World Citizen

A Look at Guns: Arguments for and against them.

2009-11-18T16:52:00.012-05:00

Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence

The Constitution of the United States

Hate me if you must, but hear me if you can.

You know, every time I talk about guns with people, I always get the same answers. Now I've been wrong before when I thought I was right -- as when I thought I had the answers to life when I was a Christian. Boy was I wrong. But I'm pretty sure I'm right about this. I think I can shoot down (pardon the pun) every argument in favor of guns that I've heard. I don't favor banning every kind of gun, just to lay down a little guidance and perspective.

It's our Constitutional right.
Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
Lots of things kill people, should we ban everything?
We need them for shooting for fun.
We need them for hunting.
We need them for self defense.

True, it is in the Constitution. Let's look at this 2nd amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Do you, dear reader, have any doubt as to what a militia is? It would be the equivalent of the National Guard in your state. I'm fully in favor of this. If you belong to the National Guard of your state, or similar government arm, you would of course be armed. The intent of this amendment is obviously clear. In those days a militia might be necessary and would arise from the populace of the state, so naturally they would need their own firearms.

So that's the Constitution. It's clear what it means. These days we have police forces and military in the states, so militias made of ordinary citizens are no longer needed. And if it became so bad in a war that ordinary citizens needed to fight, they would be armed by the military with military weapons. Of course some would argue that the idea is to keep a dictator from seizing absolute power. They often reference Nazi Germany taking firearms away from it's citizens. But the idea that Hitler could only assume power if the German people didn't have access to guns, assumes that the German people wanted to overthrow him, and that that would have deterred the Nazis. The Wehrmacht rolled through entire countries, I hardly think armed citizens would have stopped them.

Anyway, do you really think you would stop the US military with rifles and handguns if they were somehow controlled by an American despot? This isn't the 18th century where a group of citizens soldiers would essentially be equally armed with any standing army. Besides the government has already restricted your ability to make was against it. Try going to your gun shop and buying military grade weapons. You can get some nasty stuff to be sure, but you would always be outgunned.

These were smart men that made this law. Do you really think that the current reality is what they had in mind? Guns in those days were a tool, and the fastest you could hope to shoot one was what, twice a minute? Is there one honest gun advocate reading this that thinks that the founding fathers would look at the array of guns that we have today, with the awesome killing power that they have, and say this is what they had in mind? Really? Especially considering what the 2nd amendment is referring to, not to mention the murders done so easily with a handgun? Really?

You know the Constitution isn't sacred. It's been amended multiple times over the centuries.

Let me put it to you this way: Let's pretend nuclear energy was around to power homes when the 2nd amendment was written, and an amendment was written ensuring that every citizen was entitled to keep plutonium to power their own mini reactors. After all, handled properly, plutonium is no more dangerous than a handgun. In those days, plutonium was only used to power homes and such. Now 230 years later, plutonium has an entirely different meaning, with dire consequences for the entire world in the wrong hands.

If such a scenario were true, would you still insist on your Constitutional right to own plutonium? I mean, just like firearms, plutonium is absolutely harmless when handled by a conscientious law abiding citizen. Plutonium doesn't kill people, people kill people, right? Yes I know, that's crazy, a nuclear device could kill millions, of course we wouldn't want people to have plutonium if it could end up in a nuclear warhead. But is that argument any different than pro gun people arguing that guns are safe until a bad guy pulls the trigger?

Sure a single gun won't kill millions at once, but how many murders are okay with you? A million is bad, but you can live with 10,000? How many accidental gun deaths are okay?

Yes, other things can be used as weapons to be sure. People kill with knives, blunt objects, rope, poison, whatever. But here is the difference: Guns have one primary purpose, to kill. At most it can be argued that a handgun can be used for target shooting. Is target shooting worth a single handgun death? You couldn't find something else to do for fun, or something else to use for target practice? Other things that are used to kill have other legitimate uses. And when was the last time you heard of a drive-by knifing? But even at that, I would be in favor of restricting something that was used to kill like guns are.

As far as hunting and self defense, I wouldn't be against a hunter owning a hunting rifle. Hunting is needed to control animal populations, even though I don't get why it's called a sport. But that's another topic. And I would also support owning a shotgun for home defense; I'm not naive, I realize that murders and crime wouldn't suddenly stop if no one owned a handgun etc.

Look, I'm not calling for an outright ban on guns. In a perfect world we wouldn't need them, but I know we don't live in such a world. But I am asking why do we need handguns? Why can't we ban them? Of course we would have to be careful how we did it since the criminal element wouldn't voluntarily give up their stash; and I would be satisfied with only a ban on handguns and their close relatives, so to speak. Not all at once, but with reason and wisdom.

I ask you again, how many murders and accidental deaths (done mostly by handguns) are okay with you? Yes we would still have gun murders and accidental shootings, but shouldn't we try to make that as rare as possible if it's in our power to do so? Is the fear of not being able to get 100% positive results a reason to not try?

How many do you say?

Do the right thing, Democrats.

2009-11-18T00:47:00.008-05:00

The Huffington Post: The 15 Biggest Congressional Recipients Of Wall Street Campaign Cash

An open letter to the Democrats that received big campaign contributions from the financial sector.

Jesus Christ! Send the fucking money back, and send it back now! You cannot be working on finance reform while taking money from these people. Why the fuck do you think they are giving it to you? We don't hold you to blame for people contributing to your campaigns and PACs, they're not stupid, they know who's in power. But you damn well better believe that we will hold you to blame if you let this money influence you, and taking money from them is wrong regardless, considering how that money was earned in the first place.

Don't get the idea that because we swept Obama into power, we will overlook avarice and bumbling from the Democratic Party. You don't get a free pass. There is no droit du seigneur here, let the principle of noblesse oblige be your byword. Don't even think that because we don't support the nutty teabaggers, that we are giving you a free pass to do whatever you please. If you don't deal with this correctly, you will absolutely lose the swing voters and sweep the Republicans back into power -- and we will all pay for that. I don't care that Republicans are also taking money from them, you are in power, and you will rightfully shoulder any blame that results from influence from the financial industry. Who the fuck is advising you people anyway?

Do the right thing, send this money back, now. Don't let me wake up one morning to find that Michele (looney tunes) Bachmann in running things in the house and Sarah Palin is -gulp- President Palin. The Democratic Party has the a unique chance to make historic changes and put people in control of their lives, don't fuck it up.

Do the right thing.

I'm no genius, but I think space is pretty big -- and we aren't.

2009-08-17T20:27:00.009-04:00

Spitzer Space Telescope

So I'm flipping around on the Internets today and I came across some pictures from the Spitzer Space Telescope. It's an infrared telescope that was recently re-commissioned after being down for repairs. I was looking at the photos strictly for the "wow" factor that I get from seeing galaxies and the like; those sort of photos just blow my mind. Just the thought that there are such glories in the universe that don't give a damn about me or my little problems makes me very humble and thankful for this life. But something else got my attention, something that I had considered before and wasn't really a revelation, but it's something I wanted to share as just a reminder of our place.

Now, mind you there are galaxies and nebulae and so on much farther away than this, but this will do. One of the pictures from Spitzer was of a distant galaxy called NGC 4145, about 68 million light-years away in the constellation Canes Venatici. I've done this sort of thing before, where I ask myself just how far away is 68 million light-years? But this time I wanted to know just how long it would take us to get there using some future technology.

So here's what I did. I took the speed of light, times the number of seconds in a minute, the number of minutes in an hour, the number of hours in a day, and the number of days in a year. So:

~ Light Speed - 186,000 miles per second

~ Multiply by 60 = 11,160,000 miles traveled in 1 minute.

~ Multiply by 60 = 669,600,000 miles traveled in 1 hour.

~ Multiply by 24 = 16,070,400,000 miles traveled in 1 day.

~ Multiply by 365 = 5,865,696,000,000 miles traveled in 1 year. Which is also 1 "light year."

~ Multiply by 68,000,000 = 398,867,328,000,000,000,000 miles traveled in 68 million light-years.

In other words, that galaxy is almost 400 quintillion miles away from us.

Now, the fastest man made vehicles are two sun probes called Helios, their top speed is something like 150,000 mph, give or take. Now that really has more to do with the gravity of the sun and the close proximity of the probes to the sun, but okay, we still built it. But, let's look say 100 years in the future, anything more than that and you wouldn't even begin to guess what will take place. But I think we can take a decent guess at the next 100 years. Of course this is just speculation, but that's all we can go on.

Let's say in the future, we decide to send a probe to that crazy NGC 4145 galaxy. Because goddammit, we have to spend our 100 trillion dollar space budget on something! Okay the 100 trillion part is pure fantasy, but we will be sending out more probes in the future. So we work for a decade or so and build the fastest damn thing ever seen by humanity: The Hasenpfeffer 9000 space probe -- brought to you by Walmart's Hasenpfeffer stew!

The Hasenpfeffer 9000 is the finest and fastest thing that Americans can pay for and our Chinese masters can build. That baby will do a sweet 1,000,000 mph! That's right, 1 million miles per hour! So come launch day they fire that baby up and send her on her way. But, I hope you left instructions for whatever future species will be here, because here's how it will play out.

~ Our speed - 1,000,000 mph

~ Multiply by 24 - 24,000,000 miles traveled in one day.

~ Multiply by 365 - 8,760,000,000 miles traveled in one year. That's 8.7 billion miles in 1 year. That's a lot!

~ Divide 398,867,328,000,000,000,000 by 8,760,000,000 = 45,532,800,000

Result:

It would still take us over 45.5 billion years traveling at 1 million miles per hour to reach that galaxy, if the universe is even still around then.

And don't forget, even if we could travel at the incredible speed of light, which is an utterly amazing, unfathomable speed, it would still take us 68 million years to reach that wacky NGC 4145!

Even if my math is off or I skipped a step, there's no getting around just how tiny we are, and how little we mean to the rest of the universe. Humbling, ain't it?

Jesus said he loves me...and other reasons for Christians to have sex.

2009-08-16T18:56:00.010-04:00

Because I'm bored.

- The roof was leaking, and I needed a dry place to keep my wang.

- If we don't multiply, the terrorists win.

- Because not having sex is socialism!

- Telling people they will burn in hell just makes me hot.

- I can always say I'm sorry later and ask forgiveness. Forgiveness rules!

- Are you kidding? I'm surrounded by horny virgins!

- Well, all of our leaders seem to be getting their groove on, why shouldn't I?

- Because I'm a man, and she will do as I say! It's in the bible!

- The Lord Jesus rode an ass into Jerusalem, so I'm just following his example.

- Because Argentina pussy is just so sweet! Just ask any Governor of South Carolina.

- That damn altar boy was asking for it! Jesus will forgive me for anal rape of a child, and the church will hide me, so you know, it's all good. Wait, what was the question again?

- Who else will bring the gospel to those two-dollar whores?

- Internet porn just wasn't doing it for me anymore.

- A future crazy-ass Republican President will need some Christian warriors for cannon fodder.

- Eating their weight in cheeseburgers wasn't enough to satiate their carnal desire.

- I'm rife with power. Snorting blow off a hooker's ass is the only thing that can bring you down from that high.

- Have you ever worn a satin robe?

- Wine, candles, bread, and virgins. You figure it out.

- Because as a Christian woman, I was put on this earth to be a baby maker -- and nothing else.

- They're obsessed with sex. This isn't calculus.

- Who gives a fuck? At least that's 2 1/2 minutes they won't be preaching at me.

- I'm just doing unto others as I would have them do unto me. Giggity!

Another gosh darn slap at sanity, and free speech. And look, it's about religion! Wonderful, wonderful religion!

2009-08-02T13:48:00.012-04:00

Ireland bucks trend with anti-blasphemy law

Goddamn It, Ireland Outlaws Blasphemy

Well, here I though it was the 21st century, and it turns out to be the 11th. How could I have missed that? They sure make good beer these days. I was thinking it was the 21st century because no thinking person would even consider trying to outlaw something as nebulous as blasphemy, as they apparently recently have in Ireland. Now I know you will say "Jesus McTitfuck, you must be crazy, that could never happen now!" But you would be wrong to assume such a thing. And hey, watch the language, okay? Let's not get you in any trouble.

You know whether this was done to make the Catholic majority in Ireland happy, or because this law was required by their constitution, neither looks good. If it was added because they are trying to protect Catholics, or any religion for that matter, what does that say about that particular religion? And if it was done to satisfy legal requirements, what does that say about the Irish Constitution and the people that decided it made sense?

I mean, this is Ireland we're talking about here. Ireland! Now I know religious intolerance is nothing new in that part of the world, considering the long history of bloodshed in Northern Ireland, but damn, this is just insane. I would expect this in Iran or Pakistan where this probably seems like a no-brainer, and entering the civilized family of nations has rarely been a laudable goal. But not in Ireland. Not even if this is only procedural and is quickly overturned. Goddamn, what the fuck!? Seriously!

Well, scratch off Ireland along with Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, and North Korea as places to visit.

From this point I'll just post the best article that I came across on this subject, because from here on out it was just going to be me and every goddamn blasphemous fucking thing I could think of to say about religion, sky fairies, and yes probably even fluffy bunnies if I got mad enough.

And just for clarification purposes and covering my own ass: I am not in any way affiliated with ABC News or Mr. Paulos, and the photo for this post is from the ABC article.

The following story is from ABC News.com

New Blasphemy Law in Ireland
Monitoring the Illogic of Modern-Day Religious Persecution

COMMENTARY
By JOHN ALLEN PAULOS
Aug. 2, 2009

When a modern Western country whose economy is based on science and technology adopts an absurdly medieval law, one would think that this would be a news story of at least moderate size.
Oddly though, almost no attention has been paid in the United Stares to the passing last month of a bill establishing a crime of blasphemy in Ireland.
Approved by the Irish parliament, it states: "A person who publishes or utters blasphemous matter shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable upon conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding euro."
Furthermore, "a person publishes or utters blasphemous matter if (a) he or she publishes or utters matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion, and (b) he or she intends, by the publication or utterance of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage."
Even if I weren't the author of a book entitled "Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don't Add Up," I would find this bill abysmally wrong-headed.

Even Parodies and Bad Jokes Liable to Fine

Although it provides for exceptions to prosecution if a "reasonable person" finds literary, scientific or other significant value in a work, it would allow for atheists to be prosecuted for denying the existence of God, a denial that clearly causes outrage in many.
Those writing parodies and bad jokes would also be liable to the 25,000 euro fine. Even an innocuous riff on God rescinding the Bible in the middle of the night the way Amazon called back the Orwell book from its Kindle reader could be prosecuted.
And if the reaction of some irate readers of my book is any indication, so could an imagined instant message exchange between me and God that appears in the book.
But non-believers would not be the only, or even the primary, ones affected by this blasphemy bill. People, irreligious or not, presumably could be prosecuted for drawing cartoons of Mohammad. Christians could be prosecuted for expressing scorn or even disbelief in the Christian teachings of other denominations.
Likewise, Jews and others could be prosecuted for denying the divinity or even the existence of Jesus. Or, if atheism is considered a religion (which it is not), atheists also could claim to be outraged by the expressions of their religious countrymen, each of whom could then be required to cough up 25,000 euro.
Law Allows for Confiscation of Blasphemous Materials
The law also allows for the confiscation of blasphemous materials -- novels, non-fiction books, short videos, full-length movies, etc.
Interestingly, the blasphemy law is not the only medieval aspect of Irish law. The preamble to the Irish Constitution maintains that the state's authority derives from the most holy trinity, stipulates that no one can become president or a judge without taking a religious oath, and declares that all citizens have obligations to Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Similar but less overt sentiments and statutes exist in this country. Witness the arguments put forth by many that the U.S. is a Christian country.
More analogous is a little-known example involving the state of Arkansas, which has not yet roused itself to rescind article 19 of its constitution: "No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any court." A few other states have similar laws.

Same Impulse in Politics
The impulse to enact benighted laws of this sort gives rise to more than these Taliban-like religious laws. After all, it is not only all-mighty deities that need special legal protection. Generals and politicians do too, so the same fearful defensiveness also leads to draconian edicts to protect political leaders and parties from ridicule.
Pakistan, to cite a recent example, has just announced a prohibition of jokes about President Asif Zardari. Anyone sending e-mails, text messages or blog postings containing such jokes is subject to arrest and a 14-year prison sentence. I'm sure even more prohibitive restrictions exist in those hotbeds of free-wheeling political humor, Burma and North Korea.
It's instructive to contrast these authoritarian laws against blasphemy, jokes, political humor and free speech generally with the way people deal with dissent from established scientific laws.
No laws prohibit people from denying that Earth is spherical, that evolution explains the development and diversity of life, or that the moon landing ever took place. The same holds for mathematics. No one claiming that pi is a rational number, that there are finitely many prime numbers, or that Godel's theorem is false has ever been hauled into court.
Of course, I by no means intend to equate the irreligious with scientific quacks. Just the opposite, in fact. It's simply that in most domains, those who insist on denying conventionally accepted beliefs are for the most part simply ignored. Statements that can stand on their own two feet (evidence and logic) don't need crutches (blasphemy laws) to support them.
As mentioned, Ireland is a modern pluralistic state with an educated population, a world-class literary tradition and a healthy economy that has transformed itself in recent years in large part through science and high-tech jobs. To continue this transformation, the religious and irreligious alike should reject this silly blasphemy law.
The religious should probably be most opposed to it, however. Placing punitive sanctions on the robust, or even the rude, expression of irreligious thought does not seem to say much for religion.

John Allen Paulos, a professor of mathematics at Temple University, is the author of the best-sellers "Innumeracy" and "A Mathematician Reads the Newspaper," as well as (just out in paperback) "Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don't Add Up." His "Who's Counting?" column on ABCNews.com appears the first weekend of every month.

Please, let's get our asses to Mars! ASAP!

2009-08-02T10:47:00.016-04:00

A One-Way, One-Person Mission to Mars

The Case for Colonizing Mars

You know, I have always been fascinated with all things celestial since I was a little boy. I'm not sure why exactly. It must have been a movie I saw or something like that. I just find the subject fascinating. And you know, that really doesn't strike me as anything out of the ordinary for someone to be attracted to. After all, to understand the cosmos-- or at least to try to understand the cosmos is to understand where we came from and where we might be going. Even as a fundamentalist Christian I was fascinated by "outer space" and everything in it.

So why do I feel so different these days? Why do I feel like no one really cares that much about it? I'm not going to argue about whether or not other important issues should be put on the back burner, or if they are more important or less important. And I'm not going to concern myself with why people don't seem to be into it. Maybe it's because it's not such a new and fascinating thing these days or because of everyday concerns. I really don't know, and quite frankly I really don't give a shit why. I'm just pro-space exploration. Maybe I'm completely wrong on this subject, in every way, but I'm not able to be any other way. I just get the impression that people don't care as much these days about space exploration and the like as they once did. There are lots of great programs on TV that discuss the many facets and disciplines of space science, and plenty of fictional shows and movies. Yet there doesn't seem to be any great call for new exploration. Hell, most of NASA's probes go unnoticed when they are launched.

And many of these probes have been sent to the one planet that we will ever explore in the foreseeable future. That planet is Mars, of course. From the Mariner missions on down, we have sent probe after probe to investigate our planetary neighbor. Most of them were successful and have given us lots of new data about the "red planet." If it wasn't for these accomplishments we wouldn't even be considering further space exploration-- no question about it. And it certainly has helped to maintain at least a certain level of interest about the cosmos in the public consciousness-- and has even helped to move the debate along.

That's all great and necessary, of course, but isn't it time to move beyond the probes and insert the human component into the mix? I'm not even talking about getting NASA or any other world agency on the ball about this. I mean isn't it time that we as a people, as a species, began looking out beyond the confines of our own little existence? I think NASA and others are already chomping at the bit to get humanity to the far reaches of our solar system. But unless there is a popular will to do this, unless we make this a default mandate for anyone that would ask us to put them in a position of leadership, both scientific and political, the chances of this coming to fruition are much less I think.

Going to Mars is a tough enough challenge when you're talking about probes, but to get people safely to Mars would be a enormous and overwhelming challenge. But the success of such a mission would also be an enormous and overwhelming triumph. And the difficulty of such an endeavor means that we must make this a priority and that the support of the citizenry of the world must be the backbone of it. No compromises must be allowed to take place, and no egos must get in the way. And in doing so the world will see what can be done when we come together as humans instead of fight each other as rivals.

Look, I'm no fool. I know how hard it is to even get countries to agree where they will hold a meeting, let alone what they will discuss. There won't be a damn thing about this that will be easy. People will cry about priorities, about the feasibility, and about the impossibility of committing to such a project. This will be a mammoth undertaking that will push us to the very limits of our human capabilities. The technology involved in this will no doubt be on the bleeding edge, and there will be failures along the way, maybe even disasters. But if we were to quit, or not even try because of failure or the fear of failure, then we never would have made it to the moon, and we would have stopped sending probes to Mars a long time ago.

Sure, I know there are some things that we as humans are currently incapable of accomplishing. We are probably still centuries or even millennia away from exploring other galaxies or even eradicating disease and such on Earth. The vast, unfathomable distances alone will take some new technology to overcome. My own dream is to see the Milky Way Galaxy from an outside vantage point. I can think of no greater glory in this life than to rise out of and above our own galaxy and see it as maybe some other distant civilization sees it, and to know that right there, in that spiral arm exists unique life. What a revelation that would be! But that's just not going to happen. Not anytime soon anyway. I know that dreams like those really are just dreams right now, and will be for a long time to come.

But dammit, we can go to Mars. We must go to Mars. We will go to Mars, eventually. At some point in our future, we will have no choice but to go to another planet. Isn't it better to go now, or to at least start the planning now and learn as much as we can for future generations for when they will need to go to another planet? This planet has seen mass extinctions before. It will certainly see them again. That we will see another ice age is an absolute fact. And who knows what future events will bring to this less than stable planet? And I will freely admit, I also want us to go just for the simple reason that we can. The benefits to me far outweigh the risk and the cost involved. The benefits to future scientific discovery and advancement alone is worth it. Even if we lived on a perfectly calm planet with no danger of future annihilation, I would still say "go."

Believe me, I understand about everyday concerns and mundane details crowding out the grander things that we can contemplate. But we are humans, this is what we do. We explore, we discover. Please don't let me die without knowing that we have at least made plans to go to Mars.

Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet?

Sarah Palin: Milking it for all she's worth.

2009-08-02T10:27:00.008-04:00

Sarah Palin Matches David Letterman in Cheap, Classless Jokes

Note: this was written before this dingbat announced she was quitting her job as Governor of Alaska. I will address that towards the end of this opinion piece.

Hey Sarah Palin, how about you shut the fuck up? Why wouldn't your daughter (and you know which one Dave, and now me are referring to) get knocked up by Alex Rodriguez? She clearly has no problem with getting her groove on. Stop pretending that your daughter is some virtuous Madonna that is above reproach. She let some dude shove his dick in her like any other horny teenager would. Your cover is blown. You're not the perfect Christian family that you are trying to portray. And your wounded mother act is wearing thin. We know you are already running for President in 2012, and this is some pathetic attempt to lure women voters. That's pretty fucking cynical if you ask me. How stupid and gullible do you think women are?

What makes you think that most women will believe for even a nanosecond that you're standing up for their rights?

And don't you have a state to run? Wait, you know what, on second thought, keep making an ass of yourself and bring the Republican party to it's knees with your idiotic, retarded blathering. Hopefully you will tie your party to the religious nutters like you for good, ensuring that they never win another race. Power hungry fools like you only care about one thing, and that's power and glory. No tactic is off the table, and no lie is too big to overcome. You are using your daughter to garner sympathy from women in hopes of setting yourself up as the protector of women. But most of us are intelligent enough to know that we are seeing one more cynical politician that is out for herself.

And where was this propriety that you allegedly live by when you were slandering President Obama during the campaign? You practically called him a terrorist sympathizer, and you stirred up the innate paranoia and fear that right wing Christians lunatics suffer from by doing so. Spare me your offended sensibilities, asshole. I don't believe for a second that you are offended by anything you hear, considering the ease with which the lies and hyperbole spill from your lips. You sank the McCain campaign thanks to your bizarre babbling on all things global, and now you're sinking the Republican party faster than your ratings sank after your debate. Not that McCain had a choice with the fundies co-opting your party.

Actually, do shut your pie hole, I'll take the chance that fundies will sink the party that was once the party of Lincoln, all by themselves.

And isn't it so nice of you to step down as Governor of Alaska because you wanted to spare the "people." Please. You voluntarily step into the limelight to seek your glory when you had to know that you have no business being one step from the most powerful job on the planet, and we're supposed to believe that you care about the people of Alaska? Are you joking? Let's get to the real reason, shall we?

Dealing with the things that all governors deal with no longer had any appeal for you after you got a taste of the big stage, and now you can't be bothered with the petty details and minutiae of governing a meaningless state where you were no longer quite as popular as you once were. Some will say you are trying to avoid more probes into your actions, but I think it's more about that job holding you back. During the campaign you clearly demonstrated that you have no compunction about getting down and dirty, so I doubt that you were worried about such matters.

No, I think you are just like any other politician out to promote themselves and their agenda, and being a governor was holding you back. Who gives a fuck about the pledge you made when you took your oath as Governor, right Sarah? So you're the wet dream that every nutter has a hardon for? Goddamn, do they plan to ever get back in office? Well I guess it's down to you now that their other sanctimonious golden boy, Governor Mark Sanford got caught with his dick in a woman that wasn't his wife. Well Sarah, at least you aren't boring us to tears. I guess I should thank you for that. Maybe you and Mark could go on the road together as the paragons of Christian virtue that you so clearly are.

There she is, Miss California! You Californians must be so proud...

2009-05-17T20:30:00.005-04:00

Pageant Official Quits Over Miss. Calif. Decision

You know I just don't get it. How can anyone take this Carrie Prejean chick seriously? She is clearly all about herself. She talks like she has a direct line to God, but yet she apparently thought her god's handiwork wasn't perfect enough, so she gets a boob job to increase her chances to win a goddamn beauty pageant. And I guess that dude doesn't mind one of his followers flashing some tit to advance their career.

Now, you'll never hear me saying women shouldn't get fake boobs, or that they shouldn't do nudity or even porn. I may have an opinion about that, but it's not my place to tell someone what to do with their own body. But for that same person to turn around and tell someone else that their choice is a no-can-do, uh-uh...no, no, no. Sorry, when you've had major surgery (and it is major surgery) and used your sexuality to win a fucking beauty contest, you may not have forfeited your right to speak out, but you have lost your right to expect to be taken seriously. And when you speak out about any subject that has to do with restricting someones personal choice, you will not be taken seriously by others, or at least by me. And you will also have your motives questioned.

It's funny, the Fox News crowd, most of which are Christians, will eat her up. And yet she has made a mockery of Christianity, using it like she used her fake tits to advance her career. I don't believe someone like her holds anything as a sincere belief, except that it's all about her.

I just love the following quotes she gave in interviews after all of this:

- "I felt as though Satan was trying to tempt me in asking me this question. And then God was in my head and in my heart saying, "Do not compromise this. You need to stand up for me and you need to share with all these people . . . you need to witness to them and you need to show that you're not willing to compromise that for this title of Miss USA."

- "This happened for a reason. By having to answer that question in front of a national audience, God was testing my character and faith. I'm glad I stayed true to myself."

Say what?? Right, she didn't compromise to win the Miss USA title; she stayed true to herself. Oh brother! I guess she forgot about the boob shots that happened because it was a "windy day". And she must have forgotten about the new fake tits that she had gotten only weeks before.

I can't believe she said her god talks to her and gave her this as a test. Really? What test was he putting you through when he told you to get bigger tits and when he told you to flash some skin for a photographer? If he told you one, he told you the other. Why can't people just admit their biases instead of passing it off on their god or religion? Thankfully for them, their god is only make believe. If I thought for a second that there was a god, I would have more respect for that god than to blame it for my own bigotry.

Please. There was no test, this media whore new exactly what she was doing when she was getting her breast enhancement and flashing her boobs for the camera. Then when she was asked that question by that idiot blogger, it fell right into her lap. Her clunky rambling answer was one thing; I can forgive that because people can get nervous. And if she honestly felt that way, then so be it. But to then use that moment on stage as a launching pad for her career and act like she is a paragon of virtue because "I stayed true to myself" blah, blah, blah, is just too much. Reading the above quotes, what else can we assume except that she is saying she wouldn't compromise herself or her religion to win? That my friends, is BULLSHIT. Of course she compromised. But now that she has become the darling of the Christian right, she's making out like she is a hero for sticking to her bigoted beliefs--when she was in fact just answering a question that she probably didn't give a rip about.

And make no mistake, she is one of two things. She's either a bigot, or a lair that's trying to advance her career. She's not a bigot for answering that question on stage in my estimation, but because of the shit she said afterward. She's a bigot because she, like most if not all people who are against gay marriage, cannot give one example of how gay marriage will prevent heterosexual people from getting married or how it will have a deleterious affect on them--aside from hurting their feelings. They're just bigoted toward gays. And even that wouldn't be so bad if they would just admit it, instead of this bullshit about "protecting the sanctity of marriage" and such. Right, the most ignorant people in the world can get married multiple times and have all sorts of bastard children, and you don't hear one goddamn peep from the nutters. But gay marriage, that must be stopped! Please.

Or, she's a liar that is out for herself like so many other people in this world. She has already proven that she has no problem lying when she conveniently forgot about the titty shots that she was supposed to tell the pageant officials about--not that I care about them either. Does anyone believe that she wouldn't have been shown the door for lying if Donald Trump wasn't in charge? Anyone?? And wasn't it nice of her to cancel on Larry King at the last minute? Think she'll be canceling on Fox News? Hm...the Magic 8 Ball says no, she won't.

And you know what's funny? By exposing the hypocrisy of this asshole, people like me are actually standing up for the nutters that probably think she's the greatest thing since Jesus, and can't wait for her inevitable career at Fox News to begin. It would be no trouble for me to see the faithful get their asses handed to them again like so they have been by so many other frauds in the last 20 years or so when their hypocritical, less then holy predilections are exposed. But too bad, I guess. Hypocrisy is one of my least liked qualities in humans, and I won't shut up about it when I see it. It's not that I don't expect it, but that doesn't mean I have to like it. Conduct your life as you please, just don't tell me to do ( or to not do) something when you yourself aren't willing to do the same. Gay marriage isn't natural, right Carrie? It's not approved by your god. But fake tits and fake who knows what else, he's down with that, is that it? How about you just shut the fuck up, you vacuous and ignorant nincompoop?

Anyway, if she turns out to be just another bigot, oh well, the world is full of them. She's already joined the paranoid lunatics at the National Organization for Marriage, so maybe she is. But all signs point to her being an opportunistic media whore that doesn't give a shit about whom she hurts. Whether it's the nutters that she will no doubt ride to get her career going, or the gay people that she will harm for the same reason, she will be hurting some people along the way. It's bad enough that there are ignorant people like her in this world, but it's even worse when someone like her uses that bigotry to advance their career and probably couldn't care less about whom they harm. "No offense" she says. BULL F-U-C-K-I-N-G SHIT.

I hope I'm wrong and she's just a young lady that is misguided and lost, and doesn't know what she believes yet. And no doubt she will get used by the nutters as much as she uses them. But be that as it may, that still doesn't excuse her. And goddammit, wrong is wrong, and I do NOT have tolerance for intolerance, and I have even less tolerance for intolerant people that are hypocrites.

And you know what? This brings up another point--stupid people trying to sound smart. It's embarrassing to watch, and it hurts their cause. So when someone is out of your league, don't hurl insults and invectives, just bow out gracefully. It's not a sin to lose an argument.

A "windy day"... please, just go away.

-------------------------------

So, she was finally shown the door by pageant officials. A little late, but they really had no choice if they wanted to have any control over future contestants. So now we will have to see what this dingus comes up with next. let's see if she was just the flavor of the month, or if she hooks up with Fox or some other right wing outfit. But, more pressing issues are revealing themselves, and she will be soon forgotten by me, and hopefully all of us. But there will always be people like her to take her place. I hope she comes to her senses.

Watchmen: Just another movie?

2009-05-10T14:54:00.005-04:00

"You know, mankind has been trying to kill each other off since the dawn of time, and now that we have the means...we can finally do it." ~ Edward Blake/The Comedian

Roger Ebert review of Watchmen

It's been a few weeks now since I last saw Watchmen, and I think I'm ready to have a go at a few thoughts. Please forgive me if I ramble or drift into sophistry. First of all let me say that this movie is not for the kids. It's violent, contains sex scenes, nudity, and most of all is simply brutal about it's subject matter--which is us. And secondly, don't read this if you haven't seen it because I won't be keeping secrets and spoilers will abound.

I know that some people find this movie depressing and cynical, but I only saw it as realistic. I won't delve into the characters and make this a standard movie review, but rather a commentary on what the movie was saying. I've now seen this film three times with the last viewing being a few weeks ago. This blog post has been several weeks in the making so please forgive the tardiness of this post. But since this is more about the subject matter than a review to convince you to go see the movie, I feel it's relevance is timeless. But still, you should go see this film. So let's get into it...

Of all the crime fighters in the film only Dr. Manhattan could be said to be superhuman, and the rest were just highly skilled human beings that chose to fight crime; only these crime fighters were less than perfect and had no trouble dispatching the bad guys with extreme prejudice. It would be hard to nail down just exactly what the director was trying to convey to the audience. But I like that a movie leaves me with something to ponder. While I certainly enjoy more straightforward films, I am rarely left with something to think about after I've left the theatre. Mind you the past year or so has been a banner year in that regard, and for that I am thankful.

Having said that, I will attempt to sum up what I think are the main points of the movie, or at least what I took from it. First, we better pull our collective heads out of our asses and we better do it quick, before our only option to avoid nuclear destruction is to fight another devastating war which may be just as bad. Second, no one is truly good. We are all full of contradictions and both good and evil exist in us. And third, there may not be hope for us or a painless solution to our penchant for violence and our human condition. In this film the one superhero that is considered the smartest takes vigilantism to an extreme by developing a device that mirrors the powers of Dr. Manhattan and then uses that power to level several cities, thereby scaring the two countries that are about to go nuclear into living in peace by the end of the film.

Yes, it is a brutal way to prevent what would have been a devastating nuclear war. But is this our future? Of course this is a fantasy, and no one knows the future with certainty. Maybe in that reality, or even in ours, the result would have been a conventional war--but that is not the point. We will kill each other. Whether we annihilate each other with nuclear weapons or with conventional weapons, war seems to be unavoidable for us. The way I saw it this movie was a commentary on humanity. There was going to be a war because that's what we do. To relieve the pressure when it becomes too great for whatever reason, we kill each other. Whether it's done through a limited nuclear engagement that levels several cities, a full engagement, or a conventional war, it was going to happen.

This movie will be seen by some as saying it's okay to kill millions to prevent a war--that it's trying to justified the slaughter of people for a greater good. They will say the movie is saying murder is justified and that we should accept the inevitable. But that's not it at all. The movie is making the point that this is what happens when you appeal to war. One way or another people are going to die. The solution for Adrian Veidt/Ozymandias, was to fool humanity by making the nations of the world frightened of an outside power. But they weren't less inclined to kill each other through an organic process or evolving of the human mind, they were simply turned into scared children of a god. But even that god, Dr. Manhattan, knew that while you can trick mankind you cannot change the nature of mankind. And he knew that in it's current state, this was the only hope for mankind. A false hope to be sure, but the only one that would be effective. It wasn't a matter of saying that murdering millions was the solution, this movie is saying that murdering millions all too often is our solution. Who can deny this as we look back at the wars throughout history? Mankind needs no assistance from a movie to reveal the evil that we are capable of.

There are parallels in our world today. So many people believe in a higher power and only do good, or at least don't hurt others, because they fear their god. They are no less capable of killing than the unbeliever is, and will never evolve to a higher plane of existence as long as they only do good out of fear or for a reward. This film makes the point that in a world that has devolved into this state, the only solution is an unimaginably horrible one that would only be a solution in such a violent and hopeless world. In this world the one person that would show the world the true nature of humanity and the lie that their new "utopia" is built on, must die for his beliefs. In this world and in ours, humanity is not yet ready to rise above petty differences and embrace each other, so the only means to obtain peace is violence. In this world telling the truth is no longer a virtue and is instead an inconvenience when it doesn't serve the new utopia, and is a commodity when it does. Look at how we vilify people that threaten our comfy bubble by telling us the stark truth. For us the martyr isn't a crime fighter, it's truth itself.

One way or the other, there was going to be violence, and only the fear of annihilation will make us what we should be. But because it took that fear to change them (and us), we haven't achieved a lasting peace. We will bring ourselves to the brink again; it's only a matter of time until we do. And I think the message that the movie leaves us with as the journal of Rorschach (the murdered martyr who would reveal all) is shown in the office of a journalist, is will we be able to maintain this false peace for real when we once again have the freedom to entertain our darkest thoughts without fear of annihilation from above?

To me this movie spoke to me as an allegory of religion in it's most distilled form. So many of us need religion and the threat of eternal damnation, or at least the promise of eternal bliss, to do what we should do without reservation if we would refuse to be controlled by our lowly origins and instead strove for a higher existence. And saddest of all, just like the plan of Ozymandias, it doesn't make us better at all; it only hides our true nature and in fact often makes us more effective agents of hate and will continue to retard our growth as human beings.

I think Rorschach had it right-- tell the truth, consequences be damned. If we are to survive and prosper then it will be through trial by fire; but at least it will be because we will have learned the futility of hate and war. Maybe then we will appeal to our higher natures. And if we fail then it was our future anyway, because no false peace can last and only delays the inevitable. Let's not kid ourselves, how long would we last without laws and the fear of punishment? I'll let you be the judge about whether or not this false peace, this manufactured sense of security, is worth maintaining or offers any hope for our future.

Are we just putting off the inevitable, or are we buying ourselves precious time at the cost of our present sufferings?

Thoughts on abortion...

2009-02-21T18:20:00.004-05:00

Obama Tries to Appease Both Sides of Abortion Debate

Recently I saw a few dozen people protesting abortion here in town in the Downtown area. And it made me want give voice to few things about the issue. The following are my thoughts and questions:

- I am abhorred by abortion, and yet I cannot find it in me to tell a woman that she must carry her fetus to term. Although I wouldn't be against it being illegal say after 7 months or so--whatever is medically prudent. I wouldn't support it, but I wouldn't fight it. I think it would be an acceptable compromise. Actually, I think many states already have such laws, if I'm not mistaken.

- I am completely disgusted that there were children marching and holding signs. That's nothing less than child exploitation and indoctrination. No child should be allowed to participate in such a thing. They can't possibly understand what they are doing and will only parrot what the parent believes in. I fucking hate parents that do that to their children.

- Would they force a woman that is raped and impregnated to carry the fetus to term?

- Have those that march and protest against abortion ever really intellectually considered their stance?

- Why do we never see abortion protesters outside of fertility clinics? Life begins at conception, right? Many embryos ("babies") are destroyed or fail to develop. This is gambling with human life. People know full well that many embryos may die in order for one fetus to be carried to term. Could it be that many Christian woman would be inconvenienced by shutting down these clinics? Where's the moral outrage?

- The Catholic Church is against infertile couples having children without the act of sex being involved. I'll give them credit for being honest about their stance, but it doesn't make it any less stupid. It's one of the most retarded things I've ever heard coming from a religious faith, and that's saying something.

- Why is it that they fight so hard against using embryos for research that may have the potential to alleviate some of the most devastating diseases? They seem to care more for the potential living (a clump of cells in reality) than the actual, fully formed living beings.

- So I assume that the anti-choice folks would like all women that have abortions prosecuted for murder, since they constantly call it murder. The funny thing is, you rarely hear them actually say that. I wonder, is there a part of them that knows abortion isn't actually murder?

- Are they aware, have the anti-choice folks ever even considered what will happen if it is criminalized? Have they thought about the number of teenage girls that will commit suicide because they are desperate, scared, or ashamed to tell their parents, and the option of legal abortion is no longer there? Have they considered for one second how many women will die while trying to give themselves an abortion because they can no longer go to an abortion clinic? Do they really think abortions will stop because it is outlawed?

You constantly hear them cite how many abortions there are every year, as if there were none before Roe V. Wade. It's funny, you never hear them say what their plan is for a post legal abortion world. You never hear one offer a solution beyond criminalizing it. Their magic bullet seems to be adoption, which of course is an option today. For various reasons that isn't a persuasive option. What makes them think women will suddenly see the light? And maybe someone should point out to them that if they keep passing laws to ban gay couples and single people from adopting (in other words people that don't fit the definition of worthy according to their religious dogma), there won't be enough people to adopt this massive amounts of unwanted children that will come into the system.

- Have they given a moments thought to their positions on adoption? Do they imagine in their fantasy world that even if there were enough people that wanted to adopt, that every child would find an eager couple ready to adopt them and love them no matter what the race or affliction of the child? Have they considered how much more enormous the bureaucracy that oversees child welfare would need to become, and how many more children will slip through the cracks?

Every time I see one interviewed on TV, they seem woefully misinformed and ignorant. They seem like credulous fools that follow the lead of their master keepers without question. This is one more example of the dangers of religion to the human mind. Try pointing out some of the flaws in their stance and asking them some tough questions and marvel at the blank stares. At best you'll get a Frankenstein's monster response of "Abortion is murder!" or "Life begins at conception!" or some such tautology. Fire bad!

I certainly will admit that I don't have a solution. I wish there were no abortions and that there was an easy solution, but that's not reality. I can wish think all I want, but it won't change a damn thing. And being equated with a murderer because I support a woman's right to choose isn't making me amenable to engaging in a reasoned debate with them, and it sure as hell isn't helping their cause. If I hear one more goddamn time that I support the murder of innocent children, I can't guarantee what my reaction will be.

I want a solution, and right now all I can think of is education and at least making it safe. You may call it murder, but the killing won't stop just because you make it illegal, so shouldn't we at least make it as safe as we can with the least number of deaths as possible? And that includes going after doctors and clinics that don't follow the law and proper procedures.

So anyway, that's just what was rolling though my head after witnessing their little march. I just had to say something about it, so my apologies if this blog post seems a little perfunctory. The stupidity needs to end, and we need to find a middle ground where we can devise a workable solution. What that is I can't say, but I do know that the answer is not outlawing it. And religion needs to be left at the door, because there is no such thing as compromise for the fundamentalist. So just like any extremist, they need to be shunned and marginalized while the thinking adults work towards an answer; an answer that doesn't include divisive politics and ideology.

Christianity: When you're short on crazy and/or nonsensical gibberish.

2009-01-21T19:48:00.022-05:00

Related story

So I'm watching CNN just flipping around, and I come across a report about former President Bush and his pardons of two border patrol guards before he left office. Now I don't really care all that much about the story to be honest; that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish down Mexico way. I only caught the tail end of it, but on the screen comes Rep. Walter Jones from North Carolina. Now he's a Republican and I wish I could say this was something only a Republican would say, but I doubt it.

Here's what he said as he faced the camera:

"I said 'Mr. President, you profess to be a man of faith. Please get down on your knees and ask god if you should commute or pardon these two men, and listen to god and I believe he will tell you yes.' I don't know if that had anything to do with it, but I think god did quite frankly."

Now, if someone tells me that they are religious because it makes them feels good, or gives their life meaning and direction, or a feeling of belonging, that's cool, I can understand that. Lots of people belong to clubs and associations and such for various reasons. And they all have their beliefs and bylaws, so I understand why people are religious. We all want to feel like our lives have some sort of meaning. They don't really believe everything they practice is based on fact, but they need or want it.

But, there are some people that take it beyond that and really insist that it's all real and true, and there really is a god about. And again, that's fine as well. Some people are in deeper than others and they are the credulous type, or they kind of person that can't do something halfhearted and so they force themselves to believe it's true.

But here's the thing, when you're a United States congressman, I'm expecting that you're going to be a little more intelligent than the general public. And when you clearly demonstrate that you're not in an incredible display of hubris and superstition, I'm taken aback by it. You're a goddamn congressman for christ's sake--act like it. You're not some rube that's easily taken in by the latest conman, or at least you shouldn't be.

Let's break this down:

- "Mr. President, you profess to be a man of faith."

There's NOTHING admirable about being a man of faith. It's the faithful, credulous, and unquestioning fools that bring despots and corruption to our world.

- "Please get down on your knees and ask god if you should commute or pardon these two men"

Say what? You're asking the President of the United States and a grown man to bow down to a superstition to decide the fates of two men?

- "and listen to god and I believe he will tell you yes."

So not only do you believe that such a thing as an actual god exists and you just happen to worship the correct one, but you also believe you know what it thinks about a given situation?

- "I don't know if that had anything to do with it, but I think god did, quite frankly."

In other words it couldn't be that Bush examined the case and consulted legal experts before coming to a decision based on the facts, could it? No no, it was your god that either told Bush what he should do, in person I assume, or your god violated the sacrosanct "freewill" that Christians endlessly prattle on about when excusing their god for condemning people to hell and it made Bush pardon them--is that it? I realize that Bush wasn't real big on facts and never saw one that got in his way of his version of the truth, but damn, you're a fucking congressman, at least pretend like you're not a blithering idiot.

It just stuns me to hear an elected official, a person that makes important decisions on our behalf, say such incredibly idiotic, childish nonsense. People like him keep blathering these supercilious tautologies that have no basis in reality and just expect intelligent people to just nod approvingly or something. That's bad enough, and trying to convince people to think before they say stupid shit like that is probably a battle that's just not worth fighting. But seriously, shouldn't we expect people like him to make a little more sense and not talk to us like we're goddamn children, especially if we're expected to address them with the honorific of "The Honorable" so and so? Because damn, there ain't nothing honorable about Christian gobbledygook; and I'll be damned if I'm going to respect idiotic shit like that.

Mass Transit or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Setting Next to Strangers

2009-01-13T22:50:00.006-05:00

American Public Transportation Association

I live in Indianapolis. Let me say from the top, if I had my druthers, I would be long gone from here. It's not that I hate the city or the people. Like all cities, it is a mixture of all sorts of different peoples and cultures. Other than access to the Pacific Ocean in a warm climate, which is my number one requirement for where I want to live, it has just about everything that any other city has. We don't always get visited by the best musical acts, but the city is close enough to those that do, and with a little effort and sacrifice, I can see my favorite artists.

No, the stumbling block for me is the lack of vision culminating in the lack of good mass transit. I cannot fathom why something hasn't been done already. No doubt this malady affects other cities as well, but it strikes me as something that shouldn't even need debate. It's certainly understandable that the how and what would be debated, but not the need. But debate shouldn't be a substitute for action. This is not a choice or an option.

Some cities seem to be at least making strides, from what I gather. Cities like Portland and San Diego have taken steps to ensure that they will be ready for the future by building rail systems with plans for further expansion. Certainly there were challenges that needed to be overcome during implementation of such an ambitious project. But they were smart enough to realize that they really didn't have a choice. With more vehicles creating more congestion and pollution and ruining the quality of life, this is a step that all major cities will have to take. You can argue about the how and what until you pass out, but as a large city, the choice of whether or not it should be done in the first place, has been decided for you.

Here in Indy we are approaching a critical mass. Our air quality is already not the greatest, and people love their cars in this city. The number of vehicles is only going to increase. The number of commuters using IndyGo, our local public transportation bus service, has increased since the spike in gas prices, but not enough to make IndyGo a short term answer for a long term problem. The money just isn't there for them, and it would take a lot more riders to make it feasible for them to increase their capacity. But at any rate, bus service alone can only be a short term solution. We do need to change the car culture in this town, and in fact that may happen organically as the ever expanding road system fails to keep up. Clearly the gas spikes have demonstrated that it can happen. However, if we are able to ween ourselves from our cars, there will need to be a system to accommodate those people; and the bus system will quickly be overwhelmed.

As I see it, there are two factors that will bring this to a head. First, there is the obvious reality that you can only keep expanding the road system for so long before you run out of room to expand. And second, there is the reliance on gas powered cars. Adding more cars to the roads over the next few decades is only going to make the air dirtier. Yes, you can solve that with hybrids and electric cars and such, but that won't address the capacity issue. And to me, the money spent in research on new types on vehicles, could be better spent on new transportation systems. This way you could dramatically slash emissions which would give us time to develop new forms of nature-friendly transportation without the need to rush into something. We are already pretty much at the peak of our knowledge about transportation systems, or at least closer to it, then we are our knowledge about the best and most viable forms of next generation vehicles. I think this would also make it easier for people to accept new car technology because they would no longer be so attached to their cars, and would be more accepting of public transportation when they see it functioning reliably and properly.

All we need to do is to look at the big cities like New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago. Where would they be without it if they would have refused to look forward to the future, or if they would have half-assed it? People in those cities probably see it as a normal part of life, and don't even think about whether or not it's a good thing. Yes, they are certainly not without problems; they all make blunders from time to time. But no major city would survive without mass transit. Every city must decide what works best for them. Here in Indy it looks like some sort of light rail system or trolley is the way to go instead of only buses--although we will need many more bus routes if we as a city decide that public transportation is the way to go. What I really find sad is that our local government does nothing to promote using the bus system, absolutely nothing. No one will willingly give up their car, as long as they can afford them, if they don't believe they have a viable and more convenient alternative. But at this point no one is taking it seriously, all they do is have meetings and half-hearted exploratory efforts.

Sure it's a scary and extremely costly thing to consider, and a tough sell in this town, but the cost isn't going to go down. In a matter of decades we will be at the point were it is no longer an option, and the cost will no longer be an issue. We might as well do it now when the cost will be less, the logistics will be more tenable, and we aren't the last city our size to pull our head out of our ass. Aside from the quality of life issues, and the simple pragmatic issues of having too many vehicles and not enough pavement, any hope we have of being seen as an international city and attracting business in the future, will vanish like gossamer in a hurricane if we have to slap together some last minute solution to gridlock and putrid air quality while other similar sized cities have long ago left us in the dust and looking like the backwards and non-progressive state that we have a reputation for being--which is often justified.

In other words, our politicians need to get off of their asses and stop worrying about their jobs and do something now while we still have the luxury to be judicious in our planning and deployment. Besides, politicians always have a way of landing on their feet. But their feet will be made of lead if we don't give them a kick in the keister and tell them to stop talking and just get it done.

Mortal Thinkage

2008-12-12T13:00:00.016-05:00

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.

The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

2008-08-26T15:39:00.007-04:00

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!

2008-08-17T15:40:00.004-04:00

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?

2008-03-14T01:00:00.014-04:00

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

2008-03-08T05:38:00.017-05:00

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!

2008-03-07T12:01:00.005-05:00

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.

2008-02-24T10:09:00.006-05:00

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?

2008-02-22T05:17:00.014-05:00

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!

2008-02-20T13:34:00.020-05:00

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...

2008-02-11T12:34:00.034-05:00

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...

Greetings

2007-11-04T01:55:00.000-05:00

So anyway, this here is my first post for this new blog, and guess what? I'm full of rum! I love rum--probably to a dangerous level, mind you, but we all have our vices. It's not the only beverage I like, alcoholic or otherwise, but it's my favorite. However, don't get the idea that this blog will be about booze. It will also be about hooch, firewater, and old red eye. Ha!

No, it will mostly be my musings about everyday life and the things that rub me the wrong way. I'm anti-religious and atheist. Although when someone asks, I say I'm a secular humanist. My anti-religion comes from my own life and the things I know and see about religion. The atheism comes from the simple fact that I see no evidence for a god(s). I'm certainly open to the idea of seeing evidence for a god, but until shown otherwise, I must necessarily call myself atheist. However, I do detest most of the gods that people believe in. They all seem to be hateful and cruel. I seriously doubt if a god(s) did exist, and had gone through the effort of creating our universe, that such a being would be as human as most religions make their god to be. Clearly the concept is man made and has no basis in reality.

My greatest love is music. If music was taken away from me I wouldn't know how to live. It's just about the only thing that gives meaning to my life . I'm fond of Electronica and it's various sub-genres. Ambient is my fav at the moment. I'm also into Indie Rock. Coldplay, Editors, and Keane are few favs--but I have many more. I'm sure I'll make posts about other bands in the future. I'll be buying a concert film from a band called Sigur Ros in a few days that I'm sure I'll comment about.

I don't have any love for politics or politicians. I don't trust any of them. I guess I'd call myself a Libertarian, although I can't really say my beliefs line up with any one party or philosophy.

Anyway, just a quick howdy-do. Stay tuned for more rum induced hilarity...