Mortal Thinkage

Council for Secular Humanism

So I'm many, many months behind in blogging; I'm a bad boy. Let's see what comes to mind as I tap tap tap away. Well, the election comes to mind immediately. You know, as a secular humanist/atheist, I find it hard to swallow any brand of religion, but I voted for Obama anyway. I realize he doesn't hold any far right views, but the fact that he seems to be in favor of making nice with the religious concerns me. However, I also think that he probably doesn't believe a word of what he professes (presumptuous on my part, I know) and is probably just doing what he needs to do in order to be heard in our religious country. His views on the economy and social issues are what drew my support. I'm a bit concerned about his foreign policy skills because I get the impression that he is going to try and be a friend to all--which is probably not possible.

He apparently doesn't support gay marriage, which is a mark against him, but I don't think he would ever sign a federal law banning it. I really hope to hell that he honestly tries to fix health care and doesn't become corrupted by the insurance and drug company lobbyists. Let me just say this; I have great hope for his presidency, but if he fails, I'm through with voting. At that point I'll probably just say to hell with it, let the religious nutters have it and I'll move elsewhere. Hopefully the religious moderates will win the day and our land will never become a Christian Afghanistan.

The event at that preacher's church where Obama and McCain answered questions was pathetic. McCain sure knew his audience when he answered that "what you do with evil" question with "defeat it", and stated that life begins "at conception". No nuance, no fleshing out of the subject, just simplistic answers for a simplistic audience. Despite the fact that it left me shaking my head that Obama would bother answering questions from some idiot preacher, his handling of the questions was far more impressive than Johnny's answers. When will a brave politician refuse to answer questions from the nutters? I live for the day when a front running presidential candidate laughs when asked what his or her religion is, and says "None, I have a brain". That candidate would have all of my free time as a volunteer. But, I suppose that's too much to ask for in my lifetime.

It really sickens me to think of all the nonsense that was directed at Obama before the election, and still is to a certain extent. There's this bitch named Monica Crowley that was on the radio slandering Obama every fucking day, and is still at it. I cannot believe that someone actually gave this race bating dullard a radio show. She must have taken it in the ass from someone, is all I can say. The constant right wing diatribes and Muslim innuendos spouted against him everyday was stupefying. Those people have no shame. Listening to them is like porn for the credulous fools that worship them.

I do care about our country, but I consider myself a global citizen, without love for any particular ideology. And seeing the behavior of people during elections makes me love America even less. I love our Constitution, most of our citizens, and the greater part of our culture, but I honestly don't see anything here that isn't seen in the rest of the world. Of course it goes without saying that there are some countries that I would never live in. Dictatorships with their worship of the state, and theocracies with their worship of fairy tales hold not a lick of interest for me. I'd be more than happy to live in a fully secular state, but not one that mandates secularism or replaces religion with worship of the state. Unless a secular state is organically secular, then it isn't really an enlightened entity. But if the U.S. becomes more and more religious like it sometimes seems to be doing, then I'm not sure I'd care to be here. But I don't know if I would leave, or stay and fight. If they were ever put in absolute control, like all theocracies, they would bring this country to its knees. I'm not sure I'd care to see that happen first hand.

Well, what else?

Ah yes, the economy is tanking. Thanks, W, you began a useless war, raped the Constitution, and destroyed our reputation around the world. And now you have left us with a crumbling economy thanks to your laissez-faire attitude toward economic policy. It's mind boggling that people actually voted for John McCain knowing what a Republican had just done to our country. Of course all that he had to do was throw a fundamental (emphasis on "mental") Christian on the ticket and the holy credulous flocked to him like flies to a rotting carcass. McCain was about as Christian as Gandhi. The whole pregnant daughter episode was just too funny. Palin was the poster child for how preaching abstinence to teenagers doesn't work. Jesus doesn't mean shit when you've got a hardon or wet panties.

It just floors me that people can't see the right way to do things, and insist on sticking to ideas that have always failed, and will continue to fail. I certainly don't have all the answers for life, but I know when something isn't working. I wish I had the smarts, the eloquence, and the money to run for office, because there are many things I'd like to get off my chest on a national stage...right before they run me out of town. Religion is a poison and it needs to go away, as soon as possible. Yes I know it does some good, and gives many people direction in their lives, but it is holding us back from attaining everything that we could be. Despite the fact that religion can bring people together, it separates far more people than it can ever bring together. For every moderate religious person, there is a fundamentalist. For every good act that a fundamentalist performs, they bring a concomitant negative consequence along with them. It's up to humanists to provide alternatives to the enslaving of the human mind that religion requires for those that seek help with addictions and hopelessness. Thus far I would say we have failed. It may not be a fair game that we are playing because of the influence of religion, but we'll just have to try harder.

Man, we are so close to getting it right. I really don't think there is any reason why we couldn't attain a near utopia. Barriers are coming down because of travel and communications and the global economy. Overcoming the human condition is the major obstacle that we need to hurdle. Maybe I'm wrong, but I believe if we can convince people that religion is a dividing force in the world and is not something worthy of praise, we will have won half the battle. For it is religion that gives our evolved nature of mistrust an excuse to exist, an outlet for that mistrust, and an excuse to not overcome that ancient instinct. Sure, that wouldn't eliminate that instinct completely, because there are cultural reasons like past wars and such for hating people that are different than us, but it would go a long way toward exposing it for what it is, and a long way toward seeing each other as fellow humans, instead of objects of mistrust.

I envision a world without borders, poverty, or avarice. Now, I'm not so dumb to think that we will ever achieve that, but it is a goal that we should endeavor to realize because even coming close to achieving it will mean that we have made our planet a better place to live. Maybe we are doomed to destroying each other as we spin off through space on a planet ruled by hate and fear, but if we don't at least try to overcome the human condition, we will have failed to take advantage of the great gift that our evolution has given us -- the ability to overcome our base instincts and achieve things that no other species can hope to achieve. If we don't try, that may very well be a bigger sin than the destruction of our species, because by not taking advantage of our unique opportunity, perhaps we will have proved that we not worthy of our intellect, and that we are destined to be controlled by our lower nature.

Copyright ©2009 Rum Tickled Humanist

The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

This is something that I feel you really should watch if you're at all interested in where we came from, and Darwin's contribution to the subject. It's called The Genius of Charles Darwin. It was presented by Richard Dawkins on British tv. It is not only educational, but entertaining as well.

I respect people's belief that their god is responsible for evolution, even though I see it as essentially making a god unnecessary to the question, but only the most credulous can watch something like this and reject it out of hand.

Here it is as posted on Google Video and YouTube. The first one is episode 1, and the last two are the first part of episodes 2 and 3. The rest of episodes 2 and 3 can be found on YouTube.


Go here to the Richard Dawkins website for more.

Episode one


Episode two, part 1


Episode three, part 1

Preachers say the craziest things!

PamsHouseBlend.com


So how about a blog post, eh?

I was listening to this idiot preacher on the radio talking to Alan Colmes. I think his name was Bill Keller. That's bad enough because that's the name of one of my all-time favorite basketball players. But he's also a religious nut case. I can't quote him because I can't remember his exact words--but I'll give you the general points he was making. According to him, Muslims want to take control of America. He also made the remark that Muslims are born into Islam, but Christians aren't. And then he went on to say that Christians don't force people to believe, but Muslims do.

What struck me was the absolute hypocrisy of it all. Radical Islam wants to take control of America. And Radical Christianity doesn't? Please, save such sophistry for your ignorant followers. And Christians aren't born into Christianity? Are you fucking kidding me? Then why do you see countries dominated by one religion, professor?

Now, I won't argue that there aren't Muslims that want to turn our country into a Muslim theocracy. Of course there are. But isn't that just a little hypocritical? How can a Christian (that isn't a hypocritical blowhard) say that and completely ignore the fact that there are plenty of Christian religionists that want the same for their religion? How many times must we hear that this is a Christian nation, or that this country was founded on Judeo-Christian values? It seems to me that the problem such people as our Mr. Keller has is not that such a thing is possible, but that it's the wrong religion.

In other words, this is a "Christian" country and it belongs to the Christians. It's like an animal marking it's territory. And as their religion becomes less influential, they must face the doubt that must constantly be just behind their eyes. And if Jesus won't back them up, thereby confirming their faith, then they'll do it themselves; just so long as they win the battle. Once they have vanquished the other religions, then they can give it whatever spin they choose; which then allows them to maintain their faith.

How is that any different than what was done in other ages? Maybe they no longer have the authority to coerce people into Christianity and slay those that refuse to believe (or were even suspected of same) or are of another faith, but the intent is the same, which is to see our civilization ruled by Christianity at the exclusion of all other faiths and beliefs--and even Christian denominations that don't fit the bill. And don't kid yourself that the carnage of past religious wars wouldn't be visited on us again if the radical Christians had the chance. How is that not the same as radical Islam?

That's why I maintain that the only reason, or at least the main reason why most Christians support the war in Iraq, is that they see it as a war on Islam, and America is the instrument of their god carrying out the punishment. And if we are successful (however you measure that), then no doubt they will take that as a sign that their faith has been confirmed. It's not hard to see that when you consider the genocide that's seen in the bible.

As to the remark that Christians aren't born into Christianity, but Muslims are born into Islam, what a ridiculously stupid thing to say. Of course Christians are born into Christianity, just as Muslims are born into Islam. The right good reverend made the point that Christians must make a decision to become a Christian; and Muslims don't? Certainly not everyone raised in a religion will follow that religion as an adult, and not everyone that joins a religion does so because of the culture or family that they are exposed to. However, chances are that if you are religious as an adult, you're practicing the religion that you were most exposed to in your youth. If that's not the case, then why are the major religions dominant in certain countries, and essentially non-existent in others?

And of course his statement that Muslims force people to embrace Islam, but Christians don't do the same, is nothing but a cheap tactical diversion. Radical Christians don't have the power to enforce their beliefs on others (but they're sure trying to), that's why they don't. Do I really need to point this out? Who for a second thinks that there aren't believers in this country that would love nothing more than to make our country the United States for Jesus?

Oh yeah, I forgot about his statement about Mohammad. He tried to make the point about him being a pedophile and violent and all of that. Which may very well be true. But what I find hilarious is the fact that this fatuous mountebank completely ignores his own religion about such questions. His god is supposed to be one that forgives and washes sinners white as snow. Saul of Tarsus anyone? Why couldn't his god have used Mohammad? And please don't tell me that God has a problem with rape and murder. Have you read the Old Testament?

Let me be clear, I don't believe a word of what any religion tells me concerning the factual nature of their claims. They're all based on lies and mythology, and I certainly don't believe that gods exist, so ultimately I don't care what religionists believe because it's all just white noise to me. But if someone like Keller is going to spew such sophistry about other religions, I'll be compelled to point out the hypocrisy that I see. Every religion has its fundamental believers that are blind to their own inconsistencies and flaws, and they are the ones that make it difficult for people to give ear to a religious person that actually have something worthy to say, which despite the impression that I give, I do believe happens once in a while; although probably not from the fundies.

What's sad is that there are people, me included, that wouldn't mind having a dialogue on the role of religion in society; moderate religion in particular. Just because I don't believe it, doesn't mean that I don't acknowledge that others do. But it just seems like there are far too many radicals for that discussion to happen in a meaningful way. Maybe it's just that they are louder than everyone else. I think that's why I don't pull any punches against people like Keller. Someone needs to stand up to bullies like him and tell him that's it's no longer acceptable to spread hate and fear. If it's up to people like me to speak out, then our species will never advance to the heights that it could, and may even be doomed. No one with a religious bent is going to listen to someone like me. Just like a family with the black sheep member that eventually needs to be dealt with, all religions need to deal with their black sheep before all hell breaks loose.

Despite the fact that it's clear to me that religion and gods are obviously man made, I'm not so deluded as to think that religion is going away anytime soon. Man made religious cults like the cults of personality that surround dictators and despots of all stripes is another type of religion that will be around for a long time to come. But if we must live with it, and if I must live with it, then somebody better get a handle on it. Because I'll be damned if it's going to control my life. I can tolerate moderate religion despite my personal opinion about it. But I, and a lot of other people will not see our country and this world brought to the brink of chaos if we have anything to say about it, even if that means painting all of the religious with the broad brush of radical religion. It's getting too late to be polite.

Prostitution: Why Is It Illegal?

Legalized Prostitution (liberator.net)

Should prostitution be legal? (prostitutionprocon.org)

W.H.O.R.E (Women Helping Ourselves to Rights and Equality!)


Back again for your blogging convenience, dear readers.

This Eliot Spitzer scandal has made me want to write about prostitution. Now I'm not going to defend him, because he clearly can't be trusted and he cheated on his wife, not to mention his hypocrisy. But as far as the actual thing that brought him down, I just don't understand why it's illegal. I certainly wish we lived in a world where such things weren't necessary. It doesn't make me happy that human beings feel that selling their bodies for sex is something they need to do.

But we do live in a world where some people are willing to pay for sex for various reasons. And we do live in a world were some people feel it's a good way to make money. Who am I to tell them it's wrong? If two consenting adults want to make a transaction of money for sex, why shouldn't they be allowed to do so? I certainly would want it to be regulated, and I'm not in favor of prostitutes standing on the street corner or having sex in cars on the streets.

I would like to eliminate the pimps from the equation and make it as safe as possible for all. Regulation would provide a way of ensuring the health and safety of these people while they provided a service that is obviously required by human beings. it would also let them save money for their future career, whatever that might be, as obviously no one would be doing this as a lifelong career. Locking people up for this is simply ridiculous.

And the argument that this would lead to the breakup of families is demonstrably false. Legalized prostitution wouldn't suddenly mean that it is okay or acceptable to cheat on your spouse. But if they are bound to cheat, wouldn't it be better that they didn't bring home a deadly disease and pass it along to their unsuspecting spouse? And if your spouse is going to cheat, wouldn't you prefer that they go to a prostitute that they would have no emotional attachment to, as opposed to having an affair with someone and becoming emotional involved with them just because they were too scared to visit a hooker because of the fear of jail? It doesn't take a genius to recognize that someone that is bound to cheat will find a way to do it one way or another.

I think we simply need to look at the rest of the world where prostitution is legal and regulated to see the difference. That's not to say that vigilance wouldn't be required to keep legal prostitution from sinking into a cesspool. You would always have to guard against people trying to skirt the rules, or guard against the industry being co-opted by the Mafia and such things. But right now, all you have is a mess where drug-riddled and diseased prostitutes are walking the streets, when they aren't being abused by their pimps. They take all the risks, along with the spouses that unknowingly engage in risky behavior because they don't know that their spouse is bringing home a disease with them.

Whether or not we will ever become enlightened about this is hard to say. I think it will be a matter of how much influence the religious will have in this country, because they can't see past their own insufferable self-righteousness. And unfortunately I don't see much hope for this because America is lamentably a very religious country. The religious will have to explain one day why they choose a pedantic, misogynistic worldview in this case. They are the ones that have made a purely natural act seem dirty and unseemly, which has lead to the present situation. And lets face it, prostitution is just barely this side of fucking someone that you met in a bar, or took out on a date. Only our sophistical sense of propriety allows us to make a distinction.

The religious have infected this world with a malediction for the crime of not agreeing with them on everthing. This malediction of hate and intolerance may one day plunge us into darkness that may be inescapable. They simply can't be bothered with facing reality and helping their fellow human beings live decent lives, because they've got a world to conquer. But thankfully there are many people on this planet that get it.

Gay Marriage and Homosexuality in Nature

Homosexual Animals Out of the Closet (Live Science)

Homosexual Activity Among Animals Stirs Debate (National Geographic)


So hello again. Well, after all the bigoted nonsense from the religious loonies in this country that are trying to pass amendments to ban gay marriage in the various state constitutions, and even the U.S. constitution, I felt a need to write on the subject. Many bigots have gotten their wish, which will be to the shame of their descendants whom will have to live with the shame of this latest form of man's discrimination against his fellow man. It sickens me and saddens my heart to be living in a time when this is happening.

There is absolutely no reason for this. What harm can come from allowing gay couples to marry? The proponents of this insanity say they are protecting marriage. I think we all know that this is merely a smokescreen for the real agenda, which is to punish anyone that believes something different from them, because they live in fear of anything they can't understand. This is common amongst those that do not have the intellect or self-confidence to accept anyone that they see as different. Fear is their main motivation, along with the attendant hatred. But I digress.

If protecting marriage is their goal, then why wouldn't they want to allow gay couples to get married? What could make the institution of marriage stronger than a million gay couples getting married? And let's be honest, despite our fantasies about heterosexual marriage, there isn't anything pretty about it. The evilest, stupidest person on earth can get married and produce a nest of ignoramuses, hate-filled bigots and misanthropes--but we need to protect this glorious institution from those evil gay people. You can have a thousand divorces on your dossier, and yet you can marry someone you met in a bar that night. And do we really need to discuss the beautiful institution of marriage and it's failure rate? The "sanctity of marriage" that they speak of is a steaming pile of bullshit.

Yes, they want to protect marriage, they want to protect their version of it so that they can feel superior to gay people, a group that most religionists absolutely hate with an unquenchable hatred. And they also think that by hating gay people, they will gain favor in the eyes of their evil, non-existent god, thereby reinforcing in their minds the rightness of their hatred. They use many arguments to try to marginalize and demonize homosexuals; all done so that the religious loonies can justify their hatred. And one of their favorite arguments is the idea that homosexuality is somehow unnatural.

I wonder, how can something that occurs in the animal kingdom be unnatural? Homosexual behavior is fairly ubiquitous amongst many different species. You can't get more natural than nature. I think it is clearly obvious that human beings are natural creatures that are only exhibiting behavior that is seen in nature's other creatures. To say that "God" didn't make mankind that way is an empty statement. Clearly the only assumption that can be made is that if there was a god behind the creation of life, homosexuality was included as a natural part of that life. I mean, it is part of the natural world, no one can deny that. I ask you, dear reader, can an animal choose to rebel against "God" and "sin"? Obviously not. Animals only do what comes natural to them. There is a HUGE contradiction between a god that considers homosexuality an abomination, and one that saw fit to make it part of it's creation. Only the credulous believers of the various religions could twist logic enough to be able to believe that such a being exists. But since we can see clearly, we have no such predilection. We can safely eliminate any god from the equation.

We are therefore left with the question of whether it's unnatural or not. Look, I don't completely understand it myself. Women are so soft and smooth, and sex with them makes more sense to me; I can't imagine not being attracted to women. But let's be honest, in reality there's nothing all that glamorous about heterosexual copulation. You're putting your dick in some lady's pisser and blood issuing canal. And by the way, that's some seriously fucked-up "perfect design", isn't it? And it's just a fact that some men just aren't wired that way. My own brother is gay. And trust me, he was born that way. And I say that even though he has three kids, because he had them while he was still very young. When he came out, I was not the least bit surprised. It was so obvious. It's societal and family pressures that make gay people do things that they probably shouldn't be doing.

I think any intelligent person would have to conclude that it is perfectly natural. And that takes away one of the weapons of the religious in their bigoted fight against homosexual marriage. And the only other argument that they can use is that it would somehow take away the rights of heterosexuals, or would give homosexuals special rights. Of course the nutty religionists like to say if you let gay people marry, then you have to let people that practice bestiality, pedophilia, and other abnormal (and those truly are abnormal because you don't see them in the animal kingdom) sexual behaviors get married. To which I would say yes, if you can get Bessie the cow to sign a marriage license and give her consent to marry farmer Joe, then by all means, have at it. Only a dunderheaded religionist would make such asinine conclusions. No, letting gay people get married would not undermine the institution of marriage, but it would allow two consenting adults make the ultimate expression of love for one another. And that's hardly asking for anything special, nor is it taking anything away from heterosexuals.

One things is for sure, love between two gay people is a natural thing, as natural as the sex act itself, and denying the gay community the right to marry is an abomination that Adolph Hitler would be proud of. Sure homosexuality is a little off-putting for many, but that's our problem and we need to get over ourselves. We're all human animals, and we are equally important in the balance of the natural world. It's our our man-made prejudices that keep us from acknowledging this. I have no doubt that there are many factors as to why homosexuality exists in nature; science is still working on an explanation for it. The articles that I have posted go into that a little bit. I do know that "sin" isn't one of them, and I know that it undeniably exists.

We will one day regret what is being done in this country, and the damage may be irreversible. One can only hope that future generations will come to their senses and end this reprehensible bigotry, just as future generations ended slavery and segregation.

I've got a man crush on these guys and I'm not ashamed to admit it!

Hello again. Here are a couple of videos from a 2-hour confab of four gentlemen that I consider bulwarks against ignorance and hate. Messrs Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens engaged in a lively debate, that despite what one might expect, is not a ego-fest. It is instead a serious discussion of the place of the rational person in today's world--amongst other subjects. I rather enjoyed it. I didn't always agree with what they said, and I would have liked to have seen the conversation get more into science, but it was nice to see four active minds engage in a discussion like this.

Buy the DVD here at RichardDawkins.net

The Future of the Music Industry.

Nice article from 2004 on the PBS Frontline website

More recent article by way of Freakonomics and the NY Times




Hello all, welcome to another rum induced post. And this really is a rum induced post. Hopefully my spelling will be okay. I'm just setting here with my headphones on, listening to School of Fish by Peter Namlook and Mixmaster Morris. The articles I have linked to have made some very interesting points about the future of the music industry, and offer much more depth than I could ever offer, but anyway. Myself, I'm not sure what I would say about the subject. But I have no doubt that it has changed forever.

The concern I have is that I, and my fellow music lovers may never again discover artists like Peter Namlook, et al. If not for the Internet, I would have never discovered a lot of the artists that I now listen to. Yes I know, you can't miss what you haven't heard. But I I think my life would be the poorer for not having heard some of the really different, even inspiring music that I have come across on the Internet.

I can't tell you the effect that music has on me. It's the only thing on this earth that makes sense to me. Music is the purest form of communication, even more so than sexual relations in my opinion. It settles and focuses my mind like nothing else. And unlike rum, it has no after effects. If I were ever to worship a god, it would have to be one that inspired excellent music in it's adherents. In fact, I might even say that the only gods worth worshiping are the creators of great music.

But the future concerns me. I have an abiding wish for the independent artists that are now using the Internet to bring their music to the masses, to continue to grow with the Internet. But there is no doubt in my mind that if the major record labels can find a way to control the distribution of music through the Internet, we will no longer be able to discover the many varied artists in the many varied genres that we now have access to. I can only imagine what that would mean for people like you and me that have long since given up on relying on radio and tv to find new music. I can't even imagine going back to a world where the lesser known artists and genres were dependent on radio to promote their music. How did such artists even survive back in the day?

Of course unfortunately there is a caveat to this. In a world where digital music makes it so easy to download music without paying for it, the independent label/artist can find it difficult to make a living without the promotion that a major label provides--touring for instance. Certainly it's cheaper for an artist/band to produce a record these days what with the ubiquitous music software that is available. But with the access that every artist has to the Net, one wonders how many artists are getting overlooked in the innumerable bits that are traveling across it. I'm sure the sheer number of artists on the Net makes it hard to find an audience. But of course with the Net, they have an avenue, a worldwide venue that they wouldn't otherwise have. I suppose there is an equilibrium that exists somewhere in there.

One thing is for sure: the days of limited choice for the music lover has passed. And hopefully the time of performers with borderline talent has passed as well. No longer do the radio stations, and by extension the major labels have a monopoly on what we can sample and discover. It will be much more difficult (one hopes) for less than talented artists to hold the publics attention by showing tit or muscle. I like to look at a nice pair of tits as much as the next guy, believe me. But music and booty--never the twain shall meet. And I mean as far as sex selling the music. There will always be a form of music that is built around the sensual, but it should still stand on it's own. There's plenty of shitty Electronica for example.

But getting back to the theme of this subject--I believe the future of music is indeterminate. Certainly a great deal of it lies in the digital realm, but just what that will look like is still up in the air, I think. I certainly hope that the ease of downloading isn't a two-edged sword. If the industry becomes too reliant on revenue from the downloads, and not enough people pay, then traditional CD sales might no longer be an option. Sort of an eggs in one basket scenario. It has to be tough for an up and coming artist. Should they sign with a major label and risk not be a favorite son when sales don't go through the roof? Or should they remain independent or sign with a smaller label and risk being drowned out?

Personally, I would like to see an all digital musical universe, with downloadable liner notes, graphics, and such. And I wouldn't be surprised if that turned out to be the case. I don't see how the major labels can continue with the old business model. They might try to buy up all the Internet competition and bully Congress into passing laws in their favor, but I don't see the music consumer, nor the artists, putting up with such nonsense. Just like anything concerning business, adapting to consumer tastes is the key to surviving. And if the major labels would get on board the digital train and give the RIAA legal arm the boot, they could be leaders, instead of hapless followers. Yes they would be smaller, and of course there are still questions and business models to be fleshed out. But if the powers that be (of every stripe) would come to their senses, the future of music can be a place where every artist has a fair shake at being heard, and can succeed or fail based on the merit of their music, and not how fuckable or charming they are.

It should be interesting to say the least. Your thoughts?

Net Neutrality, coming to an Internet near you?

Congress Considers New Net Neutrality Bill (PC World article)

Save the Internet website


So apparently a new Net Neutrality bill was introduced in Congress last week. The article says that it isn't the first one to be introduced. More specific bills were introduced in 2006 in the Republican-controlled Congress, but they failed. No doubt they didn't want to upset their business friends ability to rape consumers. Although to be honest, I don't know the exact reason why it failed before.

It's about time the FCC got off its ass and made itself useful by coming down hard on companies like Comcast and others that are trying to control paying customers access to the Internet. Apparently that's what this bill is designed to do--get the FCC to keep a close eye on this. If the big ISPs were left unfettered, the only people that would get unrestricted access to the Internet would be the corporate customers that could afford it. Not only could they throttle your connection with impunity, but they could prevent you from going to your favorite shopping site because that company didn't meet the ISP's demands.

Mind you, this isn't nearly as sexy for the FCC as fining some broadcaster for allowing someone to say "tits" or "blowjob" on their network, or for fining them for a naked butt, but it's still part of their job. After all, governments are supposed to protect people. And if they can't be convinced to be just a little bit more then the fucking moral police for the religious nuts in this country, then Congress will have to step in and insist. Seeing a naked ass or any other body part, or hearing someone swearing doesn't really hurt me. Not having the ability to freely obtain information and freely conduct my business--that hurts me. I'm not saying that the FCC has been completely inactive on this, but clearly a Republican appointee isn't exactly going to be a crusader for consumer rights.

I'm certainly less than enthused that Congress is getting involved in something like this. I don't trust them one bit to not fuck it up. Congress legislating the Internet scares the hell out of me. But I guess it can't be avoided, and this at least has the appearance of being a good thing. My hope is that this bill will send a message to these companies that the Internet is to remain neutral for all parties involved, period. They're already making billions on their services, and when I had cable, I cringed at the cluster-fuck of a bill that I got each month. And just how much money do these companies need?

We should all hope that this bill isn't just a myopic, pedantic exercise in futility, or simply a bone thrown to consumers/voters to keep them fat and happy voters/consumers. A bill with real teeth is needed that looks towards the future of the Internet. If there is bound to be legislation, then do it right the first time, because as sure as shit stinks, this will come up again every time a new technology is invented, or a new use for the Internet comes along. The Internet should always be a superhighway, as it used to be called. By all means, charge for the on-ramp, you have a right to make money; I'm fond of money as well. But please, don't restrict me to the slow lane, or tell me which exits I'm allowed to take.

And let's face it, if Congress doesn't get it right, there will no doubt be plenty of hackers and such more than willing to take up the challenge. And I sure as hell don't want to get caught in that pile-up.

Run for the hills! Evolution is coming!

Cosmos Magazine article

Well, I came across this nice little item from the Cosmos magazine website. It's a bit old, but it still demonstrates the dangers of religion in this world, and why we must be vigilant. It seems that one of the head Christians in Kenya was, and no doubt still is, worried about the "evil" of evolution in his country in the form of the National Museum of Kenya and it's hominid fossil exhibit.

I guess the good bishop isn't so sure of the veraciousness of his religion since he feels compelled to try to lead a fight to have the truth of Evolution suppressed. I guess his god isn't strong enough to overcome a museum exhibit in it's quest to make this world a Christian world. That's one pathetic god if you ask me. Foiled by fossils and nerdy anthropologists.

Maybe if Christianity can rid the world of all the competing religions, and rid the world of the science that is making religion more and more marginal everyday, then the Christian god can finally claim victory. I guess they have no choice but to use coercion, pseudoscience, and fear to win this battle, since Christianity isn't exactly winning willing converts hand over fist.

Maybe if the good bishop and his flock would have spent more time preaching acceptance, love, and tolerance, instead of an us against them mentality, perhaps Kenya wouldn't being going up in flames right now. Of course Christianity will never be able to solve those kinds of problems, nor will any other religion. People will always try to find a scapegoat when the shit hits the fan, and there isn't one goddamn church on this planet, of any religion, that doesn't have a ready supply of people that believe they have the only truth, and a disdain for anyone different then themselves. And they sure as hell have holy books that make violence seem like a duty.

Religion has a good side you may say; it helps many people. But don't be surprised when you use a fucked-up formula like religion to live by, that for every Dr Jekyll, the formula makes a Mr Hyde. And you don't have the right to be defensive or protest your innocence when you create a monster and it goes on a rampage through the countryside.

And that's exactly what this idiotic attack on National Museum of Kenya is. A rampage by the ignorant monsters that religion has helped to create and nurture.

Brains on my mind...

Excellent article from Brain Connection

Okay, so my original post was November 4th, and it's now February 11th. I really do intend to make this a regular thing. I'm still not sure what my little blog will become, if it becomes anything at all. I don't expect that it will become anything special, or that it will get a lot of visitors. But, that's okay, I do this kind of thing for fun and to occupy my time. That leads me to a subject that's been rolling around in my brain for a while. And the following could be completely asinine. I am an amateur supposer after all.

I have this philosophy that humans do things, everything, aside from the things that we do to survive, because we're bored. From our greatest works of art, to our economies and everyday things like going to the movies; all of them, they're done because our brains have this insatiable need to be occupied with some task. I think that might be the greatest impetus for evolution. For some reason our brains are hardwired for the need to always be engaged in some activity.

Think about it, if that wasn't true, how far would we have evolved to this point? Say for instance that our brains only cared about being replenished with nutrients, and that for the rest of the time we had no concern about learning or exploring. Would we even still exist? Isn't the structure and function of our brains the thing that gave us a leg up on other species?

I would guess that our brains have evolved this way because we, along with our ancestors, had the need to out think larger and more aggressive species. And now that we are more sure of our safety and our next meal, the remnants of those evolved traits now need a new outlet of expression. I might be on the wrong track here, but my hypothesis is that the more adept a species is at hunting and surviving, the less developed the brain will be because of it.

I realize that that may seem counterintuitive because man is said to be the greatest hunter, and we have the most developed minds. But my reference is in regards to the pure physical and instinctive traits that are so advantageous to hunting and killing. For instance, a dinosaur that is a good hunter just by it's very nature, will not have a need to develop different skills besides those that it possesses by default. Yes, our ancestor wasn't the only species that wasn't equipped to be the best hunter, so why didn't the other species become smarter like us?

That's a question that I need to answer to my satisfaction.

I think the answer could be that we were lucky to have developed a larger cranial capacity over time along with a brain that was more able to evolve while similar primates, and other species, weren't as lucky and thus perished. And of course our ancestors were better positioned with a better equipped body than other animals to take advantage of our slowing growing intellect. In fact, it may very well be that our physical makeup is in large part the catalyst that caused our brains to evolve. It may be that it's no coincidence that out closet relative in the animal kingdom physically speaking, are also some of the most intelligent creatures.

In the end, the evolution of our brains strikes me as kind of a blessed curse. We made it this far because of our brains, but the intelligence that saved us is the same intelligence that makes us restless and apt to do harm to others; as well as occasionally depriving us of the ability to embrace for what it is, as opposed to what it could be. I guess your philosophy will determine if that restlessness is a desirable trait, something to be tolerated, or something to be avoided.

Of course without the destruction of the dinosaurs, we probably wouldn't be here anyway. I wonder, what would life be like now if they hadn't perished? And what will it be like the next time around? It may be that our species is a one in a million, and earth will never again see a similar serendipitous triumvirate of brain-body-environment once we have gone.

It makes you think...