Do the right thing, Democrats.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

Copyright ©2009 Rum Tickled Humanist

Thoughts on abortion...

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.

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

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

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.