A quick check on Ronnie

So Ronnie is currently located at the Stringfellow unit of the TDCJ.  They have programs for sex offenders, for literacy, and for job skills - all of which Ronnie needs.  All of which I doubt he will willingly take advantage of.  Ronnie used to be good at conning people - I fully expect that if he takes part of any program he will be doing it to "play the game".  Oh sure, he may feel bad about getting caught - but I don't think he's capable of true remorse.

Here's Ronnie's basic information:

SID Number: 02567306
TDCJ Number: 01253039
DOB: 1952-01-13
Case number: 962202
Offense: INDECENCY CHILD-TG
Projected Release Date: 2013-09-25

I did a search tonight on the Harris County Clerk website to see Ronnie's earlier sexual predator case. I saw it mentioned briefly years ago online, but after my initial discovery it disappeared, and I can't seem to locate the details on the TDCJ website anymore.  I did capture that information for my records 

A review of my records shows that Harris County charged him with one count of indeceny with a child of 11 years old, on 22 March 1996.  He was sentenced to 5 years of probation, and registered as a sex offender.  However, this was not treated as a felony.

Tonight I learned that Ronnie was charged with the felony burglary of a habitation in February of 1979. He was convicted of this felony in June of 1979, and sentenced to 5 years of probation. He was 27 years old at the time, and finished probation in 1984 at the age of 32.

This just about covers the whole time that he was married to my mother and was the bane of my sister's existence. During this time I never heard the word "probation" mentioned about Ronnie. No probation officer spoke to our family that I was ever aware of. I'm also sure that the probation officer didn't know that Ronnie, a felon, was in possession of a couple of fire arms - namely a shotgun and a rifle.

I'm starting to realize that I should do a little more serious homework on Ronnie's life. 

Ronnie is getting out of prison in September. I expect him to play "nice" for a while, and then I expect he will re-offend, getting his third strike.

If you are a family member in the Houston Darsey clan, please be aware of Ronnie's proclivities, and do NOT let him stay with your children! My sister and I know of at least two of Ronnie's victims, not including the little girl he abused when he was arrested.  Please don't let there be any more.

Read More...

Summary only...

Won's 49th birthday is today

최원종 요보

Today Won would have been 49 years old. I can't believe I almost forgot her birthday.

I've been so busy these last few months. Wendy and I bought a house! I've never owned a house before, and we keep re-realizing this astonishing fact all over again.

But there's so much to do to this house. We've been working VERY hard to put in a new fence all around it - and without my brother-in-law I wouldn't be near completing it. Next is to get my woodshop in order, build a deck, and then next year (or the year after) put on a new roof. After that, I've got plans to add central heat / AC, and get the fireplace repaired. And then....

Well you can see where my head's been.

Won and I never owned a house because we were a single income family and she had lots of medical bills and student loans. In 2007 we were just barely keeping above water from our debt, and I cut back our expenses to the bone, while paying off one creditor after another. After Won died, her student loans were forgiven and I finally paid off the last of our credit card and medical bills. And I worked to live way below my means. And it paid off. My credit finally recovered and I easily qualified for and negotiated a VA loan.

Won would have hated this house. It was built in 1933 and is a cross between a Craftsman and a Pueblo style house, with a huge wrap around porch, stucco walls, and graceful curves. Won wanted a modern house, preferable one that was big and recently built. I really did try to make for us the life that she wanted, but as she got sick I circled the wagons and concentrated on helping her.

Since she died, I have become a member of several grief groups. Grief Beyond Belief has been a big help to me.  Sometimes I write about her there.

Support groups, counseling, and even some antidepressants have been how I've come to here.  I am very happy with my life now, and only occasionally feel melancholic. Sometimes I still talk to Won... although as an atheist I know I'm merely talking to my memory of her.

Read More...

Summary only...

Same sex marriage is inevitable - So is an openly atheist president

I started the Calladus Blog in August of 2005.  My 6th post was a prediction that same-sex marriage is inevitable.

It feels good to be this right.

But I got the reasoning slightly wrong.  I said it was inevitable because the children of LGBT individuals or couples grow up to be more accepting of gay people.  The truth is that these young people are open about their parents, and their peers now know that there is nothing special or weird or terrible about being raised by gay parents.

We are at the point now where every young person can point out gay friends or acquaintances, and every soccer mom or baseball dad knows of a gay kid, or a straight kid with gay parents.

Instead of contempt, we have learned that familiarity breeds acceptance.

This, THIS is the power of coming out of "the closet".  It is easy for a person to protest a nameless, faceless "other".  It is much more difficult to shout in absolute terms at someone you know and love.

And this is why the atheist visibility movement is so important.  Richard Dawkin's "Out Campaign", the "Don't Believe in God" billboards hosted by the United Coalition of Reason, and other efforts are necessary to raise awareness and reduce the stigma of atheism.

We have already had our first openly atheist member of Congress - so I'll say now that it is inevitable that eventually we will elect an openly atheist president.  I just don't know if it will happen in my lifetime.

Read More...

Summary only...

It is expected that all beliefs should be disrespected.

Beliefs are a hypothesis about the world.

Some are well proven - for instance, the belief that elevators work is so well proven that it is taken for granted to be true.  Other beliefs have little or no evidence to back them up. The belief that Lizard People are taking over our world governments has little, if any, credible evidence.

Disrespect toward a belief is not offensive, in fact - it is expected. All beliefs should be continually tested.

Finding a belief to be ridiculous, and making fun of it, is not a sign of disrespect, because beliefs do not have emotions, and cannot be victims of derision.

It is true that people think less of other people who hold uncommonly strange beliefs. Beliefs held by some are so strange that asserting them will make average people doubt the mental health of the one holding that belief.  

So yes, I may show some derision toward those people who are asserting that Lizard People are secretly ruling the world.  If they try to act on those beliefs, I may move to counter those actions if I believe them to be harmful.

You do have the right to your feelings. Feel free to be offended that someone like me is deriding you due to something that you believe.

But don't you DARE try to shut me or anyone else up by using legislation or through some sort of social shaming. Trying to silence a person is more offensive than any belief you or they may hold.  I'm a proponent of free expression, and will get very annoyed at people who tell me to shut up and respect their beliefs.

If you truly want me or anyone else to stop deriding a belief that you hold dear, you can do so by demonstrating that belief is well supported by evidence.

Given sufficient evidence, I would even stop deriding the idea of Lizard People.  Given extraordinary evidence, I would adopt that belief myself.

Read More...

Summary only...

How do atheists deal with grief?

I've found that on several occasions I've written, "I was married for 21 years, and then my wife died."

I do this in explaining how atheists deal with tragedy and grief.

Many Christians find solice in their religion when it comes to tragedy.  They are able to believe that their loved ones are in Heaven, and that they will see them again.  They are able to believe that there is a purpose for those who are sick or injured. 

Won, my late wife, dearly loved her Grandmother.  Won's grief during her grandmother's funeral was a terrible thing to witness.  Deep, wracking wales of grief as I and the other pallbearers dropped shovelfulls of dirt on her casket.  After her grandmother's death, Won took deep solice in knowing that she would see her grandmother again in Heaven, someday.

Even during that time that Won was an agnostic, she still believed she would see her grandmother again.

I wish that were true, in some way.  But I believe that both my late wife and her beloved grandmother are merely dead, and will never converse again.  I believe that the future words I will speak to my late wife will only be heard by my memory of her. 

I personally do not find the assertion that Won is "in a better place" or that "God has a plan" to be comforting, because I don't think these assertions are true.  I do think that such sentiments, if offered to me, are hurtful and thoughtless.

When Won died, my emotions locked down tight.  I went into high-speed problem solving mode, and flew to Korea to bring her remains home.  Won was cremated just hours after my arrival, and I brought her remains back to where I was staying.  Then I spent the next two weeks visiting her mother and our friends, and going through the very painfully slow paperwork to register her death, and to get US Customs to allow me to bring her cremated remains home.

During that time I was able to smile, even laugh, with mutual friends and with her mother.

When I got home, I was still in this mode.  Everything was brittle and hard, and seen through a fog.  My mother and sister stayed with me to make sure I was okay.  When they left, I had friends who visited, some of whom brought food.

And then I settled back into a daily grind, and spent evening after evening watching Stargate as my psyche slowly rebooted.  

I got help.  I saw a psychologist and a psychiatrist, and was put on antidepressants for a time.

It took about a year for me to stop thinking about "activities for us" and start thinking about "activities for me".

During this time, I found that it helped to share my grief with others.  "Grief Beyond Belief" had an online forum that was very helpful to me.  (They're on Facebook now.  I still return there from time to time).  It also helped to tell the stories about Won and our lives together.  In a way, Won continues to live on through these stories.

Our lives influence others, like ripples in a pond.  People are affected every day by others that they never met and never knew.  Kind words, hateful actions, and the stories of our lives can stir this world of humans like the so-called butterfly effect.

How do atheists deal with grief?  By remembering those we grieve over, and by telling their stories to the world.

Hold close those that you love, at every opportunity. 

Read More...

Summary only...

The difference between "Faith" and "Trust" - No, you don't have "faith" in an elevator!

There are those who scoff at the school boy, calling him frivolous and shallow. Yet it was the schoolboy who said, "Faith is believing what you know ain't so."
-- Mark Twain, Following the Equator, ch. 12, "Pudd'nhead Wilson's New Calendar" (1897)

Religious people often tell atheists that the atheist position is no better than a religion because it is based upon faith.  (They also often assert that atheism IS a religion - which I think is a sort of "crab mentality" and won't get into here.)

The problem with saying that atheists have "faith" in things like how an airplane works, or that an elevator won't kill you, is that it is the wrong term to use.  Yes, it is reasonable to "believe" that an elevator works, but "belief" is not strictly a religious term - you can believe in things for good reasons, like evidence and experience.

I do believe that the next elevator that I step into will work, not out of "faith", but out of the trust that I place in my fellow humans and in society.

I trust that an elevator works based upon my experience and evidence.  For example, I can watch other people using the elevator, and I have a lifetime of experience with elevators. As a kid, I trusted my parents as they took me by the hand into an elevator and made it work.

If I were very skeptical about elevators, I could run an experiment on the elevator, just by sitting and watching other people go up and down.  I could watch a glass elevator in a mall as it delivers people from one floor to another.  I could talk to the building superintendent about the elevator.  I could examine the inspection sticker for the elevator and then call the phone number on that sticker and arrange to speak with the mechanic that last performed maintenance on the elevator.  I could run a patent search on elevators and find out how they worked.  I could do a news search on elevators that have failed and killed everyone onboard, and then do a statistical analysis of how safe they are.

My belief that an elevator will work is not based upon faith.  It's built upon the trust I have for the ingenuity of my fellow humans.  My belief is based upon facts that can be tested, experimental evidence, and a wealth of data.

So is my atheism a belief based upon evidence and data?

No. 

This is another serious misunderstanding by Christians.  Most atheists lack a belief in any deities because they lack any evidence or data that a deity actually exists!   We lack a belief, which is different than actively disbelieving.

It is logically possible to disbelieve in a deity when such a deity has been described in a certain way.  For example, if you insist your god is perfectly good, and is all powerful and all knowing, then the "Epicurean paradox" shows that such a being is impossible.  If you insist that morality is impossible without your god, then you run into the Euthyphro dilemma.  

But if you posit a disinterested deity that started our universe with a "big bang" and then wandered away and has never interfered - well, I'm technically agnostic about that - but just a little bit.  There is no evidence for this position one way or another, so the only honest answer I could have to that is, "I don't know".

My atheism is not based upon evidence - my atheism is based upon a LACK of evidence.

Does a Christian God exist?  One that is omni(benevolent,potent,scient)?  One that is the fount of morality?  No - I can say for sure that such a deity doesn't exist due to the dilemma and contradiction created from this definition of "God".

How about a deity that cannot be detected, does such a deity exist?  Maybe.  The better question is, "would it matter?" A hypothetical undetectable deity is no different than the hypothesis that I'm just a "brain in a vat", or that the universe was created "Last Thursday".  All are unproven, and as Hitchens has said,“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

This is where parody religions become useful.  If I am supposed to believe in a God that I cannot disprove but lacks positive evidence, then why should I believe in the hateful God of the Bible?  There are other hypothetical deities that meet the same criteria, and the church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster sounds like a lot more fun!

It's also easy to fall into solipsism while contemplating deities that cannot be falsified.  And my standard response to Solipsists is to kick them in the shins and walk away.  I'll stick with elevators.  I trust them.

Read More...

Summary only...

My thoughts on Islam - and all other religions

I've been accused on several occasions that I do not denounce Islam.  That I lack the courage of my convictions, and fear the reaction of Islamic people, so I attack the "safe" religion that is Christianity.

To clarify, here are my thoughts on this matter.

First, I believe that people are deserving of a certain amount of respect.  I start with a courteous amount of respect that I automatically extend, until I can learn more about the individual in question.  At that point I'll adjust the respect that I extend.  I try to use the "Tit for Two Tats" strategy in deciding how I give respect for others.

Next, I believe that ideas, philosophies, and hypothesis do NOT automatically deserve respect.  If I think you have a crazy idea, I will probably mention that your idea seems insane.  Please note, it is possible for you to say something so crazy that I'll just blink, nod my head, and say something meaningless and reassuring as I back away conversationally (or maybe even physically!)

When a group of people use a crazy philosophy to create laws and influence culture, while trying to convert others into believing their insanity, then I will do my best to counter this.  It doesn't matter to me if you believe that women should be covered in cloth from head to toe, or if you believe that we need to give even MORE praise to a Christian deity during State processes.

Sure, we need to make sure Sharia Law does not take root in America.  But it is also important that we pull up the roots of those laws that favor Christians over non-Christians.

Lastly, I don't hate Christians in general, nor do I hate people of the Islamic faith.  I do hate what some Christians, and some Islamic people have done in the name of their faiths.  I will point out that after having read the Bible and the Quran, both texts can be used quite successfully to promote extremism.

 

I place Allah on the same shelf as Yahweh.  They are in good company on this shelf with Zeus, Shiva, Xenu, and a pantheon of other deities created by humans in their attempt to explain the mysterious.

On a lower shelf, I place their prophets.  Moses, Joseph Smith, Muhammad, L. Ron Hubbard, Plato, Jesus.  They are an interesting bunch, all are said to have claimed to be "right", to hold a truth that contradicts other so-called truths.  I doubt them all equally, and I'm sure that some were con men, and that most found that religion made for a useful power structure.  Some I doubt the existence of entirely.

I think that a man named "Jesus" might have existed, but that he was just a man.  We are much more sure that Muhammad existed, but again I think he was just a man.  He found power in his religion, and in his sword.

As for the philosophies of Christianity and Islam, I find them worse than useless.  Too often the followers use the tenets of these religions to suppress speech, stifle exploration, and ridicule scientific ideas and methods.

If you happen to be a follower of Muhammad, a believer in Islam, I will extend to you the respect that I try to extend to every human.  But I do not respect your philosophy - and I believe it to be wrong and hurtful toward humanity.  I also feel no need to respect a dead man who conned his way into power by getting people to believe the incredible.

Read More...

Summary only...

An answer to an email by John Craig

Mr. Craig,

First, I wonder why you are wring to me personally, since I'm not the author of this article. I'm merely a non-believer living in Fresno California. It is true that I am the current president of a local atheist organization, but other than that I'm not noteworthy.

I will, however, turn your last sentence around. Have you given any thought to these issues?

Shall I address the bulleted points that you have made in the link you provided?

1. "Atheism" is defined by many to be an "absence of belief", and by some to be an active disbelief in a deity. These points are not necessarily mutually exclusive, and often depend on the deity being described. For example, I lack a belief in deities because I see no evidence for any deities. In the case of the God of the Bible,as popularly defined and described by Christians, I do deny its existence for many reasons. The Euthyphro dilemma is an excellent example of one of those reasons. Also, atheism is insufficient as a single label for many non-believers. I also consider myself Ignostic and Agnostic. Note that none of these labels exclude any other.
2. You are quite correct that critical thinking and reason (and logic) are not infallible. The scientific method takes this into consideration, and attempts to correct for it. Of course science is applied by fallible humans, so it may take a while for truth to be shaken out of the morass of human thinking. I will point out that a well-reasoned, logical explanation can be simple, internally consistent, easy to understand, and completely wrong. The best logical reasoning can be overturned by evidence. Evidence is the "holy grail" (so to speak) of the scientific method, and hypothesis without evidence remain hypothesis, never to advance to being a theory. Christianity, for example, is merely a hypothesis due to it's lack of evidence.
3. The belief that Richard Dawkins is some sort of atheistic "high priest" is often preached by the religious in an attempt to equate atheism with religion. First, any reading online will show that atheists are divided in opinion about Dawkins, and that none praise him as infallible - quite the contrary! Second, I am frequently bemused by religious people who use religion as a sort of "insult" when applied toward atheists. Do the religious hold religion in such low regard that they must use the word "religion" to attack their opponents? I see this as a sort of religious "crab mentality".
4. Atheism is not a "matter of faith". Screaming that atheists have "faith" is a sign that no serious thought has been given to this subject. Atheism is not a philosophy. 
5. Richard Dawkins has a "strange resistance" of debating anyone. This is because, (a) he's not very good at debate. (b) Debate is not the same as science. The person who 'wins' a debate hasn't proven that something is true or false, they have merely won over the audience with their reasoning, which may be specious. And (c) Dr. Dawkins has been burned in the past by religious people who have interviewed him under false pretenses, then taken his words out of context and twisted them to mean the opposite of what he has said. I'm sure that you are as shocked as am I that religious paragons of Christianity would lie about Dr. Dawkins! 

Thank you for your entertaining letter Mr. Craig. I do hope you have the inclination to give more thought to this issue, instead of attempting to reinforce that which you already believe.

Mark Boyd

Also posted to my blog
www.calladus.com

On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 7:24 AM, John Craig j-redacted-com wrote:
-- -- -- This may be of interest -- -- -- [Please advise if you wish to be removed from this distribution list]

Billy Hallowell
The Blaze

Re: Atheists Post Anti-Christmas Billboard in Times Square, Featuring Jesus Being Crucified: ‘Dump the Myth!’, The Blaze, December 11, 2012

My attention was drawn to your article as evidence of increasing ‘evangelism’ of some Atheists. This seems to be a global phenomenon (see Celebrating a New Evangelical 'Religion': Atheism). One must wonder if those involved have really thought rationally about the issues involved.

Regards

John Craig

Centre for Policy and Development Systems
CPDS supports leaders developing enterprise, economic, community and governance systems
Visit CPDS website - which addresses local and global issues from the perspective of Queensland, an Australian state

Read More...

Summary only...