking which is more of a color, red or blue?
    • I find it deeply disconcerting that people keep trying to come up with defenses and rationalizations for clinging tightly to irrational beliefs, rather than assist in the work related to distancing ourselves and society from such beliefs.
    • How did life originate on this planet?  Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar; and sometimes a mystery is just a mystery. Why not just leave it at that?