There Is No “One, True Faith”

For there to be so many belief systems that proclaim themselves the ‘One, True Faith’ literally does not add up–which leads us to the only logical conclusion possible: since all the faiths that proclaim themselves to be so, cannot possibly all be the ‘One, True Faith’, then none are – but all contain elements of truth, albeit colored and influenced by the prevalent and accepted practices, cultures, and prejudices of their times.

You can’t reasonably and realistically study the evolution of any religion without putting each within its proper sociological and cultural context. If we were to accept Islam’s premise that the Q’uran is the eternal, literal and complete word of Allah (God), even if it existed outside of time, its revelation occurred covering specific points in time.

The problem with the Hadiths (practices of the Prophet Muhammad) is that they occurred in the context of the 7th century, and as such, Shariah (Q’uranic Law) is frozen in anachronistic 7th-century thought, which clearly does not translate well to a 21st-century context. Also, the belief that Muhammad was a perfect man who could do no wrong suffers from circular reasoning. He is perfect because he is the Prophet of Islam, he was chosen as the Prophet of Islam by Allah because he was perfect. Was Abraham perfect? No–but he was man of God. Jesus, through immaculate conception, was able to be sacrificed as penance for all of man’s sins: past, present, and future. Muhammad, on the other hand, was a serf to God, and a vicious warlord. That vicious intolerance is perpetuated today by Muslim fundamentalists. Islam’s “Peace” only exists when Islam rules the entire world.

Judaism teaches adherence to the law of God. It seeks no converts, and actually discourages them.

Christianity teaches salvation through Christ, and peace through humility. Christianity welcomes those who chose to accept Christ as their personal messiah.

Islam teaches that God is vengeful and unforgiving, and all must be converted to Islam, even by force, if necessary.

All religions have nugget of truth in them. But of the three Abrahamic religions, only Islam seeks to subjugate and eliminate the other two, as being based on false and corrupted revelations.

What Lies at the Core of the HealthCare Problem?

In the current debate over healthcare reform, what seem to be most overlooked are the gross inefficiencies and inconsistencies in the administration of medical care.  The cost of miscoded, reprocessed and rejected claims over minor technicalities that should be able to be rapidly addressed is mostly ignored by both insurers themselves, and reformers.

The insurers themselves are the ones most perfidiously responsible in this matter, as there is no accountability, and no consistent standards of enforcement regarding their performance in delivery of services. 

There are no incentives to get the claims right the first time, and the focus is on finding reasons to deny claims, when the focus should be on how do we facilitate getting claims processed and paid quickly?

Inefficient healthcare administration, and healthcare insurers and pharmaceutical companies need to be held to a higher ethical standard that brings them in line with the physician’s Hippocratic oath (with enforceable and significant legal consequences for failure to comply), i.e., to “heal the sick” and to “do no harm”. 

Insurance is supposed to be about distributed risk management, but medical insurers refuse to take any risks.  They would rather have nothing but strong, young healthy people to cover.  Then they could keep premiums low, because they’d be paying out very little in benefits.  With this model, who even needs health insurance, if their implicit purpose is to conspire on how not to pay or deny coverage in order to maximize their revenues?

Three-Factor Authentication for Computer Logins

It has been a long-recognized principle among security professionals, particularly those in the IA (Information Assurance) sub-discipline, that the most secure authentication for access to information systems is three-factor: something you have, something you are, and something you know. Increasing password complexity and frequency of change (with different periodicities of change on different systems) just results in passwords becoming unwieldy to the point where they’re easily forgotten, or are written down by users unable to keep a jumble of multi-character nonsense clear in their organic memories.

The Department of Defense already uses two elements of three-factor authentication: (1) the Common-Access-Card (CAC) [something you have] along with (2) its associated PIN [something you know]. All that would need to be added is fingerprint readers [something you are] at each terminal, with software at the servers to validate them, and you would have much more robust authentication security than is currently practiced: as the probability of an adversary or hacker gaining possession of one user’s CAC, PIN, and fingerprint are considerably lower than spoofing a user and cracking their existing password.

The Weak and Specious Arguments of Richard Dawkins’ “The God Delusion”

[Originally appeared as an Amazon.com review on June 5, 2008]

In his book “The God Delusion”, Richard Dawkins utilizes a lot of solipsistic rhetoric and speculation on which he bases his premise: that God is scientifically illogical and thereby cannot reasonably exist. Yet, he does not argue cogently from point to point, but keeps returning the arguments of Darwinian evolution and statistical probability.

Let us remember though, that empirical reasoning is a useful human construct that allows us to impose some degree of order on the cosmos in order to shape our understanding of it. However, empiricism itself recognizes that its suppositions are useful until new evidence presents itself.

Much of Dawkins’ arguments are based on supposition, speculation and self-serving theories that don’t really don’t have much of a basis in fact. He tries to draw tenuous analogies to weak hypothesis that simply aren’t very convincing overall, and don’t tie together well enough as a treatise to support such a bold title.

Some of his points are amusing, and some standing by themselves are valid, but comparing Cargo Cults to Christianity and Scientology is really a stretch.

Mr. Dawkins bases his arguments on the implicit premise that human reason is practically flawless, and that we know everything useful and important that could possibly be known. Otherwise, how can we know that his arguments are in fact correct? Simply because you can’t bottle the essence of God and analyze what he is comprised of and determine how he functions in a laboratory, is it illogical and foolish to expect Him to exist?

Comparing what you know to what you don’t is admittedly useful, but the analogy breaks down when you try to apply the scientific method to determine or refute the existence of God. We’re trying to apply our limited human understanding to fathom the infinite. It’s a noble and worthy effort, but ultimately, in spite of his eloquence, the arguments Dawkins has presented against the existence of God simply aren’t terribly compelling.

Unlike Martin Luther, I don’t see faith as reason as adversaries, but rather as complementaries – as each has the potential to mitigate the hubris of the other. I do not deny the existence of God – but I don’t accept many of the things that are attributed as having come from Him.

I don’t deny the existence of Mr. Dawkins, either – even though I don’t believe in Atheists. If his perceptual framework as a biologist leaves him no room for belief in a deity, I haven’t any issue with that.

But using the framework of his scientific disciplines to try and convince me that my Theism is equivalent to the superstition of an unenlightened aborigine? He’s welcome to try, but I remain unconvinced that he’s right.

He believes that there is no God. I believe that there is. So what? Neither of us is right, neither of us is wrong. It’s not a competition.

He argues that faith is irrational, as is romantic love. Ah yes, and so are art and music.

Yet, it is a little bit of these types of irrationality, well-directed and channeled through friendship, romance and artistic pursuits that enrich our lives and continue to bring more beauty into our world.

I would think that a hyper rational, non-intuitive world in which all the mysteries had been solved or rebuked wouldn’t be worth living in. Could we use more rationality? Absolutely. But do we need to eliminate or discard everything that scientific method can’t create or empirical reason can’t resolve? If we did, we’d lose our compassion, as well.

That’s what I perceive as Richard Dawkin’s line of reasoning carried out to its ultimate, absolute conclusion. If we’re not arguing about whose faith is right, then we’re trying to argue that faith itself is wrong.

A much better book in this vein is Sam Harris’ “The End of Faith”. It presents arguments against blind faith which are much more thoughtful and well-reasoned than Dawkins’ polemic.

What is Security?

As a security professional, it is my job to manage risk. A philosophy of risk avoidance is possible only in environments where resources to protect classified information are virtually unlimited, but this is inefficient—great efforts are expended in trying to eliminate all risk without a commensurate increase in the overall security posture of the organization.

No security procedures and systems are absolutely impervious to intrusion or defeat. We must all exercise due care and diligence in best mitigating the risk to potential loss or compromise of the national security information that we are each charged to protect. The more sensitive the information, the greater and more stringent must be the mechanisms in place to protect that information from unauthorized disclosure.

It is important we recognize and acknowledge that the most effective security programs are multi-faceted and multi-layered—where we achieve the correct balance of protections and controls that gives such programs momentum and sustainability, until they become an integral part of—and thus inextricable from—the standard practices of the organization. The most successful security programs are not those added as an afterthought—they are at the foundation of all planning and thinking of an organization which understands their role. They are transparent in their protection of sensitive assets and information, without providing obstruction or hindrance to effective mission accomplishment.

The focus of such programs is primarily on three elements: procedural and technical controls, and effective awareness, on the part of all of those who come in contact with classified and sensitive information. The procedural controls are those dictated by higher-echelon directives and local policies. The technical controls are the equipment and software that assist in recognition and protection of sensitive and classified information, i.e., safes, access devices, secure telephones, cryptographic equipments, et al. “Awareness” in this context constitutes the familiarization and reinforcement of applicable rules and procedures by those persons authorized and granted access to classified information in the performance of their official duties. This last point is the single most important and most often neglected factor.

Without an understanding of the rationales and underlying principles for security procedures in place, individuals will not be adequately armed to make necessary judgments to ensure proper protection of classified information when rare and unusual circumstances arise. Focus should not be about going through the motions to get “a check in the block”, or collecting signatures on a page to document training.

“Sloganeering” alone doesn’t make people security smart, if they don’t understand what security principle the slogan embodies, and why it it important for them to know it.

Fugues

In the trappings of a mystic he revealed himself, muttering pseudometaphysical revelations. He was possessed with an assortment of obsessive nervous habits; constantly grasping his hands together until his knuckles were white, or smoothing his hair out every time he said something he appeared to find disturbing…

His was a picture of continuous nervous motion. He was torn between a multitude of enormously tangled, profound emotions…

His facades were Jekyll-Hyde eclectic; as he would always dress himself in either of two respective, diverse personas.

Often he would present himself in restricted composure; choosing his words with slow generous care in order to contradict the undercurrent of fear and personal self-doubt that lay just below the surface. He would not, and absolutely could not allow himself to be seen as defenseless as he felt. There were many jackals lurking in the shadows.

“It’s too late to fight it,” he thought fearfully to himself, terror building with each fleeting thought.

“Fighting what?” the soulless demon-void retorted.

Vile contradictions flung themselves across and around every precious bit of logic he fought to retain. Paradoxes cruelly found their way into every corner of his mind demanding absolute resolution. Metaphysical concepts jumped and demanded to be proven to the status of tangible truth. Faith and Fact accosted one another across the tortured trails of his consciousness. Ironies sneered at him as they flew past, unraveling even more twisted mysteries in their wake. Would this storm ever quell?

Across and about, within and without, these ineffable concepts rocked and wrested in his head; building to a fever pitch, unrelenting.

Until…The undulating bombast ceased.

And all his windswept notions settled; as leaves – softly falling to the ground.

Sinister Inclinations

Time passes slowly as we part. A bedraggled, unshaven fiend of a man reveals himself to be hidden in a veil of shadowy terror; cringing in mute recognition of himself. He rambles in an imperceptible mumble, as he claws at his rigor-mortised clothing. Disease makes its home here, at the sanctuary of vile infestation.

If luck will aid him, he may be able to scrounge up the small fortune of a few cents, which would grant him a small cup of hot coffee. Which would be nice, of course. It would give him something to do for the day.

He could pull back the lid to take a small sip, mumble a few words over the cup in some arcane mock ritual, and then laugh hysterically into the cup to curl up in a corner into more impenetrable mumbles. Ah, what fun! The Joys of Life………

Phosphorescents

Kaleidoscopic effervescence
Singing in the dreaded night
Monolithic omnipresence
Bringing in the gilded light
Stroboscopic undulation
Laughing in a morbid heap
Childlike infatuation
Living through an endless sleep
Members of the New Foundation
Partners rigid, strong and true
Stumbling abomination
Pulsing contours, screaming hue

Ruling in Blindness

Petty little tyrants
Power mad buffoons
Foolish arrogance manifest

Central control mandated
Throttling growth and productivity
An oligarch of idiots

The fools’ plebiscite
Overwhelms the erudite

Reflections on Middle Age

The ravages of Time
Treat each of us differently
Some prosper in creativity
Some wither in sickness

We challenge the difference
Potentials change
But not all constrict
As some may predict
Greatness
Later in life