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

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.

Copyright ©2009 Rum Tickled Humanist

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

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.

Copyright ©2009 Rum Tickled Humanist

Mortal Thinkage

Council for Secular Humanism

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

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

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

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

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

Well, what else?

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

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

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

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

Copyright ©2009 Rum Tickled Humanist

The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

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

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

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


Go here to the Richard Dawkins website for more.

Episode one


Episode two, part 1


Episode three, part 1

Preachers say the craziest things!

PamsHouseBlend.com


So how about a blog post, eh?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prostitution: Why Is It Illegal?

Legalized Prostitution (liberator.net)

Should prostitution be legal? (prostitutionprocon.org)

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


Back again for your blogging convenience, dear readers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gay Marriage and Homosexuality in Nature

Homosexual Animals Out of the Closet (Live Science)

Homosexual Activity Among Animals Stirs Debate (National Geographic)


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Buy the DVD here at RichardDawkins.net

The Future of the Music Industry.

Nice article from 2004 on the PBS Frontline website

More recent article by way of Freakonomics and the NY Times




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Net Neutrality, coming to an Internet near you?

Congress Considers New Net Neutrality Bill (PC World article)

Save the Internet website


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

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

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

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

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

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