Rational Blues

Reality

2006-05-17T21:34:00.000-04:00

At times, I can barely contain my amazement that the average person doesn’t understand the need for socialist tendencies in American government. Yes, of course, most of them are undereducated and unwilling to think, but even such obstacles seem unlikely to hide the sheer obviousness of the growing problem. Yet of course they do, and the sheeple blunder on in blind support of anything anyone can convince them is “good ol’ fashioned American.”

Halliburton, Exxon Mobil, Enron. What more needs to be said. Eisenhower, the last Republicn president who wasn’t an actual danger to the nation, though he had his drawbacks, warned us. Of course, given that the Republicans are even more thoroughly owned and driven by the Corporate Machine than the Democrats, we should all be amazed and thankful that a Republican was the last to sound the warning about the military-corporate complex that was taking over. But now they have, and while their control is immense, we theoretically have at least a small chance of reversing some of the damage, but it simply won’t happen.

If you haven’t already done so, go to a bookstore, buy some Bruce Sterling novels, and read. I can’t imagine anyone having a more accurate vision of our likely future than he does. Specifically, read Heavy Weather, Holy Fire, or most to the point, Distraction. In it, America is a third word nation rapidly losing it’s strength and world position, yet still fighting to maintain the delusion that it controls the world. Sound familiar? Distraction’s America is a nation in the midst of depression, where the rich still continue to play their games, enjoy their luxuries, and sway politics to their advantage with money and corruption, as if the two are really all that separate. A nation in which most people live on subsistence welfare rations, manufactured food, produced paste, not organic food but chemical food that can be mass produced. Most people have no job, no hope, no room for advancement or improvement. If you haven’t realized that America is already well on its way to that point, you haven’t been paying attention.

I have to say, the corporate strategists, the profit pirates, (some of who may not even have been evil, but simply blind to the obvious conclusion of a tendency which says that profit is always the only goal, regardless of the long term effect on workers, consumers, the economy, or the nation) did a remarkably good job of “winning” the twentieth century. The socialist movement early in the century scared them shitless, and they saw equity, fairness, responsibility as likely to harm their ability to increase profits and line their pockets, and so they spent the century, with great assistant from totalitarian quasi-socialist regimes, convincing Americans that any limit on their ability to profit was evil and Anti-American. And now here we are.

America, and for the most part the world, is the proverbial dead man walking, the creature whose systems continue functioning despite the terminal disease already, interminably, inexorably killing the creature that nurtures it.

So Carpe Diem, kids, it’s only gonna get worse.

spinning

2006-05-16T23:02:00.000-04:00

My head is spinning. Politics, work, life, Duke Lacrosse, Rove, . . . too much to say, too little time. I'll try to write something soon . . . Need some Zen? Listen to Gov't Mule.

Are they mental?!

2006-04-04T22:19:00.000-04:00

This is just too good. Thanks to Thesaurus Rex at Shakes Sis. I've long been of the opinion that anyone who got a college degree without becoming a liberal was drunk the whole time and cheated to pass, brainwashed to the point of mindlessness in childhood (Yay Sunday School), or completely certifiable going in and never had a chance for reality to sink in. Who can take macroeconomics, sociology, psychology, literature, and history courses, or any reasonable combination thereof without a light bulb moment? Now we have at least part of the answer.

Trickle down sewage economics

2006-04-04T20:29:00.000-04:00

John McKay speaks putrescence to capitalist evil at Archy.

Some Perspective

2006-04-03T14:37:00.000-04:00

. . . on this illegal immigration distraction (did ya'll notice that's what it is?) is absolutely necessary. And leave it to Shakespeare's Sister, a recently announced Koufax Award Winner, to point it out.

When will people grasp enough of the economic realities in this nation to pay attention to things like this. I know, I know, when the Republicans stop ruining education, when our country actually starts valuing real education. (Which, of course, means never.)

I know rule by the elite is seen as problematic, but as long as the general populus are morons, where the fuck is democracy headed? Should the right to vote go hand in hand with the right to be stupid and uneducated? I'm not in a kind mood, I know, but the capitalist shitheads are running off with all the money and leaving the rest of us to pick up the the third-world America they will leave behind (or hide within, using their fleeced billions).

I live with lemming-like sheeple, and I'm being pushed along with the crowd. It sucks.

Religious freedom? Not in America

2006-03-31T13:47:00.000-05:00

With a Hat tip to God is for Suckers, here is a frightening example of the extent to which Christians have legislated their beliefs into the society, forcing others to live by their superstition.

Hail George Carlin

2006-03-31T13:11:00.000-05:00

Can't paraphrase the whole thing, but I heard on my Sirius radio the other day the bit about religion being the biggest bullshit story of all time. Something like . . .

**
They have everyone convinced there's a little man up in the sky who watches everything, sees everything, has ten special rules for how to act, and if you break any of them, has a place for you full of fire and torture where you'll be in torment forever, . . . .

. . . and always needs money. All powerful, but can't handle money.
**

Carlin may be the greatest mind of our time.

Gotta Love Jon Stewart

2006-03-29T12:19:00.000-05:00

Discussing the promotion of Josh Bolton , the man he says is in charge of our nine trillion dollar debt, Stewart said on the Daily Show, (this is a close paraphrase), I think if you walked into a Cabinet meeting and started throwing your feces against the wall, Bush would name a state after you.

Ok, perhaps a bit partisan, but less so than the corporate Right Wing media, and hilarious to boot.

Media Observations

2006-03-25T10:24:00.000-05:00

I used to worry about politics. I have stopped paying as much attention there, as a far clearer indication that all that was great in America is in heart-gripping danger. That the media is clearly run by corporate agenda and cowed by the government isn't the most disheartening thing. What is? That so many people accept what is spewed at them. Of course, I am never too proud of my own acknowledgement that most people are idiots, especially when, in so many cases, this is a result of a calculated campaign on the part of the Right to ruin education over the past fifty years. But the truth is so obvious that sometimes I can't help but feel that even the low-functioning should understand. C'mon, who can't see that claims of 'Fair and Balanced' aren't ridiculous.

And now we have two further indicators: the media, instead of reporting on all the grim realities of Iraq, combined with any good that has gotten done, and giving the full picture, is reporting on Bush's claims that the media is against the war, and chastising itself. I can't believe this. I almost never hear on mainstream news how many service personnel have been permanently disfigured, how many are there, how many are there beyond their original term of service, nor do we get accurate numbers of Iraqis hurt or killed. We hear each day how many bombs exploded, or how many service personnel are killed. That's not coverage. And yet Bush distracts with claims that the media "is being mean to him."

And the other item. Some media outlets still give credence, even if only covering the complaints, to this silly notion that Christianity is under attack. All because some of us have the temerity to assert that Christians shouldn't get to legislate their beliefs onto the rest of us. And the media fails to point out the lunacy.

We deserve what's coming. Well, I don't, but most Americans do. As Ron White says, "You can't fix stupid." And stupid gets punished naturally, no action required.

What, scholarship?

2006-03-05T22:50:00.000-05:00

Northstate Science makes a nice point. Reason and scholarship matter to the Right and the Religious only when it favors their side. Otherwise . . .

superstitious laws

2006-02-26T10:45:00.000-05:00

Recently, in a discussion forum I take part in, a poster asked some interesting questions: to paraphrase s/he asked
-Shouldn’t laws be focused more on morals, and issues of right and wrong?
-Will God’s law be overtaken by man’s law?

To which I responded thusly, and couldn’t resist reposting here, as all this time spent writing shouldn’t be wasted
.………………………
Some thoughts, just to speak on the less considered side of things: ignore them if you will.

Who says laws aren't based on morals, and right and wrong? Morals are based on scriptures, and reason dictates that scriptures be disregarded. Right and wrong are very subjective things, but laws are based on them. Or at least they should be, and the constitution set out to do so. But the intention of the founding fathers to make reason more important than religion is gradually being eroded, especially since much of our legal system came from the British system, in which aristocratic privilege, justified by their "god," provides many of the basic principles.

Which god's law are you proposing should be the basis for human law? Muslims believe in the same god as christians; which version should inform law? Anyone want to wear a burhka? If someone else comes along and claims that a god, whose existence they can't prove and is highly unlikely based on all available evidence, states that his laws are better than your god's, and contradict yours, why are yours better?

Why is a legal system based on superstition better than one based on reason? I know, some will be offended by the reference to religion as superstition. What is the functional difference?

Wouldn't someone have to prove their god exists before making someone obey the laws in some old book supposedly written/inspired by him/her? As I said, I thought some devil's advocacy would be fun here. Challenging the principles behind our ideas is where critical thinking comes from.

mycroftdavis

Will Stewart be arrested?

2006-02-19T21:30:00.000-05:00

Tony Stewart said last week that racing at Daytona was so dangerous someone was likely to be killed. Today on national television he admitted to intentionally wrecking Matt Kenseth.

If that's not attempted murder, it's at least assault with a deadly weapon. He should face charges.

And no, I'm not a Matt Kenseth fan; I'm a safe racing fan.

metaphors

2006-02-18T21:22:00.000-05:00

From a newspaper article: Is is about Cheney, or Iraq? : )
"Know your surroundings before you pull the tigger. Particularly identify the game that you are shooting and particularly identify your surroundings, that it's safe to shoot."

What a significant metaphor! Where was this guy before we started the war?

wow

2006-02-08T20:45:00.000-05:00

Has it really been that long since I posted? Well, yes it has. Life has taken over (not to mention a new positoin with some different responsibilities). But things haven't changed at the core. Still dislike Bush, still loving all the trouble his party is in, still a proud liberal, still willing to vote for Hillary, though not sure if she's our best choice, still rational, still believe that religion is a dangerous and destructive force, still hate Austin Powers movies . . .

I know, you're not real, no one can possibly be reading this at this point (except the government, I suppose, but I'm not in a gulag yet,) but I'll come back soon and post.

What observation do I have about the world today? We should be able to control our jail populations, we are the reason Hamas won, and we should stop giving a fuck what Britney Spears does (but is anyone really surprised she's too stupid or too 'entitled' to buckle her kid in?)

SNL oddities

2006-01-15T00:15:00.000-05:00

Ok, did anyone else see the Saturday Evening Funhouse Commercial from tonight's Scarlet Johanson Show? It was about Darwin, and as someone interested in the current ID silliness, I sat up and paid attention. And I have absolutely no idea what was supposed to be the point of that cartoon, why it was supposed to be funny, or why it was broadcast. Can anyone shed any light?

Ok, I lied, Fascism deserves comment

2006-01-07T10:14:00.000-05:00

I said I had little to say, but Shakespeare's Sister poster Paul the Spud pointed me to this post on Orcinus, which abundantly demonstrates the potential evil of our current course and leadership. But It's not just Bush's flaws, it's the national paranoaia that allows people to think invasions of privacy and restriction of civil rights are acceptable.

Then again, most people are only slightly more intelligent than your average chimp, and only about 5% of those who are actually have the ability and inclination for critical thinking, so hope is pretty much lost already.

(sigh)

Still here, but barely

2006-01-07T09:55:00.000-05:00

I can't stand not having anything new on my blog, but have a small problem. Nothing else needs to be said about our incompetent and corrupt administration, or their Congressional cronies who've been playing Delay and Abramoff's game, and I don't have much time anyway.

So yes, Rational Blues still exists, I still hope to post when I can, but I can't promise regular contributions. Surely even occasional readers have stopped checking here, but if anyone does, hey, check back once in a while, maybe you'll find something amusing.

mycroftdavis

Republicans hate America

2005-12-16T22:07:00.000-05:00

What, you think that needs explanation or defense? Silly rabbit, haven't you been paying attention?

Fascism in Action

2005-12-16T21:07:00.000-05:00

This was emailed to me, can't cite an original source, am sure it's easy to authenticate. Be afraid, be very very afraid. History will undoubtedly demonstrate how evil these monsters are, but it'll likely be too late.

Dec 16, 1:07 PM EST
Report of NSA Spying Prompts Call for Probe
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter put the Bush administration on notice Friday that his panel would hold hearings into a report that the National Security Agency eavesdropped without warrants on people inside the United States.
"There is no doubt that this is inappropriate," said Specter, R-Pa., calling hearings early next year "a very, very high priority." He wasn't alone in reacting harshly to the report. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said the story, first reported in Friday's New York Times, was troubling.
Neither Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice nor White House press secretary Scott McClellan would confirm or deny the report which said the super-secret NSA had spied on as many as 500 people at any given time since 2002 in this country.
That year, following the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush authorized the NSA to monitor the international phone calls and international e-mails of hundreds - perhaps thousands - of people inside the United States, the Times reported
McClellan said the White House has received no requests for information from lawmakers because of the report. "Congress does have an important oversight role," he said.
Before the program began, the NSA typically limited its domestic surveillance to foreign embassies and missions and obtained court orders for such investigations. Overseas, 5,000 to 7,000 people suspected of terrorist ties are monitored at one time.
"This is Big Brother run amok," declared Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass. Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., called it a "shocking revelation" that "ought to send a chill down the spine of every senator and every American."
Administration officials reacted to the report by asserting that the president has respected the Constitution while striving to protect the American people.
Rice said Bush has "acted lawfully in every step that he has taken." And McClellan said Bush "is going to remain fully committed to upholding our Constitution and protect the civil liberties of the American people. And he has done both."
The report surfaced as the administration and its GOP allies on Capitol Hill were fighting to save provisions of the expiring USA Patriot Act that they believe are key tools in the fight against terrorism. An attempt to rescue the approach favored by the White House and Republicans failed on a procedural vote Friday morning.
The Times said reporters interviewed nearly a dozen current and former administration officials about the program and granted them anonymity because of the classified nature of the program.
Government officials credited the new program with uncovering several terrorist plots, including one by Iyman Faris, an Ohio trucker who pleaded guilty in 2003 to supporting al-Qaida by planning to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge, the report said.
Some NSA officials were so concerned about the legality of the program that they refused to participate, the Times said. Questions about the legality of the program led the administration to temporarily suspend it last year and impose new restrictions.
Asked about this on NBC's "Today" show, Rice said, "I'm not going to comment on intelligence matters."
"I can only comment to say that the president has been very clear that he has not ordered people to do things that are illegal," she added.
Caroline Fredrickson, director of the Washington legislative office of the American Civil Liberties Union, said the group's initial reaction to the NSA disclosure was "shock that the administration has gone so far in violating American civil liberties to the extent where it seems to be a violation of federal law."
Earlier this week, the Pentagon said it was reviewing its use of a classified database of information about suspicious people and activity inside the United States after a report by NBC News said the database listed activities of anti-war groups that were not a security threat to Pentagon property or personnel.
The administration had briefed congressional leaders about the NSA program and notified the judge in charge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the secret Washington court that handles national security issues.
Aides to National Intelligence Director John Negroponte and West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, declined to comment Thursday night.
The Times said it delayed publication of the report for a year because the White House said it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny. The Times said it omitted information from the story that administration officials argued could be useful to terrorists.

Fascism in Action

2005-11-07T22:37:00.000-05:00

The headline reads, I shit you not, "Liberal church may lose funds over sermon." You've got to read this to believe it.

"LOS ANGELES (AP) -- The Internal Revenue Service has warned a prominent liberal church that it could lose it's tax-exempt status because of an anti-war sermon a guest preacher gave on the eve of the 2004 presidential election, according to church officials."

If this isn't a fascist goveernment using its power to suppress opposition, I don't know what is. We all know that tremendous political power, influence, and pulpit pounding on the part of politically active churches helped defeat Kerry last year. Can we assume that the IRS is about to remove the tax exempt status of the Catholic church and the Baptist Convention?

The Right is spitting on America. They hate true American principles. They are subverting real American values. Wake up people.

Rupert Murdoch doesn't own the Toronto Star

2005-11-04T19:48:00.000-05:00

One of their online headlines today: "Allow Torture, Cheney urges Senators."

"U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney made an unusual personal appeal to Republican senators this week to allow CIA exemptions to a proposed ban on the torture of terror suspects in U.S. custody. He said the administration needed an exemption from any legislation banning "cruel, inhuman or degrading" treatment."

At least people outside our borders have more sense than the half of US citizens currently deluded or addled by their clergy and the tax-whining, rights-disdaining, fatuous, nationalistic, arrogant, racist conservative movement.

Notice he didn't ask the Democrats. Most of them are too principled to entertain such notions. Of course I have to say most, when Demon-crats like Zell Miller exist.

I am personally and individually disgusted with every American who supports these evil people.

Unorthodox hattip to Weenus, though she hasn't posted about it.

Unbelievable

2005-11-03T12:16:00.000-05:00

Let's get these torturing unAmerican traitorous bastards out of power.

Republican flip flop again

2005-10-30T17:11:00.000-05:00

Funny how the Right changes its mind (I know, debatable term) whenever the wind blows the stench of their dishonesty back in their faces. For years they lost their minds over Clinton and the possibility that he perjured himself, and certainly didn't want to hear about how the original charges that led to the discovery of Monica were entirely baseless.

Now, they want to ignore the corruption in the White House by saying that perjury doesn't matter, that it really doesn't matter because the original crime wasn't indicted (yet).

Here's a reminder about their old attitudes about perjury, before the wind changed.

Thanks, Solo Dialogue.

Lott makes Republican history

2005-10-28T14:46:00.000-04:00

Apparently the Republicans have completely reversed their position.

Yes, I know they now have decided that pointing out possible criminal activity on the part of government officials is dirty politics, even though they spent the whole 90’s doing so. Perhaps they feel it’s ok when they evidence is largely imaginary, as Whitewater and the Vince Foster case were. But if the evidence has substance, if the crime is more significant than trying to hide sexual indiscretions, if it actually causes a grand jury to consider or issue indictments (which never happened under Clinton), that’s clearly just an attempt to smear a powerful opponent.

And they now think that massive deficit spending is ok, even though they labeled it evil when a Democratic Congress was part of it. Though they used to exclaim that profligate spending Democrats were horrors, since 1980, the Republicans under Reagan, Bush, and Shrub have driven spending that has run up a debt so staggering that no other actual number in the history of the nation has looked quite so big. So now it’s not a danger to our nation, it’s a necessary strategy, regardless of what they once spouted.

Yes, they once claimed that Clinton was unnecessarily meddling in world affairs, and wasting our time and resources by being the world’s police force in places like Bosnia. Look for example at anything Hannity or Limbaugh said about those campaigns. Now of course, the story is a different one, and we suddenly are sacrificing 2000 service persons, and many more from outside our borders, to ‘spread Democracy’ and assure people aren’t oppressed. Bad idea before, great idea now.

Ok, so the Republicans are the biggest flip-floppers since . . . well, ok, nothing compares. They are huge, unimaginably disingenuous, two-faced lying liars with no measuring stick for comparison. Alright, maybe the Rush / Coulter / O’Reilly comparison would work, but they are pretty much the media mouthpieces of the group, so they’re more like examples, not items for comparison.

So they’ve reversed their position whenever it’s convenient. But this, this is too shocking. Trent Lott has declared that minorities are on the same level with regular “men and women.” He thinks Bush should nominate any man, woman or minority to replace O’Connor. At least this latest Republican flip flop finally rights a horrid injustice, the previous Republican position that minorities were not really the same as other “men and women.”

Thanks, Trent, for this flip flop.

Can they have balls that big?

2005-10-22T19:17:00.000-04:00

So FOX (not )News is apparantly claiming that to indict criminals is wrong as long as they are connected to the Republican machine. Seems that to attempt to subvert the political system to impeach a President they didn't like over sex ,when they couldn't invent evidence to convict him on a land deal, wasn't criminalization of politics, but possibly indicting someone for outing a covert agent in time of war is.

Ok. Fair and Balanced gets more laughable all the time.

Are you paying attention?

2005-10-21T22:46:00.000-04:00

If so, you already know this. But probably you arne't, and you don't. So enlighten yourself.

We are . . . boom boom . . . Sad-dam . . . boom boom

2005-10-21T22:40:00.000-04:00

Chant with me now . . . . Instead of Saddam depriving Iraqis of basic support services, we are now doing his dirty work for him. No wonder they love us so much in the Third World we've so thoroughly screwed again and again.

Hattip Expostulation.

Shut up, tax whiners

2005-10-18T23:57:00.000-04:00

Tax increases are good for the economy, bad for millionaires yacht collections.

When will people learn? Ah, shit, I forgot, the vast majority of them never will. Ignorant monkeys.

Thanks, Badtux.

Stole it

2005-10-12T19:31:00.000-04:00

I stole this from someone who admitted they stole it, so no hattip. I'm not sure if this is adapted from Jed Bartlett's speech to the "Dr. Laura" facsimile on West Wing, or if Aaron Sorkin stole it as well, but it does twist the knife a bit on dumbass religiosos.

Dear President Bush,
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from you and understand why you would propose a constitutional amendment ban same sex marriage. As you said "in the eyes of God marriage is based between a man a woman." I try to share your knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual relationships, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is with my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I call up the police and ask them to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev.21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? [Lev.24:10-16]. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? [Lev.20:14] I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Fuckin' wackos.

Exploding . . . head . . . must . . . post . . .

2005-10-09T22:11:00.000-04:00

I know of a college intro education class . . . don't ask how . . . in which an instructor asked a class, to paraphrase . . . What theories of evolution should be taught? Should we tell students about missing parts of Darwin's theory? Do we teach a scientific or religious standpoint?

Ok , declare the education system totally fucked, as of this moment. This is a college education instructor, starting from flawed premises to prompt the religious people in her class to come out and say, "sure, students should hear both sides."

A: There is only one theory of evolution, and despite misunderstanding of the term theory, it is a fact. No evidence exists which controverts the basic tenets of the theory. Non-scientists can claim it isn't true, but until they present evidence accepted in peer-reviewed journals, they may as well be claiming that Japan won World War Two. Ergo, their claims have no standing in a science class, or any curriculum of learning. No 'missing parts' exist in the foundation of the theory; any claims about unexplained phenomena or gaps in the fossil record do not invalidate the theory. I direct dissent to the experts; read the evolutionary biologists, start with Steven Jay Gould.

B: It's no longer Darwin's theory, any more than modern Physics is Newton's. To refer to it that way indicates ignorance about the facts of the theory, and about science in general.

C: If we are referring to a science class, how can the question be seriously asked if we should teach science or religion? Is it a religion class? If not, let's teach science, the science that actually provides evidence.

Making students aware that there are two sides to the issue is crap. Unless of course these fledgling teachers are telling them that one side has no evidence, and is based on two thousand year old superstitions, while the other side is backed by exhaustive research and scientific verification. And that thus, the non-evolution side has no claim for serious, scholarly consideration.

Too many idiots will reject what I've said above, and decide their opinion about whether evolution is proven is better than mine. Theirs will be based on very little, mine is based on study of the subject and reading of several of the leading scientists. If they quote any scientists, they will be scientists unacknowledged for findings in the field, who have been throughly de-bunked by true experts in the field. Will they care?

What, make decisions based on facts? How un-American!! It's all down the tubes, give it up and flush hopes for American progress folks, it's over. The Republic has fallen, the barbarians aren't even at the gates, they're running the asylum.

Boom!

Time to be Blunt

2005-10-08T11:59:00.000-04:00

To start, a disclaimer: I took time when I should have been working to write this. It is a draft that won’t get the second, third, fourth, and fifth looks I usually give writing that I take seriously. If that results in flaws in unity, or coherence, (I hope I can construct sentences without revision), then I’ll accept that. I’m posting and going back to work. Enjoy . . .

I have long maintained that religion was deleterious to human society, and in the long term, to human species survival. My basic reasoning is as follows: to accept most religions requires a rejection of reason, sometimes conscious, and unfortunately, often socialized in childhood. Progress, learning, and improvements made in social conditions, in ethical treatment of others, spring from the intellectual side of life, and the understanding of the world provided by all the accumulated science humans have developed since the Renaissance.

Religion likes to see itself as a moral force for good. And those who purvey that stance portray themselves that way as if they have entirely forgotten the history of their ‘clique,’ as if any horrors perpetrated by their ideological ancestors were aberrations, were activities unrepresentative of their true creed. Christians have spent the last several centuries brutally and violently subjugating peoples across the world who they designated as “savages” simply because they weren’t Christian. In many of those cases, instead of winning converts due to the righteousness of their position, they used force to eliminate the old cultural ways and to convert the followers of “pagan” religions. Examples abound: the wholesale genocide of Carib natives who refused to accept Catholicism, the normal schools that culturally brutalized Native Americans, the destruction of the Popul Vuh in central America, the forced conversions of Africans and Indians.

And I don’t wish to pick on Christians alone. Religious clashes throughout the world are about forcing the other guys to believe the ‘right’ thing, or killing them if they won’t ‘see reason.’ Muslims, though in many ways less violent and more civilized than Christians, have long had a practice of hating “the infidel,” which their extremists have seen as justification for Jihad. Ancient India saw horrifically violent struggles having at their root the desires and demands of the various gods of the Hindus. Religion by definition is about deciding who the god(s) approve of and who they don’t, leading of course to a feeling of superiority on the part of those who designate themselves as ‘blessed.”

All this horror, of course, was required to bring the life of goodness and right to the peoples thus forced to see the ‘light,’ or so the devout would argue. So presumably, some benefit should accrue to those who accept these ideas as true, at face value, without proof that they work, or evidence that the entity who demands the practices exists, etc. What is that benefit? If accepting the (unsupported, unverified) claims of a religion make life better, why has there been so much death and villainy in the name of religion? One response holds that those crimes are the responsibility of individuals in that faith, who weren’t acting in the true spirit of that faith. Yet the trend is not towards goodness and piety, but evil and destruction in the overarching trend.

Europe has been Christian for nearly two thousand years, and it’s history is a long litany of bloody clashes, wars, murders and crusades. Dante was forced as a Catholic to condemn several Popes to his Inferno, and Catholic historians will not dispute the evil acts of some Popes. The Inquisition was great fun for its victims. Henry the Eighth, who beheaded one wife, became the spiritual leader of England in order to make it acceptable for him to get rid of wives he didn’t wish to keep. We could also spend some time on the religious accomplishments typified by the likes of Jim Jones, David Koresh, Osama bin Laden, Adolph Hitler, and Eric Rudolph. And lets not forget the wonderful minister who leads the flock at “God Hates Fags,” a truly caring and giving ministry that sees loving sinners in a slightly different way than their iconic figure, Jesus, was said to have done.

Much good is done in the name of religion. I don’t discount that. That good is not done for valid reasons, but to curry favor with a deity who punishes with eternal torture, or at least eternal nothingness, those who don’t play along. Despite that, I must indict the practice as a whole.

If the species is to survive, it needs to continue to develop the progress it has made in the past five hundred years of learning. All real understanding began when religion was made separate from learning and scholarship, when the church was kept from squashing new discoveries and true scientific investigation. The Dark Ages were the Dark Ages because the church strangled true learning. Luckily, Islam wasn’t so averse to scholarship and learning, and so Europe was able to relearn all the science and math of the Greeks it had spurned once the power of the church wasn’t sufficient to stop all inquiry, and Muslim and Jewish scholars were able to bring that knowledge back into Christian realms.

The bottom line is, a fundamental principle of religion is accepting nonsensical claims without proof. This is no way to run a society. We raise our children by helping them understand why they must follow certain rules. We justify arguments for policies and laws by providing evidence that they will help. All reasonable discourse in society is based on reasoned argument. Yet a great deal of discourse is based on the silly principles of religions indicating to people what is “right,” or what “should be.” Religion has at various, and in some cases, current, times argued that men are permitted to beat their wives, that the world is flat and covered over by a dome of diamonds, that blacks are inferior, that slavery is an acceptable practice, that marrying twelve year old girls is acceptable, that beating and torturing gays is God’s work. So clearly, deciding any question from a religious point of view is suspect.

But the religious don’t wish to acknowledge that accepting claims without evidence is a fundamental denial, an abdication, of responsible behavior. Yet they at the same time wish to push their principles into law, and let their ideas about mythical ghosts inside people decide questions like abortion and euthanasia. They want to howl about religious freedom, then have a government institution use its power and prestige to endorse the existence of some unseen and unproven entity invented thousands of years ago by ignorant farmers. And now they want to discard mountains of evidence and one hundred years of scholarship that demonstrates the fact of evolution in order to have their irrational beliefs taught in schools. What’s their biggest piece of evidence against evolution? Usually they claim that the evidence doesn’t back it up. They don’t bother knowing enough about that evidence to notice that the evidence actually does thoroughly support the theory. And because their entire worldview is based on accepting things without proof, they don’t seem to notice the nonsense hypocrisy of criticizing the evidence for a proven, scientific theory when the alternative they offer as making more sense offers no evidence at all.

All this was touched off by this inspiring article I have been directed to recently. I am ashamed to say I cannot identify who deserves the hattip, so I will name all three from who I may have discovered this, Orac at Respectful Insolence, PZ Myers at Pharyngula, and Brent Rasmussen at Unscrewing the Inscrutable. I’m sure I found it in one of those places.

What does the article say? You can go read it, but the upshot is, religion and widespread belief in it has a deleterious effect on society. I know, that’s what I’ve been saying all along; if you’ve got a bunch of folks brainwashed into thinking that beliefs require no evidence, there’s no predicting what sorts of silliness they’ll get up to. At least now we have a study to prove it, and I‘m a little bit less of a lone voice in the wilderness.

There’s also this link to consider, a call to arms to stand up and resist stupidity and unreasoned thinking being allowed to have any influence on society or public policy. I don’t want to be polite to religious folk an longer. Their creed is silly, their beliefs are nonsense, and stating that fact should not earn me glares. To say that religion is nonsense and bad for society is no less truthful that to say that evolution is supported by evidence, or that the US won World War Two, or that Nixon was forced to resign. These aren’t questions of agreeing to allow everyone their beliefs. Some beliefs are stupid, and it’s time to say so.

Another conservative sound bite

2005-09-29T23:43:00.000-04:00

Bill Bennett is a hateful, fascist moron. If you don't know my reference, take a quick look through my blogroll; the fine folks at Irregular Times, or Archy, or Orsinus will probably fill you in. Shakespeares Sister probably reams him too, but I haven't been there yet.

Battling ID nonsense

2005-09-29T14:08:00.000-04:00

I can't resist posting anything I find that helps demonstrate the flaws in the logic used by creationists and ID supporters (I know, they're the same thing, even if they themselves deny it.)

This comes from Ronald Brak, with a Hattip for Living the Scientific Life, by way of P.Z. Myers.

Excerpt:
"Supporters of Intelligent Design often say that the probability of complex life coming about by random chance are almost impossible. They are right. But complex life didn't come about by random chance, it came about by natural selection, but in their arguments many ID supporters continually speak and write as if natural selection doesn't exist. They don't seem to understand the rules of the game. . . "

Jocularity

2005-09-22T22:47:00.000-04:00

I know, I should write my own stuff, but I don't have time right now. And in this case, Badtux did a much better job than I could have. Kudos, you nailed 'em.

Guide to exposing creationist nonsense

2005-09-22T10:37:00.000-04:00

Here's a great link for those of us tempted to debate the irrational among us. Hattip to Respectful Insolence. Thanks, Orac.

Nothing to Say

2005-09-22T10:16:00.000-04:00

In addition to being a great Jethro Tull song, it is also my state of mind. Not only am I in the crush time with work, but I have become disgusted with too much. The price gouging on gas appears poised to happen again, the either racist/classist or incompetent response to New Orleans, and the ridiculous debate over ID have all got me thinking that the bacterial infection that is the human race probably should drown in its own wastes, as is already under way.

It appears I do have something to say. I need to vent. I encountered two cases of religious nuttery lately, each of their own sort. One was a group of people discussing how religion, (they meant Christianity, as such folk always do), is under attack because those of us who aren't Christians dislike having the government preach religion through schools and the Pledge. "Apparently, 'under God' is offensive to some people," one stated. Yes, it is offensive to me to have my choldren exposed to ludicrous superstition, thoroughly debunked by science, and to have it done in a supposed insitution of learning. And they trotted out the "this country was founded on religious freedom," and as usual, tried to somehow twist 'freedom' into having their religion favored in schools and courts. Folks, no one wants to make you keep quiet about your religion, silly as it is. We just don't want government endorsing it.

The other incident involved a Jehovah's Witness who stated, in a public forum over which I am a sort of moderator, that evolution was a conglomeration of conflicting theories with no actual scientific or logical credibility. I managed to keep my head, but had to be blunt in stating the falsehood of such assertions. She politely agreed to disagree, apparently not wishing to address the libraries full of data supporting evolution which I had cited.

I'll say it again, the human ability to belief stupid things in the face of logical evidence is proof that we are nothing more than animals, with no higher calling to intellect.

Another Perspective

2005-09-09T12:02:00.000-04:00

And this comes to us through the good graces of archy. Has anyone imagined how Howard Dean would respond to this crisis?

Thanks also to Miss Alli at This is not Over, the author.

And this . . .

2005-09-09T11:57:00.000-04:00

says more things. Thanks Badtux.

Says it all . . .

2005-09-09T11:49:00.000-04:00

"The mistakes that were made in the runup to both events were in fact a direct outgrowth of policies that benefited Bush's cronies and his political allies. Counterterrorism -- derided in the early Bush administration as a "Clinton thing" -- was deemphasized in favor of the greatest defense-spending black hole ever devised, "missile defense." Preparing for a federal emergency in the event of a real disaster -- whether a terrorist attack or a hurricane in New Orleans -- was forsaken on behalf of pursuing a needless war in Iraq. The outcomes of both have been nothing but a huge bonanza for Bush's cronies."

Read the rest at Orsinus.

Why Wasn't Bush Prepared?

2005-09-01T22:20:00.000-04:00

Need I say more? I knew a huge hurricane was coming. The weather channel knew it. CNN seemed to be aware. Did someone forget to tell the Bush administration they should be preparing disaster relief? Did they not realize that big winds mean hungry, hurt, and homeless people? Why were they flopping about a day and a half later, while yapping about “hoping people didn’t use this to make political hay.” I am so fucking sick of them playing the sympathy card, and the terror card, then asserting that no one else is allowed to speak about such issues, especially when such speech would make them look bad. And ignorant American assholes across the country fall for it.

So much of this could have been avoided. Where has George Bush led us? The oil companies failed to build hurricane-proof facilities in hurricane country, but made billions in profits. We’re paying three or four or five dollars a gallon for gas we got for a buck when Democrats held the White House. We’re being asked to collect dollars and dimes to help these people, when five percent of Americans have ninety percent of the money. Let them give Eighty five percent of that to fix New Orleans. Don’t get me wrong, I sympathize with the victims. But we all got screwed here, and those asleep at the wheel, those who are negligent to be held accountable.

Why wasn’t food and supplies on the way the day before Katrina hit? Why wasn’t evacuation begun earlier, with federal support? Perhaps because they like apocalypse? Their twisted world view about their angry deity making the world suffer for its sins is insane, but if things look bad, other insane people thinking the same way continue to support these power-hungry, greedy megalomaniacs.

You know, most of the rich people didn’t really notice the Depression last time. They still had country clubs, still had mansions, still had expensive toys. Will they notice now?

the reason for our existence

2005-08-30T20:54:00.000-04:00

I recently responded to a forum post from an acquaintance who wrote that she was “searching for the reason for her existence” by saying that I knew the answer to that question, but that most people didn’t like my answer. The following dialogue ensued. I’ll attempt to italicize her side of the exchange for clarity.

Most don't like my answer either. I keep it to myself, but once asked, stand back and don't be offended. I will take no offense in your answer, I have asked for it.

Let me say this first. “Kathy” (names changed) has asked the question, I’ve offered to answer it my way, and in my opinion, the only way. Anyone easily offended by philosophical discussions that might not agree with their own philosophy, religious ideas, or world-view should probably avoid reading further.

I wasn't ducking the question, just trying to amuse and build suspense; I may not have succeeded. In a very direct sense, the reason for your, and my, and every animal’s existence is the fact that two others committed the procreative act, causing yet another animal to exist. The literal answer generally fails to satisfy, though, and so we seek more philosophical answers. I bring it up to illustrate that to answer this question, one must begin with verifiable facts, with truth, with evidence. And literally, two animals humping is the most direct answer. Beyond literal answers, science, especially biology and the study of the evolution of all species on earth, along with history, anthropology, and psychology, when considered as an amalgam of concepts, leads to the inevitable conclusion that there is no reason for human existence. We are a random happening, a highly unlikely, unreasonable, complex, and incredibly fragile end result of an unpredictable and entropic process that can be observed everywhere in our biosphere.

Thus to quote a favorite band of mine, "Nothing is the reason we are here, oh, nothing at all" (Big Head Todd and the Monsters, "Circle"). While some become unnerved by this concept, I see it as a liberation, in that creatures who, astoundingly, became intelligent through the vagaries of evolution are free to use that intellect to decide and determine their own meaning, to direct the significance of their existence, to determine for themselves, using that intellect and physiological reactions, which ideas and actions are good, and which are bad. No external direction is required.

In deciding to answer your question, I have taken the risk of offending some people by stating facts that contradict more popular and less logical explanations of human existence. I am often annoyed by those who press their own answers to that question upon me, through pontification, or through legislation, or by pressuring my children to participate in superstition in school. So I suppose I shouldn’t have announced my own answer, but in the face of those sorts of pressures, making it known that answers other than the usual one exist feels important.

I also took that risk because my answer echoes some of the important issues of this class. Examining a problem with logic, looking for evidence, using that evidence to develop a coherent response, understanding the many complexities of the issue: these are the tools of effective writing and communication. They are also the tools I contend are crucial for answering the question you posed.

The short answer? Our existence has no inherent meaning, and therefore self-determining, responsible homo sapiens must create meaning with their choices. That’s the answer to your question. I won’t be bothered at all if you decide not to discuss it further. But if you'd like, I'm curious what answer you've settled on, at least tentatively.
mycroftdavis

Because I have truely pissed off a lot of people, I prefer to keep the conversation private. Should anyone ever ask me to my face though, I would no hesitate to tell them... ask and you shall receive (believe I heard that somewhere before). :-)

I am bothered that stating facts and drawing logical conclusions can or should lead superstitious people to be angered. Why should they have any right to be angered? I have freedom of speech, I have logic and evidence; they have a very old book full of preposterous theories and claims written by unknown authors. I’m the one who should be angry when they insist they know more about the world than I. And worse, they are angered when someone suggests that those odd beliefs aren’t obvious and un-challengeable. In some forums I have to be reasonable, but in general, I am reasonably up front about the fact the religion is actually superstition, and a rather silly thing to believe in. Anyone ignoring facts in its favor does not deserve my intellectual respect. That attitude is tempered by the fact that the vast majority of people in America suffered child abuse of a very unique and insidious sort in their upbringing. That child abuse, in which the care-givers they adored programmed their world-view in defiance of logic, powerfully prejudices them to accept nonsense theories and therefore, they never get an opportunity to actually consider the two options, superstition and science, with a truly open and objective mind.

I have come to a similar opinion in the past and do come back to it from time to time in frustration because I want more. So do you have any thoughts for why wanting more is built into us?

Psychology and anthropology answer that for us. Look at any creature with any modicum of intelligence, especially primates. They are all inquisitive, and the most intelligent, the most inquisitive. Certainly humans have always been looking for explanations of the how and why. Without science, without reason, they generally resorted to making up stories that seemed to fit the circumstance, which is why so many religions made up similar stories to cover similar situations. These coincidences of religions are evidence of their manufacture.

That same inquisitiveness makes a rational understanding of the universe uncomfortable. Some answers are unknown, currently unknowable, and perhaps always unknowable. This annoys inquisitive animals who understand their world by figuring out through trial and error how to respond to stimuli. However, intellect must allow us to accept the fact that some things are unknowable. Since I will never know exactly how my DVD player works, or where my socks go after they disappear, I am okay with not knowing what things looked like before the big bang.

My simplified thoughts of life have included:
Our reality is a thought, powerful enough to also create. (I am god)
Science will discover the process we commonly call god. (The more we look, the more we find. If we did not look, it was never there.)
God created an amusement park, temporarily forgot being omnipotent, and enjoyed the experience. (We are in the amusement park)
There is something greater than myself because I do not remember creating myself. (Part of wanting more)

All of these are interesting philosophies, but that which is un-provable I want no part of, as it is all speculation. I myself cannot conceive, having learned science, that there is any need to posit the possibility of a god. The concept is so omnipresent in our society that people take at least the possibility of a creator or a more powerful being as a given; that’s a holdover from more primitive times. What we’ve learned since the Renaissance, and especially since modern biology’s development, should have caused us all to toss old superstitions and deal with the facts as we know them. Our nature as socially oriented creatures has prevented that, but such is not logical; it’s a consequence of the fact that we evolved in a chaotic, unreasonable, unplanned way.

My most favorite books in my search have been:Unknown Man by Yatri , The Mind of the Cells by Satprem, The Holographic Universe by Talbot, Taking the Quantum Leap by Wolf, God and the New Physics by DaviesIn Search of Schrodinger's Cat by Gribbin, In Search of Schrodinger's Kittens by Gribbin (still working on this one)I enjoy science fiction that allows me to creatively consider other points of view of reality. I will add your book Stranger in a Strange Land to my list of reading.

Would you say your conclusion was based on reading, self-reflection, or a combination of them both? How long have you had this opinion? Do you feel you will ever sway from it?

Let me also add Ishmael, by Daniel Quinn, to your reading list, if you’re interested. It’s an “outsider’s” view of how humans have been both conned and condemned by religion. Very enlightening on the history of christianity as well.

I’ve been encouraged all my life to figure out the answers for things by analysis, though of course my parents guided as well. In about 5th or 6th grade, I realized what I was hearing at Sunday school completely contradicted what I was learning in school, and further realized that only one explanation for the origin of the universe sounded sensible, while one sounded like a comic book fantasy. It was easy to decide from there which to give credence to. I was also reading science fiction at the time, especially Robert Heinlein, who often demonstrates and comments on the illogic and destructive nature of religion.

From there, higher education and my own reading have only confirmed my understanding. I have gone so far as to call on god to strike me down in the presence of christians, to demonstrate how little I fear their conception of punishment. They are often dumbfounded to find that not only do I not fear an afterlife, but that I raise my children to know that religion is an invention of humans who require a crutch to support them in an uncertain universe. As for changing my mind, there’s no chance. I am confident I live a more virtuous life than most christians, and would have contempt for any god who would condemn me. Luckily, that outcome is so unlikely as to be beneath consideration.

Further, I am a rationalist, and consider no explanations that fail to support their claims with evidence. My principles are well supported by the combined knowledge of homo sapiens, and really can’t be argued, except for minor matters of clarification that as you say, we will learn more about as we go.
mycroftdavis

Oil and Water

2005-08-29T23:27:00.000-04:00

I have to take this opportunity to just spit this out, as I don't have time to ponder and revise my thoughts, and the time is now. Obviously, anyone with a heart, (and we know who that excludes) feels for the victims of the hurricane in the south. Sure, some will say, go where the hurricanes ain't, but most of those folks have little to no opportunity to follow through on that, so I'll set that aside. These peoples' homes and livelihoods have been disrupted.

I feel no such sympathy for the oil companies who now will spend time and money bemoaning their lost infrastruture, and gouging the American consumer to such extent that I imagine their profits will see little if any effect from this catastrophe. What they won't spend time explaining is why their refineries and facilities, which they'll describe as crucial national resources in justifying price-jacking to replace them, weren't built to withstand hurricanes. After all, they never have those down in the Gulf of Mexico.

Why were they there to begin with? Such precious commodities should be kept in the interior, yes? But of course, that would involve more transport costs, and that would reduce profits. So the government they want to leave them alone most of the time will probably now give them a multi-billion dollar gift, like the airlines got a few years ago, (as if 9/11 was going to significantly reduce air travel,) and the price gouging will go on, even though they get government bailouts, and the profits will continue, and people will go hungry and cold because they can't afford fuel oil.

And no one will question why profits were more important than building refineries that could stand up to hurricanes in hurricane country. Or almost no one. In fact, they'll almost certainly use this as an opportunity to advocate drilling in the Alaskan reserve again. But do you think the government would see the profits from that endeavor should it ever happen? No, the companies they farm it out to will ship those profits to their shareholders, further widening the gap between the disgustingly rich and the rest of us.

I'm going to bed. Other options are depressing.

Archy Exposes Robertson's Craven Evil

2005-08-27T22:58:00.000-04:00

I know that I have been letting others speak for me lately, and I hope to make my own observations again soon, but when others speak eloquently, I have to point to them. This post at Archy shows how evil christians can be, as if the list of evil wasn't long enough. I don't include them all; some are merely misled but kindly people. Robertson is dangerous.

Who Made Saddam

2005-08-27T22:30:00.002-04:00

I am tired of people forgetting that the US has made its bed in this world, fueling the terrorism fire, doing plenty to make the third world hate us, wasting resources at geometrically higher rates than the rest of the world does. We made Lebanon worse, we made Iran worse, we made the Arab-Israeli conflict worse, we ruined the twentieth century world economy with the stupid Cold War arms race that idiots now cite Reagan as winning. Here's a good thing for us to remember about our good buddy Saddam and the hypocrites who have now turned on him.

Morons.

Hat tip to Rook.

Hey Red States!

2005-08-26T00:02:00.000-04:00

I was sent this by a colleague, and while it may have made the rounds of the net, it needs repeating. The sentiments are both cutting and well targeted. Thanks, M!!

Dear Red States,
We're ticked off at the way you've treated California, and we've decided we're leaving. We intend to form our own country, and we're taking the other Blue States with us.

In case you aren't aware, that includes Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois and all the Northeast. We believe this split will be beneficial to the nation, and especially to the people of the new country of New California.

To sum up briefly: You get Texas, Oklahoma and all the slave states. We get stem cell research and the best beaches. We get Elliot Spitzer. You get Ken Lay.

We get the Statue of Liberty. You get Opry Land. We get Intel and Microsoft. You get WorldCom. We get Harvard. You get Ole' Miss. We get 85 percent of America's venture capital and entrepreneurs. You get Alabama. We get two-thirds of the tax revenue; you get to make the red states pay their fair share.

Since our aggregate divorce rate is 22 percent lower than the Christian Coalition's, we get a bunch of happy families. You get a bunch of single moms.

Please be aware that Nuevo California will be pro-choice and anti-war, and we're going to want all our citizens back from Iraq at once. If you need people to fight, ask your evangelicals. They have kids they're apparently willing to send to their deaths for no purpose, and they don't care if you don't show pictures of their children's caskets coming home. We do wish you success in Iraq, and hope that the WMDs turn up, but we're not willing to spend our resources in Bush's Quagmire.

With the Blue States in hand, we will have firm control of 80 percent Of the country's fresh water, more than 90 percent of the pineapple and lettuce, 92 percent of the nation's fresh fruit, 95 percent of America's quality wines (you can serve French wines at state dinners) 90 percent of all cheese, 90 percent of the high tech industry, most of the U.S. low-sulfur coal, all living redwoods, sequoias and condors, all the Ivy League and Seven Sister schools, plus Carnegie Mellon, University of Chicago, Stanford, Cal Tech and MIT.

With the Red States, on the other hand, you will have to cope with 88 percent of all obese Americans (and their projected health care costs), 92 percent of all U.S. mosquitoes, nearly 100 percent of the tornadoes, 90 percent of the hurricanes, 99 percent of all Southern Baptists, virtually 100 percent of all televangelists, Rush Limbaugh, Bob Jones University, Clemson and the University of Georgia.

We get Hollywood and Yosemite, thank you.
Sincerely,
Author Unknown in New California--

Switching Hats

2005-08-22T23:16:00.000-04:00

I've discovered a new author worth reading, a thing that doesn't happen often for me. Neil Gaiman's "American Gods" is currently fascinating me with it's mix of fact, fiction and mythos, as well as compellingly human characters. It's long, but if you think you'd like Bruce Sterling, mixed with Steven King, with a dash of Robert Penn Warren, and maybe a bit of Sherman Alexie, check it out.

Phew, managed not to rant about politics or religion. Must be tired. More ranting soon.

Badtux Nails it Again

2005-08-21T22:51:00.000-04:00

It may be a bit old, but I wish I'd written it, so I link to it instead. The Penguin pins down the lunatic attitude of the Right.

Public schools need reform of course. The primary reform they need is to stop being funded and controlled by selfish bastard Americans who drive to school boards meetings in the SUV's after arriving home from Disney, carrying their camera phones, waiting to go home and swim in their in-ground pools, all the while preparing to bitch about having to pay too much in taxes for schools. As if schools weren't more important than the military.

Morons.

Evil Empire

2005-08-18T22:34:00.000-04:00

It's the oil companies. They're saying gas may be five dollars a gallon next summer. Granted, we've been getting off cheap compared to the rest of the world, and should just bite the bullet, (not to mention developing alternative energy), but damn, will the oil companies STILL be making record profits then too? Does anyone care they're not getting bit too?

Fucking capitalism sucks. But then, it is a side effect of a bacterial infection on a global scale.

Escaped!

2005-08-17T22:19:00.000-04:00

Yes, I have been a prisoner of the evil overlord in the twelfth dimesion, and have been unable to entertain my loyal fans. Or maybe I was burned out on blogging in between two vacations. Four wheeling in the mountains was awesome, Canada was awesome, swimming in the pool with my little one was more awesome than blogging, so blogging got scrapped. I do intend to continue, and the world will bear the brunt of my anger once more, but for now I'm happy and mellow before my life gets crazy again next week.

Saw an excellent show last week. Sat about twenty feet from Susan Tedeschi, a spectacular blues singer and very good blues guitarist. In addition, her band kicked ass, especially her keyboard player, William Green. If you like straight up blues, or good music in general, check her out.

Of course I suspect her of being a religionist, so my enthusiasm is somewhat muted, as I have a tough time tolerating such foolishness, but I've forgiven others who demonstrate talent over logic, so I'm trying to be good.

More soon, hopefully.

Sing Badtux Sing

2005-07-10T20:18:00.000-04:00

Sing Badtux Sing!! All hail comprehensive universal medical care. Socialized medicine is the only system that does not discriminate against the poor. Here in America, we have managed to get up in arms about discrimination against women, about discrimination against blacks, and discrimination against other racial minorities (of course, an element of our country still believes in these things, many of them on the Right). But we still find it perfectly ok to discriminate against gay people, (well, the Right does: half of us believe that shouldn’t be the case), and most significantly, against the poor. They get inferior education, inferior nutrition, and inferior healthcare, when they get any at all. But the healthcare and pharmaceutical industries make billions per year in profits.

And yet when nationalized healthcare comes up, we hear the accusations that the Canadian system doesn’t work, that that people don’t get good care. As the Penguin points out, those claims generally ignore the substandard or non-existent care that the poor, even the working poor, get here in our wonderful make-profits-from-making-people-well-or-don’t-make-them-well system. Those claims also misrepresent socialized medical care, as anyone with first hand knowledge of those systems, as I have of Canada’s, knows.

Religion and Government

2005-07-10T17:38:00.000-04:00

A perfect example of why every tiny infiltration of christianity into government must be resisted with ferocity. Thanks Irregular Times. I myself have been asked in a zoning hearing to swear an oath to "the Holy Creator who Guides and designs all things" or some such crap. I stated I could not swear such an oath, and was told I only needed to affirm that I would tell the truth. Yet I doubt my objection was noted in the record, and so it probably reflects that I swore such a silly oath.

It May Already Be Over

2005-07-10T10:11:00.000-04:00

This AP story scares the hell out of me, even more than two Supreme Court Justices likely to be appointed by a fundamentalist conservative with an activist agenda to create robber-baron theocracy. Take a look at these lines especially, if you want to know why.

"Since 1968, when Nixon was elected, Republican presidents have appointed 1,040 judges; Democrats have named 625. While many of the Bush appointees are replacing jurists named by previous Republican presidents, toward the end of his term Bush could have more opportunities to replace some of the Clinton judges, which would have even greater impact.

The cumulative effect, said political scientist Donald Songer of the University of South Carolina, is that "the last three Republican presidents' nominees control virtually the whole judiciary."

Story from AP / NANCY BENAC, Associated Press Writer

Great people, great thoughts

2005-07-05T22:12:00.000-04:00

Thanks to Snave for the cool mind candy.

This jackass represents Me? I don't think so.

2005-07-05T21:49:00.000-04:00

More proof that Santorum is a reprehensible schmuck.

Theism or Christianity?

2005-07-04T22:38:00.000-04:00

An excellent post here at Majikthise on the separation of church and state issue, presenting some perspectives that are a bit unusual, but highly compelling.

Response to comments on "Forgiveness is Good"

2005-06-30T21:46:00.000-04:00

The following was originally written in comments, in response to comments on my “Forgiveness is Good” post. So if anyone gives a damn, they can catch up there. The comment that inspired this little tidbit is included at the end of this post, following the asterisks.

And yes folks, I may be breaking blog rules, and I hope the original commenter doesn't mind me posting his comments here, but hell, this blog is here for me to blather and rant about the things I'm annoyed by and passionate about, so if a comment inspires this much use of my time, I may as well put it here where my imaginary readers might be more likely to see it. So here goes . . .

Your reaction is somewhat similar to mine in reading your defense of the current dolt-in-chief a while back. I believe the gist of that was “at least he’s doing something” which is about as reasonable as watching someone throw water on a grease fire and saying ”at least he’s doing something.”

And if you can’t imagine why I would respect and admire one of the greatest presidents of the twentieth century, especially after reading the post, there’s little that can be said. Reason and evidence are available; they need only be viewed without the spin provided by the right wing media. I have long been content to allow history to vindicate Clinton, which if course will only happen if the current fascist takeover doesn’t prevent honest historians from providing an objective assessment.

Begrudging someone the life they inherit is a complex side issue. I wouldn’t begrudge either Bush the Nazi and Oil fortunes they inherited if they repudiated the obvious evils of both. They don’t. And speaking of laughable, do you honestly expect anyone but rabid (not)Right-wingers to respect your description of W as a statesman? The man regarded around the world as both a fool and a warmonger? Please. “Read My Lips” Bush led a coalition of the arm-twisted to drive Saddam out of Kuwait, then only barely restrained his own warmongers from pissing on world opinion and continuing to drive into Baghdad. He might, I suppose, be considered a bit of a statesman, but nothing in comparison with the likes of his successor.

Dumb-ya led a coalition of the non-existent, lied, manipulated intelligence, and capitalized on good ol’ fashioned (but still reprehensible) American “put a boot in your ass” stupidity and machismo. He continues to try to exploit American stupidity by lying on national television. Not about his sex life, but with the obvious untruth of his imaginary link between Iraq and 9/11. And by comparison, let’s not forget the stellar record President Clinton established as a statesman, including leading the world in Kosovo, Bosnia, and the middle east, where he did more for peace there than any president since Carter. Oh, and cleaning up the mess his predecessor left him in Mogadishu, Somalia, by doing what we should have the sense to do now, getting the hell out of a situation we never should have been in.

The idea that these are self made men is just plain contrary to fact. Neither Shrubbery made themselves successful beyond their inherited lives; they made themselves exactly as successful as their inheritance could make them. How else did W skate out of his reserve duty, without being charged as AWOL? Why else was he in the unit commonly reserved for the sons of important government officials? If he wanted respect, he’d have eschewed such favoritism. His only success has been in using his ties to advance his political career. Can he be called a success in any other way? After he ruined every business he ran, including his current position? Are we talking about the same person?

As for the positive nature of their friendship, it does support the overall theme of the original post, which is that forgiveness is good. I don’t reject President Clinton being friends with “read my lips” Bush, and as I said, I am trying to forgive him for it. Sure, reasonable people have to reach out to the ideologically misguided from time to time, and try to overcome the differences. That wisdom does not smooth all of the difficulties in doing so.

On to morals and reason. We apparently understand the terms differently. Morals are adjudicated by scripture, at least as most people understand them. Morals are always relative to the ideology that forms their basis. Reason and ethics are the only intelligent way to make decisions about good and bad, right and wrong. And you’re right, there is too little effort to get along. The main problem there is that links between Park Avenue and the ghetto will only become possible when the unreasonably rich begin to set aside their greed and give up their immense wealth, arguing that their taxes should be raised, not lowered, and thus show that they do care somewhat about the drastic unfairness of the distribution of wealth in America.

My rationalism hasn’t failed me at all. Were I to meet President Clinton, the last thing I would chide him about is the friendship with Bush. While my reaction is a bit influenced by emotion, I brought it up to express my reservations about the link. Clinton may well have a very personal political goal in mind in conducting the friendship. And if it somehow aids us in getting our next excellent President Clinton, I’ll have to re-evaluate it as an excellent strategy.

You’re right, reason must predominate over emotions, and so I haven’t repudiated Clinton, but rather am trying to forgive him.

Ok, this has gone on too long, is getting too jumbled, and has probably aroused enough face-smashing ire. Round two?

**************************
Holy shit! I almost puked at that last paragraph! Respect and admire? Wow. To think I was about to write a positive response! Alright, I will anyway...
This post made me think of other people with similar experiences and differing ideologies, which overlap just enough to keep them tethered as friends. Sometimes people just have to agree to disagree and focus on issues common to the both of them. Surely your rationalism won't allow you to begrudge someone the life they inherited by birth. A life is what you make of it and both of these men made themselves successful beyond their inherited lives. Both used the tools they were given to their advantage (for example 41 used family connections, 42 used charisma and a firm handshake) and both became statesmen.Their friendship is more like a beacon amidst a thousand points of light. It shows that people can get along despite their differences, which is something largely missing in society from the lowest ghettos to the highest Park Avenue apartments. Your rationalism has failed you here because friendship is not something that requires forgiveness. Your emotional response to the friendship makes you think it does. I'm not really convinced that forgiveness is rational. It, too, is tied to moral values set forth in religious books which religious zealots either twist for their own purposes or ignore completely. This is not to say that it is irrational to have morals, but that the two are tied together and not always separable. It is okay to be emotional, but embrace the irrationality of emotions in a rational way. Maybe that's what you're doing. We can't all be Vulcans. Although, even they had bizarre rituals based on superstitions and fantasy.

Lying Liars still out there (Thanks, Al)

2005-06-30T13:59:00.000-04:00

I recently saw Sean Hannity on The Old Time Gospel Hour, a broadcast contained the most appalling silliness that, astoundingly, is actually carried by my cable company, in defiance of all sense.

It was a telecast of the Liberty University (cough, gag: sorry, dignifying that unaccredited propaganda-spewing pretence at education as a University stuck in my throat) Commencement at which he appeared to be the keynote speaker. Wearing an academic robe, though his comments make the value of any advanced degree he might have questionable, he said a number of silly things, not the least of which was to once again return to the “Christians are being persecuted” red herring. As Jon Stewart recently said on the Daily Show (paraphrased) “Um, I believe you guys have been in charge since, uh . . . what’s his name, Constantine, converted, so . . .”

But even more astounding, if anything this demagogue says can be a surprise at this point, was his assertion that there was more intellect, creativity, and insight among the graduates than in the entire democratic-liberal party [sic]. Nothing like journalistic integrity taints the crap he spews on the various airwaves, but hearing that preposterous notion really whipped my head around.

Thanks for the belly laugh, Sean.

Ben Stein's Folly

2005-06-30T12:00:00.000-04:00

Ben Stein likes to represent himself as a smart guy. Of course, when he took part in that national live IQ special a year or so ago, I blew his score out of the water, but I will say that he could answer many questions on his game show, often doing as well or better than I, and I consider myself a heapin’ pile of useless knowledge.

But he is becoming increasingly a (not)Right wing mouthpiece, as viewers of CBS’s Sunday Morning program have been seeing. This past Sunday he presented an apparently thoughtful piece claiming that Christians in America are being maligned. And he used what I’m beginning to see as a common tactic in neocon propaganda: make what sounds like a sensible point, but use as the foundation a very weak warrant, (fundamental principle), making sure never to allow the audience to notice that said shaky warrant is either some thing that can be challenged, or that it exists at all.

Stein’s argued that Christians are being unfairly accused of trying to enforce their doctrine, or do bad things. He then argued that, after all, religious people had been at the forefront in leading important movements in American history. Northern Ministers led the abolitionist movement, he said. Women lay religious leaders led the fight for women’s right to vote, he said. He even pulled out the big stick; citing Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., a religious figure at the forefront of bringing civil rights and protections to America’s black citizens.

His argument is flawed, and I suspect he knows this. No logic connects the examples he cites with the problem currently being criticized. A little analysis reveals the disconnection.

First, Christians in general are not being criticized by liberals. The criticism is reserved for the fundamentalist-fanatic fringe that wishes to use legislation enforcing their slanted ideas about morals to keep people they disapprove of from equal treatment under the law, the fringe that feels their moral decisions must be shared by all, regardless of the religious tenets of those others, the fringe that decides that based on their highly arguable interpretation of scripture, people who could be saved by medical research won’t be saved, because their version of their god prefers unused embryos be destroyed or left permanently frozen rather than used in medical research, and finally, the fringe who are attempting to subvert education in this country by substituting their religion for actual science, actual knowledge.

No reasonable liberal, (which means 99.9% of them), a vast majority of whom are Christian, wishes to prevent any Christians from practicing their faith, and certainly don’t wish to abolish religious practice. {Ok, yes, my imaginary regular readers know that I think religion is dangerous enough that humanity would be best served by its elimination, but even I am quite happy to allow them their superstitions as long as they remain far from public policy.}

So the primary warrant, that liberals are attacking Christians, is just plain silly. But Ben made them sound like martyrs.

Also, the groups and individuals Stein cites are all liberal groups, politically far from his position and that of the movement he defends. King, for example, was spyed upon by that same Hoover-FBI that Nixon attempted to use to maintain his power. Abolitionists were motivated to achieve fair treatment for all, equal rights. The fundamentalist fringe seeks to subvert and restrict equality according to the deity they have decided is right and who apparently has told them to act in such ways.

And finally, those groups and individuals mentioned can hardly be imagined to support the extreme agenda currently being advanced by the neocon-radical fundamentalist alliance. My understanding of the world says that today, for example, had he been left alive by the radical right-wing nut job who shot him, Dr. King would be telling Christians that gays should receive equal treatment, that they should be judged by the content of their characters, and not the practices of their love lives.

Forgiveness is Good

2005-06-23T15:13:00.000-04:00

I know the fundamentalists in this country, and their counterparts in the Moslem world, are not able to manage such positive feelings and good behavior, but as a rationalist, I make the conscious choice that reason must dictate how I behave. That reasoning tells me that social interactions are smoothed by forgiving wrongdoers when circumstances permit. Certainly recidivists get far less consideration, and those who commit the most heinous of crimes usually deserve none, but reason and compassion must conclude that minor peccadilloes should be set aside, especially if the person is otherwise of value, and even more so if they demonstrate some remorse, or at least an understanding that their actions are wrong.

That being said, the real subject of this post arises; one of the greatest presidents of the twentieth century, who led America to great accomplishments in foreign policy. This president led the nation through new challenges, through wars, and through troubled economic times. This president always came out on top, until the fringe element and some troublemakers in the media succeeded in a witch-hunt launched against him. They succeeded in making him more memorable for his “supposed” crimes than for his spectacular accomplishments.

Of whom do I write? Richard Nixon? Of course not, silly, Nixon was a criminal. The media operatives who exposed him, along with the courageous Mark Felt who gave them the confidence to continue when they doubted the sufficiency of their other sources, served America well, and they were some of the most reputable journalists around, working for an icon of journalistic integrity. Nixon should be remembered for his Watergate crimes, his attempts to subvert the American justice system and misuse federal law enforcement agencies to maintain power. Such actions border on fascist dictatorship, as we are seeing once again with our current administration.

No, my reference is Bill Clinton, whose accomplishments were obscured in part by such fringe muckrakers as Drudge, the American Spectator, and Rush Limbaugh. None of these gets any respect as journalists, and in many cases their claims are easily penetrated as unsupported and unsupportable. But they inflame, and they satisfy the lowest common denominator by outrageous claims and insults, and by appealing irrationally to patriotism and popularity.

But away from the quiet contempt and back to the subject, William Jefferson Clinton. I began with the theme of forgiveness; I should make the connection. I forgave President Clinton for the Gennifer Flowers issue. Why not? Statistically, huge numbers of Americans cheat on their spouses. It’s wrong, and should not be encouraged, but it is a minor issue, and his wife seemed to support him, so his ability to aid the nation outweighed the bad judgment. I forgave him next for the Paula Jones debacle. Please jump to no conclusions; I still don’t believe her ridiculous, bought and paid for by the radical (not) Right conspiracy, story. I forgave Bill because the Flowers story, which appeared at the time to have some merit (even before he confirmed it in testimony), allowed the story that the Wingnuts planted in Paula to seem credible, even if momentarily. So I forgave him.

Whitewater was too silly to consider; no need for forgiveness there. But the real trouble came along eventually: Monica. More regrettable and distasteful infidelity. Worse, he resorted to word play the way my teenagers do, trying to evade by not meaning exactly what I mean in the use of similar words. He chose to define sex as intercourse, and said he hadn’t had any with Monica. Silly, sad, and a lie to the people, but a lie that was intended not to cover-up treasonous and anti- American crimes, or lead to unreasoned, unnecessary war, but to keep his wife from discovering infidelity, and to keep his daughter from suffering further embarrassment. And, to be fair, to keep his political situation and reputation from suffering further damage after all the damage done by (not) Right Wing fabrications.

But in the end, this sad affair was not Iran-Contra, nor a drug deal with Noriega, nor Watergate, nor the current Downing Street Deception and resulting testosteronic war. A sexual indiscretion exists in a wholly separate category, though the other side challenges that premise. If they can look at the two categories and call them the same, I can’t do anything to improve their sad excuse for reasoning, and I can’t waste time with trying to convince them. I can see the difference, and so I can forgive, and I did forgive the president for his foolishness. I was angered, and damaged by the political toll to be paid for it, and we should all regret that he added fuel to the irrational fire, but this was an indiscretion that can be forgiven.

Now though, I’m having trouble forgiving him. I know I should, and I’m trying, but this particular act . . . so upsetting. I understand the argument; they have so much in common, only a few people in the world can understand what they go through. And demonstrating that representatives of the two sides can get along builds bridges that the (not) Right so actively and consistently burns down. But his new friend’s ancestors were Nazi sympathizers and supporters. Their family fortune results at least in part from that relationship. Now they are part of Big Oil, taking record profits in a time when the people are squeezed tightly by price gouging on the market, and taking those same profits in spite of environmental endangerment and damage of tremendous proportions. His son has figure-headed a fascist coup of the government and the media that threatens the future of American values, and launched an unplanned, unwise, and childishly-motivated war that has killed thousands of American troops and far too many innocent Iraqi’s, and bankrupted the American economy while lining the pockets of the wealthy. They are the pawns and allies of corporate robber barons, the Saudi Oil profiteers, and fundamentalist religious fanatics every bit as dangerous as the Taliban or Al Qaeda.

So President Clinton, I respect and admire you, but I’m having trouble forgiving you for being friends with George Bush Sr. Unlike the other side though, I’m trying.

Not Necessarily the News

2005-06-23T07:45:00.000-04:00

It isn’t anymore. And most importantly, since many of us realize that, we must stop calling it that, and recognize what it truly is. Naming is powerful, that power is important, and must be used.

What do I mean by ‘it?’ Those broadcasts and publications that once were called the news. And TV is the worst of it. We can’t keep pretending that their agenda is to provide some sort of service to the people by letting those people know the important news of the day.

Yesterday morning I watched part of the Today show on NBC. When they opened their news broadcast by mentioning that a young boy who had disappeared from a scout camp somewhere out west, maybe Utah, had been found after four days. There ended the actual news. It was a nice story, and keeping some positivity in the “news” does have some value. So we can perhaps overlook the fact that with all the issues currently facing our nation and the world, with all the children that will die today in our country from some consequence of poverty or abuse or lack of adequate medical care, mention of one kid being found really shouldn’t have been on the news. But ok, positivity might be worth overlooking that.

Yet they didn’t stop there. They went to the reporter they’d sent to stand outside the hospital from which the boy had already been released. She told us that the parents were . . . wait for it . . . happy to have their son back. She then told us that they were at home sleeping. Why? Believe it not, she revealed the astounding information that after sleepless nights spent searching for and worrying about their son, they and their son were . . . yes, you guessed it . . . really tired. That segment took a minute or two.

So then they went on to the current state of armament in Iraq, right? The economic consequences of tax cuts for the wealthy during a war? The high profit margin of oil companies during this time of record gas prices? The appalling state of education in this country? The government funding of research for the pharmaceutical industry, one of the most profitable industries in America? No. The next three minutes were spent interviewing searchers, who had such fascinating things to say as “he just walked out in front of me.” Sure, had someone risked their life to save the boy, it might have been news. What did we learn? That the ATV rider had been behind some horse-back searchers when he saw the boy. Sent chills down my spine, of course.

This morning they were back at it. More interviews with the people who found the boy, and with the parents. What was the newsflash from that interview? Against all odds, despite all expectations, they were exceedingly happy to get their son back. I was so glad NBC was there to inform me of such important facts.

We must call them to task, we must fail to accept “news” that isn’t news, we must demand real reporting of the important issues. Not Michael Jackson, not Terry Schiavo, not Scott Peterson. They want to pretend they are journalists; they aren’t, they produce entertainment, and occasionally mention the real news from the perspective that their corporate bosses and the neocon fascists permit. They certainly don’t investigate the Downing Street Memo with dogged determination. Remember the controversy of unarmored Hum-Vs in Iraq? They followed that up, right? And told us when all the right equipment arrived?

Reject pretend “news” and demand actual journalism.

Everyone Needs to See This . . .

2005-06-22T10:37:00.000-04:00

"this" being a quick presentation by Democracy for America that quickly hits the high points of the Downing Street Documents. If you aren’t familiar with W’s Deep Throat, go watch this movie.

http://www.democracyforamerica.com/memo_movie

Quotes worth pondering

2005-06-20T11:50:00.000-04:00

Posted these at NoGodBlog in response to a request for favorite quotes, and they're worth reposting here.

All by Robert A. Heinlein:

I’ve never understood how God could expect His creatures to pick the one true religion by faith—it strikes me as a sloppy way to run a universe.
-Jubal Harshaw, Stranger in a Strange Land

If God existed (concerning which Jubal maintained neutrality) and if He wanted to be worshipped) ( a proposition which Juabl found improbable but possible in the light of his own ignorance), then it seemed wildly unlikely that a God potent to shape galaxies would be swayed by the whoop-te-do nonsense . . . offered as worship.
-Jubal Harshaw, Stranger in a Strange Land

The most preposterous notion that H. sapiens has ever dreamed up is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of all the Universes, wants the saccharine adoration of His creatures, can be swayed by their prayers, and becomes petulant if He does not receive this flattery. Yet this absurd fantasy, without a shred of evidence to bolster it, pays all the expenses of the oldest, largest, and least productive industry in all history.
-Lazarus Long, Time Enough for Love

History does not record anywhere a religion that has any rational basis. Religion is a crutch for people not strong enough to stand up to the unknown without help.
-Lazarus Long, Time Enough for Love

More proof of evolution? As if we needed it.

2005-06-16T16:04:00.000-04:00

Nothing demonstrates the fundamental animal nature of humans better than their tendency to refuse to use their rational faculties, and the related insistence on believing the superstitions inflicted upon them in childhood by their abusers in spite of direct evidence to the contrary.

Terry Schiavo’s parents provide today’s example, though daily examples are everywhere. Animals that we are, the vast majority of us remain completely incapable of accessing our reason when such results in personal pain or difficulty, or conflicts with ideas that provide us emotional comfort. The Schiavo’s have been told all along, and people of good sense like her husband knew all along, that she had no brain function, that no intellect remained, that any actions she seemed to take were coincidental.

Now the autonomy confirms all of that, and most telling of all, shows that while they claimed in the famous video that she was watching the balloon, that she was in fact blind and could not have done so. Yet the parents, in spite of scientific evidence, still maintain that she’d have gotten better. This is the legacy of religion, which tells people its ok to ignore evidence, to set aside science, and believe the ludicrous simply because it feels better. And people fall for it because they are animals, who in the nature want to satisfy the desire to feel better more than they want to truly understand.

Reason is the only path to understanding folks, and it requires evidence. We all need to understand that, and stop allowing the superstitious to avoid it, and subvert it.

Fun with Atheists

2005-06-15T23:42:00.000-04:00

The following prompt at NoGodBlog (the post is called “What’s Your Elevator Pitch?”) resulted in my writing and posting there the comment below, which I felt was worth putting here, since at some point I’ll be developing several of the ideas in it for full posts here, and because it was fun. Of course, there I managed to include a few errors, which makes me nuts, so here I get to fix it up, another good reason for doing it.

>>I was asked the other day, for about the 50th time, "OK, so you're an Atheist, gimme a 30-second reason that you're an Atheist"<<

First, I tell them that I'm not an atheist, I'm a rationalist, because starting from the question of whether or not a ludicrous position is viable would be irrational. Rationally, I looked at the two sides at about age 14, realized one made sense and had evidence to support it, and one was a 2000 year old myth invented by ignorant tribes, which made no more sense than the other silly myths we now regard as silly myths. Then I start listing the horrors supposedly created by this supposed god, explaining that if he existed, he would be a horrible bastard worthy of my contempt, and call on him to please smite me dead if he disagrees with my assessment of him as a reprehensible excuse for a being. Not surprisingly, he doesn't. By this time, they've usually stomped off or are staring at me in horror.

Rush is right?

2005-06-15T22:18:00.000-04:00

Rush is right, for perhaps the only time ever.

This article in general is amusing, (keep it up, Big Brass Alliance), but the last line from Rush is interesting. I’m not sure if the left in this country really feels that way, probably not, though if the line read, “radical fundamentalist Christians,” they might. Either way, the truth is that radical Xians are a far greater danger to America than radical Islamic terrorists, because they are here, they are cloaked in what they pretend are American values, and they can pretend to be part of the mainstream. But much like the terrorists they want us to fear so much, they hate anyone who thinks differently than them, and especially anyone who can show ( and it’s so easy) that their premises are ridiculous.

We need to wake up and fight their terrorism.

Impeach Bush!

2005-06-13T10:02:00.000-04:00

No special reason needed. It could just be that someone that stupid shouldn’t be president. The (not) Right certainly had no substantive reasons for calling for Clinton’s impeachment.

But frankly, the Downing Street Memo adequately demonstrates a conspiracy on the part of Him Who Talk Bad and the neocon fascists to lead America to war, to mislead the public, and to misuse public agencies. We all knew it was there, or at least those of us honest enough to evaluate the situation fully and objectively, but now we are gaining smoking gun evidence from whatever British Deep Throat is releasing these papers. Kudos to her or him.

And there’s always the reprehensible treatment of prisoners at Gitmo. The buck for that one stops at the (supposed) President’s desk too. That may be a crime against humanity, that doesn’t satisfy the criteria for impeachment, but good sense and good taste should motivate us to dump him, as a higher law than those governing impeachment.

Truth about War

2005-06-12T22:14:00.000-04:00

Chris Hedges speaks truth here. Tanks to James Wolcott for the connection (I guess that's called a hattip)

comments on "Prejudice Against Religion"

2005-06-12T21:47:00.000-04:00

A recent comment deserves a full post in reply.

Anonymous said...
Christians are as certain that Jesus rose from the dead as you are certain the whole thing was a hoax. So, the way I see it, if you are "obsessed with religion and the need to eliminate it" (May 3), and if you feel that to have "contempt for a person of faith" is both "responsible and important" (June 4), then you have been sucked in by the bitter arrogance and self-importance of fanatical religious extremists. Why stoop to their level of blind disregard for others?

I’m not sure anonymous is interested in debate, since they have no blog to go back to or an email address, but perhaps putting this in a post will encourage her/him to return. I do wish to eliminate the follies of religion, and I do have contempt for the beliefs of people of faith. They’re silly, irrational, and contrary to factual evidence. Arguing that case or defending it is an exercise in stating the obvious, though the self deluded might like to accuse me of begging the question. Perhaps had I been in a more reasonable mood, I’d have remembered I should not have had quite so much contempt for the faithful. They are after all the victims of child abuse horrific as much because it cripples their intellect as because it goes unnoticed and in fact condoned by almost every American, and for that matter, almost every human.

But to accuse me of having been sucked in by their bitter arrogance? Their self importance? Let’s address that before moving on to the “blind disregard.” A crucial and unavoidable difference exists between their bitter arrogance, and mine, if such we must call it for the sake of argument. Their bitterness comes from having substantive arguments contradict their folly, mine comes from a position of intellectual security and social persecution. Their children are educated when they hear the tenets of my beliefs, my child is damaged when nonsense about ‘heaven’ floats into even her day-care. Any self- importance I have in grasping the world as the facts reveal it to be is justified, while their self importance in believing in resurrections and all-powerful beings who create tortures and evils for unknowable purposes is ridiculous.

The difference is unavoidable. I cannot sink to their level by holding them in the same contempt they may hold me, when my position has merit, and theirs, none. But I should be charitable, and remember the unending sadness of the upbringing that warped their minds and prevented them from ever making reasonable judgments of the world.

Finally, my position, that religion is foolish and best abolished exhibits the exact opposite of blind disregard for others. In fact, my great concern for these misled unfortunates and more importantly, for the species as a whole, motivates my need to improve all our lots by damning and exposing aberrations such as faith.

prejudice against religion?

2005-06-04T00:41:00.000-04:00

My sentiments exactly: found via God is for Suckers .

Ok, here’s the thing: Disdain for the religious is not prejudice, as the Raving Atheist points out. I’ve written this several times elsewhere, but it bears repeating. To have contempt for a person of faith is an entirely defensible position. To be mean about it isn’t, but to be up front and unapologetic about disdain for superstitious beliefs is perfectly right, if not responsible and important.

Just ask any practicing Xian about their feelings for people who believe in palm reading, not stepping on cracks, and the broken mirrors-bad luck connection. If their self delusion hasn’t taken them so far as to believe these equally silly things as well as their own fundamental silly thing, then they’ll probably laugh and marvel at the folly of such people. Yet they don’t wish to have the same standards applied to their own odd beliefs.

To point out that “faith” is silly, anti-intellectual, unsupported, irrational is a service to humanity, not a prejudiced attack.

Deal with it, folks.

Gulag of the 21st Century

2005-06-03T22:38:00.000-04:00

So Amnesty International, a world renowned and respected human rights organization, has compared Gitmo to a Soviet Gulag. How far we’ve sunk from being the bastion of freedom to being no better than the Soviets. And if you think I go to far, you fictional reader you, I disagree. The only ethical and responsible course of action for the only superpower requires behavior completely above reproach in all matters of international relations, even if some national security must be sacrificed.

The rightwing religious fanatics and robber barons in power pretend to cowardice in claiming that we must skirt the edge, engage in questionable actions in order to protect ourselves. Thinking Americans, of which there are admittedly far too few, recognize that Al Qaeda is not a threat to the vast majority of Americans. Further, they know that the altered focus on protecting Americans from terrorism has drastically reduced the likelihood of further losses. Torturing prisoners for questionable information should be beneath us, but the power-mad demagogues running the show don’t care.

And, yay! John Stewart and the Daily Show for pointing out their ongoing hypocrisy. Rummie went out and said that Amnesty International had lost all credibility and seriousness by criticizing him and his, but he was first to cite them as the source detailing Saddam’s crimes as they tried to shift the focus from one red herring (remember WMD’s?) to another (Saddam is mean).

Freedom and ethics are dead here, and the First Amendment died when Newsweek was forced to issue its quasi-non-retraction. When pressure can be brought to bear on media to say, not that their story was inaccurate, but that one fact in it was not in the particular report they claimed it was, and the rest of the media all call it a retraction, freedom of the press, the ultimate source of resistance to tyranny, is gone. Anyone else planning to move to Canada?

They Said So

2005-05-19T19:11:00.000-04:00

They said so. "The United States of America values the religious freedom of all. And, in fact, at Guantanamo, we have made sure that the detainees are able to worship freely, and that they are provided copies of the holy Koran. . . . "

Scott McClellan

White House Press Sec.

What? So Wait, the non Americans can have other religions? Do the same standards apply to non-christian Americans?

Republicans Against Married Sex

2005-05-07T20:54:00.000-04:00

We knew they didn't want gay people having sex. We knew they didn't want men and women who weren't joined by their tribes superstitious rituals having sex. Now they are apparently gearing up to decide which kinds of sex married folks can have. No government control, they say, unless they decide their “big bad magic guy” doesn’t like it. Especially if its something people do to each other in private. Especially if it feels good. Feeling good is bad. (Sounds like the rest of their (not)logic, ay?)

Of course, I can't recall where in their silly book the word cunnilingus appears.

Funny Stuff

2005-05-07T13:06:00.000-04:00

. . . from The Raving Atheist. Time to blogroll.

cursing is funny . . . ask Eddie Murphy

2005-05-07T12:40:00.000-04:00

I don’t think the setup is true, but I hope it is, and the rest is gut-busting funny. Random internet email chatter, I know, but kudos to the comedy writer, whoever she may be. And thanks to my friend FunnyTeacher.

The "F-word" The FCC is ruling that the "F-word" will be acceptable language on public television and radio as long as it does not refer to the actual sexual act. Therefore we must ask ourselves, When is fuck Acceptable? There are only eleven times in history where the "F" word has been considered acceptable for use. They are as follows:

11. "What the fuck do you mean we are sinking?" Capt. E.J. Smith of RMS Titanic, 1912

10. "What the fuck was that?" Mayor Of Hiroshima, 1945

9. "Where did all those fucking Indians come from?" General George Custer, 1877

8. "Any fucking idiot could understand that." Einstein, 1938

7. "It does so fucking look like her!" Picasso, 1926

6. "How the fuck did you work that out?" Pythagorus, 126 BC

5. "You want WHAT? On the fucking ceiling?" Michelangelo, 1566

4. "Where the fuck are we?" Amelia Earhart, 1937

3. "Scattered fucking showers, my ass!" Noah, 4314 BC

2. "Au c'mon. Who the fuck is going to find out?" Bill Clinton, 1999

and a drum roll ........... !!!!!!!!!! .......... !!!!!!!!

1. "Geez, I didn't think they'd get this fucking mad." Sadaam Hussein, 2003

is the media right?

2005-05-06T21:26:00.000-04:00

If any doubt remained that the media is being influenced from the right, or at least living in fear of it, the science vs. not-science debate in Kansas has ended the issue.

William Harris, described as “a medical researcher and co-founder of a Kansas group called the Intelligent Design Network,” said the following:

"Part of our overall goal is to remove the bias against religion that is currently in schools. This is a scientific controversy that has powerful religious implications."

Here’s the thing. Reuters, whoever was writing for them, let that stand, though any objective evaluation has to find it ludicrous. A scientific controversy? These nutballs keep saying that they have a theory that should stand beside evolution, or in place of it. There’s no theory, there’s no science. We have here a bunch of ignorant savages putting their superstitions up against facts, and claiming that since many people have been brainwashed to believe the same as them, their silly ideas should be given due credit.

Again, no theory, no science. And the news media should say so; interpretation is not at issue, opinions aren’t being stated. That ‘intelligent design’ has no scientific credibility is a given.

That “bias against religion” must be similar to the bias against the “flat earth theory,” the “ceiling of lights in the sky theory,” and the “man can never fly” theory.

Yet they won’t say it.

The Wrong Problem

2005-05-06T15:49:00.000-04:00

This dude and I agree on some points, . . . but not many.

“You will not like it if you are a typical American looking for a government handout.”

That has Right-wing stereotypes sticking out all over; this is the anti-welfare, keep all the money for us “real Americans“ crap they’ve been peddling for years. What are the statistics on Americans “looking for a handout?” How many rely only on social security for retirement? And how many of them had any other choice in a corporate controlled economy in which the future of workers matters not a shit to the bottom line.

Come on, why is it that my father can live off his pension from a large corporation, and I’ll never be offered a pension by any corporation I could work for, when I have college degrees he didn’t have? Was it because our country has increasingly sought to have success while making lives better for its citizens? Or is it because stockholders demand, not continued success, but increasing profits, and the only way to do that is squeeze harder, with the end result of less health care for workers, more work expected from workers, no money for pensions for workers? Hint, the second is the correct answer.

The only real cure here is actually socialized democracy. Corporations, left unchecked as they are now in the United States, will and are taking us exactly where Aldous Huxley told us they would so many years ago. The Steps proposed in the plan in the referred post are reasonable. That is, if one presumes an atmosphere in which pay and benefits are equitable; as long as throat-cutting profiteering is the rule of law for our economy, that will never be the case. And that’s exactly what the TaliAm is using fear, war, patriotism, “resolute strength in the face of our enemies,” and “faith in truth, justice, and the Amurican way” to hide behind while they grab every damnable penny they can and hoard it away from 95% of the people whose “values” they pretend quite ably to care about.

People draw more than they put in; yes, that has to be kept reasonable, but many others don’t get to draw, as they die early. There should be limits yes, but first we have to stop the rich from taking from the system; in a broader and literal sense, they’ve already received plenty. Beyond that, the extra need could be met and more by taking back Him Who Talk Bad’s giveaways to the already-rich, or by not spending hundreds of billions of dollars (instead of what they originally proposed) . . .

{Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld : “Well, the Office of Management and Budget, has come up come up with a number that's something under $50 billion for the cost. How much of that would be the U.S. burden, and how much would be other countries, is an open question.” [Source: Media Stakeout, 1/19/03]} . . .

on wars that serve no actual purpose (especially not the ones they originally proposed).

Let’s not forget also that all this sound and fury hides the real problem: corporations, despite having “rights” as legal “individuals,” pay an ever diminishing share of the tax burden, despite their profits rising (see the oil company profits for the last few years, for example) and receive more corporate welfare in a year than is spent all social welfare programs. But they get to make billions in profits on top of all that. Good system, huh?

Personal responsibility is another right wing red herring. Hey, I believe in it more than most; I grok TANSTAAFL. But that works great on a personal level, and not nearly so well in an economy in which less than 5% of the people have 95% of the money (and 99% of the retirement savings, by the way.) No one is going to tell me this is due to a lack of personal responsibility. Well, someone probably will, but I won’t care, since they’ll be wrong. It’s due to the evils of capitalism concentrating the money and separating the rich from the poor.

The principle is a fine one; it has as much chance of working for most people as the chance of me going to a Celine Dion Concert (Zero, nit, nada). Sure, folks should not depend on social security for retirement; I sure as hell don’t. But if not, then the system they get to play in, if it is to have or inspire any self respect, has to allow other reasonable chances for them to gain financial security. Not handouts, opportunity. Capitalism, especially as currently defined in Amurica, is so antithetical to that concept as to be more evil even than Communism. This time around the totalitarians live in boardrooms, mansions, oil fields, and white houses.

Moron Alert!

2005-05-05T16:06:00.000-04:00

Should I be surprised that the older I get the less tolerance I have for morons? I suppose not; after all, age and experience just gives me the chance to run across new and startlingly various incarnations of them. A teacher I know has been asked to stay off campus for the rest of finals week because an unstable student has made threatening comments in class, has written ominous letters, and been verbally aggressive to a point approaching assault. A professional profiler has told her she’s in danger. Through back channels we know he’s a gun nut, has threatened to shoot people (while pointing the gun at them, that is), often carries illegal weapons. Ah, guns. Thanks, NRA assholes and heartless wealth-ocrats.

This is the cue for some reactionary to bring out the ridiculous chestnut, guns don’t kill people, people do. There’s just no reasoning with this unstable asshole who’s threatening a kind woman who wants nothing more than to help her students improve, and there’s no reasoning with anyone who can accept illogical, backwards arguments because they think guns are cool, or whatever other childish reasoning is behind their inability to face the obvious conclusions that a complex look at the entirety of the gun issue reveals. Go ahead, accuse me of begging the question. I don’t debate that issue until someone proves *they* haven’t begged the question. I already know from whence I speak.

But of course, that is the fundamental difference between the ‘Correct’ and the “(not)Right.” Quick, easy, emotional solutions that sound cool penetrate only skin-deep, and those who don’t look further are convinced. Sad, but such fools and their reactionary positions do help demonstrate the fundamental monkey-ness of our species. Intellect, like all else, is a random development. It occurs rarely in homo sapiens, and is even more rarely developed to the point at which it is useful. The conclusion, as it should be, is left for the exercise of the student.

As a good friend said, it’s a good thing this virus is unlikely to spread to other planets.

not an actual post . . .

2005-05-03T22:08:00.000-04:00

Ok, no time to actually write the posts, so I'm posting reminders to myself to post. If any of you are reading me regularly, you'll find I'm obsessed with religion, and the need to eliminate it, so there'll be much more to come on that front. I also need to post the geologic time concept that helps put our species in perspective, as well as a post explaining the origins of my blog name. So in lieu, of actual posts, I offer my readers (snicker, yeah right) teasers.

Mean, huh?

Still rational, but maybe not for long.

About "Poor Republicans"

2005-05-02T23:24:00.000-04:00

I find I've violated blog-ettiquette; the link to the story on corporations screwing workers in that "Poor Republicans" post was found on another liberal-leaning blog, and I know I should have acknowledged that, but I had read about 30 blogs when I found it, and really can't recall where it came from. So, sorry, tovarisch, I promise not to do it again. If I find it, I shall give due credit.

Poor Republicans

2005-05-02T11:54:00.000-04:00

The most astounding thing about this, and perhaps the only reason for hope, is that probably about half of the people being screwed are still voting republican. Gay Republicans disapprove of themselves; Poor Republicans are volunteering to get poorer while corporations and their stockholders, the wealth-ocracy, get richer.

And the main roots of the problem once again . . . . religion and the American attitude about education.

it happened again

2005-05-01T22:25:00.000-04:00

My profile reveals my favorite reads; Robert Heinlein is always among them. Just re-read The Moon is a Harsh Mistress again for the umpteenth time, and was not surprised to find tears in my eyes again at the end. I have degrees in literature, and dammit, Heinlein, King, and Card have elicited more emotions from me that anyone in the established canon, barring the Bard.

Which demonstrates the value of the established canon.

Word play

2005-04-30T23:03:00.000-04:00

I read a blog called Rook's Rant occasionally, often agreeing sometimes disagreeing. But as someone who struggles to find the correct termininlogy to characterize the true nature of those I oppose, I was thrilled to find this new name for the heartless-conservative-(not very)-christian-(not)-right.

http://www.rooksrant.com/archives/2005/03/new_title.html

Reason vs. Religion

2005-04-30T13:36:00.000-04:00

A Republican-aligned acquaintance of mine mentioned having had his political ideas adjusted slightly after reading Thomas Frank’s What’s the Matter with Kansas?, which discusses the right wing’s tactics in winning over middle-class middle-Americans. So I decided to look into it, and wrote the following to respond to him:

Having read the summaries, I think Frank addresses some points I've made elsewhere, mainly that the Right is exploiting people of deep faith without actually believing in the principles, using their support to drive the selfish corporate greed agenda of favoring the rich over the majority of Americans.

However much I may disagree with religion, I can work with religious people who don't need to use their faith to drive legislation down my throat. And the corporate culture of the conservatives doesn't embody the principles Christ is supposed to have espoused, as in fact many who have used the church as the screen for their power bids over the centuries have not demonstrated Christ-like qualities. A number of Popes serve as excellent examples.

Him Who Talk Bad won the last election based on fear that liberals would outlaw religion, and would do things that violate religious principles. Liberals don't wish to outlaw religion, at worst they want it to not be the primary motivation behind legislation. To my mind, anyone with moral qualms about abortion is welcome to forego it, but may not use irrational beliefs to force me to accept their evaluation of life, it's value, and the proper way to value it.

I know you disagree with much of this. That's fine. You have written elsewhere that life is sacred or words to such effect. Let me develop for you the opposing position, my position. Life has no inherent value at all, is completely meaningless in the universe, a random event. This is the principle that religious conservatives fear. They think it leads to chaos, that all values are gone, a leap to conclusion both foolish and fallacious.

True acceptance of this principle by thinking, feeling, rational people leads to the inevitable conclusion that all value must be assigned by those to whom humanity and life does mean something. Who? Us? Humans. But without two thousand year old superstitious concepts to rely on for rules, those rules have to be made according to some rules. Rational people able to accept the truth that life has no inherent meaning do so with reason, and reason must therefore be the principle used to assign and assess values and choices. From reason arises ethics, and both must take into account our emotional as well as our pragmatic reactions to situations.

From these principles, wiser and more compassionate decisions arise than those espoused by most religions. So much more needs to be said here, but let me use just one example. Some say a fetus must be valued above other considerations simply because it is a life that has value. A rational evaluation of this situation will factor in the effect on the child of growing up with all the disadvantages inherent in unplanned and unwanted pregnancies, which by the way tend disproportionately to happen to folks less able to cope with this bad situation. A rational approach considers the negative effects had on the child, on the mother, on the father, and on society in the form of welfare and assistance, and diverted, less fruitful lives. A rational assessment reveals that, even if a fetus can feel some temporary pain (that can never be transferred to long-term memory in an undeveloped brain the way a life of poverty and disadvantage can in multiple brains), the long term effects on all involved, the overpopulation of our planet, the lack of inherent value in any individual life, the responsibility to all other lives who must share our rapidly dwindling resources, all make it reasonable, not good, to abort a fetus.

A rational assessment also understands abortion as a choice that is frantic, difficult, and deleterious to many involved, and therefore understands that prevention, sex-education, contraception, strong relationships, and planned pregnancy are the rational ways to prevent abortion, not religion-inspired laws pushed by a vocal minority.

Reason and ethics are more moral than religion, but religious people are unable to conceive this, and so label them as evil.

name your politics

2005-04-30T12:14:00.000-04:00

Here's a neat site if you're interested in a more complex idea of political "spectrums."

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

Take the test, it's about 50 questions. Some of you will likely be surprised where you end up. Do take careful note of the wording of questions; quick careless readings could have you answering the opposite way from your intention.

Embarrassing Example

2005-04-30T08:33:00.000-04:00

Sure, some might read this and accuse me of being a commie, anti-American. Of course, such opinions would come from people whose opinion is of no interest to me. I was struck by the case of this woman, Jennifer Wilbanks, who ran from her elaborate wedding rather than announce she was unsure. She's found in Albuquerque, and rather than own up, she starts off with a kidnapping story. Surprisingly, she had the sense to recant and tell the truth.

She symbolizes in several ways much of what makes America a rather revolting place to live. She fled a wedding/planning/consuming/spending juggernaut that included 600 guests and a dozen bridesmaids. A dozen! C'mon folks, we all know what weddings cost; this thing is likely to be costing someone 100G to 500G, even now that it isn't happening. Waste and frivolity. We are culture of effete, overindulged children. To spend on a wedding what most people in America can't ,or can barely, afford to spend on buying a home, over thirty year mortgages no less, is an insult to every person in the world who can't buy enough food or clothing.

Have I taken a Ghandi-esque vow of poverty? No. But I live as simply as possible in a culture of indulgence, and am sickened by such extravagance. My lovely, moving, and beautiful wedding nine years ago cost $300 to rent a tent for the outdoor setting, and that was to protect guests in case of rain. All else was family provided and donated. And none of it was particularly expensive. I'm no martyr, I am trained and acculturated like the next guy, but common sense and good taste has to have limits. The luxury culture has simply gone too far.

She is a symbol of America as well in her dishonesty. Lying, evasion, equivocation: these have become the main strategy in speech. Teachers have to discuss and diagnose “coping strategies” that students use to hide the fact they aren’t learning. Cheating in school spreads faster than ever. Watch a Dr.Phil episode as people squirm away from having to admit their faults, own up to the facts, or analyze the situation truthfully. Conversation becomes an endless game of tag if taking responsibility for anything is at the root of the issue.

It’s sad. American’s can’t admit fault, can’t even admit to the facts. Ask the average American to accept that the US acted horribly in conquering this land and massacring Native Americans – they’ll evade, they’ll equivocate. Ask them to accept the burden for reparations owed Japanese Americans after WWII’s internments, ask them to accept the legacy of segregation, and they’ll likely attack, with drivel about “hundreds of years ago.” I know, I’ve asked those questions, made those statements, and been attacked. They won’t want to hear that African Americans are only two generations removed from those who lived in the most racist and violent of environments right here in the “land of freedom.” They won’t want to hear or admit that that proximity places the legacy of racism squarely atop every American’s head. Ask a ‘patriot’ who supports the current lunatic foreign policy of this nation to accept responsibility for the portion of world events leading to 9/11 that falls directly at our door, and watch them dance.I am embarrassed by my fellow citizens.

got mule?

2005-04-25T21:36:00.000-04:00

Gov't Mule is touring now. If you love rock or the blues, see them. http://www.mule.net

2005-04-23T23:21:00.000-04:00

Ok, yeah, its been a while. Here's a link. Apparently someone else has time to cogitate and write.

http://badtux.blogspot.com/2005/04/untermenschen-and-ubermenschen.html

Read and fear. And see Hitchhikers' this weekend. It will make as much sense as our ridiculous world does.

foul miscreants . . .

2005-03-08T21:17:00.000-05:00

. . . abound in the Bush administration. If you'd like proof in their own words, go to ifilms.com, and search for "Rumsfeld caught lying." He does both the petarding and the hoisting all by his lonesome. Ugh. Time to go mine my files and look for something fun to post.

a glimpse of me

2005-03-07T22:05:00.000-05:00

Someone once sent me one of those “internet” items for fun. I had fun responding, and in doing so revealed a good bit about me, so . . .

Who was the first person to look at a cow and say, "I think I'll
squeeze these dangly things here, and drink whatever the heck comes
out!"

The first one who wanted some more milk when Momma moved on to the next kid. Yeesh. How about a tough one?

Who was the first person to say, "See that chicken there?.. I'm gonna
eat the next thing that comes outta it's butt."

The first one smart enough to observe that animals eat eggs. Good thing the writer of these questions wasn’t depended upon for such insights.

What about the guy who first decided to eat a raw oyster? He must have
been very, very hungry!

Yeah, ‘cuz that’s so much more gross that raw fish or deer.

Why do toasters always have a setting that burns the toast to a
horrible crisp, which no decent human being would eat?

The bread people conspired to sell more bread. Capitalism doesn’t reward decent people, or care about decent people.

Why is there a light in the fridge and not in the freezer?

When its frozen you’ve got longer to paw through it looking for what you want.

If Jimmy cracks corn and no one cares, why is there a song about him?

It goes “I don’t care,” not “no one cares,” dumbass.

Can a hearse carrying a corpse drive in the carpool lane?

Only when the corpse is in the passenger seat.

If the professor on Gilligan's Island can make a radio out of a
coconut....why can't he fix a hole in a boat?

He’s over-specialized.

Why do people point to their wrist when asking for the time, but don't
point to their crotch when they ask where the bathroom is?

Because the Christians have poisoned society with unnecessary embarrassment about natural functions.

Why does your OB-GYN leave the room when you get undressed if they are
going to look up there anyway?

Because the Christians have poisoned society with unnecessary embarrassment about natural functions. Were you not paying attention?

Why does Goofy stand erect while Pluto remains on all fours? They're
both dogs!

He’s too goofy to know how dogs should stand. Seems obvious.

What do you call male ballerinas?

Dancers, Einstein.

If Wile E. Coyote had enough money to buy all that Acme crap, why
didn't he just buy dinner?

Who said he wanted to *eat* the Road Runner?

If quizzes are quizzical, what are tests?

Quizzes aren’t quizzical.

If corn oil is made from corn, and vegetable oil is made from
vegetables, what is baby oil made from?

Vegetable and corn oil.

If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons?

Doesn’t the Moral Majority, and the Christian Right in general, answer that question quite well?

Are Disney World and Disneyland the only people traps operated by a
mouse?

So, you think Mickey’s in charge, do you?

Does the Alphabet song and Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star have the same
tune?

Yes. Pay attention much? And the proper English is “Do the Alphabet . . . “

Why did you try singing the two songs above?

Why would you assume I did?

Why do they call it an asteroid when it's outside the hemisphere, but
call it a hemorrhoid when it's in your butt?

Who’s “they?” And asteroids aren’t outside the hemisphere, the other hemisphere is. Asteroids are outside the planetary influence altogether.

Did you ever notice that when you blow in a dog's face, he gets mad at
you, but when you take him for a car ride, he sticks his head out the
window?

Perhaps your dog has some thoughts on your halitosis.

Does pushing the elevator button more than once make it arrive faster?

Yes. Try it. Seriously.

superstitious zealots

2005-03-07T21:38:00.000-05:00

Here is that link to the Bill Moyers piece that details just how much danger the freedoms and future of our nation and the world are in from Acme, Inc. (dubya and his ayatollahs).

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/013105F.shtml

first time out

2005-03-07T20:12:00.000-05:00

Beginning a blog should perhaps call for a momentous speech, a powerful announcement. As with everything else, I'll try a different approach. Having been a reader of blogs for a while, a writer for longer, and thinker for even longer, I find I need a place where I can spew my venom, or wisdom, depending on the day, when the moment arises. I may not be a highly consistent poster, but I'll surely be a provocative one. The plan for now is to mine the various writing I've done in the last several years for nuggets that express who I am, and to mix in some new stuff when time, family, and career allow . . .

For now, I'll start here. I was on Ifilms last night watching viral videos, and saw Frank Zappa's famous Crossfire appearance from '86. In it, he amazingly and prophetically expressed his concern about the approaching fascist theocracy that was being formulated under the Reagan administration.

Frank, we should have listened to you so much more. There's also a Bill Moyers piece out there right now that addresses the frightening attitudes of the Bush administration and it's religious extremist allies . . . I'll figure out how to link to it, so if anyone's listening (snort!) you can go and be properly frightened and enlightened.

Thanks, Al Franken, for my first exposure to blogging . . . and for everything else you've done in the past several years. (Stuart Smalley not so much, but I suppose it was amusing. :-) )