The Skeptic's World

My Vision for America

2008-11-19T13:27:00.001-08:00

I submitted this to change.gov under the "your Vision for America" section.

There is a map that one can look at that highlights all the countries that currently support or carry out the death penalty in yellow or red. One look at this map and you'll wonder very quickly how it is possible that America can get away with considering itself as the most advanced nation in the world. Among the countries highlighted in red or yellow are China, Mongolia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Vietnam, Laos, Sudan, Republican of Congo, Russia, and Kazakhstan. There is often rhetoric from the presidential administrations of the past and present about the countries I listed above that leads one to believe that these countries are corrupt, badly run, or adversarial. However, it is impossible to ignore that the United States is highlighted as red as well. Countries highlighted in blue have abolished the death penalty all together. Canada, France, England, Spain, Italy, South Africa, Australia, Mexico, Finland, Estonia and Germany are some of the countries that are highlighted as blue.

There isn't much of a need to dance around the obvious; the United States is trailing behind in social progress. Our intolerance to homosexuality, to Islam, and to minorities coupled with our disinterest in education and civil liberties, among other things, is what keeps us from being the beacon on the hill, the leader of the free world, the righteous example of progress and advancement. But we will never be heralded as the greatest nation on Earth if we cannot think critically about our current practices and how out of touch with reality they are.

The death penalty is hardly a penalty at all. How can death be punitive? Who are we to decide who lives or dies? Is it not inherently immoral to claim such high morality? If a man murders another man, is it not hypocritical to murder the murderer? Is it not disturbing that we calmly and calculatedly execute individuals in a fashion no more humane than the crime that that prisoner may have committed?

Most would agree that there is no greater evil than to rape and/or destroy another human life. Such a crime would certainly cause great pain to a family member of the victim. That family member would feel that it be very important that the person responsible be killed to balance out the anger and pain. There is a word for that action, and it is called revenge. That sense of vengeance is emotionally driven (understandably so), and therefor cannot be acted upon impartially. It would therefor seem odd that a governing body would enact that revenge on the behalf of a bereaved party instead of acting on behalf of the people.

For most proponents of the death penalty, the morality argument isn't enough to convince them that it doesn't have a place in modern times, or they simply see it differently. Some Americans view it as a fundamental of a civilized society. However deranged and evil a criminal on death row is, stooping to their level of violent behavior is acceptable by our current administration.

If this is not convincing, there are other interesting facts about the death penalty in America that should, at the very least, make a convincing argument against its perceived "necessity" in the United States.

Capital punishment is a more expensive endeavor than life in prison. Studies conducted on the subject indicate that it costs about $2 million per execution over the costs of a system which imposes life sentences for the same crimes. The death penalty literally costs tax payers more money.

Statics show that through February 2006, 34% of those who have been executed were black, while 58% were white. Since blacks constitute roughly 12% of the U.S. population, their execution rate is much higher than that of whites. If one were to look at the race of the victims of criminals sentenced to die, you'd see that the death penalty was imposed more often when the victim was white. You are much more likely to be sentenced to die if your victim is white.

Former U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, on January 21st, 2000 said, "I have inquired for most of my adult life about studies that might show that the death penalty is a deterrent. And I have not seen any research that would substantiate that point". According to Amnesty International, the murder rate in Canada has dropped 27% since the death penalty was abolished in that country in 1976. According to Raymond Bonner and Ford Fessenden writing for the New York Times, September 22nd, 2000, homicide rates in states that have used capital punishment have been 48% to 101% higher than those that haven't used it. According to Michael L. Radelet and Ronald L. Akers of Northern Illinois University, 84% of current and former presidents of the country's top academic criminology societies reject the notion that research shows any deterrent effect from the death penalty.

Since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976, over 120 people on death row were re-tried and acquitted of all charges after a higher court threw out the conviction. This means that for every 8 executions carried out, 1 was deemed innocent and released.

The Supreme Court ruled in Atkins v. Virginia that it is unconstitutional to execute the mentally retarded, however, almost all states still execute the mentally ill.

In 1995 the Peter Hart Research Poll conducted a survey of police chiefs around the country where officers named such measures as reducing drug abuse, a better economy, and controlling guns as more important than the death penalty in reducing violent crime. Willie L. Williams, Police Cheif, Los Angeles, CA said, "I am not convinced that capital punishment, in and of itself, is a deterrent to crime because most people do not think about the death penalty before they commit a violent or capital crime." Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney of Manhattan once said, "Take it from someone who has spent a career in federal and state law enforcement, enacting the death penalty...would be a grave mistake. Prosecutors must reveal the dirty little secret they too often share only among themselves: The death penalty actually hinders the fight against crime."

On Novemeber 12th, the maryland Commission on Capital Punishment voted to recommend the abolition of the death penalty in the state. The Commission cited the possibility that an innocent person could be mistakenly executed, as well as geographical and racial disparities in how it is used.

It would seem counter to progress to continue executing prisoners for heinous crimes. The rest of the developed world has somehow come to terms with the idea that the death penalty doesn't fit with their objectives as a nation. It would seem prudent that the United States follow suit. In this matter, we are not leading the way, we are trailing far far behind. This however, cannot be the reason we abolish capital punishment as a nation. We must do it because it is morally questionable, unconstitutional, and unfairly applied. There are no benefits to the death penalty, it has no reason to exist. Our efforts are better served improving education and opportunity rather than enacting revenge.

My vision for America includes many things, such as freedom of choice, privacy, higher rewards for public servants and teachers, less of a gap between the rich and the middle and lower class, and three equal branches of government. But one very important obstacle for us is the lack of a ban on capital punishment. As long as states can murder individuals legally, we will never progress and we will never be the shining example of freedom and liberty that we so clearly want to be.

The Prophetic Physician

2008-07-30T07:52:00.001-07:00

Uncritical faith is rampant, especially in this country. America tries to focus its energy on affording individuals the freedom to pursue whatever endeavor they wish (unless its a gay endeavor). This means that people can claim just about anything they want and expect no obstacles blocking that claim from generating money.

A perfect example is Bishop Womack.

Dr. Shammah Womack-El is a world class Naturopathic Holistic Scientist and Master Herbalist of Drugless Medicine, which he calls God’s Natural Pharmacy. He believes that God has a cure and a remedy in the earth for all dis-eases. Dr. Womack-El can help you with supervision to rejuvenate your life and detoxify your body tissues for improved health and longevity.

Most doctors spend time trying to suppress symptoms instead of treating root causes of problems. At the Chapel of Miracles my approach is just the opposite, my holistic team and I offer our clients a serene, supportive and skillful environment, where advanced natural techniques support healing and HIGH LEVEL HEALTH, rather than settling for the shortsighted goal of mere symptom suppression.

Poor saps come to people like this expecting miracles and willing to pay through the teeth for it. Womack need not supply his customers with evidence or logic because most Americans have lost the ability to care. What this means is hard working Americans lose their money to schemes and tricks and never become the wiser. The imagination is a powerful thing, and it is easily manipulated.

However confused you are, whether it is believing in magical Jews walking on water or that the cure for MS and ALS can be found in plants growing in Asia BECAUSE SOMEONE TOLD YOU SO, you will always be able to ask questions and form logical opinions. This ability is present in all humans of sound mind, yet so few use it.

If one were to look at Womack’s page carefully, one could see logical flaws right off the bat. For example:

Thousands have reversed chronic and degenerative diseases through our all naturopathic healing approach.

A sentence like that convinces almost all average thinkers of just about anything. But it is a logical fallacy. It even has a name, its called the bandwagon fallacy. Just because x number of people believe that y is true doesn’t make y true.

Another slightly more complex logical flaw in Womack’s ‘argument’:

There is a remedy in the earth for every dis-ease.

If this were true, why would we still have diseases? Earth is also the source of a lot of death. Consider arsenic, a natural but extremely fatal element found on Earth. How about Earthquakes? Volcanoes? Tornadoes?

People are all too often fooled by the word “natural”. Just because something is natural doesn’t mean it is healthy. There are many natural mushrooms that are poisonous.

The most hilarious has to be:

Also, see our products for holistic living, such as our Supernatural Manna, which works your body out without you going to the gym. I call it “THE GYM IN A BOTTLE”, which shapes your body into a healthy, fat-burning machine. It’s a Magic Green Superfood that works you out and into shape.

Isn’t it amazing that people will just believe something like that? Without evidence, without proper support or logical reasoning? This is absolutely rampant in this country. And it is this uncritical thinking which can lead to wars, injustice, crimes, violence… Imagine believing someone is a terrorist because someone told you to. Without evidence or logical reasoning you continue believing this person to be a terrorist and treat him as such. This happens all the time.

Womack is an extreme example of someone taking advantage of REALLY stupid people. Like everything in life there are varying degrees of mysticism and superstition. But if you can remain critical and skeptical of any claims without proper peer reviewed evidence, than you can spot these shams very easily. In fact, purchase my new magical book for only $4509.78 where I teach you how to channel spiritual energy from the 98th dimension to see schemes and scams easily! Learn it in just minutes a day!

P.S. - If you were to look closely at this website you can find MANY spelling and grammar errors.

Enjoy.

To Quote the Pope

2008-07-30T07:51:00.000-07:00

Stem cell research is bad? A mass of cells is a life? Does that mean I shouldn’t flush the toilet every time I use it? What about that massive booger I just fished out of my nose?

I direct the pope to my most recent post about stem cell research, and how negative religious views of science can hinder progress in our world.

Do people really believe that this man has magic powers? That he communicates with inter-dimensional omnipotent creators?

I have to laugh at the blatant shamanism at work here. Inherent in being religious is the lack of the ability to be critical. If you aren’t critical than anything can be anything, and an old man can be considered pious.

I don’t hate the pope! Some people really need a leader to guide their moral principles. I always applaud a leader who advocates peace and non-violence. But I always have to question the intelligence of a person who believes that a Jew literally walked on a water and resurrected himself, and that an Abrahamic God created our universe.

So many people are convinced of so many silly things. Look at scientologists and mormons! Where was their critical thinking skills? I can understand that 150 years ago our scientific instruments were not sharp nor robustly conclusive, but in a day and age where we can count electrons on an single atom… do we really need to continue to believe in magic and mystics?

The pope came here because he knows that there are many people left in this nation who lack critical thinking skills, and he can use that to his advantage. Bush sure did. Believing things without question is a weakness, and it is that which makes America so fragile. I was able to bring a set of screw drivers, needle nose pliers, wire cutters and a hammer onto a domestic airplane flight, but they would be DAMNED if they let me keep my tooth paste! Ignorance comes from remaining silent when you should ask questions, and that is what most leaders in America are counting on.

Think of how many times you have been taken advantage of because you didn’t know something.

Does the pope take advantage of you? Anyone who uses your uncritical faith in something to further an agenda or get votes is taking advantage of you.

Embryos are not human. People suffering from ALS are human. Life does not begin at conception, a man never walked on water, our universe was not created by a deity that listens to prayers and came to Moses in the form of a burning bush. I know these things because I have critical thinking skills and I know that there isn’t any evidence to support them. I have the advantage because I am knowledgeable, and if I wanted, I could use that against others for my own gain. But unlike Bush, or perhaps the pope, I’d rather direct people to research and evidence that bring reality to light and make life better for everyone on this planet. The Vatican may know the truth about Christianity, they may know that Jesus most likely never existed and that the Exodus is a myth. But why on Earth would they let on to something like that? They would lose their control over all the believers.

A world full of people believing in a shaman and his powers is not somewhere we should be right now.

Enjoy.

Where is your evidence?

2008-07-30T07:49:00.001-07:00

Dick Brooks wrote a delightful post where he shows us how easily people can be swayed by big business and deceit into thinking global warming is not a human problem. I feel sorry for individuals who can’t think critically, but I am annoyed by individuals who put arguments forth with no evidence. I asked Dick for evidence in a comment, he chose not to post the comment (not sure why).

So I ask him here; where is your evidence?

Too often people forget the basics of critical thought and get swayed too easily by popular opinion or biased media. I am not saying that you have to be ultra skeptical of reality, but don’t just believe everything you hear. 3rd graders believe everything they here, but so does most adult American conservatives.

The silent memo that sheds light on truth

2008-07-30T07:47:00.002-07:00

Its no secret that our administration has been part of some of the most heinous acts of inhumanity and insurrection our country has ever known. From lying to its supporters to slaughtering innocent civilians, the Bush corporation has tainted our existence with evil, brought this country down to levels so low that I’m surprised we aren’t reclassified as a developing nation.

What concerns me is that the darkness that is neo-conservatism has infected the media so severely that I feel like its no longer an independent entity. Naturally, information being openly shared is a more progressive or liberal idea. A lot of what conservative administrations do is limit or block information to benefit them, and in order to keep Americans in the dark, this is a necessity. Its a cycle. Conservative administrations’ primary goal is more money for the elite wealthy class, they do this by any means necessary which often means human rights violations (including slaughter and murder), which requires misinformation, censored information, and/or deceit, which leads to media being controlled by the government which leads to more conservative governments.

Depressing I know.

What if they disclosed a torture memo and nobody cared? This week, an81-page memo, authored by John C. Yoo, who was a deputy in the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice at the time of its creation, was declassified and made public. The memo, which, among other things, was used as the rationale for authorizing the torture of government detainees, has long been held to be a savage reimagining of the structure of the Executive Branch and its authority, hostile to the traditional checks and balances that circumscribe the President’s authority.

The memo is one of the most unpatriotic things America has ever produced. But what is interesting is that the mainstream media ignored it… or asked to or required to ignore it. One of the major points I am making is that we are not moving forwards as a country. You cannot be a superior country if you still have the death penalty, torture prisoners, deny habeas corpus to some and not others, instigate military actions in other countries, interfere with the happiness of citizens, sacrifice liberty for a false sense of security, use fear to rally support for war, and all the while make a shit load of money off of it.

John Yoo’s Memorandum, as intended, directly led to — caused — a whole series of war crimes at both Guantanamo and in Iraq. The reason such a relatively low-level DOJ official was able to issue such influential and extraordinary opinions was because he was working directly with, and at the behest of, the two most important legal officials in the administration: George Bush’s White House counsel, Alberto Gonzales, and Dick Cheney’s counsel (and current Chief of Staff) David Addington. Together, they deliberately created and authorized a regime of torture and other brutal interrogation methods that are, by all measures, very serious war crimes…This incident provides yet more proof of how rancid and corrupt is the premise that as long as political appointees at the DOJ approve of certain conduct, then that conduct must be shielded from criminal prosecution. That’s the premise that is being applied over and over to remove government lawbreaking from the reach of the law.

The memo basically says that the president can authorize any action during “wartime” which is also something he can declare. Congress can’t stop him, treaties can be violated, and he cannot be interfered with by any court in the United States. It is as if he can declare martial law over the world. The memo sets the scope for his power to being without limits.

These people need to be tried in international criminal courts for war crimes committed against humanity.

An Example

2008-07-30T07:47:00.001-07:00

China has a problem. They have a government that not only censors free speech, but has serious human rights issues. Why don’t we invade and occupy?

It surprises me that people still incorrectly believe that America ever had an interest in human rights or freedom abroad when it pursued military action. Plenty of people still think soldiers in Iraq are “fighting for my freedom”. Nothing infuriates me more than such stupidity spewing from someone defending our military actions in the middle east. American history is wrought with violent invasions into countries for ‘ideological purposes’. In fact, the formula is very simple. First, we are deceived. The president will knowingly invent some instance that makes it look as if the U.S. has been attacked or threatened so that he can garner public support for any military action. Then, we invade and kill. Schools and towns are bombed while Americans are told that we’re only aiming at military targets. The invading nation is forced to defend itself, while Americans are told that terrorists are attacking our ‘peaceful’ men and women trying to keep ‘peace’. Its odd that all the countries we have invaded had some HUGE economic potential within their borders. The Panama Canal, oil, ports, or a chance to attack threatening ideology.

Well… here is your chance.

Beijing - Amid protests around the world about China’s handling of the Tibet unrest, Beijing on Monday blasted the European Union for interference at the same time that China made a show of business as usual in staging the launch of the Olympic torch relay.

EU foreign ministers had issued a statement on Saturday after their meeting in Brdo, Slovenia, saying the body ‘calls for an end to violence and asks that arrested persons be treated in conformity with international standards.’

In a further development, China’s state-run media ran reports Monday supposedly proving that Tibetan spiritual leader the Dalai Lama had orchestrated the recent wave of unrest.

It is no secret that China kills prisoners without fair trials, uses extreme violent measures to quell political dissent, and neglects the needs of its citizens. Where is Bush’s demands for “the freedom of the Chinese people”? Give me a good reason why we haven’t invaded?

Enjoy.

How do certain people sleep at night?

2008-07-30T07:46:00.002-07:00

Yesterday my friends were interested in watching some kind of sporting event on my awesome HD television. The event was baseball. I can’t get into sports, I’ve tried, I just would much rather play them myself than watch other people play them… especially baseball.

At some point in the second or maybe third inning, President George Bush made his way up to the announcer’s booth and sat in for a few innings. He was awkward at first, making some very basic and unsophisticated comments, and then… nothing changed. This man was bribed into Harvard, staged a cue against the most powerful country in the world and won, then became directly responsible for some of the most horrific war crimes in history. And there he is, sitting there trying to chat about baseball. It just didn’t seem right. How does this man sleep at night when he knows that he is DIRECTLY responsible for the horrific death of thousands of innocent children in the interest of big business? Further more, how does he chat about baseball?

I know he owned the Rangers (in fact I hear he was histories worse team owner as well), and I know he supposed to be some kind of down home country American Joe…but I just couldn’t be comfortable with his presence at this baseball game. I don’t think I can ever be comfortable looking at that man in any other capacity than a war criminal. Would you feel comfortable hanging out with Hitler at the Olympics? What do you see when you look at these men? Don’t you wonder what bad chemistry is frothing about in their brains?

We come to the philosophical quandary of the nature of man, and the demand that everyone be reasonable. But there are always the few who’s mind and actions cannot be reconciled with the average flow of humanity. Some people are exceptionally selfless, devoting their lives to humanity, and then there are others who optimize greed. Bush is unlike Hitler in this aspect. Bush, his cronies, and just about every president in history, has pursued the deaths of innocents for money, big business, contracts, favors to corporations who lobbies well or who contributed to a campaign. So how do we treat these people? Guilty of murder, literally. As in, would be convicted of the felony in a court of law. (Thats probably why the U.S. refuses to be a part of the world criminal court, they know their leaders would be indicted!)

Enjoy.

The fear still persists

2008-07-30T07:46:00.001-07:00

it isn’t much of a secret that Bush perpetrated a “war” in Iraq for money. He used 9/11 to keep America afraid of terrorism, riding the momentum to sacrifice liberty for perceived security. Americans have been fooled before, remember Vietnam? The same thing happened. We were lied to, purposefully deceived so that the president could have popular support for a war.

In 2008, the lasting effects of Bush’s war on liberty and freedom is still felt.

LOS ANGELES (AP) — A Texas woman who said she was forced to remove a nipple ring with pliers in order to board an airplane called Thursday for an apology by federal security agents and a civil rights investigation.

“I wouldn’t wish this experience upon anyone,” Mandi Hamlin said at a news conference. “My experience with TSA was a nightmare I had to endure. No one deserves to be treated this way.”

What has always surprised me is the sheer inconsistency the TSA has been guilty of. I’ve passed through security with screw drivers, hammers, and pliers in my carryon before, but they would be DAMNED if they let me bring my bottle of water with me.

And America eats it up. At least, they used to. This woman was laughed at by male officers, forced to painfully remove the bars with pliers, meanwhile having her belly button piercing completely ignored.

This is a minor, minor, minor violation of civil liberties in the name of oil money for big corporations. On the other end of the spectrum, we have innocent women and children being blown up and killed my American armed forces in Iraq.

When does it end? When conservatism, greed, and the right wing exist only in the past? We should only be so lucky.

Political Intrigue

2008-07-30T07:45:00.001-07:00

As in… there isn’t any anymore. I’m already tired of Clinton and Obama. I’m less tired of Obama than Clinton, I think Obama is better for us than Clinton, but they’re both flawed and everyday I lose faith that anything will be that different after this election.

Obviously, we want social conservatism out of America since its caused us so much trouble in the recent years of the Bush administration, and people clearly benefit from a more socially progressive government.

Recently I’ve read the book “A People’s History of the U.S.” by Howard Zinn, and I’d be lying if I said it hasn’t shaped my recent feelings on government and the United States. I’ve learned that this country’s government is nothing but a history of elitism and evil. Even Bill Cinton was guilty of it, although much less so than Bush and Reagan. These presidents supported and funded terrorist organizations, instigated violence in third world countries, commenced military action in countries where it wanted an economic footing, resulting in the deaths of thousands of innocent people.

That is what gets me the most of course; the deaths of innocent civilians. America has been responsible for too much innocent bloodshed all in the name of big business.

The presidency to me seems more like an economic opportunity for the wealthy. Is it a coincidence that the rich elite get richer by the passing of legislation, tax relief, and military contracts by presidents? Less than 1% of the population own 40% of the wealth.

Now the question remains, will Obama or Clinton be any different? Obama might, Hillary will not, but not enough to make a real difference I believe. Obama’s policies and popularity is marked with the same vague politico as any president’s campaign. Flip flopping, minor scandals of perceived immorality (I think that pastor was absolutely right about America by the way), and the questions of experience and blah blah blah.

None of it really matters, at least, I’m not convinced it does. Injustices will continue in the name of America & co. because of its very corrupt ultra-capitalist nature. Our history of inciting violence and murder against ideological differences, and then lying about it is too fresh, too recent to mean any major change is coming down the pipe. We still have a vast majority of citizens believing in magical floating deities and preset destinies, and that there is some kind of correct way of uncritical faith and an incorrect way of uncritical faith. We still have greed and corruption stapled into the American flag as if it was supposed to be there. Money and more money, can never have enough money. Lies will be perpetrated by the ultra rich and those in control to convince you otherwise. Saddam has weapons of mass destruction and plans on using it, the people of Iraq want freedom from an evil dictator so in we go.

Whats that? You say people in Uganda want freedom from ethnic cleansing and violence?

Well, we can’t spare the resources right now to invade and occupy that country and fight for their freedom. Only Iraq, sorry.

Why you ask?

Economic and investment interests. Its too complicated for you to understand.

I know I’m going off in an unorganized manner, and I know you haven’t heard from me in several months now, so please accept my sincerest apologize with regards to that matter.

So I’m voting for Obama because I think somewhere deep in his heart is a wish that things could be different in America. His background is diverse and he’s probably been taunted and teased for being different growing up, so he may or may not have that tiny spark inside him that could bring about some good social change. The sophomoric Americans who really think a great Abrahamic deity blessed America and not our ‘enemy’ is too common a person, and until this changes we may never have the social progress our cultural superior neighbors up north have, or our cousins in Europe have.

Enjoy.

America the Greek

2008-07-30T07:44:00.000-07:00

In the ancient Greek times, familial ties were everything. If your father was a traitor, then you by definition were also a traitor, and so were your kids and their kids and so on. You couldn’t escape it. You could be a wonderful human being, a saint among men, and still be seen as a “son of a traitor”.

This is what we would call an archaic practice. It makes no common sense and really inhibits the progress of human kind in its own small way.

But it seems that America, the land of regressing hundreds of years into the past in a mere instant, has done just that.

COUNCIL BLUFFS, Iowa — Former Nebraska Sen. Bob Kerrey endorsed Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton for president Sunday but stirred a continuing controversy by noting her chief rival’s name is “Barack Hussein Obama” and that Obama had Muslim ancestors.

And while Kerrey’s comments were ostensibly made as a compliment to Obama, they resurrected a troublesome issue for the first-term junior senator from Illinois.

Obama’s attendance Sunday at the First Congregational United Church of Christ in Mason City, Iowa, was as much an observation of faith as it was a rejoinder to baseless e-mailed rumors that he is a Muslim and poses a threat to the security of the United States.

What is even more ridiculous is that he has to assure people that he is a Christian, because otherwise he would be an infidel and an enemy to the holy state of America. Our country is so far behind in so many ways. The whole notion that a person’s religion should have some kind of influence on any public matters is beyond stupid and belongs in the middle ages.

No matter how bad the crazy middle state Christian right-wing conservatives want it, we are not and never will be a holy country. If these same people had any sense or maybe some good education that included history, they would see that such a thing leads only to violence, corruption and eventually collapse. We cannot be a great nation if we collapse. Are we going the way of Rome? We very well could be.

What happens when a country’s majority of his inhabitants believe that they are closer to a deity and are correct in worshiping him, and that another country is wrong and blasphemous; and that same other country simultaneously believes the opposite? Each side thinks God is on their side, and that the eradication of the other religion is righteous and highly moral. This results in violence, war, and death. This is why religious beliefs are so dangerous. Christians have been fighting Muslims for thousands of years because of this, and continue to do so today. It is disgusting that some humans remain so unenlightened.

It REALLY should not matter that Obama is a Christian or has Muslim parents or whatever, it really shouldn’t, but I know and you know that, sadly, it does. Obama could be the most faithful Christian in the land, but because his grandparents were or are Muslim, he is condemned to live his life as a ‘traitor’. I am sorry, but those who do this have no place in modern times or in this country. I can’t think of anything more unpatriotic than to be a Christian-conservative hell bent on their Jihad against Muslims, and on occasion, Jews.

Again, this is why uncritical beliefs are so dangerous. Keep in mind that billions have died because of tenants that are supported by NO EVIDENCE. These people question nothing, and can (and have) been brainwashed into believing anything, because they do not demand evidence or a reasonable explanation. Jews are an inferior race? Okay, lets kill them. Islam and Muslims are infidels and must be eliminated? Alright, lets invade their land and kill the non-believers… I mean shit, its in the bible!

Obama staffers and volunteers say they periodically encounter voters who say they cannot support Obama because they’ve heard he is Muslim, a claim that has been making its way through Internet sites and blogs since he announced his candidacy for president.

The issue gained prominence earlier this month when Clinton’s campaign forced the resignation of two Iowa volunteer coordinators who had forwarded e-mails that falsely tried to tie him to Islamic jihadists.

On a side note, it is common for the conservatives on this site to dodge issues and invent arguments. I know that these people will try and argue that Obama has said that he doesn’t think politics and religion should be totally separate, but I will head these people off at the pass. I know that Obama has said that, and you know what? I don’t agree with it. I think it makes him less of a good candidate in MY EYES. Of course, those who are religious but not as conservative will like that… in fact, conservatives who are sick of too much of their own medicine will like that as well. I do not like it. But if you are going to argue my points in this post, focus on my actual points, not on Obama. I know this will be tough for some of you who are so entrenched in faith without evidence that the whole act of arguing is beyond you, but try.

Enjoy.

Jihad! Jihad! Jihad!

2008-07-30T07:42:00.000-07:00

Can anyone tell me what Newton’s third law of motion is? I’ll give you a hint, it has something to do with “equal” and “opposite”. Thats right! For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

In physics, that means that every force you apply to another mass is met with equal and opposite force. For example, gravity is a vector force pointing downwards towards the Earth. You standing on the Earth represents a downward force onto the Earth’s surface, but you know what keeps you from sinking right through the surface? The fact that the surface is pushing back on you with equal and opposite force. If you increase your weight, the surface increases its push back. So the harder you push, the harder it pushes back.

I’m not trying to be deep or philosophical here, but I see the same trend in a more ephemeral sense… with religion.

In America, we are supposed to enjoy freedom from religion, meaning, the state and the government is supposed to refrain from picking an official religion to side with. Why is this important? Because 250 years ago there were many difference religions that people believed, and among those religions were many sects that often contradicted each other. If the government had picked one sect of one religion, they would have alienated everyone else. The whole point of America was supposed to be the opposite of that. It was and still is supposed to be a place where you go to be free of any kind of state sponsored religion.

Now, Oatney recently wrote a post that condemned those who have problems with public displays of Christianity. This shows us that Oatney is unpatriotic, in the sense that he doesn’t agree with the original purpose of this country.

If you happen to be one of those religious people who feel that A) Your religion is really the correct one B) Public displays isn’t forcing religion onto anybody; then you should know that A) You’re wrong and B) you’re wrong.

To think your religion is the only correct one, and the billions of other religious people out there are just simply wrong is arrogant and weak. People in history took that position when they felt the need to oppress and conquer, often over compensating for some inadequacy issues. Secondly, public displays are forcing religion because tax payer’s money goes into it. Lets say you’re Jewish, and you live in an apartment complex where the manager used rent money to upkeep the place, including putting a nativity scene in the lobby. This is forcing the acceptance of Jesus unto those who do not recognize him as the Messiah. When one does this, its hard not to get the impression that the oppressor needs to validity their religion by forcing it onto others.

Pghremodeler in response to Oatney’s post on this subject said:

Where did you get the idea that spending tax dollars to advance the views of one religion over another is a good idea? You must worship a weak and stupid god. I wish you xtians would learn to embrace God

By the way your definition of conservatism is just sick and twisted.

Oatney appeared to be waging a religious holy war against those who were not of his religion. It reminds me of the old testament where the Israelites are commanded to slay the non-believers. This is obviously archaic but also extremely unsophisticated. Oatney shows us that he isn’t capable of critical thought nor is he capable of putting himself in other people’s shoes (a problem all conservatives seem to have). Oatney didn’t even consider how he would feel if public displays of Menorahs and other Hanukah symbolism were the norm. Would he get all uppity about the war on Hanukah? No, because he isn’t Jewish.

Arguments like Oatneys always come off very weak and rather pathetic. When someone can’t think or see beyond their small xenophobic views, that person is lost to the past, and we must ignore or move past them.

Enjoy.

On the paht to glory

2008-07-30T07:36:00.001-07:00

America is good, but it is not great. With the exception of Canada and a few European countries, America remains one of the more free places in the world. Progressive movements and civil liberties bring us closer to glory, they bring us closer to being a great country.

The more liberal a country becomes, the closer to freedom it gets. Even conservatives get their way. The wonderful thing about the progressive liberal ideology is that it doesn’t RESTRICT things like the right-wing conservative ideology, it simply opens doors. In a liberal country, one can be conservative. In a conservative country, one cannot be liberal. Liberals find that there is nothing more important that the ability to share one’s opinion and to make choices for one’s self. The conservative are not so much for this.

One of the things America suffers from is mass stupidity. People are generally very poorly educated here, and as a result don’t ever learn to question things. The reason I am writing this is about one of those things.

The death penalty remains one of those stupid things. We are the only non-developing nation that still adheres to this barbaric ritual. I have written about his before, and provided the evidence that leads us to the conclusion that the death penalty has no benefit on society. It is not economically beneficial, it does not deter crime, and it doesn’t fit any moral standards that we set up elsewhere. Especially with the religious who would rather save the potential life of a group of cells than save a man dying of ALS.

But we are on the path to glory.

New Jersey has become the first US state to formally abolish the death penalty. The Democrat-controlled state assembly in Trenton voted 44-36 to scrap capital punishment, and replace it with life in prison without hope of parole. The speaker of the House, Democrat Joseph Roberts Jnr, said it was time for a change:”Today, I believe, sends a signal to all of America. We are telling states you can indeed repeal the death penalty.”

Who would have thought New Jersey would be a leader on the path to glory. The day when every state has abolished the death penalty is the day we achieve a higher rank amongst the great nations of this world. Our goal should not be the most powerful nation, or the most frightening, or the most influential, but to be the most free and the most happy. This can only occur from riding ourselves of laws or tenets that are based upon ideas without evidence, and if we can rid ourselves of blatant contradiction of morality and racism.

Thirteen other American states refuse to enforce the death penalty, but New Jersey is the first to ban it since the US Supreme Court reinstated capital punishment in 1976.

I’m not going to explain again what the problems are with the death penalty, you may read my older posts on the subject for more information, evidence, and logical reasoning. To this day, no one has been able to challenge the arguments I put forth in those posts. To simply put it, once you look at the evidence and consider the morality behind it, the death penalty has no place in a modern society. It sticks out like a sore thumb. We have the ability to decode massive amounts of data from machines floating in space, but we can’t get rid of a ritual that is older than human history itself?

Enjoy.

Ignorance with Wings Part 4 ::embryonic stem cells::

2008-03-25T14:42:00.000-07:00

Embryonic stem cells:

ES cells are pluripotent. This means they are able to differentiate into all derivatives of the three primary germ layers: ectoderm, endoderm, and mesoderm. These include each of the more than 220 cell types in the adult body. Pluripotency distinguishes ES cells from multipotent progenitor cells found in the adult; these only form a limited number of cell types.

I’m sure you know what this means. ES cells have a wondrous potential to treat or even cure some very debilitating, paralyzing, or fatal diseases and conditions. At this moment, there are millions of men, women and children who are alive and breathing that suffer from one of a number of these diseases. Their lives are torturous, painful, and barely worth living. It seems rather ridiculous then that we don’t fund or expand our research with embryonic stem cells. It fact, it is extremely ridiculous.

The uncritical religious, who’s decisions and beliefs require faith (a principle that has no evidence to back it up) to exist, do everything they can to stop embryonic stem cell research. Why, you ask? The reason is surprisingly absurd.

The religious think that life begins at some point before the embryo, and that destroying an embryo for the stem cells is killing a life. These very same people will turn around and fully support the death penalty keep in mind! For some reason, they are obsessed with controlling people and their choices, and therefor wish to remain on the side of the argument that lacks reason and evidence.

Let us consider some facts, shall we?

1) Embryos consist of 50 to 150 cells IN TOTAL. They are nothing but a collection of microscopic cells that you could count with your eye. At this stage, the embryo is known as a blastocyte, which forms 4 to 5 days after fertilization. In fact, some scientists don’t consider a blastocyte and embryo. You have to understand that there is NO human qualities in a blastocyte. It is literally a simple collection of cells that can be counted by the human eye. 2) Embryos abort naturally ALL THE TIME. In fact, more than half of all embryos die naturally. Embryo destruction is actually the norm, rather than the exception. So that puts an enormous hole in the religious or faith-based idea that embryos are lives that should not be knowingly killed. 220 million embryos die a year naturally, that is more than any other cause of death that we know of. Keep in mind that; Cancer, in all its forms, kills 7.6 million people per year, In six years, the Second World War killed around 60 million people…

We don’t defend an embryo’s right to free speech, because it cannot speak, in fact, it cannot do anything. It has no neurological system, no consciousness, no thoughts, no mind, no brain… no nothing. Yet some would ascribe more rights to it than a black man on death row. This is the ultimate contradiction of the religious right in the United States. Infuriatingly stupid, isn’t it?

There are certain moral questions that are common, that test one’s true morals. For example, consider the train that is flying out of control at break neck speeds. If it continues on its current track, it will fly off of a cliff a la Back to the Future Part III and kill everyone on board; men, women, children… embryos. But you are standing at a switch on the track, and you can switch the track to safely divert the train away from the cliff, however, there is a man tied to the diverted track. If you flip the switch, you kill the one man tied to the track but save the hundreds of passengers on board.

This is not meant to be an easy decision, but no one would call you immoral if you were to flip the switch.

The point is, we have millions of people today who are alive, breathing, have nervous systems, thoughts, dreams, the right to free speech and so on, who suffer and are at risk of death. Trying to save the life of a group of cells over these living breathing human beings is like not switching the track to save the one man tied to the diverted track. In fact, it is much worse. It is as if instead of another man tied to the track, it was a cockroach, and you saved the roach at the expense of everyone on the train.

So how come we don’t consider all 220 million naturally destroyed embryos loss of human life? Because it isn’t loss of human life. You cannot die if you were never born.

If Christians really cared about the lives of children, we’d see a stronger push for decreasing infant mortality in developing worlds. But we don’t see that. We see anti-homosexual bills, sodomy laws, and fighting Islam.

Obviously the potential for life is not the same as life itself, because then every time we wore a condom, every time we used spermacide, every time we went to the sperm bank, every time we masturbated, we would be killing hundreds of millions of people. Does this sound right to you? No. Of course not. An embryo is not a life, a zygote is not a life, a fetus is not a life. Potential life is not life, hence the word “potential”. You don’t put people in jail before they commit the crime.

But MisterE, why not cut the controversy and just stick with adult stem cells? Well, adult stem cells may not have the potential the embryonic stem cells have. We of course need to do more research on this, but science is under the impression at the moment that adult stem cells are unlikely to be nearly as useful as embryonic stem cells.

Embryonic stem cells are obtained from human embryos. They have the capacity to turn into any cell type in the body. Adult stem cells have been found in some mature human tissues, including the brain and bone marrow. There is a scientific debate over whether their ability to become specialized is limited to their tissue of origin, or whether they can turn into other types of tissue.

Adult stem cells have proven their value to medicine. For example, bone marrow transplants are routinely used to treat some cancers and blood diseases. But it’s unlikely that bone marrow stem cells can replace all of the different types of cells that are damaged by disease. Embryonic stem cells are the only ones that are likely to do that.

You have to understand that science does not recognize most, if any religious tenants as fact. But science is where we get our medicine, our help, our computers and advancements and so on… so its obviously the area of reality that we can be sure is real. We have no scientific definition for a human life, and obviously, it has to start somewhere. Since ethereal ideas such as spirits and life creation by a deity are extremely unlikely, we avoid them as explanations. To define a human life, we can only turn to science for the answer, and if science doesn’t have an answer then there may be no answer.

If you look at it purely from a scientific and natural perspective, we are mammals. We are simply organisms that live on this planet that have evolved some very fancy brains. However, a mammal can only live when separated from its chromosomal donor, physiologically. As long as it is a part of the mother, it cannot survive as its own entity, and perhaps remains simply a part of the mother. A human fetus doesn’t develop a nervous system and a brain-stem until very late in the game, and even then it is uncertain whether or not they can comprehend or understand pain, for they are not yet alive. They are being made, like bread in an oven. The question can then become: “Does life start when consciousness starts”? Again, science does not yet have a theory that tells us the precise moment consciousness begins. It is entirely feasible that someday we may find that moment, for it is becoming increasingly clear that consciousness is merely the result of incomprehensible numbers of neural connections in our brains. Without neural connections like that, are we conscious? Are apes conscious? Are cockroaches conscious?

These are all very interesting questions that science may or may not some day answer (and will adhere to script scientific scrutiny so it can be considered fact, unlike religious tenants that can withstand no scrutiny and have no supporting evidence). In the meantime, we are sure (to a statistically significant degree) that an embryo cannot feel pain, is not a human life, and should not be considered so over the well beings and mortality of those we KNOW to be alive.

Enjoy.

Ignorance with Wings Part 3 ::intelligent design::

2008-03-25T14:41:00.000-07:00

It is no joking matter that many people, nay, most people in the middle and southern states of this country actually believe that man was designed by some grand architect in the sky, and that evolution is nonsense.

The problem with their beliefs is that there is no evidence backing up their claims. Not one single shred, in fact, ignoring the theory of evolution, there is so much evidence AGAINST intelligent design that its a miracle it still is considered ’seriously’ by some. You’d really have to be quite blind to the world to dismiss evolution for a magical explanation.

But the fact remains, evolution is the single most likely theory in science. We are more sure evolution occurred than we are that cells divide the way we think they do, that gravity exists, and that the big bang occurred. Mind you, this is no small feat. The theories of gravity, cells, and the big bang have HUGE amounts of evidence, observation, independent confirmation, and reliable analyzed data behind it. HUGE.

I’m not going to make this a long post simply because I would be repeating myself over and over. But I will repeat some basic things. 1)Geologic record mixed with carbon dating confirms evolution 2)Scientific observation of species at present confirms evolution 3)Mutation of viruses such as Avian Flu or SARS confirms evolution etc…

Most confused people tend to think micro-evolution occurs without macro-evolution. These people haven’t thought it through enough, and probably dismiss logic regularly. Macro-evolution, very simply put, is micro-evolution over a period of massive amounts of years. What frustrates the creationist is that understanding evolution requires the acceptance of change over time. Very little, with the exception of bacteria, occurs over night in the context of speciation. However, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen.

Most creationists are so far removed from reality that science means very little to them. This is why I.D. and creation are considered myths, because 1)No evidence supports them 2)The people that insist on their veracity have extremely low standards and scrutinizing abilities

Now, one should note, claiming that something is wrong simply because the person who claims it to be right is an idiot, doesn’t make that claim wrong. But what does make it wrong is ENDLESS evidence against it. Creation is so implausible that it is sometimes infuriating that people still believe it. Some would simply have to accept the fact that many people still have below average intellectual capabilities.

You see, every branch of science has evidence and proof that all point to evolution being true. Independent sets of data from geology, paleontology, botany, zoology, herpetology, entomology, biogeography, comparative anatomy, physiology, genetics, physics, biology, microbiology, epidemeology, and so on, all support, nay require, the theory of evolution to be true.

How can you ignore the fossils for Christ’s sake? Most creationists are unaware of how extremely unlikely fossilization is. In order for a specimen to be fossilized, very specific and rare circumstances must converge on a single unlikely point in time. Yet we have millions upon millions of fossils dating back billions of years. Life and speculation was so common and affluent on this planet for billions of years that the laws of probability require there to be fossilized remains. We have evidence, that we can see and touch, that we descended from a common ancestor. Yet, the creationists resist.

I’ve heard everything from arguments like “How could Earth be so perfectly suited to man” to “Why don’t we see dogs turning into bees in the lab”? These are some VERY stupid arguments to be made, and barely ever deserve a response, for the person asking them is merely demonstrating how little they understand science and reality. Thomas Henry Huxley once wrote “Critics [of evolution] exclusively trained in classics or in mathematics, who have never determined a scientific fact in their lives by induction from experiment or observation, prate learnedly about Mr. Darwin’s method, which is not inductive enough, not Baconian enough, forsooth for them.”

Basically, criticizing science without knowing science is ridiculous, yet it is what the creationists and I.D. proponents do all the time. Science is undeniable, unbiased, and not subject for argument. That is the whole point of it. Science is the search for truth, and truth can only be found when large amounts of people agree that something is true with a %99.9 certainty. This can only be achieved if your sample size is large enough, your data is wide enough, and your analyzing is done independently by many different people.

This is how we arrive upon a scientific THEORY. Theories are as close to laws, fact, or truth as you will ever get. Creationism is so far behind that, so immeasurably low on the level of scrutiny that it hardly belongs in the thoughts of intelligent men and women. In fact, it doesn’t.

You see, not only do we have NO reason to believe that creation occurred, we have mountains of evidence to suggest that something else occurred. Its a double-team!

Enjoy heathens.

Ignorance with Wings PART 2 ::sex::

2008-03-25T14:39:00.000-07:00

If you’ve ever had sex, then you know it can be one of the greatest experiences on Earth; better than chocolate, videogames, and even certain episodes of Star Trek The Next Generation (I know… ridiculous). I know since I became sexually active in High School, I’ve had a wonderful time, and I feel that I’ve grown from it (no pun intended).

Unfortunately, I wish I could maintain a light-hearted air about sex with this post, but I cannot. For there are atrocities of sex perpetrated by the uncritical and faithfully religious, covering a broad spectrum from condemning pre-martial sex to stoning your daughter because she was raped.

Abrahamic religion has been against sex (and therefor against human life) for its entire history from what we can tell. Influencing generation after generation of lemmings to fear it and abstain from its wonders. Like drugs, a righteous orgasm can be and has been described as a spiritual experience, and it is for that reason that the religious condemn it. How dare you know pleasures greater than accepting Jesus into your heart. Those who control others know that accepting Jesus into your heart amounts to no amount of pleasure when compared to fornicating with two hotties in your college dorm room. They know that if they don’t condemn it forcefully, they will lose converts and lose their control over them. But why? Why do millions of people remain so confused and tortured by their uncritical faith-based lives? Because they know no other.

Let us explore how this is dangerous. Why don’t we start with the tamer side of things. In America, we have a serious lack of critical thinking. Most people here believe in things without evidence, without rationality, and without logic. This is very dangerous for a number of reasons, but when you focus on sex, you can see how dangerous faith really is. You see, faith is simply a word used by those who can’t rationally explain their feelings or judgments. When evidence and logic are absent, one has to either admit they are probably wrong or play the faith card, which gives them the license to believe whatever they want without evidence. When it comes to sex, these people believe that doing it before you are married is somehow bad or harmful. In additional, these very same people believe that certain forms of sex are just plain wrong, i.e. anal sex, oral sex, group sex, etc…

Smarter people ignore such tenants on the grounds that there is no evidence to these claims. Smarter people know that faith is crap in this situation, at least. To date there have been NO studies that suggest that anal sex is bad, wrong, or harmful to anyone. The same holds true for pre-marital sex, oral sex, kinky sex, BDSM, group sex or masturbation. So the question remains, why ban, shun, or insist on denying these pleasures to people who wish to seek them? The answer is that there is no good reason, so one must play the faith card. One will quote from an antiquated text that is poorly translated and contradictory, one will invent some kind of wishy-washy moral rule or law that they insist is omnipresent but is really just a bunch of bullshit, and one will simply invoke the irrational faith-based religion that they subscribe to.

Let me make it clear that I am NOT SAYING THAT every example of the usage or invoking of faith is dangerous or harmful, I’m simply focusing on sex for now.

Let us do what the religious hate most and look at facts: 1)Human beings are sexual 2)The human brain derives enormous amounts of pleasure from sexual contact 3)Sexual attraction is different for every person 4)Marriage is a human-created entity (Apes don’t get married) 5)Without sex, nobody would be here 6)Sex is beneficial to your health, if safe

I can hear the straw-man and red herring arguments blasting from the religious already: “But STDs kill people, and women shouldn’t have sex with more than one man in their life, and teens having sex is bad, and…” yada yada yada.

The reason why teen pregnancy and STDs remain prevalent is because of lack of education regarding sex. We have found that the more educated about sex people are, the lower the incident of abortion and STDs. It makes sense. If you are taught very frankly about sex, about how to have it safely, you will be less likely to spread STDs, more likely to control urges and hormones, and more likely to be safe and careful. This is true with anything in life. The more you know about something, the less mistakes you make!

Therefor, the problems we face are actually CAUSED by the religious who cite them so frequently when arguing against sex. They create the taboo and the abstinence only education, which in turn creates uneducated kids, which in turn creates abortions, teen pregnancies, and the spread of STDs, which in turn pisses off more religious people who in turn create MORE taboo and MORE pushes for abstinence only education.

Let us also not kid ourselves. Anti-sodomy laws are in place expressly for the purposes of making homosexuality illegal. Now, we know that NO ONE obeys these laws because they aren’t respectable laws. They are a travesty and direct threat to the very idea of a free country. But we know that Christians use faith to explain away their discomfort with homosexuals. Their uneducated and irrational fears include a fear of conversion by gays (they recruit straights to become gay) and not having children. Aside from the FACT that many straight couples either choose not to or can’t have children, the idea that homosexuality is wrong because they can’t produce children is seriously lacking in any merit. Similarly, the idea that gays recruit others to be gay is even more ridiculous. Intelligent people actually laugh at the less reasoned, under-educated religious who think this.

This is bad, wrong, and has got to stop. When we now turn to the more severe side of things, we see this very same dogmatic approach to sex by the uncritical and the religious and the results are much worse. People are dying by the hundreds of thousands. Small girls are being stoned to death by family, men in Africa are being restricted from access to condoms, women in the middle east are being treated like breeding machines instead of human beings, and teenage girls are having their genitals mutilated. Does ANY of this sound good, beneficial towards society or bettering of humankind? Fuck no!

President Bush cut off funding to any overseas family-planning group that provides INFORMATION on abortion. His actions, according to the New York Times “has effectively stopped condom provision to 16 countries and reduced it in 13 others, including some with the world’s highest rates of AIDS infection.” One third of the U.S. government’s AIDS prevention fund was wasted and squandered on abstinence-only education … as a result millions of people will die. If you have any sensibility in you, any interest in human kind, any kind or caring feelings; this should make you furious. Here we have tenants and claims WITH NO EVIDENCE ruining the world… literally. Christianity continues to kill people, just like Islam does with the promise of 49 virgins in heaven after slaying the non-believers. Go to the website I linked above and see what the effects have been. Maybe, if you supported this before or continue to support this now, after reading FACTS and EVIDENCE, you’ll change your mind. If not, then you need serious help.

In Islam, an adulterous wife or a raped girl are to be punished by death. This is another terrible consequence of the religious fear of sex. Sex has become so shunned and terrible that its a wonder any human beings remain. It doesn’t matter if you are Christian and condemn the act of stoning your 15 year old daughter for being raped, the point is that the same uncritical faith or untested ‘theories’ about reality that include how to treat sex is at play.

In Africa, Christians incorrectly believe that abstinence-only education will work in the prevention of AIDS. Christians prove their inability to regard evidence by ignoring the fact that this increases the prevelance of AIDS. Maybe they know this and they don’t care, maybe they want black men to die of AIDS, I can’t say WITHOUT EVIDENCE.

People will always have sex, no matter what. It is a biological function, a basic human need, and something that is stupid to ignore. For ignoring our sexual urges is ignoring the very thing that makes us human. In general, humans will not abstain from sex, no matter how many nights you stay up thinking about other people’s private lives, so the best and logical thing to do would be to work with the flow, not against it. We improve sexual education, improve condom distribution, increase funding for family planning, abolish abstinence-only education, have all contraception covered on medical insurance (including birth control and the morning after pill), and rid ourselves of irrational faith and belief without evidence.

Enjoy.

Ignorance with Wings PART 1 ::drugs::

2008-03-25T14:37:00.000-07:00

The time has come to outline the dangers and regression that theology presents to us, has presented to us, and will continue to present to us lest we get wiser.

Part one of this glorious series is about drugs, moreover, substances that are illegal. Marijuana is a leaf that grows naturally from the ground, and has properties that are both spiritual and medicinal. Theology and religion have infested the laws of the United States since the beginning. Some would argue that it is impossible to separate ‘morally right’ from Christianity… but those people would be wrong.

Marijuana is illegal, and in fact, in some states a felony. It would be nice to think that the reason the federal government keeps pot growers in jail for their entire lives is for the greater good, to save people from harm or danger. But the fact that cigarettes and alcohol are legal proves that that isn’t so. To date, marijuana has been known to cause zero deaths, while alcohol has NO approved medicinal use, has an easily achievable lethal dose, causes thousands of automobile related deaths alone, and can cause massive liver and heart failures. Alcohol is responsible for 100,000 deaths a year, and cigarettes are responsible for even more. In fact, it is more dangerous to drive a car, fly in an airplane, or be a park ranger than it is to use marijuana.

So why the law? Because it is a sin. Believe it or not, religious people stay awake at night concerning themselves with what you do in your own home. Its about sin! We punish sinners. There are simply certain forms of pleasures that Americans are not allowed to pursue because less than intelligent people believe them to be sinful. You see, God is all knowing and all seeing, so your privacy is just a false sense of security. The religious believe this, so they don’t feel that you deserve to be responsible for yourself. It is sheer madness! Anti-sodomy laws, anti-oral sex laws… all still valid in many states.

It doesn’t matter what logical science says about these things. Pre-marital sex has no known negative effect on humans or societies, yet some wish to concern themselves with the ’sin’ of others. Often, the harder you push, the more someone will push you back, its a basic law of Newtonian physics. The more you tell kids that sex is wrong unless ordained by a flying omnipotent being, the more they’ll want to do it, the more they will do it, and the more unwanted pregnancies due to improper education there will be. But that is for another part to this series.

More people are imprisoned for nonviolent drug offenses in the United States than are incarcerated, for any reason, in all of Western Europe (which has a larger population than the U.S.). We spend $20 billion dollars a year on this. (ONDCP Drug Data Summary March 2003). Does this seem worth it? Aren’t there Islamic extremists planning our demise because of our heathen religious beliefs? None of this makes sense really. But that is theology: non-sensible, illogical, emotional thinking. The real problem is pleasure. We all know that Christians don’t get along with pleasure very well. The fact that these drugs cause more pleasure per gram of drug than say alcohol or cigarettes is why they remain illegal. As Sam Harris put it in his book The End of Faith, “When one looks at our drug laws-indeed, at our vice laws altogether-the only organizing principle that appears to make sense of them is that anything which might radically eclipse prayer or procreative sexuality as a source of pleasure has been outlawed. In particular, any drug…to which spiritual or religious significant has been ascribed by its users has been prohibited. Concerns about the health of our citizens, or about their productivity, are red herrings in this debate, as the legality of alcohol and cigarettes attests”.

Enjoy.

River Blindness, young activists to make documentary

2007-04-26T09:18:00.000-07:00

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

CONTACT:
Aaron Edell
37 Million and Counting
(415) 596-6063
info@37millionandcounting.com
www.37millionandcounting.com

Young Activists Plan to Film a Documentary in Tanzania to Combat a Neglected Tropical Disease

NEW YORK, NY, April 18, 2007 – A small team has begun pre-production and fundraising for a documentary film on the subject of African river blindness, the world’s second leading infectious cause of blindness. They plan to travel to Tanzania this summer to discover why the distribution of a free treatment is still leaving 37 million people infected.

Merck & Co. created the Mectizan donation program in 1988, which distributes a treatment for African river blindness (Onchocerciasis) to anyone who needs it, anywhere, for free. Yet, in Africa, tens of millions of people still suffer from the debilitating disease.

The parasitic worm enters the skin via a bite from a blackfly, where it matures and breeds to number in the tens of thousands. While the worms remain underneath the skin, intense itching, swelling and inflammation occurs. Over a period of several years, the worms travel to the eye where they swim around in the cornea, causing scarring and damage, eventually leading to blindness.

Infected people can be treated once a year by taking the drug ivermectin (Mectizan) , which not only eradicates itching, but keeps the adult worms from producing offspring, preventing both morbidity and transmission.

“There are so many ways to combat this terrible disease, yet so many people still get infected every year, we want to find out why that is” states Aaron Edell, award winning documentary film maker. “HIV/AIDS and Malaria has garnered all the public attention, putting this infectious disease on the ‘Neglected Tropical Diseases’ list, which is something we want to change.”

Edell has partnered with his fiancé Aimée Peck, who is a first year medical student at Dartmouth Medical School, his father Dr. Dean Edell who is an accomplished radio and television personality who reports on health and medicine, and Dr. Rosalind Stevens who is a member of Orbis International and a Cyber-Sight advisory board member.

More information can be found on their website at http://www.37millionandcounting.com

Green is patriotic

2007-04-24T08:27:00.002-07:00

I saw a very interesting interview on CNN with a New York Times columnist who recently wrote the article "Green: The New Red White and Blue".

He made some very interesting points that I want to reiterate. First off is that the republican or right wing ideology labels anyone interested in conservation as a liberal, a sissy, tree-hugger, or a girly-man. But most importantly, that somehow it is unpatriotic.

Thomas Friedman points out that that is utter nonsense. In fact, its stupid.

What's so disturbing about President Bush and Dick Cheney is that they talk tough about the necessity of invading Iraq, torturing terror suspects and engaging in domestic spying - all to defend our way of life and promote democracy around the globe.

But when it comes to what is actually the most important issue in U.S. foreign and domestic policy today - making ourselves energy efficient and independent, and environmentally green - they ridicule it as something only liberals, tree-huggers and sissies believe is possible or necessary.

Sorry, but being green, focusing the nation on greater energy efficiency and conservation, is not some girlie-man issue. It is actually the most tough-minded, geostrategic, pro-growth and patriotic thing we can do. Living green is not for sissies. Sticking with oil, and basically saying that a country that can double the speed of microchips every 18 months is somehow incapable of innovating its way to energy independence - that is for sissies, defeatists and people who are ready to see American values eroded at home and abroad.

Amen. There really is nothing more patriotic than trying to save your own damn country. Conservatives are against progression, wanting to keep things the way they are. But this country will not be the way it is if we continue to cut down forests and ignore global warming.

We have to make a major move towards new energy conservation. There are some fabulous ideas out there in popular magazines like Scientific American about a greener future. They outlay in detail a plan to have hydrogen be our new gasoline for cars. Implementing a pipe and delivery system to stations around the country. It really is the future.

Maybe being that thoughtful and that concerned about our countries future is a liberal thing. In fact, it most certainly is, it always has been. It requires the ability to step outside of your self and put yourself into the shoes of others... in this case, our grand children, who will grow up either in a beautiful, energy efficient climate, or a industrial apocalypse.

"The Power is Yours"

- Captain Planet

Abortion: Government regulates medicine

2007-04-24T08:27:00.001-07:00

Nobody likes abortion. Women don't run around all excited to have abortions. Its a terrible thing that sometimes has to be done, just like giving yourself an enema.

But it isn't up to the government to make these decisions for women, its up to the woman. Conservatives think they have a right to limits the ability to choose, but they don't. The only people they have a right to choose for is themselves, and if they happen to be a man, then there is no choice to make. Its a woman's choice.

But this has more implications than just restriction on humans. Abortion laws intrude into medicine and a doctor's ability to take care of his/her patients.

April 23 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Supreme Court's decision to uphold the Federal Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act was an intrusion by government into the practice of medicine, said doctors writing for the New England Journal of Medicine.

``Both health care providers and patients should be alarmed by the current degree of intrusion by our government into the practice of medicine and even more so by the apparent trajectory that it seems poised to follow in the near future,'' [Michael] Greene [professor of reproductive biology at Harvard Medical School] wrote in an article that was released by the journal.

These decisions should not be made by justices sitting in a nice clean room for EVERY single woman in this country. These decisions need to be made by the patients themselves. There are ALWAYS circumstances that can never be predicted, and it is counter-productive to limit people's rights in a country that is used to being free.

I honestly thought this was America: the land of the free. But it really isn't anymore since the conservatives took majority. Now that we're slowly shifting to the safer left wing, we can expect ridiculous human rights violations like this federal ban to go back to where it belongs: the dark ages.

While doctors want oversight and discussion of health and social matters, the conversations should take place between people who are acting in the best interest of a specific patient, wrote Jeffrey M. Drazen, the editor-in-chief of the journal.

``Government regulation has no place in this process,'' Drazen wrote. ``With this decision the Supreme Court has sanctioned the intrusion of legislation into the day-to-day practice of medicine.''

The new ruling concludes that excluding health considerations doesn't cause women an undue burden, the doctors said.

``And thus the balance of interests shifts, with women's health no longer paramount but rather societal mortality and the state's interest in life even before the point of viability outside the womb,'' R. Alta Charo, a professor of law and bioethics at the University of Wisconsin in Madison wrote.

It is not the position of older white men to decide the fate of women everywhere. It is appropriate, and its a violation of human rights as I said before. We are to expect more respect from our supreme court justices than we are getting right now, and the same holds true for any conservative representative who is anti-choice. The fetus is not a life, but even if you mistakenly believe it is, thats fine, no one will really fault you for that. The problem is that you expect everyone to just believe what you believe, and further more, warp their lives to match what YOU believe to be right. And that my friends, is sinful and wrong.

Enjoy.

The Golden Rule

2007-04-24T08:23:00.000-07:00

The Golden Rule is supposed to be a Christian tenet. Love thy enemy and believe in redemption.

I should leave it at that. The simplicity of that statement illuminates a myriad of problems that our world faces. In fact, it could represent the death and destruction of millions of people.

If Christians indeed followed their own faith, support for war, nuclear arms, invasions and occupations wouldn't exist. Christianity doesn't say "Vaporize your enemies children". It says love your enemy.

This isn't just a Christian tenet but a Jewish one, and a Buddhist one.

So why do conservatives think they are Christian when they run around 'hating' their enemy. Who is their enemy? Muslims? Liberals?

I think it is more than that. Christians make enemies of everyone who don't agree with them, even other Christians. But if you could truly love your enemy, then why the need for guns and wars?

I invite those who claim to be Christians to actually become Christians.

Religion can have important roles in society, it can provide hope in times of duress, it can provide a reason to get up in the morning... but it isn't used for that.

The real danger is that Christians in power think that they will be saved. If that they adhere to what they think are Christian traditions, they will ascend to heaven to be with Jesus... so who cares about a nuclear holocaust? Who cares what happens on Earth? Those who believe will be saved, and those who don't will go to hell.

This is an extraordinarily dangerous myth, especially if it is believed by someone in power. A conservative Christian has no one in mind but him or herself and his or her friends. They barely see non-Christians as humans.

This type of Christianity is nothing of the sort, in fact, I think it needs a new name. Those who ignore the Golden Rule and hate their enemies. Who are these people? Conservative Christians, but they tarnish their own name.

Martin Luther King Jr. was a Christian, but he sought peace not violence, which is what Jesus would have done. Jesus wouldn't support the invasion and occupation of Iraq, would he?

So, can we just interpret what we want how we want it to best suit our core values? If you think that women should not have control over their bodies, that gays are sick, and that everyone should own a gun, then you will manipulate the bible or whatever religion you claim to belong to to meet your needs. Its called biblical quarterbacking and every conservative Christian is guilty of it.

Enjoy.

An addendum to evolution

2006-12-13T12:03:00.000-08:00

After writing my post about evolution yesterday, I thought of some more things I wanted to say, or rather, one more thing I wanted to focus on. It would seem that the main point of my post was lost among the creationists on this site.

The main point being that you cannot logically think evolution is false and that computers are not false at the same time. Meaning, the benefits of science that creationists enjoy like architecture, gravity, computers, their motor vehicles were all created using the same level of understanding as we have of evolution.

So far, creationists have conveniently ignored this fact. Consider the thoughts of Bob Riggins:

Fundamentalism-creationism is endemic around here (Southern Texas), and somehow that noisy minority has convinced the indifferent majority that to be a Christian of any sort, one must reject evolution. Ironically, even many of my Catholic students think their church is "against evolution" (it isn't). Somehow Protestant fundamentalism has "converted" them, at least on this article of faith, without their even realizing it.

Perhaps it's also because, as an English teacher in a science-oriented magnet school, I often include science fiction novels and, at least once a year, a science nonfiction book as assigned readings. Inevitably, there will be something (probably a lot of things) in those books that rub the creationists the wrong way, since to maintain their structure of beliefs they have had to reject the facts established in practically all areas of science, from astronomy through nuclear physics to geology and biochemistry.

This is true, not understanding evolution means you don't understand any science, even the science the governs your everyday life. To not only reject the incredibly amazing, unbiased, hard work put forth by thousands upon thousand of scientists for hundreds of years to bring you the conveniences you have today, but to reject the most basic principles of our world that are so concretely understood is absurd.

You can't have it both ways. Either you understand evolution, and you, by proxy, understand that your computer runs on science, or you don't get it and in order to avoid being a walking contradiction you go live in the woods.

People "believe" in creation, but people "know" evolution.

The phrase believe in common parlance seems to mean to take something literally for which there is little or no objective evidence. You must believe in the Easter Bunny, because you've never seen the real one yourself, there's nothing he has done that couldn't be simply explained by ordinary phenomena (parental trickery), and there's no objective, physical, replicable (in other words, scientific) evidence that he's real. If you had those last things, then you wouldn't have to believe in the Easter Bunny, you would know he was real.

Its true, you believe in creation, something for which there is no objective evidence, or you understand evolution, of which there are mountains of objective evidence.

It's often said that because evolution happened in the past, and we didn't see it happen, there is no direct evidence for it. That, of course, is nonsense. It's rather like a detective coming on the scene of a crime, obviously after the crime has been committed, and working out what must have happened by looking at the clues that remain. In the story of evolution, the clues are a billionfold.

There are clues from the distribution of DNA codes throughout the animal and plant kingdoms, of protein sequences, of morphological characters that have been analyzed in great detail. Everything fits with the idea that we have here a simple branching tree. The distribution of species on islands and continents throughout the world is exactly what you'd expect if evolution was a fact. The distribution of fossils in space and in time are exactly what you would expect if evolution were a fact. There are millions of facts all pointing in the same direction and no facts pointing in the wrong direction.

What is great about pure science is that it is completely unbiased and objective. Sure scientists can be biased, but science itself, cannot be. That is because science doesn't rest on the shoulders of man, like religion does. Christianity would not be understood if not for the bible, a fictional book written 1700 or 1800 years ago by a group of people, nor would it be understood if there weren't preachers telling people what to believe.

Science, fortunately, does not rely on such a shaky ground. Science exists without man, and it is observable, testable, and predictable by anyone. You drop a pen on the floor, count how long it takes to fall, and measure the distance of it falling, and you've done a scientific experiment on gravity!

Okay, if at this point you don't get it, then it may be too late for you, but certainly I will try and better explain this if need be.

Enjoy.

What the color black, cold temperatures, liberalism, and atheism all have in common

2006-12-13T12:01:00.000-08:00

I was inspired by something Nick said with regard to a posting style Donovan likes to take to write about opposites, and of course, with regards to politics.

The argument I always get into with Donovan is about science not being a religion. (I just spent 30 minutes trying to find the one post where we went back and forth about it, but I couldn't find it) Donovan keeps arguing that it is, or more over, that everything is everything, and I always stick to my guns by saying that religion is religion, and science is science, no similarities, not two apples, but an apple and an orange.

Atheism is like the color black, cold temperatures and liberalism. And I bet you are dying to know what the ass I mean by saying that.

Black isn't a color, in fact, black represents the absence of color. So, you could say that black is a color, but you would be wrong. It doesn't exhibit any qualities of a color because it is in fact not a color, its achromatic. Black is without restriction, it can be anything, because it can't be compared to colors.

A cold temperature is similar. Coldness doesn't actually exist, cold is the absence of heat. The warmer something is, the more heat it has, the colder something is, the less heat it has. You can't really compare cold to hot because coldness isn't a temperature. Temperature is only a measurement of how much heat something has. Now, we're getting into syntax here, and I don't want to do that. These are just things to think about.

I see liberalism as something similar to the above phenomena. Liberalism is the lack of restriction, rules, oppression, and hate. Sometimes it doesn't completely lack all of these things, but it is the void that a lack of these things is. When you feel like people should be free from persecution by religion, by the government, and by people because they were born black, or are gay, you're feeling liberal feelings. This feeling is a lack of things, and in some cases, the gain of other things (doesn't compare exactly with black or coldness). But generally, you could consider conservatism to be full of things. Rules and restrictions mostly. Conservatism isn't liberal, meaning, it isn't free, its full of persecution, forcing morals, religion, hate, discrimination and so on, when you start to take these things away, you're left with liberalism, which is open, free, and accepting. You can do what you want with that liberalism, use it to do good, or to be amoral or whatever.

Atheism is similar. You are left with a void of religion, restriction, and beliefs in super natural things. What is left is the truth, which is science.

Science is not atheism, nor is science religion, nor is black a color. They are different things, some true, some not, but not polar opposites nor comparable.

Enjoy.

Questioning art and how the artist paints with his penis

2006-12-13T11:59:00.000-08:00

I'm a big fan of art, all kinds, from film and video to sculptures and music. What can I say, I'm liberal. Some people do some odd things when it comes to art, and others are considered more conventional.

However, sometimes your expression is your expression, and not everyone agrees on what is appropriate and what is inappropriate.

RICHMOND, Va. -- Stephen Murmer's secret career as an artist has caught up with him.

Murmer, a popular high school art teacher, was suspended after objections were raised about his private abstract artwork, much of which includes smearing his posterior and genitals with paint and pressing them against canvas.

Murmer went to great lengths to keep his work life separate from his activities as an artist, said ACLU executive director Kent Willis. As an artist, he goes by the name "Stan Murmur," and appears in disguise in photographs and videos promoting his art.

I'm not sure what this Murmer guy did wrong. So what if his art involves the human body, people need to wake up and realize that the human body happens to be a beautiful thing, not this terrible dirty secret that must be kept away from people like the conservatives want you to think.

Again, I don't see the problem here. An artist can't teach kids because he is an artist? I don't care if he uses his schlong to paint, and neither should anyone else. Teachers are humans beings, in fact, a lot of them are extraordinary people who go their whole lives being under appreciated.

I don't think this should be an issue. He hasn't harmed anyone, hasn't done anything to hint that he might harm anyone, and he tried very hard to keep his personal life and his teaching career separate. Obviously, he doesn't want one to have anything to do with the other.

Enjoy.

Why you just can't explain god with reason, logic, nor science

2006-12-08T11:47:00.000-08:00

Feeling particularly adventurous today, I decided to type the phrase "evidence of god" into the google search bar. The first thing I came across dramatically peaked my interest. It was described as proof of the existence of god using science, logic and reason. I thought "Well hell, this aught to be good".

I was sorely disappointed. I will not list some of the arguments that this paper presents, and then explain why its stupid.

All of these galaxies are moving relative to each other. Their movement has a very distinct pattern which causes the distance between the galaxies to get greater with every passing day. If we had three galaxies located at positions A, B. and C [in a triangle]... tomorrow they will be further apart. The triangle they form will be bigger. The day after tomorrow the triangle will be bigger yet. We live in an expanding universe that gets bigger and bigger and bigger with every passing day.

Now let us suppose that we made time run backwards! If we are located at a certain distance today, then yesterday we were closer together. The day before that, we were still closer. Ultimately, where must all the galaxies have been? At a point! At the beginning! At what scientists call a singularity!

And thats argument number one. The conclusion? That science calls the moment before the big bang a singularity. I laughed briefly when I continued to read to find that that was the end of the first piece of evidence.

It is true that the universe is expanding, and it is true that if you reverse time, you end up with a singularity. Science has done endless tests, assessments, and calculations for over 40 years on the theory of the big bang. We've concluded that this is what happened, and we accept that for too many reasons to list. We have palpable, tangible evidence of the big bang, and it answers our question. But I don't think the big bang is seriously being questioned by theists, its how did the big bang start? A quantum singularity is a point of existence that we cannot measure the dimensions or contents of. A black hole is a singularity because we will never be able to measure what is inside, even though we have a pretty good idea. This is explainable and testable, and even proven. So how is that evidence for God? Who knows, these theists tend to grab at straws.

Here is some more ridiculousness.

Throughout the cosmos there are 25 quintillion stars, each converting hydrogen into helium, thereby reducing the total amount of hydrogen in the cosmos. Just think about it! If everywhere in the cosmos hydrogen is being consumed and if the process has been going on forever, how much hydrogen should be left?

Yup, thats it, argument number 2. Appalling isn't it? Especially after the author just stated that we came from a singularity. So argument 1 and 2 directly contradict themselves (all too common in religion). Obviously, we emerged from a singularity whereby all matter was energy so dense that the universe was compacted into a single dimensional object or something along those lines, so thats where the hydrogen is. Duh.

A third scientific proof that the atheist is wrong is seen in the second law of thermodynamics. In any closed system, things tend to become disordered. If an automobile is driven for years and years without repair, for example, it will become so disordered that it would not run any more. Getting old is simple conformity to the second law of thermodynamics. In space, things also get old. Astronomers refer to the aging process as heat death. If the cosmos is "everything that ever was or is or ever will be," as Dr. Carl Sagan is so fond of saying, nothing could be added to it to improve its order or repair it. Even a universe that expands and collapses and expands again forever would die because it would lose light and heat each time it expanded and rebounded.

The atheist's assertion that matter/energy is eternal is scientifically wrong. The biblical assertion that there was a beginning is scientifically correct.

This caused me to laugh so hard I had to get some water. This is why we so desperately need to be teaching science in schools. If you're going to argue against something, you ought to know something about it. Entropy is measured in closed systems, and the second law accounts for that. The reality is that heat is released into the outside system, and the if you consider the universe as an outside system, then your heat is accounted for. Everything evens out, because every force has an opposite and equal force acting upon it. When you push a wall, you're adding force to it, but the wall is pushing back equally.

The second law states that temperature differences between systems in contact with each other even out. Work can be obtained from these differences, but that loss of heat occurs, in the form of entropy, when work is done. Differences in pressure, density, and temperature all tend to equalize if given the opportunity. This means that an isolated system will eventually come to have a uniform temperature. And thats all. A universe that collapses, and becomes a singularity sucks all of its heat, pressure, and temperature back into itself, hence the definition of a singularity. This third argument makes as much sense as a bicycle with no seat!

I've written an e-mail to this author with a link to this post, and a note instructing him that he seek mental help.

Can't think of a situation in which I would support death

2006-12-08T11:44:00.000-08:00

I've been racking my brain for the past couple of days, trying to figure out if there is indeed a situation in which I would support the death penalty. Conclusion? I don't think so.

Sometimes, to put a different spin on a topic in my mind, I like to use simple models. For example, take a small village in the middle of nowhere. Its modern, and VERY theoretical. Lets say there are 1000 people in this weird village, and all are human beings no different than you or I. One kills another and is caught. The murderer clearly has some bad wiring in the noggin, and this is not strange to the people.

They decide to execute him because the family of the victim wants it to be so. So the village sets it up. Oh, but wait, the family of the murderer claims that he needs help, not death. So how do the villagers collectively decide who lives and who dies? What if they caught the wrong guy? How would murdering him over putting him in jail benefit the village?

Who are we to decide the lives of others, regardless of what they have done with themselves? It is a proven fact that in the U.S. today, the death penalty does not deter crime, nor is it cheaper than life in prison.

The best studies on the cost of the death penalty indicate that it costs about $2 million per execution over the costs of a system which imposes life sentences for the same crimes.

Although the costs of incarceration are expensive (about $25,000 per year per inmate), that amounts to $750,000 to $1,000,000 depending on whether a person lives 30 or 40 years after his or her sentencing. The death penalty, on the other hand, costs an additional $2 million per execution.

According to a Peter Hart Research Poll conducted in 1995 of police chiefs around the country, the officers named such measures as reducing drug abuse, a better economy, and controlling guns as more important than the death penalty in reducing violent crime.

Research reported in Homicide Studies, Vol. 1, No.2, May 1997, indicates that executions may actually increase the number of murders, rather than deter murders. Prof. Ernie Thomson at Arizona State University reported a brutalizing effect from an execution in Arizona, consistent with the results of a similar study in Oklahoma.

Now, I know I've posted about this 8 hundred billion times before, and I think I've made my point, so I'm not going to dwell.

I just wanted to state that I cannot think of a situation in which I would support the death penalty. Even for someone like Saddam. The problem is, that the death penalty is a barbaric, violent act, and solves nothing. Killing somebody for killing because it is illegal is extremely hypocritical.

People need to live with their guilt and pain in order for the effect of a punitive action to be worth anything. Whether or not a person is rehabilitated isn't the point. Someone like Hussein is beyond that sort of thing, but it isn't to say that spending a life in prison may turn someone like him into someone else. There have been cases of people becoming almost Buddha like on death row, denouncing violence and writing books about peace. Yet, we still kill these people.

Not only does the U.S. have the death penalty, but it goes about it in such a stupid way. Making people sit on death row for years upon years... so long the point is forgotten, and the criminal changed. We spend more money on it than we would on a life sentence... ridiculous! Further more, I would think that the religious zealots out there, if true to their religion, wouldn't want the death penalty. Vengeance is a sin!!! Wasn't Jesus forgiving, not condemning!? Further more, isn't it god's job to decide who lives and who dies? Since when are we god? And finally, are we not to give people the chance to repent?

No, there is no situation in which the death penalty makes any sense or serves any purpose other than vengeance. In place of it, I suggest life in prison. Do not idiotically mistake me, I don't condone lawlessness (as some lesser humans have suggested here in WIS), but I also don't condone violence, especially to counter act violence, which makes no sense.

Enjoy.

Disfavored classes being denied equality and liberty

2006-12-08T11:42:00.000-08:00

Someone once said to me that all civil liberty movements take time. Consider the blacks in America. Originally they had the classification of slaves... SLAVES FOR CHRIST'S SAKE! They fought, and they fought hard for their right to be treated equally by the government, and eventually, they won the right to be free men and women, to vote, to marry outside their race, and to be considered equal in the eyes of the law.

Take women, also started as slaves in this country. Couldn't own land, couldn't vote, couldn't work, originally considered the property of men... thats all changed because they fought for their rights to be treated equally by our government.

In both these instances, a lot of time was needed to accomplish their goals of being equals. A lot of struggling, harsh words, fighting, opposition... but eventual success.

It is clear that homosexuals are next on the list of disfavored classes to win their freedom. It will take time, like all civil liberty movements. Homosexuals face terrible opposition from awful people who think that being gay is a choice, or that homosexual sex is a sin. This kind of idiotic, uneducated bullshit is exactly what disfavored classes of the past have faced.

Consider the morons in Germany who thought there was a science to the proportions of your head being related to your Jewness...

This kind of stupidity regarding homosexuals is alive and well today. I'm not kidding, it really is!

But that is the struggle.

The divisive national debate over same-sex marriage reached Maryland's highest court yesterday with pointed arguments confronting questions of civil rights and who is entitled to the legal rights and emotional benefits of marriage.

Attorneys for 19 gay and lesbian plaintiffs framed their argument before the Court of Appeals in classic civil-rights terms, saying Maryland's 33-year-old statute defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman infringes upon their clients' constitutional rights.

"Despite the fact that plaintiffs have formed committed relationships ... the state excludes them and their children from the numerous important protections that come from marriage, solely because the person whom they love is of the same sex," said Kenneth Choe, a senior staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, during arguments. "The exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage violates the most fundamental guarantees of equality and liberty for all Marylanders."

Its true, these citizens are being denied equal treatment by their government because of the way they were born, creating a second class citizen, which is unconstitutional. It is still absurd to me that people fight so hard to oppress a group of people. Its sick almost. These bigots take it so seriously as well.

No homophobic blogger on this site has even been able to answer the simple question "What is so threatening to you about homosexuality?"

I still await that response. I fear I may never get it, because either the homophobe doesn't want to be truthful with his answer, or he doesn't know the answer. Either way, there is no evidence to suggest that one homosexual couple is dangerous or harmful to society in anyway. Especially if you compare a homosexual couple to a heterosexual couple. There is literally no difference except for the sex of the partners. They both contribute to society in the same way, and have the same capabilities of doing so.

Yet, the uneducated and bigoted views still persist. But the people don't want their freedom to be taken away from them, and intelligent people don't want others to have their freedom taken away from them.

Even the idea of religion being a factor is in question, now the homophobes really have no excuse:

"We came to show our support for the plaintiffs in their efforts to secure equal access to civil marriage," said the Rev. Don Stroud, who does outreach to gays and lesbians with a consortium of Baltimore Presbyterian churches. "We as people of faith know it's very important to affirm the dignity and worth of all people, and at this point in time gay and lesbian couples in the state."

In arguments, [Assistant Attorney General Robert A.] Zarnoch said that other states have found no "fundamental right" to same-sex marriage, while Choe implored the court to choose a path that might be considered unpopular.

"Throughout our nation's history, courts have, time and again, fulfilled their role and duty to address the real harm that arises when disfavored classes are denied equality and liberty," Choe said. "It is easy to forget that courts have also done so in the face of opposition from the politically powerful and the opposition of other courts."

Zarnoch said something surprisingly wrong. No one has a fundamental right to marriage. In fact, this isn't about people's right to get married, this is about equality. Of one group is allowed by its government to do something, and the other is not because they are born differently, that is a breech of the constitution. People's access to the internet is not a right, nor is their access to the interstate system. Both things are controlled by the government and are given as a privilege to the citizens... so if the government didn't allow gays to use the internet or the interstate system, what would you say?

Stop wasting energy on denying people their rights. Gay marriage doesn't affect you and soil your relationship. Stop being childish, step up, and be brave, brave enough to fight for the rights of others. For that is patriotism.

Enjoy.

Who is god? Who does he hate?

2006-11-17T09:58:00.000-08:00

From my WhereIStand blog.

Consider this. Hitler killed 6 million Jews, after condemning them to burn in hell. Some of whom he literally burned to death. But God eternally condemns every non-christian to burn in hell according to the christians... right? So, that is a lot more hell burning than 6 million. So what does one need to do to insure that this doesn't happen? Be a white Christian... right? Its the same thing that the Jews would have had to do in WWII... pretend that they are not Jewish, to convert or to lie.

Now how is that fair?

Baptist State Convention votes in anti-gay policy

WILMINGTON -- Leaders at the Baptist State Convention in Greensboro voted Tuesday that any congregation that approves or endorses homosexuality would be barred from membership.

This may be one of the most rigid anti-gay policies in the nation among Christian churches.

Folks voting in favor of the ban say they're simply following scripture, but members of the local gay community question the wisdom of excluding anyone from a church.

Now what in the hell is this about? Who do these people think God is? If you absolutely insist on believing in a magical creator, then why presume to judge that he accepts some people and not others? This is stupid, and the gay community should be mad, but they should also laugh their asses off at the children who think they're can make exclusive clubs to make themselves feel better.

In the end, we all know who really would go to heaven, if there were such a thing. Its those who judged people on the basis of their character, not the way they were born.

Anti-gay types don't like to be compared to racists, but they aren't doing anything different. They are picking out a group of people and discriminating and hating them based on the way they were born. How is this different from a racist, how is this different from Hitler?

To speak on the terms of those who believe, if there were a god, I doubt he would be what these people think he is. In fact, he's probably the complete opposite. Shit, God may be a homo himself! Wouldn't that be great! Maybe God likes to have sex with other gods of the same magical gender.

Oh... god doesn't have a gender? Oh... remind me why he cares about homosexuals again?

Some religious types don't agree

Out Wilmington President Bo Dean said, "I think in general it's always sad when we have anybody say, you're not welcome based on your status as a human being. But for us in general, we're very adamant about not telling anyone how they are to operate, or how they are to believe or how they're to conduct they're faith."

Dean says he fails to see how excluding gays and lesbians will help a church bring more people to Christ.

Who knows why cult maniacs do the things they do. They get an idea stuck in their, and just role with it. Doesn't matter how ridiculous the idea is. A man resurrecting? An omnipotent being floating above Earth meddling in the most globally insignificant matters? Whatever!

Just accept the people around you for who they are. Judge people on their personality and attitudes, not on the way they were born lest you be a racist, sexist, homophobic.

Awww, poor Christians, quitting when they're gay

2006-11-06T12:28:00.000-08:00

A gay Christian! It happens all the time, you know? Because you are born with your sexual orientation, but you choose your cult or religion.

The Republican party today was assessing the potential political fallout from a sex scandal that has forced one of America's most influential evangelical Christians to resign.

The Rev Ted Haggard, who is married with five children, stepped down yesterday as head of the 30 million-member National Association of Evangelicals and as senior pastor of the New Life church in Colorado Springs, Colorado, after being accused of paying for sex with a male escort.

If it weren't true, we would not have resigned. Since it is, he knows that if he stayed in that position, the matter would have been investigated until absolute proof was splayed all over the media, and he would be hated by the world around him, because he surrounds himself no doubt by people who hate gays, make them miserable, and generally help regress the world into the middle ages, as conservative Christians often do.

I wonder then, why not try and partake in reparative therapy? I thought god didn't approve of homosexuals, so how come he didn't know Ted was gay, isn't Ted closer to God because he is some kind of spiritual leader?

You see people of the world? When you are gay, you are gay, you can't help it, and when you're bi, you are bi, that can't be helped either. You cannot change your sexual orientation, trying to only makes you miserable and depressed.

The best solution is to embrace it and live with it. Unfortunately, crusaders against freedom like Adam, Bush, and all the other silly conservatives won't let people live with what they are and who they are. These people try and force gays to change and be who they are not. This is a terrible, selfish behavior that only works towards worsening humanity.

The pastor supported a proposed amendment to the Colorado constitution, that will be on next week's ballot, defining marriage as between a man and a woman, a "wedge issue" with which the Republicans hope to galvanise their supporters.

After the state of Massachusetts legalised gay marriage in 2004, Mr Haggard and others began organising state-by-state opposition. Last year, he and other Christians announced plans to push Colorado's gay marriage ban for the 2006 ballot.

What cracks me up is that these conservative idiot Christians work so hard and spend all this money trying to ban gay marriage. Why? Because they feel like their marriage would be affected somehow, that it would become worthless. I guess conservatives don't marry for love. Let me teach you about love. When you love someone, and marry them, nothing can break your bond. The whole world should be able to explode around you, and your marriage and relationship should endure. I guess conservatives don't love their spouses enough, because they feel like someone else getting married would destroy their marriage.

Its pretty sophomoric and ridiculous which is turning into the definition of a social conservative.

No one has given me a straight answer about how they feel directly threatened by gay marriage. I guess they know I'm right. God I love being right.

Its a known psychological behavior for those who are one way to take out their frustrations for being that way on others who are that way. The key is acceptance. If you can accept yourself for you who are, then you can move along to happiness. But often thats very difficult or impossible to do when everyone is telling you that you're existence is wrong.

A federal ban on gay marriage without an amendment to allow civil unions would isolate the gay community, and turn them into second class citizens. That is not what America is about.

Enjoy.

Meanwhile, on planet Earth, an evildoer plans to take over the world

2006-11-06T12:26:00.000-08:00

This is one of the most disturbing things about our world in the U.S. today. We've set our selves up for almost total anarchy. I hope someone caught this, and I hope someone is working hard to reverse this, otherwise, a civil war may be more imminent.

In a stealth maneuver, President Bush has signed into law a provision which, according to Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), will actually encourage the President to declare federal martial law (1). It does so by revising the Insurrection Act, a set of laws that limits the President's ability to deploy troops within the United States. The Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C.331 -335) has historically, along with the Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C.1385), helped to enforce strict prohibitions on military involvement in domestic law enforcement. With one cloaked swipe of his pen, Bush is seeking to undo those prohibitions.

Public Law 109-364, or the "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007" (H.R.5122) (2), which was signed by the commander in chief on October 17th, 2006, in a private Oval Office ceremony, allows the President to declare a "public emergency" and station troops anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to "suppress public disorder."

That is odd, I wonder why he would want to do that? I can see it now, its 2008, and Bush suddenly announces that he is not giving up the presidency. Anger and rage fuel citizens who are sick of being lied to and sick of having their freedoms restricted to resist Bush in a big way, Bush uses his new 'legal' powers to quell the masses, sparking a civil war.

I really think he's setting himself up for something... this whole time, one big set up to take over the country. He was never elected, he's screwed up the economy so bad that only him and his friends are wealthy now, and he's kept America fear ridden. Whoever is controlling this man whether it be Rummy or the free masons... or both... they've managed to take over the entire country without much of a fight.

We're screwed unless we cut it off before the climax, before the GOP sets into motion its final plan. How can something like this happen so secretly? How can congress not stop this?

Really, this is sick. This man is slowly garnering power, gathering the forces, preparing himself to become unstoppable. This is like a video game or a bad movie, only... its real.

The state of our freedoms have been under attack since the republicans took the hill, but this may no longer be about politics, this could literally mean war. More innocent people will die, this time, on our soil.

This is intolerable, and I'm so disappointed in our government for allowing this to occur. Maybe we really do need a civil war, not necessarily a violent, literal war, but a complete paradigm shift, somehow knock out any and all support for the GOP... we'd need the military on our side.

President Bush seized this unprecedented power on the very same day that he signed the equally odious Military Commissions Act of 2006. In a sense, the two laws complement one another. One allows for torture and detention abroad, while the other seeks to enforce acquiescence at home, preparing to order the military onto the streets of America. Remember, the term for putting an area under military law enforcement control is precise; the term is "martial law."

Bush has set up secret detention centers built by Haliburton that won't fall under the Geneva Convention laws, or any law for that matter. Our very lives have been devalued and threatened, our whole process, our country, everything our ancestors fought for in the civil war and the revolutionary war is going down the toilet. America has lost is true meaning.

A few weeks later, on the 29th of September, Leahy entered into the Congressional Record that he had "grave reservations about certain provisions of the fiscal Year 2007 Defense Authorization Bill Conference Report," the language of which, he said, "subverts solid, longstanding posse comitatus statutes that limit the military's involvement in law enforcement, thereby making it easier for the President to declare martial law." This had been "slipped in," Leahy said, "as a rider with little study," while "other congressional committees with jurisdiction over these matters had no chance to comment, let alone hold hearings on, these proposals."

In a telling bit of understatement, the Senator from Vermont noted that "the implications of changing the (Posse Comitatus) Act are enormous". "There is good reason," he said, "for the constructive friction in existing law when it comes to martial law declarations. Using the military for law enforcement goes against one of the founding tenets of our democracy. We fail our Constitution, neglecting the rights of the States, when we make it easier for the President to declare martial law and trample on local and state sovereignty."

This ought to piss everyone off. Republicans, Democrats, Independents... Greens...

I suppose the idea of a president is kind of counter Republican... being for state's rights and all. So is it oxymoronic to suggest that a president could be republican? I suppose not. But this is clearly not a republican maneuver. Bush has stooped way below the level of republican, his true party has only one name... evil.

We have officially entered a dictatorship.

Do Not Enjoy.

Why are conservatives too dumb to seperate church from state?

2006-10-12T12:27:00.000-07:00

As some of you probably remember, South Dakota tried to ban abortions in a controlling, religious attempt to take America back in time, one state at a time. So many people petitioned against it that its forced a referendum.

Here is an excellent point someone made:

"None of us think abortion is a desirable thing," said Tom Dean, a family physician who hosted the discussion along with his wife, Kathy. "But it's not a problem for government to solve by passing a rigid law."

And that pretty much sums up how I feel about it as well, and how all liberals feel about it. No one is running around asking women to actively have abortions. Trust me, women don't like having abortions, its not like a sock hop at the ice cream social. This is part of the uneducated outcries of the cave-man like conservative party, they think women will have abortion parties because its so fun.

Nobody looks forward to it. But what bothered be the most about this article was this little thing:

The Rev. Jerry Falwell has urged his conservative followers to donate in support of the ban;

What do these people not understand? You cannot use religion to govern other people's lives! Thats not kosher damnit! Why do these conservatives think that everyone needs to live by their mystic rules? Jesus Christ, these people are going to be the fall of our civilization!

Don't argue with Bush, he was there!

2006-10-12T12:25:00.000-07:00

Hey, all you ney sayers! Why are you arguing with Bush! Bush knows EVERYTHING, remember? Don't try and tell him his wiretapping program was unconstitutional, he WROTE the constitution, messed up, burned it, then wrote it again, yeah, thats right! Oh, and 655,000 innocent dead people in Iraq? Forget it, Bush says no, he personally only killed 569,000 innocent people, so the media's number is totally exagerted... yeah.. Bush was there okay?

The US president, George Bush, tonight admitted "a lot of innocent people" had lost their lives in Iraq but rejected the findings of a controversial report that the civilian death toll in the war-torn country had reached 655,000.
"I don't consider it a credible report," Mr Bush told a White House press conference in response to a study published in the medical journal The Lancet. "Neither does General Casey, neither do Iraqi officials," he added, referring to George Casey, the top US general in Iraq.

Umm... yes... excuse me... I just um... I just want to say

BULLSHIT

I'm sorry Bush, no one believes you. I wonder, how many more reports on how terrible Bush's presidency has been is he going to call not credible? Honestly, if he held a press conference and announced how much he screwed up and how bad he felt about it, things would be better. But that is never going to happen, Bush is a child, and he won't admit he's wrong. Probably because he doesn't think he is wrong.

The study found that the equivalent of 2.5% of Iraq's population had been killed since fighting began more than three years ago.

Great, is that what we do now? We run around decreasing countries populations by whole percentages? Why is the United States the absolute beacon of evil? Why are we so violent, and why do we get away with it? How can I defend a country that does this, how could I ever fight on behalf of a country that commits horrible atrocities that rival Darfur, Hitler, and Pol Pot?

Its funny, the international community knows we are divided, and knows whats going on internally. Some friends of mine from Bahrain said "Half of America is stupid, half is not", he was referring to those who voted for Bush being stupid. Same with some British friends of mine. In fact, I remember them rooting for the blue states to win during Kerry's election. And these people aren't as liberal as you think. They're moderate people living in other countries. But thats the thing. Compared to the rest of the world, we're ultra conservative. Even conservatives from other countries are liberal compared to our standards. Word.

Enjoy.

Religion Harmful to Society?

2006-10-05T09:56:00.000-07:00

Yesterday I posted about the history of religion and why I can understand its existence, but today, we must discuss how harmful it actually is.

In the past, it kept people in check. Imagine convincing a large group of people that if they disobey, they'll go to hell for eternity. They have no way of questioning it nor any way of knowing if its true. The leaders get to stay leaders with their religion to protect them for a long time.

But even then, people would use god and religion against those in charge to over throw them. Or people would use god to go and fight wars in the middle east. You see, anyone could use god as an excuse to do almost anything.

Consider this crazy person who used to hang out around a restaurant my family frequented back in California. He would come into the restaurant and proclaim to us that god had spoken to him, and that he wanted him to be his vessel. Now... how do we know that he is lying? How do we know that he's crazy? Because we live in modern times and we're well versed in the symptomology of schizophrenia. Back in the time of yore, we were not. A man named Jesus was one of many who were supposed prophets or messengers of god. Back then, we took them seriously, today, we think they're crazy. Yet still, we use god as an excuse for our own feelings.

Consider Adam, who thinks gays are bad people and should be cleansed. He uses his religion to make his claim, stating that it is god who wants us to "fix" these people. Not only is it hedonistic bullshit, its cowardly, and detrimental to our society.

In effect, god IS everything only because we can interpret him as such. God is the ultimate scape goat, the perfect getaway car driver. We can come up with whatever conquest or moral attack we want, and say that it is what god wanted. We can quote some random, vague, ambiguous bible passages which somehow outlines exactly what god wants, and thus use it to do our evil bidding.

This is harmful to society. Today, we know better. We know how life and the universe works, and its pretty clear that religion is a vestige of the past, something we cherish for either traditional or evil reasons. JhWhicker likes to use religion when its convenient, and so does Bush. Others practice it in good faith for the hopes that it will get them into heaven. Either way, its irrelevant today, in fact, its harmful.

Consider sex. Religion creates a taboo around sex, which greatly hinders common knowledge or education on the subject, which then directly leads to STD transmission and unwanted pregnancies.

Consider these results from a most well thought out study:

In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion in the prosperous democracies (Figures 1-9). The most theistic prosperous democracy, the U.S., is exceptional, but not in the manner Franklin predicted. The United States is almost always the most dysfunctional of the developed democracies, sometimes spectacularly so, and almost always scores poorly.

Indeed, the data examined in this study demonstrates that only the more secular, pro-evolution democracies have, for the first time in history, come closest to achieving practical “cultures of life” that feature low rates of lethal crime, juvenile-adult mortality, sex related dysfunction, and even abortion. The least theistic secular developed democracies such as Japan, France, and Scandinavia have been most successful in these regards. The non-religious, pro-evolution democracies contradict the dictum that a society cannot enjoy good conditions unless most citizens ardently believe in a moral creator. The widely held fear that a Godless citizenry must experience societal disaster is therefore refuted. Contradicting these conclusions requires demonstrating a positive link between theism and societal conditions in the first world with a similarly large body of data - a doubtful possibility in view of the observable trends.

Check out the rest of the published study for more telling results. This isn't a definitive study, nor is it claiming to be. All it does is look at facts and statistics, really just to make you think, not to make you believe one way or the other.

As you can see, its likely that religion is harmful to society, especially the U.S. where it has caused massive amounts of problems for its entire history. Imagine the poor native Americans were had crosses shoved down their throats and told to accept Jesus or die... yeah... real Christian!

Enjoy.

Conservatives need lies to promote their agendas

2006-09-19T09:21:00.000-07:00

It seems that these days the definition of conservatism is "an ideology based on making shit up". It would seem that a conservative argument is made, always very emotional and feared laced, then, someone rebuts it for its clear stupidity with some solid hard hitting evidence, then, the conservative comes back with a link to one website that completely lacks any credibility whatsoever... lies.

Lets just talk about sexuality for example. It is safe to say that for whatever reason, conservatives think people shouldn't have sex until they are married. Because, marriage magically creates a level 8 force field around your penis or vagina, destroying any harmful diseases... it also shields you from lightening bolts from god.

So what does a conservative do? They make up lies about sex to try and make people stop having it.

In 2002, the conservative administration changed the fact sheets on the CDC web site to show that studies on the effectiveness of condoms in preventing the spread of HIV and other STDs were "inconclusive" and that abstinence is the only effective path to sexual health. They also took off a guide on how to use a condom properly, and a list of studies that showed zero rise in sex among teens taught about condoms.

Here are some of the things the conservatives actually spent tax payers money to try and teach kids (warning: this is extremely disturbing). Touching a persons genitals can result in pregnancy, abortion can lead to sterility and suicide, HIV can be spread via sweat and tears, half of all gay male teenagers in the U.S. have tested positive for HIV, a 43-day old fetus is a thinking person (my favorite) ,HIV and other STDs have the magic ability to pass through condoms, and condom use by straight people fail to prevent HIV transmission up to 31% (correct figure: 3%). They also taught that men need admiration and sexual fulfillment while women need financial support, and women who give too much advice to men drive them away.

Source: "Some Abstinence Programs Mislead Teens, Report Says," Washington Post, 12/2/04

Can you believe that? Outright lies to promote an agenda. Thats the conservative way! You know what this reminds me of? A sore loser. Someone has an opinion or a theory, like, teaching kids that sex is bad until marriage will keep them from having sex and babies... then lots of studies come out and say the opposite, so what does the conservative do? They go and change government website fact sheets to show what they want, even if its not true. Despicable childish actions.

For those of you who think that abstinence only education is the right way to go? Well... guess what... you are wrong.

NEW HAVEN, Conn. (AP) — Adolescents who pledge to remain virgins until marriage are more likely to substitute high-risk sexual behaviors that increase the likelihood of transmitting sexually transmitted diseases, according to researchers who studied the sex lives of about 12,000 teens.

88% of teenagers who take virginity pledges eventually have premarital sex (I actually had sex with a girl who took one of those when she was in high school... she said the funny thing was that when she signed the pledge she was already not a virgin) compared to 99% who don't pledge. Those who do pledge are less likely to use condoms according to a Columbia and Yale university study published in march 2005. The teens taught abstinence only education were four to six times more likely to have oral and anal sex than other virgin teens (Oh Adam would have a fit since he thinks anal sex means homosexuality). Abstinence only educated teens are just as likely to be infected with STDs as their non abstinent-taught friends, but less likely to get tested for STDs or know their STD status.

Source: "Study: Abstinence Pledges May Trigger Risky Sexual Behavior," USA Today 3/18/05

HOUSTON - Abstinence-only sex education programs, a major plank in President George W. Bush’s education plan, have had no impact on teenagers’ behavior in his home state of Texas, according to a new study.

Texas A&M did some research and found that among Texan teens, the number of teens who were sexually active increased after abstinence only education, by 60% in some cases! What did I tell you, creating a taboo around sex makes teens have more sex, and know less about it, which means more STDs and more unwanted pregnancies.

Source: "Teen Sex Increased After Abstinence Programs" Reuters, 2/1/05

Oh well too bad conservative Christians... turns out you're just wrong about that. Does that stop you? No, of course not. In May 2005, The New Republic reported that "Now conservative Christian groups are preparing to battle a new scourge: Vaccines that could prevent more than 200,000 women from dying of cervical cancer each year". HPV is a known cause of cervical cancer, and the vaccine mentioned is a vaccine for HPV. But Christian conservatives love HPV, because it can spread by just skin to skin contact, no need for intercourse. I think Bridget Mather of the Family Research Council (FRC) who is a powerful Christian lobby summed it up by saying "Young women might see the vaccine as a license to engage in premarital sex". To date, there is no evidence to support that claim, but there is butt loads of evidence to suggest that this vaccine could prevent needless deaths by the thousands. So, will the conservative agenda win out again, at the cost of women's lives?

"AIDS is the wrath of a just God against homosexuals"

- Jerry Falwell

Remember the sore loser thing I mentioned above? Well, those that didn't agree with the conservative administrations argument that sex was bad and disgusting unless you were a straight married couple were audited. Non-profit organizations that provided sex education were

"repeatedly investigated by the government, while faith-based groups get a free pass,"

-the Salon

Advocates for Youth (a federal grantee) was audited three times in one year, after 18 years of never being audited. A leaked memo from the government's National Institutes of Health described the above mentioned organization as "ardent critics of the Bush administration". San Francisco's STOP AIDS program was also hit with multiple audits. All the programs randomly attacked by the conservative passed the audits perfectly, without a single discrepancy, but a lot of the abstinence only programs were found guilty of misusing government money by courts, but were never audited.

It has always been clear that the conservative agenda is to impose their morals and values onto you, even if their arguments are based in fantasy. Adam and Oatney support lying to people to get their own way. I cannot support this kind of thing, for this is what disasters of the most evil kind are made of.

Conservative may be the death of our freedom, but only if they can get through me first, along with the other millions of human beings who wish to remain free and to remain human beings.

Enjoy.

Most studies that you HEAR about are meaningless

2006-09-15T11:02:00.000-07:00

As most of you know, the media today is about entertainment rather than truth for the most part... or... taking an ounce of truth and stretching it a mile. For those of you who watch CNN or ABC news or what have you, you know that during the coverage of an event, they seem to constantly repeat the same information, or overemphasize one very small point.

This has always annoyed me. Alas, it is a trend consistent with almost all media outlets really. What you hear is what makes somebody the most money.

I'm going to focus in on scientific studies in this case, inspired by the brilliant comment by Squirm that you should all read.

I looked at “Spitzer Study Published: Evidence Found for Effectiveness of Reorientation Therapy”. The article gave information about a study authored by Dr. Robert L. Spitzer (Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 32, No. 5, October 2003, pp. 403-417).

After reading the article I found a problem that regularly presents itself in anthropological and sociological research done by non-sociologists and non-anthropologists (Dr. Spitzer fits into this category because he is a psychiatrist), and I expect this sort of thing happens with many of the studies on the NARTH website. Often in such studies the experimental section is reasonably objective and the problem comes at the end when experimental findings are placed in a larger social context. When you read such a study, it is imperative that you read it critically and realize that what you are looking at is the author’s opinion of what the facts mean. When people like those at NARTH get hold of such studies, the perversion of factual information becomes obtrusive and dangerous because they gloss over the facts. I’ll elaborate on the types of things I mean below.

First, the study included 247 people but did not select this group randomly; all participants were volunteers. So keep in mind that everyone in the study was self-selected to be interested in changing their sexual orientation.

Secondly, let’s think about why participants were interested in changing their sexual orientation. The fact that 97% were from Christian backgrounds and that 93% reported that their religion was “very” or “extremely” important in their lives sheds some light on that. RED FLAG!

So brilliant! This is the kind of work I used to do in college and requires considerable energy. When reading a primary source article about a study, it is always so very important to pay attention to the methods part. Often you will find problems, and if the paper is written by real scientists, then they will point out these problems in their conclusion, but when the research is done to prove a point in the first place, well, its not science.

All of the "clinical" studies on the NARTH site don't meet the criteria for science, therefor, all of them can not be considered fact. A waste of time would better describe them.

There are other conclusions from poorly designed studies that you may have heard of. I'm sure someone has told you that some journal has a clinical study "proving" that taking herbal remedy A will heal what ails you... unfortunately, you've never seen that study. A good scientific study will acknowledge that they are not proving anything alone. All they are doing is finding trends that may or may not prove anything. In order for something to be proven, it has to be predictable, and that only happens after many studies are conducted in the same conditions, with the same results.

Quackwatch.

It is time for Congress to defund the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM). After ten years of existence and over $200 million in expenditures, it has not proved effectiveness for any "alternative" method. It has added evidence of ineffectiveness of some methods that we knew did not work before NCCAM was formed. NCCAM proposals for 2002 and 2003 promise no more. Its major accomplishment has been to ensure the positions of medical school faculty who might become otherwise employed—in more productive pursuits.
Such situations are not often tolerated in scientific fields—at least attempts are made to minimize them. NCCAM seems to be tolerated for three reasons. First, economically strapped medical schools welcome the funds. Second, although most medical scientists recognize the scientific absurdity of most "alternative" claims, most grant recipients and a few deans harbor the same absurd beliefs as do the advocates about the methods' efficacy. Third, and most important, major congressional powers are "CAM" advocates. They have a tight hold on the NIH budgets that fund investigations of real medical science as well. The deal seems to be that if the schools will play ball with and not oppose the senators, the senators will be generous in kind.

You see, the FDA makes it very very difficult to make money off of medication (although its still a problem), but when you make an "alternative" medicine, it doesn't have to be FDA approved. You can commission a poorly designed study to find that your herbal supplement works, put it on the label, and sell it like hot cakes. People actually consume these things without consulting a doctor, getting a prescription... these people have NO idea what they could do to you. No studies with any relevance have been conducted on these pills, yet people swallow them blindly.

No one has ever tested pill A on diabetic women over 50, so no one knows if it will kill them, yet nobody informs diabetic women over 50 that pill A will kill them because no body knows. So go ahead diabetic women over 50, take pill A.

Looking at the most popularly promoted methods we find that acupuncture, after thirty years, over 400 clinical trials, and 33 comprehensive literature reviews of those trials, only two specific conditions were found affected by acupuncture more than sham procedures. But even those effects are minimal; they are not superior to standard medical methods, and they remain implausible and unpredictable. They will probably not be confirmed because of their results are best explained by biased experimental errors.

After 100 years and many trials, chiropractic manipulation has not been proven to influence the course of any disease and has not even been proven effective for treating back pain [2]. As for homeopathy, after 200 years and hundreds of studies, researchers cannot prove an effect for any homeopathic remedy for any condition. After a dozen studies, prolonged survival from psychological support for cancer patients has been essentially disproved. Herb product contents cannot be controlled, and many ingredients have been proved harmful. Some products have been adulterated with common pharmaceutical drugs that account for their apparent effects. If supplement marketers were held responsible for product effects, what more would there be to research?

Most certainly something to consider. If I was still a student and had access to OVID and the other database (who's name I am forgetting) that houses most if not all of peer reviewed scientific primary issues, I would pull up some papers for you and quote them. But maybe I don't need to, check this out:

NCCAM Director, Steven Straus, M.D., a career NIH physician without "CAM" experience, now oversees the $113 million annual budget. He wants more funding for more NCCAM trials. But what is the NCCAM record? After many years of projects and over $200 million spent, NCCAM and advocates have not proved any method to be effective [3]. Perhaps more important, NCCAM has not declared any method to be ineffective, thus keeping open continuing congressional appropriations.

NCCAM is ridden with potential and actual conflicts of interest. Ten individuals account for 20% of NCCAM awards. None of them has produced a definitively positive or negative report. Most recipients have produced no report at all. Two individuals originally on the Advisory Council that approves NCCAM policy were awarded over $4 million and $5 million in repeated awards.

NCCAM recently announced research on "chelation therapy" for heart disease—a method already disproved and potentially dangerous. And $10 million is planned for research into herbs with their uncontrollable contents and unreliable results. Similarly troubling is NCCAM's awards of over $1 million into psychic healing, and $1.5 million for homeopathy. Both are highly implausible, being not only repeated failures, but promoted falsely as well.

Marshall E. The politics of alternative medicine. Science 265:2000-2002, 1994.

Koes BW and others. Spinal manipulation for low back pain: An updated systematic review of randomized clinical trials. Spine 21:2860-2873, 1996.

Green S. Stated goals and grants of the Office of Alternative Medicine/National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine Policy. SRAM 5:205-207, 2001.

This is kind of a strange misappropriation of money that I wasn't previously aware of. Psychic healing was literally proven to be a trick, no one actually considers it real anymore. But... thats our government ladies and gentlemen. Superstitious as ever.

The federally funded study was what fans and foes of such substances say they have long needed — rigorous, scientific testing. It found that patients who took an echinacea plant extract fared no better than those who took a dummy treatment.

“Our study ... adds to the accumulating evidence that suggests that the burden of proof should lie with those who advocate this treatment,” wrote Dr. Ronald Turner of the University of Virginia School of Medicine, who led the study, which appeared in Thursday’s New England Journal of Medicine.

Several animal studies and small human trials have pointed to the possible benefit of the herb in preventing respiratory infections. However, one of largest studies — involving 407 children in 2003 — found that echinacea failed to alleviate cold symptoms and even caused mild skin rashes in some cases.

In the newest experiment, researchers recruited 399 healthy patients who got one of three laboratory-made echinacea plant extracts or a dummy preparation. The patients were then exposed to the cold virus and their symptoms were evaluated.

No difference in infection rates

Scientists found no difference in infection rates between the groups who received the herb or placebo. About 90 percent in both groups wound up becoming infected. Symptoms like sneezing, runny noses and sore throat were also about the same, with more than half in both groups showing classic signs of a clinical cold.

The study was funded by the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, part of the federal National Institutes of Health. Turner, the lead researcher, has consulted for various antibiotic makers.

If I had access to the article, I would link it and let you see for yourself. But I don't. First off, this is a double blind study, which is currently the most solid method of testing drugs. In terms of methodology alone, its flawless. The things to look for would be a random population sample, a sample size large enough to warrant a significant p value, and the method they used to recruit their subjects. The New England Journal of Medicine doesn't screw around, its very difficult to get your papers published there, so I'm sure they found everything to be okay. It is just the newest study in a long line debunking a lot of alternative medicine practices.

According to a study in the Sept. 17, 2003, issue of the "Journal of the American Medical Association," of 433 complementary and alternative medicine Web sites examined, most made misleading or unproven health claims about the herbal remedies they sold.

Lastly, consider part of this abstract from an primary source article in the NEJM.

New use of alternative medicine after surgery for breastcancer was common (reported by 28.1 percent of the women); suchuse was not associated with choices about standard medical therapiesafter we controlled for clinical and sociodemographic variables.A total of 10.6 percent of the women had used alternative medicinebefore they were given a diagnosis of breast cancer. Women whoinitiated the use of alternative medicine after surgery reporteda worse quality of life than women who never used alternativemedicine. Mental health scores were similar at base line amongwomen who decided to use alternative medicine and those whodid not, but three months after surgery the use of alternativemedicine was independently associated with depression, fearof recurrence of cancer, lower scores for mental health andsexual satisfaction, and more physical symptoms as well as symptomsof greater intensity. All groups of women reported improvingquality of life one year after surgery.

-

Use of Alternative Medicine by Women with Early-Stage Breast Cancer Volume 340:1733-1739 June 3, 1999

Alright, I think you get my point. If you didn't, here is a recap. We must be skeptical about anything claiming to be a miracle drug, a cure, or not approved by the FDA. Any "study" we read about in the news may not be accurate. Squirm gave us a good example of a horribly conducted study whose results are null because of their poor recruiting methods. Proving that something works is not quick nor is it easy. In the quick fix world that we live in, we want easy answers, quick answers, and all encompassing answers.

Studies take time and patients, and rushing results or being biased going into a study can be very dangerous. Just be smart about it, be critical, and avoid superstition.

Enjoy.

Adam making people sick

2006-09-14T12:07:00.000-07:00

Last night I got a phone call from a friend of mine who reads my blogs regularly, and was telling me how sick she felt after reading Adam's comments on homosexuality. She went to the website he linked and got so upset that she had to call me.

She freaked out, and I don't blame her. Every day it is becoming more clear that Adam represents the evil that has plagued our existence for our entire history. The Hitlers, the Mussolinis, the Pol Pots, the Bushs...

Adam links to this site, which brings back terrible feelings of persecution that my Jewish ancestors felt. If you were to replace all the words "gay" or "homosexuals" with the words "Jewish" or "Black" you'd have a terribly racist, discriminating website that Adam likes to think is fact.

What surprises me is how much efforts goes into the falsification of facts, and the incorrect bigoted rhetoric about gays. Adam is just a pawn in the fight against gays and basic human civil rights.

Clearly Adam's research is not only abhorrently inferior and wrong, but lacking in any substance. You cannot go to a bigoted website and claim that its research. You cannot have brief nondescript conversations with 3 gay people and claim it to be research.

Adam doesn't like the idea of homosexuality, it bothers him and frightens him, makes him feel scared at night, makes him hug the sheets.

Adam was unable to answer my question that I posed to him very directly "What exactly is so DANGEROUS about homosexuals".

His inability to answer this question speaks volumes about his fear and hatred of freedom and tolerance. He wants to control people, and cast away people who are different than him.

Adam can't accept differences among people, and must fight against those that are different than him. How, exactly, is this any different than the terrible racists and bigoted monsters of our past? How? Adam's feelings of fear and hate are very dangerous, and are what causes genocide and wars. Adam's inability to accept Christ's teachings and just accept everyone for who they are, and judge them based on character, not color of their skin or sexual orientation, is scary considering he is supposedly a christian.

Adam has walked up to a Jew and told them that they are wrong for being Jewish, that they shouldn't be allowed to get married, are miserable because of their Jewish nature, should seek reparative therapy because something is wrong with them....

The fact that Adam feels the need to tell those who are different from him that they need to be "repaired" because they are wrong shows how insecure he is about himself.

I the same research Adam did, I went to one bigoted site and talked to 3 homophobes and have concluded that all Adams are fearful and intolerant.

A prime

2006-09-14T11:48:00.000-07:00

This was originally a comment on infocats post that got too long... so now... behold a POST.

I don't like digital clocks because they give me the impression that I have more time than I have. I think as humans we are more interested in the rate of change rather than the interval at which we are at.

For example, in 1994 most motor companies put in digital speedometers that read like a digital clock. My mom had one. The problem with it is that you can't tell how fast you are accelerating, only that you are currently at an exact speed of 57-mph or whatever. Keep in mind that the speed shown on your speedometer is in itself a rate of change. Its telling you how many miles you will go in one hour, which is a function of time and distance.

This causes you to look at the display more frequently to try and measure your rate of acceleration, otherwise known as a (alpha) prime.

I think life revolves around a prime.

When I look at the face of a clock, I can see how much time has come before, and how much is to come. In most cases, there is a second had which gives me a general sense of what a prime is. This way, I can just generally get a better picture of time.

Like a digital clock, I can know with a very good degree of certainly the exact time my clock is displaying.

I think this is why digital displays of both time and speed have sort of fallen out of style. Infocat's very interesting post talks about technology, and the instant gratification it services. I think his point is right on, and that we are becoming more and more impatient as a culture and a society. But I am still convinced that we will always be more interested in the rate of change, rather than the exact interval.

When someone is impatient, they usually ask how long will something take, not at what time and date it will be done or ready. When a doctor measures your white blood cell count, he has to do it many times over a period of time to get a good idea of normal ranges, and see how its changing.

My point is no matter how bad we want it, life has its instant gratification limits. We will never be able to be satisfied with a, we must have a' (another way of showing a prime).

Enjoy.

Why the religious don't get it -- the gays

2006-09-12T12:41:00.000-07:00

ho·mo·pho·bia

"irrational fear of, aversion to or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals"

Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary

I've been disturbed by some of the things people have said on this site before, but most recently I was concerned about some of the things Adam has said. I will try and address them as calmly as I can, but really there is a huge gap of knowledge and understanding regarding homosexuality coming from Adam and his ideology.

Where to start?

Adam in a comment to my post started off by listing some narratives of people who have claimed to changed from being gay to being straight. Actually believing this is utter absurdity and I'm very disappointed that Adam was fooled so easily. If you really want something to be true, you'll stare in the face of a lie and believe it.

And I could go on all night with stories just like that. The left, however doesn't want these people to find happiness or deliverance or deal with their issues, no, they need them to stay homosexual, because if they don't, it all comes down like a house of cards.

The truth is, I could find many more stories of people describing the exact opposite. Chew on this:

Engaging and credible, Ford is a nationally known consultant and speaker on gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender issues. Although many so called experts in the pseudo science of conversion and reparative therapies self publish articles filled with false claims and misinformation, Mr. Ford's work and experience has been published in peer reviewed scientific journals. Most recently his article Healing Homosexuals: A Psychologist's Journey Through the Ex-Gay Movement and the Pseudo-Science of Reparative Thearpy was published in The Journal of Gay and Lesbian Psychotherapy, Haworth Press, Volume 5, No. 3/4, 2001. It was simultaneously published in the book Sexual Conversion Therapy Haworth Press, 2002. Copies of the article, journal and book can be obtained directly from Jeff Ford.

He has specialized in addressing the complexities involved with the anti-gay theory known both as Reparative Therapy and Sexual Conversion Therapy, which purports to prevent and cure homosexuality. He speaks from experience as one who studied and practiced reparative therapies for years. Because of his personal and professional experience, Ford is able to offer accurate answers and powerful insight. He provides useful skills and tools to challenge the dangerous use of pseudo scientific theories like these and other discrediited methods. He is a frequent workshop presenter and guest lecturer He was formerly the executive director of OUTPOST an "ex-gay" ministry located in Minneapolis, MN. For almost 10 years Jeff claimed to be a "former homosexual". He many years he was a national speaker for Exodus International, which remains the governing Board and communication hub for most ex-gay ministries. His story, along with the stories of twelve other "exex-gays" is featured in the recently published volume Finally Free compiled by the Washington DC based Human Rights Campaign.

Gay, lesbian, and bisexual youth must also cope with prejudiced, discriminatory, and violent behavior and messages in their families, schools, and communities. Such behavior and messages negatively affect the health, mental health and education of lesbian, gay, and bisexual young people. These students are more likely than heterosexual students to report missing school due to fear, being threatened by other students, and having their property damaged at school.1 The promotion of "reparative therapy" and "transformational ministry" is likely to exacerbate the risk of harassment, harm, and fear.

For these reasons, the experience of gay, lesbian, and bisexual teenagers is often one of isolation, fear of stigmatization, and lack of peer or familial support. Gay, lesbian, and bisexual youth have few opportunities for observing positive modeling by adults due to the general cultural bias that makes gay, lesbian, and bisexual people largely invisible. It is this isolation and lack of support that accounts in part for the higher rates of emotional distress,2 suicide attempts,3 and risky sexual behavior and substance use 4 that gay, lesbian, and bisexual students report compared to heterosexual students. Because of their legitimate fear of being harassed or hurt, gay, lesbian, or bisexual youth are less likely to ask for help. Thus, it is important that their environments be as open and accepting as possible, so these young people will feel comfortable sharing their thoughts and concerns. To be able to provide an accepting environment, school personnel need to understand the nature of sexual orientation development and be supportive of healthy development for all youth.

So you see... Adam's is mostly if not completely wrong. His understanding of homosexuality comes from a place where homosexuality doesn't exist. That is like a computer programmer who has never even taken a place in art history trying to teach a class on art history. Again it is absolutely a complete myth that homosexuality is something that can change.

Adam also seemed to ignore the fact that some people are bisexual, which could very easily be a reason for why his two examples were allegedly sexually attracted to both sexes.

Claiming that liberals don't want gays to be happy is so ridiculous I'm barely going to respond. I mean... thats just stupid, and I'm not going to waste my time with crap like that.

I continually get accused of homophobia or hating homosexuals, but who hates them more, those who believe that what's harmful should not be encouraged, or those who believe that people should be told there's no way out of a harmful lifestyle that makes them miserable so that liberals can score political points.

This is very disturbing. Adam describes a homosexual lifestyle as being harmful and miserable. That is the single most uneducated, ridiculous, hateful, stupid thing I think I have ever heard on WIS. Even though its obvious that it isn't true, I went ahead and asked my boss, a 50 year old gay man and his partner if they were happy. Adam would be upset to find out that they are very happy. I also measured how harmful their relationship was, and found out that it was extremely beneficial to everyone in the world. They are very happy together. If they tried to date women, that is when they would be the most miserable and unhappy. To think otherwise is to be completely wrong.

There is no room for opinion or subjectiveness here, homosexuality exists, and gay people can be just as happy or depressed as straight people. To assume that homosexuality is harmful is to assume that being Jewish is inferior and should be sent to concentration camps.

I'm sorry, but this is just atrocious behavior on the part of the religious community.

Blacks are not the same as homosexuals, as there's truly nothing that can be done or needs to be done.

As to Jesus, you don't know Him and you don't know his words. The first words, the Bible records Jesus' first message as follows:

Some irrelevant bible passages that mentions not homosexuality.

The Jesus that is so often spoken of by the left is not the Jesus of the Bible, but an invention, an idle they've created in their own image by twisting the scripture beyond recognition.

Thats funny, thats exactly what catholics think protestants do, and Mormons think Jews do... every religion has their own interpretation. There are plenty of churches that are very tolerant of gays, and plenty of ones that are very bigoted like Adam's.

Further more, I find it funny that Adam quotes Matthew and John but doesn't quote Jesus... he must know that Matthew and John are also creating their own image of Jesus.

In his post, Adam mocks both Jacki and I.

Translation: "Religious schools and churches, we the left have decided that homosexuality is moral and no different than race. You will obey us, you will conform to our Will or face legal consequences."

Very amusing, yet an obvious sign of a complete misunderstanding of life. Whats funny is that he is suggesting that we obey and conform to his set of morals and values and scathes at liberals whom he thinks are doing the same thing... which they aren't. However, there are laws, and you have to obey them or face consequences, Adam would argue that. So that completely eradicates his response to that. Good try though. Actually... not a very good try.

Translation: "Religious schools can set their code of conduct as long as it lines up with our rules. Religion is under liberalism."

Again, Adam contradicts himself. His panties are in a twist because he thinks liberals are doing what he wants to do, which is force morals and values upon people or face consequences. Honestly, I don't get it, is Adam saying that religious conservative can force bigotry upon the people but liberals can't force freedom and tolerance? I guess so.

If the liberals have their way, there will be no religious freedom other than perhaps between your ears. If you intend to live out your faith: forget it!

Time and time again, we've come to this point. Gay rights supercedes the rights spelled out in the Constitution. It is over this issue that the American is ready to drive a bulldozer over our rights of freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and eventually freedom of the press.

Its more than obvious that the conservative and the right are interested in restricting the freedoms of the people, we know this, what we don't know is that they also think they are the only ones allowed to force people to conform to their backwards practices.

Conservatives frighten me, they are a very xenophobic, stupid, and determined bunch. They want you to conform to their ideas, and if you don't, they want you to suffer. They are very selfish.

Adam is interested in restricting the religious freedom of the people. He wants his only interpretation of an old story to play a part in public policy. This is wrong. Religious is not to play a part in public policy, if only for the reason that there are so many different ones. Adam's religion is not the 'correct' religion, neither is JhWhicker's, neither is Bush's, neither is anybodies. Religion is merely just a personal belief system that guides personal choices. They should not extend past the self. Adam cannot and should not be telling others what they can and can't do based on his personal beliefs, and that is exactly what he is suggesting he do. This is childish and moronic and won't be accomplished. Human beings do not like to be told who they are and what is normal, mostly because there is no definition of it.

Homosexuality is normal and perfectly okay. Homosexual relationship are just as meaningful as straight relationships, and gays are gays. Adam is clearly very afraid of his own sexuality, otherwise he wouldn't be so adamant of putting down homosexuality. This is a standard practice among bullies, they have their own inadequacy issues, therefor they lash out on others to make themselves feel better.

If Adam were really comfortable with his own sexuality and with himself, he wouldn't give a shit about what other people do... in fact, he would embrace differences and want to learn more about them. That is why the liberals laugh at the conservatives, because they are reminiscent of children who lack confidence and personality strength.

The liberals will not let Christians follow their own morality in their own religious institutions.

The rules are "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Adam wants the rules to be "life, some restrictions, and the pursuit to force people into what I think is normal". Schools are not religious institutions, they are schools, and children who got here need to learn about how to treat others. A child cannot simply leave the school or remove him or herself from a classroom, they are forced to be there. You cannot tell kids that it is not okay to embrace differences and accept others. What Adam suggests is telling kids that it is not okay to be different, black people are not okay, gays are not okay, and the world was created using magic. How would Adam feel if he were in a school that taught that all Christians were harmful and can be converted to better religions... he wouldn't like it.

Adam's lack of understanding isn't isolated to just him. It is clear that its part of a larger dark order that seeks to ruin this world. I'm glad I'm not a religious social conservative, I'd be evil.

Jesus wants everyone to get along and everyone to be equal, why can't Adam accept that, why does Adam hate Jesus so much?

Doomed to repeat history

2006-09-08T18:33:00.000-07:00

In the past, major conflicts or violent movements would amount to substantial loss of life... but never in terms of threatening the world as a whole.

I think this is no longer the case. History, as it would seem, is cyclical, or, a pattern. It gets nasty with your wars, and good with your progression. Clearly, we are in the nasty phase again. We have terrible people in power, violence abound, intolerance and hate are words of the day, strange cultist beliefs are taking a hold of the fragile human psyche.... crusades, Roman fall, the destruction of Jerusalem parts one and two, WWII... its all coming back again.

It is clear to me now that we are in a dark period of what will be history. Many years from now, we will look back at this time with contempt as we did various other times in both American and global history. Look around you, we've got the ghost of McCarthyism everywhere, people being persecuted and hates upon because they are born gay, black, Jewish, or latino.

White House releases terror strategy

By Mark Silva

White House Correspondent

Published September 5, 2006, 11:34 AM CDT

Citing an evolving threat that Al Qaeda and other international terrorist networks pose to the United States, the White House today released a newly-drafted National Strategy for Combating Terrorism focusing on preventing terrorist attacks and denying terrorists the use of weapons of mass destruction or sanctuary in "rogue states.''

The administration's 23-page strategy states that: "America is at war with a transnational terrorist movement fueled by a radical ideology of hatred, oppression and murder.''

Calling it "both a battle of arms and a battle of ideas,'' the strategy report speaks of cultivating democracy as an "antidote'' to terrorism and averting attacks by terrorist networks.

Look at some of the words that appear. "fueled by radical ideology, battle of ideas, antidote ..." When and where have we heard leaders say things like this before? And where has it led us? Fear, hatred, war, violence... the scary part is that this time we've got the power to destroy the entire planet. Hydrogen bombs, dirty bombs, and god knows what other new WMDs that are available weren't around during the crusades or even world war II (in greater form). Bush's fear machine to eliminate the muslim religion had the potential of killing so many people, precious human beings that breath, and that most Bush-types falsely try and protect in the womb. I wonder what Bush would say to abortion in Muslim culture... he probably secretly supports it, and so do most christian fundamentalists.

We've got a serious thing looming in the distance, a time of great atrocity and evil, and it will all be traced back to Bush, and the conservative republican christian agenda.

Maybe those are the ones who need to be 'cleansed' for they are the greatest source of violence, terrorist, hatred, and evil of all human existence.

Rummy has got to go

2006-09-08T18:32:00.000-07:00

Even the conservative paper "the Economist" agrees, this guy has got to get out of here. I was just thinking about his speech about Nazi sympathizers or whatever... and the more I thought about it, the more its necessary for him to get going.

Same is true for most of the Bush administration, but lets focus on Rumsfeld for a moment.

Some things to consider about Rumsfeld:

-- Torture at Abu Ghraib prison and Guantanamo Bay was tacitly approved by Rumsfeld, who rejected compliance with the Geneva Convention and urged harsher interrogation methods.

-- He sent American soldiers into battle without proper armor, without sufficient reinforcements, and with no realistic plan:

"I can't say if the use of force would last five days or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that." -- Donald Rumsfeld, Nov. 2002

-- He lied about weapons of mass destruction, in order to justify an unprovoked invasion.

"We know where they [Iraq's WMD] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat." -- March 30, 2003

-- And even before all of that, he mismanaged billions of tax dollars so thoroughly that auditors can't even tell where it went.

Washington Post 1 September 2006

Newsday.com 30 August 2006

Financial Management in the Department of Defense

Do we really want this man in any sort of position of power? For a while now, I didn't really recognize this administration... meaning, I didn't respect its authority. If Bush banned abortion, I'd make sure that I ignored it, if Bush banned gay marriage, I'd get hitched to a guy just to show my defiance... needless to say, Rumsfeld has got a lot of the government's money in his pocket, and he can spend it on as many things as he'd like... and he has... the only way to show defiance to a terrible man like him is to impeach him, or get a no confidence vote from congress... even though its only symbolic.

The legislature may occasionally pass motions of no confidence, as was done against United States Secretary of State Dean Acheson in the 1950s, but these motions are of symbolic effect only.

Would this be like censuring the president?

On December 18, 2005 Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) introduced a motion to censure President Bush and Vice President Cheney for misstating and manipulating intelligence to Congress and the public during the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq and not following Executive Order 12958, as well as failing to respond to written congressional queries on these allegations.

On March 13, 2006, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) introduced a resolution in the U.S. Senate calling for a censure of President George W. Bush. [1] [2] This was a result of allegations of illegal wiretapping, as reported in the New York Times, that the President did not follow the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA), which mandates use of a surveillance court for approval of wiretaps on Americans. In its history, the court has understood the request for intelligence and in only rare instances has turned down a request. The U.S. Senate has not yet voted on the resolution, as it first needs to be considered by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Then, it may or may not be sent to the floor of the U.S. Senate for a vote.

So we may condemn these men officially, making a public announcement that America does not approve. So what... they don't care! Rumsfeld and Bush know that what they are doing may not be good for the world, but its good for their bank accounts. This is about greed and power, and the last thing fascists like Rumsfeld and Bush care about is what the people think of them.

So I update my position, I don't think voting no confidence for Rumsfeld is going to really do much but piss him off, provoking him to be even more of an asshole. We really need to take these guys out.

The growing threat

2006-08-15T10:26:00.000-07:00

The U.S. army never ceases to impress me with its integrity and honesty. I am so taken aback by their ability to both act honorably and respectfully towards their government and their country. Tis not an era of lies and deception, but an era of veracity and caring. Oopes... forgot it was opposite day.

As the military struggled to attract new troops to fill its billets, instances of wrongdoing by recruiters skyrocketed between fiscal 2004 and fiscal 2005, Government Accountability Office investigators concluded in a report released Monday.

Ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, coupled with low U.S. unemployment rates, have made lining up new enlistments a challenging duty, compelling some recruiters to employ illegal or unethical tactics to meet their quotas.

I am not surprised. Remember in Farienheit 9/11 when Michael Moore followed those army recruiters around town? They were making racial slurs and what not, over glorifying the military to black youth. They didn't care, they were practically ruthless.

We've got a growing problem. In a country where rights are being reduced every day by the administration, and violence is erupting on the basis of greed, the military is going to play a more important role. The military is already being used domestically to 'protect' our borders. It won't be long until you start seeing them more frequently, and marshall law is slowly established. Remember that movie with Denzel Washington? I can't remember what it was called, but it was about the U.S. making a prison zone in New York city where they imprisoned everyone who looked middle eastern because they thought there was a terrorist among them. Sounds way too familiar. Marshall law was declared and the U.S. military was in charge. Not to dissimilar to Iraq I imagine. Those boys are roaming the streets, rounding up anyone they suspect is a terrorist and beating and torturing them. They walk around like they own the place, and thats because Bush supports that kind of thing. He's a tyrant and thats what tyrants do.

These days are some of the darkest in American history, and our children's children will either applaud or ability to rise up, or be speaking another language.

Cross out the cross

2006-08-15T10:20:00.000-07:00

I really dislike Christians. What a bunch of idiots. Seriously, not only is it bad enough that they believe in ridiculous mystical beings, but they force their inferior ideals upon others, dirtying the water. Honestly, I have no problem with other religions, it is just Christianity. I disagree with people who believe in mystical magical powers like Christians, Jews, Muslims, and the like... but I respect their right to privately discuss their beliefs, publish books, talk about it, believe whatever they want...

But its those Christians that ruin it for everyone else. They are trying to convert and make public their religion. They want their religion to be the one and only religion. Adam said it himself that he doesn't think other religions are correct, and only his specific religion is. You can think that ot yourself, but it cannot be part of state or federal government. In any form or in any way. You cannot teach it in school as fact, only as one of many religions that existed historically. And most importantly, you cannot assume that this country is a Christian country.

LOS ANGELES, Aug. 14 — President Bush on Monday signed a law transferring a 29-foot-tall Latin cross high on a hill in San Diego to the federal government, stepping into a long-running dispute over the separation of church and state.

Mr. Bush, in the latest unusual action designed to save the Mount Soledad cross, in the La Jolla district, sided firmly with cross supporters who acknowledge that it is the pre-eminent symbol of Christianity but contend that it forms part of a secular war memorial.

This is why Bush is such a dipshit. Those of you who are Christian on this site are going to try and argue that this is a great thing, and that he absolutely should have done this. Well, unfortunately, you would be wrong. This memorial is for war veterans. Not Christian war veterans. This insults every veteran who is not Christian, and insults every American who is not Christian. Is it a surprise that Christianity is yet again insulting and oppressive? No. The religion in itself is ridiculous, believing in a man who was a Jewish communist who would never harm a soul, and then turning around and being a Christian capitalist who supports the death penalty and Bush's war!

Christianity will never gain my respect, nor will it any intelligent respectable person, for it is a huge contradiction.

I'm digressing, but I'm frustrated that we would stoop to this, putting up a cross over a memorial. A wonder what a small boy who is deep into his Jewish studies, already feeling isolated by his friends and school, especially during the holiday season, would think when he came upon the wall to see his grandfather's plaque under a huge cross, telling him that he is wrong and should convert. Its oppressive and sick (the definition of Christianity mind you) and its got to go.

I know the U.S. is in its one step back phase, and I promise you that the removal of this travesty will be the sign that we are working on our two steps forward. Read it and weep:

Mayor Jerry Sanders, a Republican, praised the move in an interview as a “great thing for us” because “the memorial is a fabric of San Diego.”

The transfer hardly resolves the dispute and instead may open another long legal chapter. Mr. Paulson and another man, Steve Trunk, have already filed papers in Federal District Court in San Diego to challenge the transfer and the presence of the cross on federal land as unconstitutional.

“It’s election-year politics,” said James E. McElroy, a lawyer for the men. Mr. McElroy said he had researched about 10 federal cases in which judges had ruled that Latin crosses could not stand on public property. “This is nothing new under the sun, and it is a waste of taxpayer money,” he said.

Judges in state and federal courts have ruled that the cross violates the California Constitution, but it has stayed in place while appeals have played out. There are signs that the United States Supreme Court, which has previously rejected hearing the case, may now be interested.

In July, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy granted a stay of a federal court order that would have compelled the city to remove the cross by the beginning of this month, saying further arguments in the case should go forward.

“Congress’s evident desire to preserve the memorial,” Justice Kennedy wrote, “makes it substantially more likely that four justices will agree to review the case in the event the Court of Appeals affirms the district court’s order” to remove the cross.

Enjoy.

The violent NYPD

2006-08-14T10:03:00.000-07:00

Remember my post about the NYPD#, and how I wonder about the integrity of these officers? Well, this weekend I was getting off the subway at a stop in Brooklyn to find about 8 police officers standing around. The were forming a semi circle around this young black male who was up against the bars at the entrance to the subway. His friends were standing around behind the cops. I have no idea what was going on so I am not going to presume anything, I just want to tell you what I saw.

Someone made the decision to arrest the young kid, so one large officer grabbed his arm and pretty violently turned him around and slammed him against the bars. To me, it seemed that this kid was being calm when the police officer did this. Once he was against the bars, the kid started to struggle and resist, obviously trying to free himself I suppose. A second large officer joined in and the two police slammed the kid down onto the hard concrete floor so hard that I cringed. There was a loud popping sound that just didn't sound good at all. The kid on the ground starting coughing and joking, and eventually vomited from his injuries. This disturbed me.

Ever since I can remember I hated seeing violence in real life. It always disturbed me on very deep levels.

The incident I saw wasn't police brutality per se, but it was unusually violent. That kid could have been seriously injured and I'm not sure the cops care. These NYPD just don't strike me as poised, well trained, professional individuals. They are more like a gang, recruited off the streets and given a gun. Does anyone have any insight into this? Why are there so many cops in New York, do they just scoop them off the street? Why don't they instill confidence in you like officers from other cities or counties? Is it the way they walk? Talk? Stare and whistle at girls?

I went to the NYPD website and looked up some of the restrictions and what not for being a cop in NYC.

Are there any education requirements to be appointed as a NYC Police Officer?

Yes, on or before the date of hire, a candidate must have successfully completed:

*
60 college credits with a 2.0 G.P.A. from an accredited college or university

OR

*
2 years of full-time active military service in the United States Armed Forces with an honorable discharge and have a high school diploma or it's equivalent.

*

This is from the frequently asked questions by the way. I don't think doing well academically has anything to do with how smart you are or how well you treat fellow human beings. It does, however, show how good at procedural obligations you are, how responsible you are, maybe how reliable you are... 2.0 is a pretty low G.P.A. You could get all Cs in college and still be eligible. I don't know, there are plenty of brilliant people who would make terrible cops.

The New York Alliance against Sexual Assault did a research project on the NYPD and found that %17 of all victims had a negative experience with an officer. That isn't so bad. And from what I understand is that Rudolph cleaned up NYC a lot, and that it used to be a lot more dangerous than it is now. He did this by recruiting more police officers? My concern is that in doing so, he lowered the standards. Sure reported crime rates are down, but I feel like professionalism is down as well. Again, cops should NOT be whistling at girls, its really low brow, not exactly their motto. Now I'm not going to get into the obvious issues like the killing of Diallo by police in 1999, because that is just the nature of having a huge group of people with guns with too much authority. I don't know.

-Enjoy.

Gay lifestyle, do not discriminate

2006-08-07T10:33:00.000-07:00

Infocats makes something clear to me:

I think what they all said [ and I really can't speak for anyone else ] was that sexual orientation is not a choice [ which it isn't ] but that the "gay lifestyle" is.

This was a comment from my post listing the quotes from those people whom I accused of believing homosexuality was a choice. Infocats is probably right, and I am going to assume that he is. So Adam and JhWhicker make cases that sexual orientation is not a choice but the gay lifestyle is.

Unfortunately, in my mind, this is like saying that being Mexican is not a choice but the Mexican lifestyle is. And from that, you then group every Mexican into a Mexican lifestyle, and then disapprove of their behavior. Its one thing to acknowledge a lifestyle, but then to use that to discriminate against them is quite another, and thats what JhWhicker and Adam are doing. They don't think their lifestyle should be encouraged... well... what about gays who don't fit into the gay lifestyle? What is the gay lifestyle anyway? Could you define it as such?:

Promiscuity, carelessness, no regard for family, recruiting...

I can't even really think of what other stereotypes there are... but lets say that that defines the 'gay lifestyle' (if you have a better one, please let me know)... now... what about a gangster:

promiscuous, carelessness, no regard for family, recruiting... it also applies. I would hope that we don't equate gangster with homosexuals.

This is the problem, the moment we put homosexuals into a category based on an arbitrary 'lifestyle' we immediately equate them with other lifestyles that we may abhor, like the gangster lifestyle or the serial killer lifestyle.

I don't think gays choose their lifestyle the way that a gangster does. Gays are born gay, and are shunned from the moment they are born. Even if people don't know they are gay, that share their disapproval with homosexuality with them, by telling them that when they grow up they will have children, and their future wife or husband will be this or do this, watching TV they see primarily straight couples doing things, going on vacations, driving cars... its no wonder they feel like outcasts sometimes.

In order to do this justice you need to really look deep into your psyche and try and discover what it is about homosexuality that you don't like, what it is that threatens you or what you believe in, what it is that could possibly harm you, and if you do it right, you'll probably find that it neither threatens you or harms you in any way. There will always be plenty of straight people, you cannot recruit gay people, you cannot take a straight person and turn them gay, what you can do is take a gay person and show them that it is okay to be gay. If you force a gay person to be straight, they will be miserable and unhappy for their entire lives, possibly having societal consequences linked to rage and depression... so why encourage that? Why not let people be who they want to be, even if you yourself wouldn't want to be that.

You let murderers get married, even convicted child molester and rapists can get married, so why not gay? JhWHicker's criteria for why not doesn't work, because he still supports the idea that convicted felons could get married, even though they may have a high likelihood of abusing their children, causing problems for society, killing a few people... hell, they could come out and say that they will do that and JhWhicker would still support their marriage. The man could have had his penis cut off and his balls removed and Whicker would still support their marriage. But what about a loving gay couple who could contribute so much to society, and who are the nicest damn people you've ever met... JhWhicker doesn't support their marriage because of some inadequacy or fear he feels.

So that wasn't a quick post like I thought it would be, but I wanted to address Infocats' comments. I await numerous responses.

Stop being so stupid!

2006-08-04T08:45:00.000-07:00

Its disturbing to me how many people are still not properly educated about how we got here and where we came from as a species. Evolution is not one choice of many, it is what happened, and there is no getting around it.

Often people turn to various other explanation, none of which can provide any evidence, for evolution, but at present there has been no good argument made or any evidence tot he contrary. Evolution is what happened and still happens right now, there is no way around it. I'm sorry. You can kid yourself all you want, but you cannot be satisfied with any answer other than 'evolution' if you're interested in facts and evidence (people not interested in facts or evidence have no business every arguing and trying to make a point).

The Kansas electorate has voted to get rid of two of its anti-evolution school board reps in the State's primary elections. The result has been welcomed by pro-evolution board members and science advocacy groups.

Although it is just a primary, it means the two ousted candidates will not stand for re-election come the General Elections. Both Republican and Democrat parties are also now more likely to field candidates who support the teaching of evolution.

Janet Waugh, a pro-evolution school board member, told New Scientist that she is thrilled. "The people of Kansas are tired of being the laughing stock of not just the nation, but the world," she added, referring to the 2005 decision by the school board to change the definition of science so that non scientific priciples could be taught in science classes.

You see, thats the thing, creationism is more of a superstition, and to teach it in school is hilarious and sad. They were the laughing stock of every community, every developed nation, and every human being with proper education, and I'm glad they noticed that. Creationism is what it is, just a story that has no evidence or any basis in fact, therefor, whether its true or not, needs to be kept out of school.

Ignoring evolution or trying to pretend it doesn't exist is like looking at a dog and trying to convince yourself and others its a dolphin.

Here are some absolutes, facts of life that cannot be disputed what so ever:

the planet is approximately 4.5bn years old

the emergence of life on Earth occurred around 2.5bn years ago

the trick of photosynthesis, which is described as the "ultimate source of fixed energy and food upon which human life ... depends"

that since its emergence, life has taken various forms, all of which continue to evolve

commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin

Adam recently said this in response to one of my earlier posts:

We've often discovered one part of a theory was wrong and others were right. One can hold that the idea of microevolution (where changes occur within a species) is correct, because its an observable phenomena while not holding to the theory of macroevolution.

Actually, nobody thinks that. It is known that changes occurring within a species is exactly what leads to species changing species. This is exactly what I'm talking about, people are either not told or are refusing to see the point. There is no difference between macro-evolution and micro-evolution, you can't believe one and not the other, its completely absurd. Thats like believing that mammals have babies but thats not how the population grows... or something equally as absurd.

All evolution, from adaptive phenotypes to a change in species occurs from random mutation. I am not even sure creationists know the definition of a species, let alone enough about science and life to make any assumption about evolution. If creationists believe that an animal can adapt and change themselves physically to accommodate an environment, then whats their problem with that mammal changing so much that they are now a different species? Its absurd! Is there an arbitrary line that creationists draw where a species can not pass in terms of physical change due to random mutation? Is this something that god drew? Please, quantify this line, otherwise, your theories are not acceptable.

Another thing creationists are never ever able to explain are vestigial structures. Please explain to me why humans have a tail bone, or a coccyx, or why some species of snakes have leg bones, or why giant whales have hand bones and fingers? Where is the evidence? Where is the logical reasoning? Come on, you can do better than "because god said so". That is so weak and pitiful, it means that the creationist has no answer and must rely on a ridiculous answer. If you really think god did something or does something, then embrace it fully. Don't do the pick and chose religion crap that #Donovan/7898##Donovan describes so well#.

There are lots and lots of definitions of species, morphological, typological, biological, isolation... I doubt creationists understand any of this, they aren't scientists! They are shamans and mystic believers.

One definition is that two species can't breed with eachother, this can happen from allopatric speciation, for example, the sub-Saharan Cape Buffalo evolved into two separate species because of geological differences that they can no longer mate with each other (observed). Another observed evolutionary speciation example is the polyploidy speciation event in sympatry with regards to wheat.

Now how about artificial speciation? We have observed species change species... actually, we induced it!

For example, domestic sheep were created by hybridisation,^[3] and no longer produce viable offspring with Ovis orientalis, one species from which they are descended.^[4] (Cattle on the other hand, can be considered the same species as several varieties of wild ox, gaur, yak, etc., as they willingly and readily reproduce, producing fertile offspring, with several related "other" species.^{[citation needed]})
The best-documented creations of new species in the laboratory were performed in the late 1980s. Rice and Salt (1988) bred fruit flies, Drosophila melanogaster, using a maze with three different choices such as light/dark and wet/dry. Each generation was placed into the maze, and the groups of flies which came out of two of the eight exits were set apart to breed with each other in their respective groups. After thirty-five generations, the two groups and their offspring would not breed with each other even when doing so was their only opportunity to reproduce.^[5]

The Drosophila experiment conducted by Diane Dodd.

Diane Dodd was also able to show allopatric speciation by reproductive isolation in Drosophila pseudoobscura fruit flies after only eight generations using different food types, starch and maltose.^[6] Dodd's experiment has been easy for many others to replicate, including with other kinds of fruit flies and foods.^[7]

So, we have observed species changing, Adam's macro-evolution. What more proof do you want? What more evidence do you want? We've got fossils depicting the wide variety of hominids and how we all evolved, we have the same with horses. Would god really create millions of different species, then kill them off and create similar ones right after the other ones? Faking evolution? No, thats silly.

We have proof and evidence. There is absolutely no question that evolution has occurred and will always occur. Every argument I've heard has been focused on scientists not observing one species change into another... fortunately, scientists have... so it looks like creationists are out of arguments.

Enjoy.

P.S. - Adam, I didn't mean to pick on you, any 'you' you see is proverbial, not directed at you Adam.

Creationists are idiots

2006-07-31T12:31:00.000-07:00

This weekend I went to the Natural History museum to see the Darwin exhibit, and for the first two thirds I wasn't impressed, but the end was excellent. I love that museum, they've got some amazing things, like the gems and meteorite exhibits, and the human evolution exhibit. They also had a really good asian people's exhibit that I highly recommend.

I remember at some point, a skeptical individual said that he wouldn't believe evolution because he's never seen it, or, scientists have never seen it. This is, of course, untrue. Scientists have been able to study bacteria, watching them evolve within hours, and this was shown at the exhibit. They do multiply very quickly!

The reason I didn't like the first two thirds of the exhibit is because it was just about Darwin and his voyage. I've recently read a very detailed book called the Beak of the Finch which spent enough time on Darwin and his life that I didn't really need to see more. But I also sort of realized that Darwin's natural selection ideas were just the tip of the iceberg of what else goes on. There is no question to anyone with a brain that evolution occurs, the evidence and proof is all around us and irrefutable. We have bones from a series of hominids over thousand of years, showing us the various stages of our primate beginnings. If that doesn't convince you, then what about vestigial structures? Why do giant whales have hand bones? Why do dolphins have fingers? Why do some snakes have legs (its true, some snakes actually have leg bones... explain that!)? Why do we have tailbones, an appendix or hair on our body? All vestigial structures, remnants of our evolution.

Evolution is a pretty simple and easy thing to understand. You have a species of something, and it has DNA. In life, DNA randomly mutates, giving species slightly different phenotypic responses sometimes... if it just so happens that that phenotype helps that species survive, they will be more likely to have more kids, passing along that random mutation. Eventually, the random mutations with the best phenotypes hold out via survivability. Sometimes, a species will geographically get moved, or half of them will for example for a number of reason. Seeds getting carried by birds, birds flying somewhere else, mountains forming, rivers separating... whatever. The same species in two different places. Well, one place has a predator that kills that species... but a random mutation gave a few of them the ability to be invisible to the predator, eventually being the only ones that survive, having kids with that mutation. This continues on for thousand and eventually millions of years, until that species can no longer breed with the original species is branched off from, and thus we have a new species.

Happened all the time. Huge changes like cro magnons to homosapiens occur one genetic mutation at a time.

There was an experiment conducted in the 80s with fish that lasted a very long time. Some fish had a color and a size that made them easy to be eaten by a specific predator. The scientist separated this species of fish, put one in a river without the predator, and the other in a river with the predator. Over many many many generation, he finds that the species of fish that lived with the predator shrank and changed color, making it much harder for them to be caught. The fish in the safe river didn't change at all.

The evidence is literally everywhere, and I'm just so surprised that people can seriously look at it and ignore it. What is wrong with these people? Are they themselves un-evolved or something? Its like looking at a pair of sunglasses and refusing to believe that that is what they are. I'm not talking about different perceptions of reality and "what is reality but the information we garner from our senses", I'm talking about facts.

Its just stubborn to refuse it at this point, there is just no questioning it. It isn't like deciding over who created the universe, or what sparked the first single celled organism to exist, that is a separate discussion... this is about bio diversity.

Consider this, rejecting evolution is like walking up to thousand and thousands of scientists who've proved it over and over again and calling them liars. Who would argue with Stephen Hawking? Sometimes you just have to ask questions, and see for yourself. I've studies evolution like it was my job, even doing experiments in college... its real people, sorry to disappoint all the laymen out there that believe in magic.

We can learn an awful lot from evolution, wonderful helpful things that will progress humanity... I don't see how myths and stories can really accomplish anything except allow people to be selfish and unquestioning of the world around them. To really get the answer, one must ask the questions and seek the results. Thats what I like about science. Unlike religion, science starts with the negative, using a null hypothesis and assuming its true... meaning, they assume they are wrong, and try and prove themselves wrong. When the fail, thats when we have an answer. That is the exact way to approaching a problem. Religion just makes something up that is convenient, and fools the believers, making them afraid to ask questions for fear of losing control over them.

See the Darwin exhibit if you get a chance, all of you. I encourage you to try and learn something, explore other options. I've explored religion, and its just so short sighted and frustrating... religious people just feel comfortable putting every thing into a scape goat. Why is this this way? Because god wanted it to be. What kind of answer is that? How can that be in any satisfying, how can we learn from that?

Do what a scientist does, and try and prove yourself wrong, the worst that could happen is you strengthen your own faith.

Enjoy my rant.

U.S. Heat

2006-07-27T11:10:00.000-07:00

And Bush and the republican administration say that there is no global warming....

San Francisco - The number of deaths believed to be caused by a heatwave in California has risen sharply to 83. The heat and the increased power use blew out thousands of transformers, and farmers reported animals dying in the fields, and fruit and nuts scorched on the vine.

Paris - About 40 people have died as a result of high temperatures during a heatwave in France in the past two weeks, said a French public health body on Tuesday.

Paris - Europeans were urged to stay cool on Friday as a record-breaking heatwave that has melted roads, jangled nerves and killed 31 people across half the continent looked set to last another week.

In France, medical authorities said 22 people have now died from the heat - up from nine two days ago.

London - Judges removed their wigs inside the courts. Guards at Buckingham Palace were allowed to stand in the shade. Some workers wore shorts to the office.

Britain was facing its hottest day on record Wednesday - so hot even the pavement melted on the roadways.

We're breaking records here, and guess what, its only going to get worse. What I can't understand is why they can't turn a freaking fan on in the subway stations here in New York city, get some air moving, would make a world of difference.

We've known about this potential problem for a while now, and as you'll find out from Al Gore's movie, there are things that can be done to possibly eradicate the threat of global warming. Are we going to do them? No, because of our political administration and their greed. Practices that will save our planet don't make rich republicans any money, so therefor, it may be unlikely that anything gets done.

(CBS) President Bush dismissed on Tuesday a report put out by his administration warning that human activities are behind climate change that is having significant effects on the environment.

The report released by the Environmental Protection Agency was a surprising endorsement of what many scientists and weather experts have long argued — that human activities such as oil refining, power plants and automobile emissions are important causes of global warming.

But it suggests nothing beyond voluntary action by industry for dealing with the so-called "greenhouse" gases, the program Bush advocated in rejecting a treaty negotiated in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997 calling for mandatory reduction of those gases by industrial nations.

"I read the report put out by the bureaucracy," Mr. Bush said dismissively when asked about the EPA report, adding that he still opposes the Kyoto treaty.

I think Bush may be bad for our planet, bad for our survival, not just bad for our country. Does this guy have any redeeming qualities? Can he shoot hoops? Cook up a storm? Is he an excellent bridge player?

I am glad that I don't drive a car at the moment, use very little gas or electricity, don't support the oil industry. I'm very interested in methods of alternative energy. My mom's house in California sits right in he middle of a huge wind and fog belt that slaps the side of our house with intense wind and cooling fog all the time, and she is exploring putting wind powered generators on the roof or something... use what she's got.

Who killed the electric car? There was nothing wrong with it, GM just removed them from the public because they wouldn't make money off of the oil.

Shit you guys! This is our planet, and no matter what god you believe in or what political affiliation you've got, you cannot ignore global warming, you feel it when you step outside, you hear about it it news reports of heat-related deaths... its here, and its happening, and I plan on fighting it.

Stewart/Colbert '08

2006-07-27T11:08:00.000-07:00

Honestly, I think if Jon Stewart ran for president in 2008, he would be surprised how close he would get. I think people could very easily get behind a man like Jon, knowing that he would bring about the peace and security America needs at this moment, with only the best interests at heart.

Think about it, Jon Stewart is friends with John McCain, a republican, and he's clearly just as intolerant of democrats as republicans... the man is perfect. If you ever watch the Daily Show, you would see why. He comes across at first as very funny, but when he starts interviewing people is true brilliance comes out. The man is very politically aware and very very very smart. He is also gracious and humble and I think somebody who could be a great leader (keep in mind I still don't see the point of a president, but if we are going to have one, it might as well be somebody good... right?).

He clearly finds the war ridiculous just like it is, finds the opposition to gay marriage ridiculous just like it is, and things the Katrina response was ridiculous just like it was.

Its also important to remember that the affiliation of conservative with republican and liberal with democrat isn't exactly accurate. I of course am very guilty of just throwing republicans, conservatives, religious people, and idiots all into the same category... but its not the case. Just because someone is a democrat doesn't mean they are liberal, or atheist... does it? No!

I really think the serious fight, for me anyway, is between choice/freedom and restriction/intolerance. Obviously liberalism is associated with the former and conservative with the latter... so those are the choices you have to make. At present, it would seem that some fundamental issues are more important than others... I wouldn't mind a republican becoming president if he/she got rid of tax cuts for the rich only, stopped invading countries and causing deaths for stupid reasons, restored the freedom of choice to the people, and generally had any level of compassion for the human race... but when I saw those things, words like freedom and choice, aren't usually associated with republicans, but maybe thats just because they aren't usually associated with conservatives, who tend to be republican!?

But back to Jon.

From another blog:

I don't exactly match up with Jon Stewart on political viewpoints, but ultimately that doesn't really matter. Regardless of whether I agree with him on all the issues, he became a hero to me the other day.
Because Jon Stewart gets it.

I mean, how pathetic has the world become when a self-proclaimed "fake-news" anchor from Comedy Central can appear on CNN's Crossfire and completely own the show (get the torrent video here), lecturing the anchors and effectively applying labels to them like "partisan hack." And the anchors push back and ask Stewart why he asks "soft" questions on his show?

Jon is the ultimate diplomat, asking questions and getting on the good side of everyone... unless of course, they are idiots. He is hilarious but on point and really pays attention. He is a jack in the box at times, making people believe he is just a comedian then suddenly busting out with extremely poignant and knowledgeable arguments, all political. He's a magic man.

Jon questions the validity of partisanship... maybe its not the best thing for this country? I mean we here at WIS question whether or not the left and right will ever get along? It seems that issues like stem cell research that actually gets both parties together to agree on something gets shot down by our president who is supposed to be republican. Check out this transcript from that very famous CROSSFIRE episode with Jon:

STEWART: And I wanted to -- I felt that that wasn't fair and I should come here and tell you that I don't -- it's not so much that it's bad, as it's hurting America.

(LAUGHTER)

CARLSON: But in its defense...

(CROSSTALK)

STEWART: So I wanted to come here today and say...

(CROSSTALK)

STEWART: Here's just what I wanted to tell you guys.

CARLSON: Yes.

STEWART: Stop.

(LAUGHTER)

STEWART: Stop, stop, stop, stop hurting America.

BEGALA: OK. Now

(CROSSTALK)

STEWART: And come work for us, because we, as the people...

CARLSON: How do you pay?

STEWART: The people -- not well.

(LAUGHTER)

BEGALA: Better than CNN, I'm sure.

STEWART: But you can sleep at night.

(LAUGHTER)

STEWART: See, the thing is, we need your help. Right now, you're helping the politicians and the corporations. And we're left out there to mow our lawns.

BEGALA: By beating up on them? You just said we're too rough on them when they make mistakes.

STEWART: No, no, no, you're not too rough on them. You're part of their strategies. You are partisan, what do you call it, hacks.

His problem with crossfire is that it isn't a debate, its theater, its forcing things into categories and widening gaps, making dividing lines where there wasn't any before, exactly what Bush does. The man has problems with the media that is supposedly a "liberal" media... so all of you republicans out there who have the same problem with CNN and NBC and all that... Jon is on your side.

Jon does what I would love to do, take every issue and treat it separately. Forget left and right, forget republicans and democrats... they are just arbitrary categories that really don't mean anything... its the issues themselves that needs to be addressed alone. I think its a great idea and something we really need.

Our country needs someone like Jon Stewart, so vote for him even if he doesn't run.

Enjoy.

UPDATED -----------

Terp, I have to agree with Carol. He actually does play hardball with democrats... but you said something interested, you said hardball with conservative and soft with democrats... remember, there are conservative democrats, and thats exactly what Jon is talking about, making the categories, forcing the black and white. I think you've gotten it all wrong, the Daily Show was never meant to be taken seriously, yet its won numerous awards for programming because of its sincerity... people are getting sick of CNN. And I think you're way off assuming that the Daily Show is one source of news for everybody, its really the opposite, I read news papers, keep my eye on the AP ticker, watch CNN and all of that, the Daily show is something I pop on late at night, and guess what, they don't make up the news. They just comment on how hilarious it is, and use sarcasm in its best form. Don't get confused!

The conservatives are the ignorant ones, clearly proven time and time again, but I don't think Stewart is a hardline liberal at all. Take the war on Christmas thing, would you say that the liberal position would be the ones creating the war? Saying that its too over bearing with the christianity nonsense everywhere in your face? Stewart thought the whole thing was ridiculous, and he's Jewish!! I'm not sure where the college student bashing goes, did you not go to college or something? Whats with that?

The most important thing to keep in mind is that its the conservative who are fucking up left and right, getting themselves in the news, making the big splashes and pissing everyone else... not the liberals. So thats why it appears that the inferior conservative agenda is being attacked all the time, especially by the 'liberal' media... but its only because they are in the hot light right now. You should have seen the Daily Show during the Monica Lewinsky thing... they were all over it! Squeaky wheel gets the grease.

Wow, men deciding the fates, freedoms, and choices of women

2006-07-27T11:06:00.000-07:00

I thought we were supposed to be an advanced society? Where people make their own decisions, take responsibility for their own actions? Is that was conservatism is about these days? Not taking responsibility for your actions, forcing people to let others decide for them?

If I were a woman, I would be so pissed that these old men were sitting around deciding what to do with my vagina. I know my girlfriend has expressed a lot of anger at the mere idea that these idiots think they can control what goes in in her uterus. It is her fucking body, her life, her rights, her organic masses and her choice.

Its 2006, so naturally, you're going to find political stunts like the following in excess during such a decisive election year:

Morning Edition, July 26, 2006 · The Senate has approved a measure that would prohibit taking a minor across state lines to have an abortion without informing her parents. The 65-34 vote is the first time the Senate has approved such a bill -- many states already have laws covering such cases.

Opponents charged that the bill is tied to election-year politics.

This is a very small, almost completely useless measure that is barely worth anybodies time, except that its clearly a political stunt in the wrong direction. Why go back on progression from the early 1970s? Why try and turn back time?

Conservatives support war and death and violence in the middle east, but want to try and pretend like they care about nonliving organic masses?? CONTROL, this is about control folks, wake up and smell the testosterone. Men with inadequacies and fear over compensate and cause problems just like this. That is what I think its about, conservatives are either confused about science, or afraid that they'll lose control over women. I hate to say it, but they lost it a long time ago, and making up reasons to regain it isn't going to work.

But opponents of the bill said that in certain situations, the new restrictions would mean that family members trying to protect a girl from an abusive father could face prosecution.

"This bill, as it is drafted, will throw a grandmother in jail," California Democrat Barbara Boxer said in the debate session, describing a hypothetical case in which a father commits incest against his daughter -- who then looks to her family for help.

Thats a very good point, but I don't think Santorium cares. I really don't see the point of something like this, forcing people to go underground and seek out illegal more dangerous methods. People will always get abortions, you will never ever be able to stop it. Sure they voted unanimously to not offer protection to abusive fathers... but then whats the point? How is this going to help or solve anything? Not only is this a terrible political stunt, but an attack on freedom... again!!!! Why must we live in Orwellian times I implore of you!

Why conservative/religious arguments are just silly, and why we laugh at them

2006-07-18T16:17:00.000-07:00

Oh god forbid, I made a provocative title for my post, not adhering to the best most objective ideals of the ultimate debater, I apologize! I just want you to read me, READ ME I SAY.

Okay.

I have been trying to find some good information on the argument, or position of those against stem cell research and why. The reason being is because we're going to vote on it soon, and I think that the issues need to be made clear, especially since the administration and the conservative movement have been getting things wrong lately, and skewing if not completely ignoring the facts.

President Bush said in mid-May 2005, "I am a strong supporter of stem cell research, but I've made it very clear to Congress that the use of federal taxpayer money to promote science that destroys life in order to save life, I am against this."

I sort of understand his reasoning, and if its what I think it is, its actually kind of noble. He MAY be for stem cell research, but he doesn't want the government to sanction the destruction of what some confused people believe to be life, just in case it hurts him in the polls. Or maybe, he just doesn't want congress to take a stance on this issue... even though they take stances on other issues like gay marriage and euthanasia.

The Catholic Church is against stem-cell research because it involves the destruction of human embryos. Pope John Paul II says embryonic stem-cell research is related to abortion, euthanasia and other attacks on innocent life.

No surprise there. Its funny, the catholic church using words that it doesn't even understand. I mean my god, science is a different language to these guys, yet they feel so expert on the field of life that they can comment on shit they don't even understand. So is this it? Is this the argument? The same reasoning for why abortion should be illegal? I was hoping for maybe a little more insight, but religion is an empty void of only questions and no answer it would seem.

The pope exhorted the president to reject embryonic stem-cell research as a practice related to abortion, euthanasia and other assaults on innocent human life: "A free and virtuous society," said the pope, "which America aspires to be, must reject practices that devalue and violate human life at any stage from conception until natural death." (Click here to read the full text of the pope's brief comments related to stem cells.)

After the pope's address, President Bush delivered prepared remarks, applauding Pope John Paul II for carrying, in Mr. Bush's words, "the Gospel of life, which welcomes the stranger and protects the weak and innocent."

There are so many obvious problems with what both the Pope and Bush said. Why don't we start however, by doing what religions hates most, getting some facts laid out.

What are embryonic stem cells?
Embryonic stem cells make up the inner cell mass of the blastocyst, a body of cells that forms in the first few days immediately following fertilization. Blastocysts are about the size of a grain of sand and typically consist of about 150 cells.

What's so special about these cells?
Most cells can only produce limited copies of the same kind. Embryonic stem cells, by contrast, can develop into many different cell types in the body, and have a limitless ability to divide and replenish. As a result, embryonic stem cells are an ideal research material. Scientists hope they can manipulate these cells to one day produce therapies targeting specific diseases, and even regrow damaged or destroyed tissues for any part of the body.

Those are just some baseline facts. The potential for stem cells is incredible, perhaps saving the lives of many humans who otherwise wouldn't have a chance. We are talking lives potentially being saved. The pope says we must not devalue human life, but thats exactly what we are doing by trying to limit or banish stem cell research. It doesn't make sense to me, why go through all this effort to try and protect meaningless masses of organic matter even if it means sacrificing the lives of people who are in need of treatment that could come from stem cell research? We're talking something that forms within the first few days after fertilization, there's no baby, no human life, just some freaking cells trying to divide!!

The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act (SB471) is the Senate version of HR810, a bill approved by the House of Representatives last year that would allow researchers to use surplus embryos produced at fertility clinics that would otherwise be discarded.

So we can discard embryos but not... discard them? I don't get it, thats like saying, you can kill your dog but you can't kill it to help others... Strange reasoning! I'm using extremes here, obviously they are just restricting federal funding, but I wonder what religious conservative groups think about the fertility clinics and their discarding embryos? I mean, do they approve of fertility clinics at all? I've heard a ridiculous argument even here on WIS that gay marriage should be illegal because they can produce children, yet barren couples who are straight can get married and even convicted child molesters can get married... so then the conservatives are in support of fertility... having children, so they MUST be in support of fertility clinics, so they must support them discarding the embryos as part of their maintenance? Right?

Here's the deal, stem cell research could be our chance at the next big leap forward in medicine. We could have possibly made Christopher Reeve walk! There is no way around this really, I mean, because of this abhorrent fear of progress from the conservatives, research and money is being spent and in my opinion wasted on alternatives to stem cell research. We already know that adult stem cell research is sort of a waste, so spare yourself that trouble.

Doctors have been using adult stem cells, such as the blood-forming type in bone marrow (called hematopoietic stem cells), to perform bone-marrow transplants for more than 40 years. Similar techniques have since been developed for treating leukemia, lymphoma and several inherited blood disorders. But scientists believe adult stem cells are not as flexible as embryonic stem cells, and hold far less promise for extreme therapies, such as rebuilding nerves severed in a spinal cord injury.

Enjoy.

No censorship

2006-07-18T16:16:00.000-07:00

I know everyone knows about the swear word Bush uttered at the G8 and how hilarious it was, but what I find strange is that its rarely censored. I was watching the Daily show last night that, despite its usual allowance of swear words late at night, bleeps Jon Stewart all the time. However, I couldn't help but notice that when they showed the clip there was no bleep. It just has Bush saying "shit" in all its glory.

Then, I was reading this article and it too didn't censor the word when quoting Bush. I'm totally blown away! Is there some law that says if the president swears, you can air it? I wouldn't be surprised. I mean after all, if he swears than everyone should be allowed to swear. And everyone is allowed to swear but just not on TV. Its funny how the FCC pretends like nobody swears, I honestly think it makes for bad TV. Swearing is obviously part of everyday speech, and sometimes a part of somebody's character. There are also situations that are so horrible that a swear word is absolutely necessary.

Thats why I think it ruins a story when nobody can swear. In Star Trek when the ship is literally seconds from blowing up, no one even says "ahhh fuck". I know I would. Or in 24 when someone gets really scare or screws up, I would like to think that a swear word in real life would be uttered.

::sigh:: whatever, we're just going to get more censored and our freedoms more restricted as time goes on.

You know in Europe, and even Canada, TV is much more liberal. You can see breasts and nipples, 15 years old doing provocative booty dancing, certain levels of violence, dead people on the news, and you can hear swearing as well. Its just not a big deal, its not over used and I don't think it causes problems. Even though I may not approve of some of it, I feel relieved that its not tabooed, making it more likely something teenagers will do to spite the rules.

Wow, I've gotten way off topic. Why don't you read some of the other hilarious things Bush said, they're pretty funny.

"I'm just gonna make it up. I'm not gonna talk too damn long like the rest of 'em," he said. "Some of these guys talk too long." Putin, sitting on Bush's left, seemed to chime in, "yeah," in heavily accented English.

"Good job," Bush replied. "Gotta keep this thing moving.

"I gotta leave at 2:15. You want me out of town so it can free up your security forces," Bush continued, apparently to his host. The president said he was ready to finish a trip that began in Germany on Wednesday.

"Get on a plane and go home," he said of his plans.

Then, to Chinese President Hu Jintao, Bush said: "Where you going? Home? This is your neighborhood. Doesn't take too long to get home?" When told Hu's flight to Beijing would be eight hours, Bush said, "Me too."

"Russia's a big country and you're a big country." Then he told someone else, "No, not Coke. Diet Coke."

And resuming his flight geography lesson, he was heard saying to someone: "Takes him eight hours to fly home. Eight hours. Russia's big and so's China."

To Blair he said: "Yeah, Blair. What are you doing? You leaving?" Blair responded that he wasn't leaving right away.

Moments later, Bush remembered a gift had come his way.

"Thanks for the sweater," Bush, who just celebrated his 60th birthday, told Blair. "It was awfully thoughtful of you. I know you picked it out yourself."

The prime minister chimed in, "Oh, absolutely."

Hotter than a whore on nickel night!

2006-07-18T16:15:00.000-07:00

Walking along broadway today, I notice the long forlorn pale faces of those who have been screwed by the heat. They look like zombies, barely walking, eyes not shifting, sweat everywhere. Then I look in a reflection and realize that I look the same way. Everyone's air conditioning is on full blast, water condensing and dumping onto the street. Various fire hydrants are spewing cold water in fine mists, creating that wet pavement smell.

Its a hot day today, setting some records, but whats even worse is the humidity.

I was looking at the map of the US yesterday, and the whole place was in red, with temperatures in the 80s. There was one tiny place that had a cool temperature of 74, and of course, no humidity whatsoever. That place of course was my home town of Mill Valley, California. Man do I wish I still lived there, especially during times like this. The rent if cheaper by significant degrees, and the weather is excellent and perfect all year round. Never humid, never freezing... just right.

It as if god dwells there, or maybe Jesus, and we just don't know it yet. I'm so surprised that people still live here, when you can live there. I only moved here for my girlfriend, otherwise, I'd be where the wine is, and not be paying an arm and a leg to live there.

Stay cool everybody, drink lots of water and keep your physical activity to a minimum, stay out of the sun, and get some rest. If you get a chance, ask god why living on the east coast is so much harder than the west, and let me know the answer.

Enjoy.

Come clean you dirty white men!

2006-07-11T11:31:00.000-07:00

I by 'you' I mean the social conservative homophobes like JhWhicker who think banning gay marriage is a good thing. (I don't mean to pick on JhWhicker, everyone has their opinions, but fire is fire, and boy to I like to piss people off, its not on purpose, its gotta be some deeply rooted psychological thing).

Here is an idea, MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS. Minding one's own business was invented in 1347 when the King of some ambiguous country was met with fierce resistance when he tried to regulate how much sex the citizens had.

This is what I don't understand, why do state senators, christian idiots, and policy makers wish to stand in a gay couples bedroom and tell them what they can and can't do. Why do they follow them around to the movies, the mall, the golf course, sporting events, and tell them that everything they are doing is bad? When the gay couple asks why, the conservative republican has no valid answer, he just thinks its wrong... this is when the gay couple shoves his hand in the christian face and tells him to "MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS".

BOSTON (Reuters) - Massachusetts' highest court ruled on Monday that voters could have a chance to overturn a landmark court decision that made the state the first and only in the country to legalize gay marriage.

But a popular vote on the issue would be unlikely to resolve the issue, according to the court. Even if voters approve a ban on gay marriage, the state's Supreme Judicial Court said, such a law would look "starkly out of place" in the Massachusetts Constitution and could cause the court to revisit the issue.

Conservative and Christian groups who have campaigned to put the issue on the ballot in 2008 hailed the decision, which comes four days after two high-profile setbacks for gay marriage supporters.

Conservative and Christian groups? Man, talk about the least intelligent, dullest, human hating scummy groups of our time. But you know what, what business of theirs is gay marriage? Let us break it down 1980's style:

We all get together and vote on things that affect us, anti-crime laws, gambling, vehicle laws, immigration... those all either affect us or have the potential to, right? Now let us take a law that makes all green eyed people wear a special wrist band. Who is going to be affected by green eyed people? Let us say that green-eyed people make up 1% of our population. There is no evidence to suggest that green eyed people are more violent, commit more crimes, or are inferior, so why would we bother with a law that doesn't affect us? Why would we vote on a law that affects only a certain group of people, further more, push legislation, spend money, rally people, and make a big deal wasting time and energy making it the law of the land that green eyed people need to wear special wrist bands? Why I ask of you?

Gay marriage affects no one, no one is hurt, no one is compromised, the United States will not explode, JhWhicker's wife won't turn into a man, George Bush won't suddenly become a nice guy, and cats won't start chasing cats. Do what is the fear?

Why stick your nose into other people's completely unrelated business. Gay couples aren't going to have children anyway, so why think that letting them get married will somehow decrease gayness and make more children? (Like we need more people in this country).

Every conservative, antigay argument I have heard has been so backwards, unfounded, and idiotic that it makes me want to start a civil war.

Tell me, how would you feel if millions of people lobbied for you to not be able to get married? What would you do? Answer me that please.

Would you just say "Oh well, I'm a second class citizen anyway, and what I'm doing is wrong, so its probably a good thing my choices are limited". I don't think so.

Enjoy.

Evil in the hearts of men

2006-06-23T11:56:00.000-07:00

I was quietly contemplating the history of the world this afternoon whilst sipping on a coca cola and eating a hard boiled egg. My mind wandered to war, and I started to contemplate the history of war.

Why is it then, that our history be so plagued by it. Why is it that from the moment the first homo sapien sapien evolved, to now, did we have so much violence, so much blood on our hands.

Pick a medieval battle, imagine some king marching his troops to a castle, and a war being fought between two countries, people getting stabbed, hit with arrows, killed, captured and destroyed. Precious human lives ended every moment by the hands of another.

Why were we so competitive with ourselves? Is it in our nature as humans to do so? Are we born with a natural tendency to care for eachother and we just ignore it, or is that something that is evolving as well.

In his meticulously researched books, PEACEMAKING AMONG PRIMATES (1989), BONOBO: THE FORGOTTEN APE (1997), CHIMPANZEE POLITICS: POWER AND SEX AMONG APES (2000), an ethologist from the Regional Primate Research Center of the University of Wisconsin, details how primates make peace as easily as they make war. Presenting evidence on five non-human primate species based upon years of careful observation, Dr. de Waal makes a convincing case that primates, including humans, are essentially peace makers if not peace mongers.

While not denying our history of aggression, Dr. de Waal maintains that the avoidance of aggression is an equally undeniable historical fact, if not more so. What emerges is that warmaking and peacemaking are two hands of the one body--intricately related and both "natural". But just as one hand may dominant the other, so too with behaviour. Aggression or non-aggression can predominate depending upon a variety of factors.

Normally, I am a nature over nurture type of person, mostly from my own research and experience. I do think that even the most light hearted of humans is capable of violence. Maybe to varying degrees. I know that I would never ever want to kill a human, but I can say that easily because I've never needed to or been in a situation where it was an act of pure vengeance. Would it be safe to assume then that I am just as capable of killing as say Hitler or Bush?

We've all seen or heard of the murderous violence that exists, and has always existed. There were men like Columbus, French kings, Ghengis Kahn, Pol Pot and so on, who murdered humans endlessly, mostly to gain power, land, or money. Could these people sleep at night?

What about the soldiers in the crusade, with every thrust into the chest of an enemy, did they not feel shame or guilt? All the dead men men have killed, is there no purpose or reason, or inability to ignore the greed or the hate? Is evil a frequent guest of the heart of man?

Today, think of all the soldiers fighting for Iraq and the U.S. who kill eachother everyday, and wonder why. Why in the greater scheme of things to we feel it necessary to kill on another? Why do we derive less than extreme guilt from doing so?

Its the wars of the world that make me wonder if there is hope left in humanity, if the unevolved among us will die out as the peace makers live on.

Maybe is a way of population control, a natural check and balance on our own survivability. Or maybe its a perversion of culture, and really has nothing to do with our true nature. I of course insist that everyone think before acting violently, or supporting the killing of others, and think about the purpose and clarify the reason. Its one human killing another human, attacking its own kind, killing a brother, someone who literally is related to you.

Whats it going to take, alien visitors? Will that unite us, get us into the habit of protecting eachother, instead of fighting with eachother? What if there were other intelligent species on this planet, would we still be at war with ourselves, or unionize to defend against those who were different.

Enjoy.

NYC Weirdoes

2006-06-15T09:11:00.000-07:00

Since I have moved here, I've seen the largest concentration of weirdoes and bizarre people in the entire world. I mean, there are just so many weird people here! Do they gravitate here?

A woman at a grocery store once started accusing me of magnetizing her milk, and she threatened to slap me in the face. I could not help but laugh uncontrollably. I told her that milk cannot be magnetized, especially by somebody walking by it, and that she shouldn't worry and I walked away.

This morning on the subway ride, a gay black man burst into the subway with a crack pipe and a lighter in one hand, jabbering to himself. It was sad, but I couldn't help but find it funny as well. He was just sitting there talking to his 'girlfriends', gossiping just like a normal individual. He was unusually loud, and was aware of his surroundings, but he was tweaking a little bit, and he definitely caused a scene.

I wasn't bothered by it, but it did reaffirm my belief in the ultra weirdness of this city.

Now the question is, why here? Is there something in the water, the smog, the rat poison? In no other dense city have I found such a high concentration of them omnipresent throughout the city.

These people need mental care, but obviously aren't getting them. Most of them I feel like are homeless, and just wander through New York, lost and forgotten. Whats the solution? Drive by in buses, pick them up, give them food, clothes and mental health at tax payers expenses? Maybe Bloomy should pay for it, he's got a lot of pocket change.

Weirdoes abound, this city is unique for sure.

Bush and the U.S. agree?

2006-06-15T09:01:00.000-07:00

We all know what goes on at Guantanamo bay prison, torture, abuse, and other horrible things. No one denies this, we have first hand accounts, accusations, and even law suits. Honestly, do you really think we would have a prison in Cuba, just so we could treat the prisoners like human beings? No. That prison is there so we can stoop to their level, so we can join the ranks of the scum of the earth.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush acknowledged on Wednesday that the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where three detainees committed suicide, has damaged the U.S. image abroad and said it should be shut down.

That isn't why it should be shut down, but I'm not going to be picky, if Bush wants to shut it down, he can. Here's the problem, I"m almost 100% he will either lie about shutting it down and never do, or tell the people that he is moving the prisoners to somewhere on U.S. soil where they won't be tortured and abused and really he's just moving them to another secret facility.

We know the republican stance on torture, and it doesn't go along with what is good and what is right (like most republican ideals).

"No question, Guantanamo sends, you know, a signal to some of our friends -- provides an excuse, for example, to say, 'The United States is not upholding the values that they're trying encourage other countries to adhere to,"' Bush said.

The U.S. military is holding 460 foreigners at the Guantanamo prison, many of whom were captured in Afghanistan in the U.S.-led war to oust the Taliban and al Qaeda after the September 11 attacks. Nearly all are being held without charge.

Well, no argument here, Bush is right, and I'm glad he admits it. We are stooping to low levels, reducing ourselves to the scum of the earth. How are we any different than the muslim jihadists when we act purely on vengeance, torture detainees, abuse people, and violate human rights left and right? The international community disrespects the U.S.A. for having a prison like this.

Lord Charles Falconer, Britain's Lord Chancellor and close ally of Prime Minister Tony Blair, has denounced the US prison camp at Guantanamo Bay as a "recruiting agent" for terrorism.

His comments follow the suicide at the weekend of three of the detainees at the prison camp.

"I think that Guantanamo Bay is a recruiting agent for those who would attack all our values," the Lord Chancellor said on BBC1's Question Time, in the most outspoken attack yet by a senior government minister.

"We live by the rule of law. What Guantanamo Bay is doing is placing people beyond the rule of law, which I think is intolerable and wrong. It should never have been opened and it should be closed."

Who else?

MEPs condemn all forms of torture and ill-treatment and reiterates the need to comply with international law. MEPs also point out that the suicides on 10 June 2006 of three detainees at Guantanamo Bay have raised further international concern about the detention facilities.

Parliament calls on the US authorities to implement the UNCAT recommendations and to ensure the non-use of "special interrogation techniques", including methods involving sexual humiliation, "water boarding", "short shackling" and using dogs to induce fear, that constitute torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.

Anyone else?

ANSA) - Rome, June 14 - Italian Foreign Minister Massimo D'Alema on Wednesday urged the United States to close Guantanamo Bay prison, where some 460 suspected Taleban and al Qaeda terrorists are being held .

Alluding to reports of abuse and torture of detainees at the US naval base in Cuba, D'Alema said Italy, along with the European Union, wanted the jail closed as soon as possible .

And Finally.

GENEVA, Switzerland, June 14 (UPI) -- Five independent U.N. human rights experts have called on the United States to close Guantanamo Bay, after news that three inmates committed suicide.

In a joint statement issued in Geneva Wednesday, they called the suicides "to a certain extent foreseeable in light of the harsh and prolonged conditions of their detention and reinforces the need for the urgent closure of the detention center."

Okay, the world has spoken. There are a lot of ways that the United States isn't the beacon of freedom, including the intolerance of gays, racism, capital punishment, and the obvious greed and corruption rampant through Washington. We've got a long way to go, but its our arrogance that stymies our image.

How long will it be until the U.S. lived up to its purpose.

Hurrah for New York, the shitty city

2006-05-30T12:41:00.000-07:00

We all know that opposing gay marriage is a restriction of freedom, and has no good reasoning behind it other than silly religious reasons. Saying that a group of people are a disease, or that they chose to be that way is a very uneducated assertion that has neither fact nor truth associated with it.

If you're smart, you know this, if you aren't, you cater to fear and mythic illusions.

Mayor Bloomberg landed another left on the right yesterday, coming out strongly in favor of gay marriage - and vowing the city will perform same-sex wedding ceremonies, if allowed.
The Republican mayor used his weekly Sunday radio address on Memorial Day weekend to say he is "firmly opposed" to any constitutional amendment outlawing same-sex marriage.

I've said before, that if the oppressors want to call it something else other than marriage, fine, but the benefits need to be the same. Some argue that the economic benefits of marriage should only benefit couples who can have kids... well, what about baron couples, or adoptive parents? Those who say that say that adopted kids can never really be a part of a family, and should not be formally recognized by the government. If you deny marriage rights to couples who are gay, and your reason is that its because they don't have kids, that completely devalues every bastard, every orphan, and every adoptive family there is. You are saying that the government shouldn't be giving rights to those families because they can't produce their own children. Then, these same people turn around and say that women shouldn't be allowed to abort their own fetuses, creating more unwanted pregnancies and more children who need to be adopted.

Thats why the right is so completely contradicted and will never be considered a 'good' way of life, but rather, the source of what is evil and bad in this world. Most people on the right are apparently too dumb or too brainwashed to notice that their whole ideology is about control and money, even over members of their own ideological party.

"The U.S. Constitution should be something that unites, rather than divides Americans," said Bloomberg, a life-long Democrat who joined the GOP to run for mayor in 2001.

"I do not believe that government should be in the business of telling people who they can and can't marry," he added during the address on 1010 WINS.

Thats a good point. Remember, banning gay marriage tells a huge group of people that the government doesn't recognize them as equal humans because of the way they were born. Allowing it hurts nobody, and limits nobody. Think of it this way, allowing gay marriage means more smiley faces and more unaffected faces, banning gay marriage means more sad faces and more evil grins. Which would you like? An abundance of evil grins and sad faces? Or an abundance of regular faces and smiley faces. I think the choice is clear.

Last week, he used a commencement address at his alma mater, Johns Hopkins University, to blast conservatives for their opposition to stem-cell research and their questioning of the science behind global warming.

"Today we are seeing hundreds of years of scientific discovery being challenged by people who simply disregard facts that don't happen to agree with their agendas," he told the medical school graduates.

He also denounced the so-called intelligent design theory as "creationism by another name."

These are for another issues, but the truth hath been spoken. The conservative right wingers are a terrible part of our lives, and getting rid of them and their limited, poorly thought out ideology is a good goal to set for this country.

If your reasons are religious, than they have no business in law or politics, and the same should hold true if your reasons are fear, greed/power or freedom limiting. Unfortunately, almost all of the right's policy for anything falls into one of these two categories. What are some examples that don't?

"I believe New Yorkers should have the right to marry whomever they choose, regardless of sexual orientation," he said.

"If they [the Court of Appeals] rule that same-sex marriages are legal, then we'll perform them," he vowed.

Why tell people what they can or can't do with their lives, especially when it hurts NOBODY. JhWhicker will not turn into a stone if gays get married, infocats will not burn in hell if gays get married... nothing will happen to you, your life, your sexual orientation will not change, you will not be any less manly, so stop sticking your ugly red nose in other people's business.

Science did this

2006-05-18T12:19:00.000-07:00

I think its great that we peer into the stars and search for other worldly bodies. To me, its fascinating that we can send things to Titan, and discovered a new planet in our own solar system recently... its more than fascinating, its incredible! Science did this, not sitting at home preying for Jesus to show us our solar system. Science also did this:

Astronomers hunting for solar systems beyond our own have discovered a remarkable new one in which three planets, roughly the size of Neptune, are circling a nearby sunlike star, which is surrounded apparently by a dense belt of asteroids.

A whole new solar system, complete with planets, asteroids, and gas. If god created this solar system, what is its purpose? It is unlikely that it has life, although we don't know that for sure... so I ask you, why would Jesus give a shit about these planets? Whatever.

Really think about this, we have the ability to spot other solar systems, and to acknowledge other planets within those solar systems. This is incredible! There are almost infinite possibilities when you consider this.

The star itself is catalogued as HD69830, and lies about 40 light-years from Earth. It is barely visible to the naked eye and can only be observed from below the equator.

You see, this isn't even one of the stars we see from here. Go to Montana, or some other wide open state where you are near nothing artificial, and look at the sky, notice how it is more white than black? Every single one of those stars could have its own solar system, and every solar system could have many planets like our own, and if even just one of those planets was capable of sustaining life... well, its hard to imagine that we are the only life out there. I think statistically its impossible. So, could we possibly find a new place to live when Bush destroys this planet with nuclear war?

"This is indeed a fascinating discovery," said Harvard astronomer David Charbonneau in an e-mail. Charboneau leads another team of exoplanet hunters, and in a commentary published in Nature today, he noted that "exquisite" measurements by the Geneva group's new search instrument "suggest that the search for habitable planets might be easier than assumed." Reflecting the fascination of all his colleagues, Charbonneau added, "The architecture of this particular planetary system bears some intriguing similarities to that of our own solar system."

I think discovering life on other planets might be what it takes to get the social conservatives and other idiots to stop hating humans and start embracing our oneness. Maybe Bush would stop hating black people, and JhWhicker would stop hating gays, and get their thick heads out of their asses and realize that we are all human.

Lightening Bolt of Death

2006-05-12T10:08:00.000-07:00

The one thing I like about lightening is its ability to both destroy and inspire awe. What an incredible force of nature, I am so glad I invented it. Lightening is extremely hard to measure, and retains some mystery. Scientists have been able to induce lightening to strike certain measuring devices, but without being able to stop time and do cool bullet-time like observational things to really understand a bolt, they can't figure out exactly what causes the cascading effect of the electrons.

Fascinating.

Last night Aimée and I were fast asleep, dreaming amazing dreams, when suddenly a lightening bolt struck this really tall building about a block away. What woke me up was a combination of the loudest explosion and brightest light I've ever heard/seen, and Aimée jumping onto me and digging her nails into my skin out of fear. I don't blame her, our window was open, and it was literally right there. An awesome power.

I have always wanted to get hit by lightening, I am 98% sure that it would give me special powers. But after last night, I have had second thoughts. For one, it would be deafeningly loud, I mean, right in your ear. Secondly... its just fucking scary. I can see why our ancient ancestors thought it was some kind of mystical being.

Anyway, I am going to be the firs to get powers, so you're not allowed to go out and try.

I once met a girl who had been struck by lightening. She was in a pool (an excellent source of death in a lightening storm) and had been hit on the inner thigh (yes, near the vagina). She was a very strange girl, some thought she was really hot, and I admit she had a nice figure, but I couldn't get past the weird energy and the need to spend 20 dollars a day on candy. I think this was caused by the lightening. I was in an acting class with her before she went to my high school, and she just had these strange tendencies to burst out with Dolphin noises. All caused by lightening.

Since girls aren't able to get special powers, I am still convinced that my crusade to be struck will be met with delicious victory. Watch out for Aaron "Electroman" Edell coming to a hairy situation near you.

Steve's Bed

2006-05-12T09:57:00.000-07:00

I just want to tell you a little bit about one of my best friend's bed, in a non sexual way. Steve has what I call the deluxe king. Its a normal sized king, but for some reason, it feels like its a lot bigger. Perhaps a God's bed maybe.

His bed is fucking amazing. For those of you who know me, I am a big, glorious man, and require much bed space for my superior sleep. My girlfriend must share in my sleepage, so our queen sized piece of shit at home barely works. When we sleep in Steve's bed, its amazing.

Here is why:

1) I can roll over exactly 4.35 times and still be on the bed. We fit three grown men lying on the bed, WIDTH WISE you fucking heathens! Do you understand width wise? We could fit three full grown men lying comfortable THE WRONG WAY on the bed.

2) The mattress in itself was made from the another dimension, primarily consisting of rainbows, clouds, babies, feathers and a touch of god. Sometimes, if you bounce on the bed hard enough, you can hear god say "hey watch it!".

3) The bedding was designed by a being known as comfortoso, who exists only in omega brain waves which are given off only when you are about to fall asleep.

All in all, Steve's bed is the greatest thing to hit this planet since Apple computers. I suggest all the hot ladies give it a try -- now with Steve in it for a limited time only!

I prove that there is no god

2006-05-03T08:05:00.000-07:00

When I argue with the religious about the existence of god, I've been asked to prove that he doesn't exist. Mostly by JhWhicker. And although that not only has been done, but is pretty simple to do, it isn't my burden. You don't prove a negative, you prove a positive. From some forums I've read in response to someone asking everyone to prove god doesn't exist:

you dont prove a negative, you prove a positive. you prove that god exists, you cannot disprove something for which there is already absolutely no evidence.
prove leprachauns don't exist. or unicorns. go ahead.

o basically you came here thinking you have such a challenge. But you don't the onus of proof is also on your shoulders, because you "believe" that god exists. See you claim to know what god is, and that it exists. Since you presume to know what god is, and you know that it exists, go ahead and prove it then.

You will claim that you can't, so your are in the same boat.

What happened though, is you "believe" atheist claim that there's no god, some might, but many don't make that judgement call to put themselves in that onus position. Basically you need to learn the concepts of "strong atheism & weak atheism". I'm from the school of weak atheism, that is I can't make claims that can't be proven with emperical evidence. There's no way to prove a negative. So the claim is totally on your shoulders. Because you "believe" god exists.

A strong atheist, claim that there's no god, and basically he/she is in the position to refute the idea, and puts himself in the onus position to prove to you that a god does not exist. This can be done by using logic. Though I've yet to see an strong atheist convince a theist, that there's no god.

The existence of God is not enough to explain the existence of the Universe

Okay okay, enough quoting, its my turn.

A god could not have created the universe. The universe is an infinite thing, something thats tough to wrap your brain around. It has no end, no beginning, therefor, it could not have been created. If it is infinite in space, it is infinite in time. In order for someone to have created it, that someone would have had to have existed in another dimension or plane of existence (something I'm willing to consider), but that someone is not a christian god, and he is not omnipotent. In order for that to have happened, I doubt he would spend so much time talking to insignificant 'life' on one tiny planet in the corner of the universe.

Why could the cause of the universe not be something like an eternal, immutable God who needs no cause for his existence? Well, the mere existence of God, or of any other object, could not causally explain why the universe came into existence. It must be something about God which does the explaining, such as his willing the universe to exist. But has he, for all time willed the universe to exist? Why then, did it not come into existence sooner?
If there is a cause of the Universe's coming into existence at precisely the moment it did, then it is something which obtained just before that event. We are then led to ask why that cause obtained when it did."

Robin Le Poidevin, "Arguing for Atheism", pp13

You know? Logically it is very difficult to prove the existence of god, because his existence is illogical. Why would he create species and life on a planet, then let them evolve, then kill off certain species, and then humans show up and they're REALLY the ones who are supposed to worship god, but why wait that long to have some people worship you.... its all very silly.

If god created the universe, then there would have to be something before the universe, something else going on, and that doesn't fit within its own definition. God would also have to have created time, but time is also infinite meaning it has no beginning, it could not have been 'created'.

Is it possible then that god is a product of the universe? Maybe he's a very powerful alien, maybe he is a part of a species... but that of course would mean he is not all powerful, not omniscient, and not the creator of the universe.

If god is omnipotent, that assumes that the moment he was created, he would have knowledge of creation of the universe, its future, past, pros and cons... yet he waited, right? Even for an instant, that means he wasn't omnipotent, because whatever that reason for waiting has gone away, so in order for god to be omnipotent, the universe would have to have been created the moment god became conscious or omnipotent himself, totally against christian teachings.

If god was forced to auto-create the universe, that means he had no reason to wait, or if he did he would be following some form of rules or logic, which means that he is no omnipotent, or that logic is god's god.

So can god do things that aren't logically possible? It isn't not logically possible to create matter or destroy it? Thats a law that we abide by, but can god break those laws? And doing so is logical or illogical? Or the fact that he has to 'break' a law, does that not make him a slave to logic as well? Can't someone who is truly omnipotent have the ability to cease the existence of the universe including himself? If that is possible, wouldn't that have happened, or is that illogical?

So what do you say? Everything must have a cause therefor god exists? If god is considered a part of everything, then this falls apart. Because that would mean god needed a cause, or, everything has a cause except god, which would mean, everything except the universe has a cause... therefor, nothing has a cause.

You could say that god has always existed. But some believe that the big bang theory also involved the big crunch theory, meaning that it is a cycle, the big bang creates and expands the universe, which continually expands (proven fact) and eventually does what a start does, collapses in on its own mass, collapsing the universe only to go through the big bang again. This cycle could have been going on for infinite, so if something is going to exist forever and not need a cause, it would be the universe, not god. The big bang not only creates all dimensions, but also creates time (actually time is a dimension), therefor, its not valid to ask what happened before the big bang, like asking what god did before he created time.

As you can see, there is no room for god in science, and I'm not going to waste my time trying to prove it through science, because if you don't accept what is fact, then you can't accept science, and therefor you won't 'believe' it, like a crazy person doesn't believe he is talking to nobody. Now I am trying to shed light on the logical flaws of god.

Enjoy.

god is impossible

2006-05-03T07:58:00.000-07:00

First I want to start with Donovan's comment (maybe because its the last one I read and its fresh in my brain). Donovan picks one of my paragraphs and says it isn't a logical argument. How does he know I was trying to make a logical argument? I wasn't. I was just talking. Relax a little, I say. Not every sentence has to be a logic equation.

I am aware of Kant and Eintein's theories of time. First, read my post about time, then listen to this. Time was originally thought of as a constant throughout the universe, an actual field, like a glue, that was everywhere. We now know that time is relative. That means we measure time based on light and how we receive it. So for me, sitting on Earth, I see an event in space, the light from that event reaches me in 100 million years, meaning that I'm seeing an event that occurred 100 million years ago, some dude sitting on planet johnson 50 million light years closer is going to see the same event a lot sooner. Further more, anything we see thats in front of us is all relative, because we only see it when the light hits our eyes.

So a guy walking down the street has a different time than me standing a block away watching him, because it takes "time" for the light to bounce off of him and hit my eyes, different from his own experience. The reason I put time in quotations is because there are two different kinds of time. There is time as a coordinate, and time as a function.

In my post, I was referring to time as a coordinate, meaning that time measures itself. You can say that person 1 is at latitude x, and longitude y, and an altitude of z, at 5:04pm January 1st, 2007. So take the year 2007, and keep going back, is there an end or e beginning rather? So we're at 4000 B.C. now, beginning of human recorded history, but lets go back 65 million years, okay dinosaurs, single celled organisms, okay violent turbulent earth, fragmented matter, spinning disc of debris, forming star, forming galaxy... when does it end? How far back can we go? That is the time I am referring to. Scientists can't prove that time isn't infinite, nor that its finite. It really all depends on your definitions. If you chose to believe that theory that the big bang and big collapse are never ending cycles, then really time starts and ends each time we bang and collapse. How would you define time?

Okay, onto NP.

NP asks me how something can come from nothing. I'm sure my answer won't be good enough, because thats a tough question, but I'll try. If we take the big bang theory (which is most commonly accepted) we start with a quantum singularity. What defines a quantum singularity is the inability to know what is inside (Heisenberg uncertainty principle) and the 1 dimensional shape of it. We have nothing, in nothing we have nothing, meaning that its not nothing in terms of an empty space, there is no space, no dimensions, absoluteaboltule nothingness that nothing can exists in, you cannot experience this nothing. There is a one dimensional singularity, whether its comes from the Big Crunch, or something else, I don't know. The singularity expands and expands and forms all matter, time, and the universe. The Lomonosov-Lavoisier law says that matter cannot be created nor destroyed. Even within that law we have a problem with a god "creating" matter. I mean... do laws not apply?

So the question remains, who created that quantum singularity? I much prefer to believe that no one did, and that it is a function of existence. Unless we get into multiple universes, other planes of existence or dimensions (which I am totally willing to get into) then where would a 'god' be? He can't be outside the quantum singularity, is he inside it?

These are questions that really can't be answered, that is where god lives, in the unknown. When we reach a point of not understanding something, we put god as the place holder, until we can understand it. Think about the ancient people who didn't understand fire, who do you think they thought it was? Or lightening? Earthquakes? Why is it so different today? We know what causes earthquakes, lightening and fire, and its not god, they are forces of nature. I just don't understand why the universe can't be a force of nature as well. Since we don't understand this quantum singularity, why do we assume it is a god? Why can't it as well be a force of nature. There is a possibility that time and matter always existed, whether its compacted into a one dimensional singularity, or expanded into a huge universe, its possible that it could have always been around without creation. Thats the toughest thing to wrap your head around.

Terp makes a very good point. I am thinking about this too much in christian terms. When I hear the word god, I imagine a christian god, who's son is jesus, and watched us everyday. To me, those ideas are ridiculous. But Terp is right. Here is what I am willing to believe:

Its possible that what created us was a force (maybe sentient, maybe not) the exists in another dimension, or another plane of existence, that has powers that we can't understand. For all we know, our universe could be his waste extraction! And I say his, but I don't really mean his. I think our universe could be the product of some inter-dimensional phenomenon, perfectly natural. Even if it was a being with intelligence that created us, for all we know, it could have done so by mistake, or its something that it does everyday?

Even if this power were intelligent, I do not believe it has any influence over our universe, our laws of physics or our lives. I do not think it watches us, hears our preyers, cares about us, had a son named Jesus, writes bibles and gives them to us and so on. It may only have been responsible for giving us that quantum singularity from another dimension, and that is it. Within that singularity came time, physics, and our universe.

That is as far as I am willing to go without more proof or evidence. And I refuse to call that being a god. And Adam is right, an uncaused cause... perhaps.

Either way, the 'god' that a lot of humans worship is not possible, and a bit preposterous as Terp said. Really think about other religions, and the beliefs and how they fit into our reality today. They really go against everything around us, and everything we accept as reality. You cannot deny or fight physics, it just isn't sane. In science, a law is a rock hard, solid, unbreakable fact of life in our frame, a theory is right behind it.. Jesus resurrecting goes against life itself, so stop kidding yourselves.

Enjoy.

---UPDATE FOR DONOVAN----

Yes, time does very with acceleration, and also gravity. I know his equations, but then you have to ask yourself, when you say time accelerates, what are you referring to? What is time? If time is not a glue, then how do we describe it? We have past, present, and future. Order moving to chaos, and the only way we can really understand it so to perceive it. You cannot tell me that we don't regard time as a function of light. Everything that we time ourselves on is about light. When we say that 9/11 happened on 9/11, we're referring to a point in time in the past. If i accelerate in a spaceship, or sit on my ass at home, that won't change. The only way we can change it is to perceive it differently. So I get into a ship, hit warp 9, and travel over 5 light years away almost instantly. Then I sit and watch Earth and witness 9/11, because the light from that event would just be reaching me. However, to me, it both happened in the past, and in the present. But thats because I traveled faster than light, and as of right now, I can't do that. So I have to measure time on Earth, in bigger terms.

I know if I were to spend my life orbiting Earth, I'd be younger than my twin back on Earth, but I wouldn't have gone into space before I left, I wouldn't witness events in the past.

That is the two different versions of time I'm talking about, and its all relative, and its all about perception. So, to say that time is finite is one thing, but then to say its finite, but starts and ends in an infinite cycle is another.

Doing god in the butt

2006-04-28T14:49:00.000-07:00

After reading Jacki's post on this, I was moved to just make a nice little trackback. Jacki asks some good questions, some very similar to ones I asked that Adam answered. But there are some things I wanted to add.

Some people (not all, but probably most) are raised to believe in a god. Or, they are not raised to not believe in a god. Meaning, no one teaches anything to them either way. For some, its easy to believe in a god, for others, it is impossible. When I was younger, I did believe in something, but it the same way that I believed in Santa Claus. My parents are both well known atheists, and raised me in a realm of science. Yet, up until I was 7 or 8, I believed in Santa Claus.

I never went to church, or a religious school, I just lived a religion free life. I wasn't particularly raised to not believe in god either. When I ask my mom what she thinks, she always responds the same way "I think we are a part of something greater".

There are some very traumatic things that happen to some of us, but not all of us in this world. Deaths, violence, abuse, hallucinations, disease... these can be mind altering experience. The human brain (especially the younger ones) are extremely impressionable. It is possible to make someone believe almost anything.

There are some innate physics that we are born with. There was an experiment on newborns where they showed they tricked a baby into thinking a ball when dropped onto a table passed through it, and the babies acted surprised. This is innate physics, but beyond that, what we believe is an open pallet. If you're taught that there is a mystic deity who sees all and hears all, and who created man and women, then you are going to believe it, despite truckloads of evidence to the contrary.

Some people are born again... those people I don't really understand. Probably not too intelligent, and never really had anything significant happen to them up until they decided it was time to believe in something.

Its ridiculous to assume that we are born with faith, because faith is just a feeling, just a word. I have faith in a lot of things that aren't related to religion. I have faith that my friend will pay me back the 20 bucks he owes me, and I have faith that the sun will come out today.... so on. But its not blind, I am well aware that there is a possibility that my friend won't pay me back, and that the sun won't come out.

The difference is that religious types refuse to admit that their faith is blind, that they don't question themselves or the world around them, they just blindly believe in some obscure myth. You have to admit, a lot of it is pretty obscure. The tell tale sign is the disagreement among religions. And I'm not talking about details, but huge shattering inconsistencies. For example, the jews thinking Jesus wasn't the Messiah, and the christians thinking he was.

And I used to feel guilty after leaving church because I behaved like a louse that week. What's odd is that I cannot recall a single instance in which I behaved in a more civilized manner because of god. Even when I was a believer, I always behaved in a manner that felt right to me at that moment, irrespective of my belief in god.

This is an interesting point I have made before. Sometimes I get the feeling that religious people are only good to others and are generous to mankind because they think it will get them into heaven. Its selfish! Personally, I am good to mankind and care about mankind because I care, not because I think it will score me points for the afterlife. I know there's no one watching me from above, and that there will be no retribution after I die, I just much rather help mankind to help mankind.

I am kind of bummed JhWHicker didn't have the balls to respond to my post chastising him for thinking all the starving kids in Africa deserve to die. Because if that isn't a sense of guilt, I don't know what is. "Sorry little African child, I know you are going to die tomorrow, but I can't give you this money, you see god has a plan for you , and his plan is that you die, and I cannot interfere".... but then JhWhicker turns around and says "yes, execute that person, I judge him to be evil and I personally want him to die, despite what god may think, me as a human must decide to execute him".

Doesn't it seem strange that the judea-christian story appears a lot like... well a story? Something with a narrative structure, with heroes and villains, and more importantly morals? Is it at all possible that maybe the writers of these stories wrote them like children's books, in the sense that you aren't supposed to take it literally, but derive the morals and values from the choices and actions of the characters? I am willing to entertain the idea that Jesus may have been a real person, but why can't it be the case that we was iconized, simply because he was a brilliant speaker and a great Rabbi, not because he was a mystical magical being?

Why would all the detail about this only be available to people 2000 years ago, why not 4000 years ago? Why not today. Why is there no biblical events anymore? Doesn't it seem unbalanced? Isn't it possible that the same people who thought the Earth was flat, and that we were made from four basic elements might have been tricked by something, or convinced of something? I mean, to them, it would have been very difficult to know that the Earth revolved around the sun, wouldn't it be as equally as difficult to know that maybe a person resurrecting isn't possible?

I know I am not going to get a straight answer from these questions, and that is okay. I know what the truth is, and I take solace in it. Because I not only have personal experience, but I have undeniable evidence, truth, and fact at my finger tips. Like I said, I would be willing to entertain religious ideas if they weren't so completely far fetched and without any shred of evidence. To me, blind faith is unacceptable. Sure it can be healthy for some, those who need to be controlled. Believe me, I would much rather than everyone be controlled by a dogma, then people knowing the truth, because the truth could be very dangerous. As soon as someone finds out that in fact there is no god or heaven, they might start killing people because suddenly they don't need to get into heaven.

Wow, okay too much.

Bush spins oil to gold, and retains his first born

2006-04-25T11:52:00.000-07:00

I read Donovan's post about oil prices, and the fishy nature of the increase in price, and the Bush administration. Not a coincidence, but perhaps a clever racketeering scheme. Who knows, but I thought this article was relevant.

President Bush on Tuesday ordered a tempory halt to deposits to the nation's strategic petroleum reserve to make more oil available for consumer needs and relieve pressure on pump prices.

Bush also announced steps to ease environmental standards governing fuel grades.

The article takes a slightly favorable tone of Bush's politics, but obviously the author didn't read Donovan's post. The change is going to be minimal, but it will have the "remove the olive from all cocktails drinks and save 30 million dollars" effect on his pocket.

This sort of thing would most assuredly fly under the radar, and we'd be all the more foolish to ignore it. He can manipulate these little things here and there, and just add more zeros to his bank account.

He urged Congress to take back some of the billions of dollars in tax incentives it gave energy companies, saying that with record profits, they don't need the breaks. He urged lawmakers to expand tax breaks for the purchase of fuel-efficient hybrid automobiles.

I have an extremely hard time buying this. Bush gives tax incentives to the rich, and to republican big businesses, and then turns around and asks congress (primarily republican) to do the opposite? This guy is a piece of shit. Congress I'm sure laughed all the way to the slaughter house when Bush said that one. Who knows, it could all be a part of their collective plan initiated by the Illuminati.

In Support of the Gays

2006-04-25T11:50:00.000-07:00

This post is mostly in response to some of the comments on my post about how being gay is okay. I was a little disappointed in the opposition, there wasn't really any that was significant. But I did want to make some brief comments.

First, from Adam:

First of all, there has yet to be a gay gene isolated, so to speak of evidence is somewhat presumptuous.

Second point, homosexuality is not taught in class, and I never said it was. Its a combination of environmental factors. Things such as sexual abuse, and absent or negative father figures can contribute to it.

This is true, the gay gene has not been isolated, but neither has the black gene, or the tall gene, or the curly hair gene... isolating a gene means absolutely nothing. Yes some people are born tall, gay, or have curly hair. It also is important to remember that phenotypes come from alleles. This goes back to the predisposition lesson I gave last post.

Adam's second point is disturbing. Exactly what environmental factors go into making someone homosexual? Sexual abuse? Absent father figure? My father was absent for all of my childhood life, but I'm as straight as an arrow. A friend from home lost his father, but he's pretty damn straight as well.

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that what Adam said is true. It is a complete myth, a falsity of life, and that kind of thinking is disturbing and damaging. You must not take blindly the words of your preacher or religious teacher. They don't know shit obviously. Just to make sure, I asked my gay boss about his life, he had a great life. No abuse, his father was present... he was born gay.

I wonder if Adam has ever asked a gay what he or she thinks of Adam's strange theories on homosexuality. I am sure he would get an answer he doesn't like. I don't understand what is wrong with being born gay, why does it have to be something negative, something that you pick up like a disease.

Uggg, this uneducated understanding of homosexuality is extremely frustrating, its like trying to discuss algebra with a 3 year old.

As the culture wars rage over gay rights, a flock of sheep at Oregon State University may help answer a key question behind the controversy: Is homosexuality a matter of choice or biology?

The Corvallis herd includes a group of rams that scientists delicately refer to as "male-oriented." These animals consistently ignore females and bestow all their amorous attentions on members of their own sex.

Researcher Charles Roselli says a decade of study suggests sexual orientation is largely hard-wired into the sheep's brains before birth. Now, he's trying to figure out how that happens, zeroing in on genes and hormones. In a bold test of his ideas, he hopes to engineer the birth of gay rams by altering conditions in the womb.

Sheep aren't people, but the Oregon work adds to a growing body of research that bolsters biological explanations for sexual orientation across species — including humans.

Much of the cutting-edge research is being conducted in other countries, because the political pressure cooker in the United States makes it difficult for scientists to get money, said Brian Mustanski, who juggles studies of the genetics of homosexuality with his main work on HIV prevention at the University of Illinois, Chicago.

But controversy can't obscure the facts, he said.

"It's pretty definitive that biological factors play a role in determining a person's sexual orientation."

Austrian scientists reported this month that switching a single gene was enough to make female fruit flies rebuff males and attempt to mate with other females. Swedish researchers recently found the sexual center of gay men's brains lit up when they sniffed a pheromone-like chemical from men's sweat, but didn't respond to a chemical from women.

And last fall, Italian scientists offered a possible explanation for the persistence of gay genes — even though evolution tends to weed out traits that discourage reproduction. The team from the University of Padua found that mothers and aunts of gay men had more offspring than female relatives of heterosexuals, suggesting genes that influence homosexuality in men may increase fertility in females.

That the evidence comes from such disparate directions leads scientists to suspect several different biological pathways may lead to homosexuality. Both genes and hormones appear to be important.

But you know what? Is it really important that we find a gay gene? If we do, we could probably do a lot more damage. We could 'fix' people before they are born so that they aren't gay. We could abort gay fetus', or even worse, if abortion was legal, imagine all the orphanages filled with gay children whom no one wants, and then imagine how funding for these orphanages would be so bad.

Look, god is not going to hate you for accepting someone who is different than you, okay? So don't worry.

So now to Donovan's comment:

And beyond that, there are aspects of homosexuality that are "lifestyle" choices, as with sexuality in general.

The stronger claim against deists who oppose homosexuality, it seems to me, is not to claim, "God made them such, and therefore it is alright" - but rather, to assert the old standard: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone," and its corrolary: "judge not, let ye be judged." If God has a problem with homosexuality, then God will judge, in His own time, and His own way. We mere mortals best not try to replace His judgment with our own - the attempt to do so verges on blasphemy.

I wonder how much of homosexuality is a "lifestyle" choice, and how much of it is forced onto them by society. Again, it is dangerous to assert that a particular lifestyle can be absolutely associated with a group of people. It is like saying that black people like rap music, when they may have chosen to like rap music, but white people like rap music as well.

Of course I agree with the argument Donovan makes in response to deists who oppose homosexuality. I think claiming that god made them that way is a very valid response. That is what christians believe, that god made them the way they are. So I don't understand why then god had nothing to do with gay people. You cannot tell me that (and this isn't directed at Donovan, more so the opposers of gays) a whole group of people who happened to be attracted to the same sex is a coincidence. That environmental factors all happened to have the same effect on some, but not on the majority. I think there are a lot less serial killers than gay people, a lot less schizophrenics than gay people...

I think those who have religious problems with gays should read Donovan's common above, because it is possible that science, fact, logic, and reason may be beyond your [proverbial you] comprehension... I am not assuming it is, but thus far, its being slowly drawn out from these posts about it.

In conclusion: there is nothing wrong with gay people. They are not bad, they are not evil, they will not hurt you, they do not threaten your way of life, they don't turn other people gay, they don't steal your girlfriend, they don't make you any less of a man or a woman, they don't go to war in Iraq over nothing, they don't want to hurt you, and they will not want to have sex with you or be successful in having sex with you if you aren't gay, homosexuality does not equal rapist.

So if you are going to believe in god, then let god do his thing, stop questioning him, I heard he gets really upset when you do that.

Consensual abortion - should paren'ts know?

2006-04-19T10:31:00.000-07:00

This is in response to JhWhicker's post... a post I didn't totally disagree with or find completely offensive.

I am pro-choice, not anti-choice, so I obviously disagree with JhWhicker there, but I do think that a good parent would know if their kid is having sex. I also am a huge supporter of sex education, but I'm not against sex. I think sex is a wonderful thing that is probably the most natural of actions we humans perform. I think the most consistent things about humans is their urge to have sex, and more power to them

Sex is way too taboo in our culture, in Europe, teen pregnancies are way down compared to the U.S., yet sex is much less taboo. The less of a taboo sex becomes, the better the education, and the less stupidity found in those reusing condoms. But I've made my case for sex before, and to make it again would be digressing. From JhWhicker:

A girl's wish not to let mom or dad know what they have been up to is irrelevent. Legal guardians have to sign off on any medical procedure performed on their child.

This isn't entirely true. In California:

There are two types of laws which authorize minors to consent to medical treatment. First, there are laws which authorize minors who have attained a certain status to consent to virtually all types of health care except certain irreversible and highly invasive procedures such as psychosurgery. Minors authorized to give legal consent to medical treatment under these laws include:

Married (or divorced) minors (Family Code §§7002 and 7050(e)(1)).

Minors on active duty with the U.S. Armed Forces (Family Code §§7002 and 7050(e)(1)).

Minors emancipated by a court order (Family Code §7120).

Self-sufficient minors (minors fifteen years or older living away from home and managing their own financial affairs) (Family Code §6922). These minors will generally be asked to complete a form which provides information demonstrating that they fall within the statute.

Types of treatment to which minors can consent

Second, there are a number of laws which authorize minors to consent to certain types of medical treatment. Medical treatment covered by these statutes includes:

Pregnancy, Contraception and Abortion. Care for the prevention or treatment of pregnancy (including contraception and abortion, but not sterilization) for minors of any age (Family Code §6925). (The law which would have established a parental or court approval requirement for abortion is NOT IN EFFECT.) The right of a minor to consent to pregnancy related services includes genetic counseling and testing services which, under the law, must be offered to all pregnant women. (Health & Safety Code §125000.)

Contagious Diseases. Care of any infectious, contagious, or communicable disease of the type which must be reported to the local health officer if the minor is twelve or older. (Family Code §6926.)

Sexually Transmitted Diseases. Care of a sexually transmitted disease if the minor is twelve or older. (Family Code §6926.)

Rape. Care related to the diagnosis or treatment of rape if the minor is twelve or older. (Family Code §6927.)

Sexual Assault. Care related to the diagnosis or treatment of sexual assault for a minor of any age (but the treating physician must attempt to contact the child's parents or legal guardian unless the physician "reasonably believes" that the parent or guardian committed the sexual assault). (Family Code §6928.)

Mental Health. Mental health treatment or counseling on an out-patient basis (not including convulsive therapy, psychosurgery or psychotropic drugs), or residential shelter services, if the minor is twelve or older and mature enough to participate intelligently and either (1) the minor is an alleged victim of incest or child abuse or (2) there is danger of serious physical or mental harm to the minor or others without such treatment. (The treating physician must contact and involve the parents unless the physician believes such contact would be inappropriate.) (Family Code §6924.) "Residential shelter services" are defined to mean the provision of residential and other support services to minors on a temporary or emergency basis in a facility which services only minors by a governmental agency or other specified entities or individuals.

Drug or Alcohol Abuse. Care related to the diagnosis or treatment of drug or alcohol-related problems (not including methadone or LAAM treatment) if the minor is twelve or older. (The treating physician must contact the parents or guardian and give them an opportunity to participate unless the physician believes such contact would be inappropriate.) Moreover, parents have the right to seek such care and obtain the resulting medical information over the child's objection. (Family Code §6929) Federal laws prohibiting the disclosure of certain substance abuse records may control over this state law.

HIV Tests. The performance of an HIV test for minors twelve or older. (Health & Safety Code §121020)

This is a good thing I think, and I support this. If you are old enough to have sex and get pregnant, I think you are old enough to make your own decisions. I think we believe that when someone turns 18, somehow, magically, they are able to be more responsible for themselves, and should be legally in control of their own actions. I don't believe an age can define such a thing. Level, or ability to act responsible is fluid, and it some cases, can happen way after the age of 18, my brother is a good example of this. On the other hand, I know of teenagers under the age of 18 who were further along when it came to responsibility and maturity than kids older than them, and should probably have been allowed to vote. Sure, I suppose we have to legally draw the line somewhere, unless we implement some comprehensive test of the ability to be responsible.

But what I mentioned above is the law, and I think JhWhicker is saying that the law isn't good, or should be changed. Well, thats his prerogative, and that is the point of blogging. But it isn't right to say that it isn't the law when it is. Granted, he was also talking about another state, I'm just using California as an example. Comparing states gets iffy, some states allow certain freedoms while others don't. Effectively, some states are better than others, or I should say, could be used as a standard. California is very progressive in some ways, and certainly has the largest population and i think in terms of this, it leads the way, but of course, they still have the death penalty, an atrocious, barbaric aspect to California law I am not proud of. (Not taking into consideration the stay of all executions currently under effect in California).

This is also interesting:

Confidentiality of minor's medical records

Except as otherwise provided by law or if the minor authorizes it in writing, physicians are prohibited from telling the minor's parents or legal guardian about medical care the minor was legally able to authorize.

When a minor seeks medical treatment for which the minor has the legal power to consent, for example, treatment for the prevention and care of pregnancy, and the minor's parents have no knowledge of the proposed care, the physician will generally discuss with the minor the advantages of disclosing the proposed treatment to the minor's parents or guardian before services are rendered. The physician and minor should reach an understanding concerning 1) the extent to which the parents or guardians will be informed, 2) who is responsible for paying the cost of the medical treatment and 3) to whom the physician can disclose the medical information that is necessary to obtain payment for the treatment. Minors should understand that it may be impossible to keep the information from their parents if the minor expects the parents' health plan to pay for the services.

This sort of throws a monkey wrench into JhWhicker's plan/argument:

Of course parents should be told that their child is having a medical procedure. That's just common sense. Parents are legally responsible for their children. Minors can't sign legal documents. If anything goes wrong parents of that minor could rightfully sue the doctor and clinic out of existence. Doctors have to have the consent of the legally responsible party in order to treat any patient unless it is a case of life and death.

Again, not the case. But the question is, should it change? Again, I am going to go ahead and say no, I think our limits and stigma surrounding the magical age of 18 is ridiculous. If a minor has consensual sex with another minor, than they are taking a risk that they have to be responsible for, not the parents. When I was having sex as a minor, the last thing in the world that I wanted was for my mom to know. When I did eventually tell her, she said "Thats fine, just be safe". My mom is a wildly smart and wonderfully educated woman. She knows that I was taught about sex starting with reading a children's book about it when I was 5. My mom and dad made sure that sex wasn't a taboo for me. I knew more about it in kindergarden than I think most 8th graders knew about it. And thats been a great aid for me, I've never had any troubles with diseases or pregnancies, and I have had a lot of sex in my life. Not trying to brag, but I'm trying to make a point. It is possible for people, even minors, to be responsible. But the question is, what do we do about the ones who do stupid things like reuse condoms? You know, some adults I'm sure are guilty of the same thing.

One, I am not adverse to the idea of girls starting birth control early. I think its a great way to be safe no matter what, and its has nice benefits for the skin and regulation of menstrual cycles. The only problem with it is the idea of it. But just because a girl is taking birth control, doesn't mean she is having sex. Its all about good sex education.

Yes, pro-life, pro-sex ed. That's my position. I do think that every kid should understand that the only 100% effective method of birth control is abstinence, but they should also know that sperm isn't killed when you have sex in chlorinated water, and that you can't reuse condoms.

I agree with that (even the pro-life part... yes, I think that maybe fetuses shouldn't be killed, but its not my decision, nor my right to force others to agree with me or not abort... if my girlfriend got pregnant, I probably would want her to abort, but its her decision, not mine, pro-choice includes pro-life as well as choice). You'd have to be a pretty solid dipshit to not know that abstinence will yield no babies. But I would never want to take away the wonderful possibilities sex opens up for people, even if they are minors. Sex was a great part of my minor life, and really helped me feel better about myself and understand my own body better. I never touched drugs because of it (I base that on comparison to my brother who has an identical brain to mine, and became a huge drug addict), and I felt like it forced me to be more mature at a younger age, taking more responsibility. A lot of other factors could have influenced that, but I think its important... nevermind, I'm totally digressing again.

If a minor doesn't want her parents to know she has been having sex, I think its her decisions... who knows, her parents could kick her out of the house, beat her up, abuse her, ridicule her, make her life miserable if they found out, be completely not understanding... its really a matter of responsibility.

Alright, this post is too long.

End Police Brutality

2006-04-17T09:52:00.000-07:00

I know some social conservatives and republicans like it when police officers intimidate, arrest, or beat black people up, but I sure as hell don't like it. In fact, the thought makes me sick. Here is the largest gang in America, protected by ridiculous laws and given absurd power, which they abuse all the time, and we won't convict?

I thought this kind of shit was over and done with, this racism is disgusting, its fucking disgusting, and I want to puke on Milwaukee.

MILWAUKEE Apr 15, 2006 (AP)— A jury cleared three white former police officers of most charges in the 2004 brutal beating of a biracial man that enflamed racial tensions, but city officials vowed to ask federal prosecutors to consider pursuing the case.

An all-white jury deliberated for more than 26 hours and returned not guilty verdicts late Friday on the charges against Daniel Masarik and Andrew Spengler, both 26. John Bartlett, 34, was cleared on one charge but the jury deadlocked on a charge of substantial battery.

Disgusting. An all white jury? A black guy getting beat up by the police? What is this, the early '90s? Why won't people convict these officers of violence? What is the hesitation? From what I read in the article, there is no doubt that these officers beat up this man, and that a not-guilty verdict was unexpected. I also can't believe the prosecuting attorney didn't object to an all white jury. Police departments can be dangerous machines of deceptions and cover ups. Does anyone remember that AP vide of those officers in New Orleans beating the shit out of that black retired teacher? And then that one officer tried to back up his horse and block the video camera? They only stopped beating the man when he wasn't moving and a pool of blood was forming under him. I get physically sick when I see or hear things like that. I hate the idea of this group of people with that much power and support abusing it. Especially when its racially motivated. It just lessens my trust of humanity even further. I mean, my trust of humanity was nearly destroyed after Bush proved that humans can be low, dirty, deplorable insects.

A few gasped and some cried as the verdict was read. The defendants showed no emotion.

Classy. At least all of them had been fired from police work, thats good. At least they won't have the opportunity to abuse their powers again, but who is to say that that will deter any more police officers for beating up black people. They just have so much power, and the ability to keep secret anything they want. They can block off any road, any home, they can hustle people to any location, effectively destroy or tamper with evidence... they can do so many things to cover up crimes or to get support for committing them. I just hope the people of this city won't give up.

"I am absolutely shocked and outraged by these verdicts," said Mayor Tom Barrett, who said he had already spoken to the U.S. Attorney about a possible civil rights action. "Mr. Jude was beaten badly and we need to hold accountable those who are responsible. This is not over."

McCann said he would pursue a retrial on the remaining charge against Bartlett, and also would ask the U.S. attorney to investigate whether federal charges could be filed.

Glad to hear it. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not bashing all police everywhere, because I know that there are a lot of good cops out there. In fact, most of them are probably good cops, its just the few bad ones that really ruin it. Cops have too much power, too much privilege. They don't care that their pay is shit, they get to carry a gun with them, and legally harass people all they want. You can't buy that kind of power. I watch the show COPS religiously, so I know exactly what they are capable of, and even on TV they do some pretty deplorable things. I am not a fan of using force when it clearly isn't necessary, or expecting people to comply when your dog is biting the shit out of them. I also don't approve of female officers pretending they are prostitutes to bust people, or under cover cops selling drugs and then busting the buyers. This helps no one, and wastes a lot of money, it also feels like entrapment.

Like the current situation with the president, there needs to be more checks and balances on police, they need to know that they aren't above the law themselves, and shouldn't have the right to ruin people's lives just because they feel like it. Sure, somebody has got to arrest bad guys, give speeding tickets, save people from murderous drug dealers, and keep the streets safe, I'm not debating that. But then they rush up on my brother while he is walking down the street, and throw him against the wall and search him, just because he is dressed like a hoodlum doesn't seem right. Then taking his drivers license and refusing to ever give it back, lying about taking it in the first place... thats cowardly and stupid.

I hope no cop ever thinks he can cross me, because I will bring the legal pain.

A.I. - not possible

2006-04-17T09:49:00.000-07:00

I wrote a thesis length paper in college as to why we will never have, or wont have for a very long time, A.I.

Artificial intelligence could go by many definitions as Andy put it. We could use the Turing test to describe intelligence maybe. In order to pass the Turing test, a robot would need to convince a human that it was human. If you want a more detailed definition, here ya go:

The Turing test is a proposal for a test of a machine's capability to perform human-like conversation. Described by Alan Turing in the 1950 paper "Computing machinery and intelligence", it proceeds as follows: a human judge engages in a natural language conversation with two other parties, one a human and the other a machine; if the judge cannot reliably tell which is which, then the machine is said to pass the test. It is assumed that both the human and the machine try to appear human. In order to keep the test setting simple and universal (to explicitly test the linguistic capability of the machine instead of its ability to render words into audio), the conversation is usually limited to a text-only channel such as a teletype machine as Turing suggested or, more recently IRC or instant messaging.

Now, this isn't necessarily what you may want to use to describe AI, and thats fine, I don't particularly believe it either, because its pretty easy to trick a human. So let us just make a broad definition for ourselves. Artificial intelligence is a machine created by humans to have a consciousness, or to be able to simulate choice making and other human behavior.

For example, an unmanned arial vehicle traversing unknown landscape to destroy enemy targets. (Thats what my paper was on). Now, when I go home today I will see if I can find my paper, and maybe make an update, or some changes. But for now, I'll try and explain simply why AI is a long way off.

There are several problems associate with AI, and there is a great book called "What Computers Can't Do" that I recommend you check out at your local book repository.

One of the problems is called the frame problem.

The frame problem is that specifying only which conditions are changed by the actions do not allow, in logic, to conclude that all other conditions are not changed.

Thats wikipedia's definition, a bit wordy, but what it means is that we cannot program the ability to ignore. For example, we program a robot with everything, the whole knowledge of the universe, but the robot's purpose is to do our chores. We ask it to make coffee, it picks up a cup, then it explodes. The reason being is that it doesn't know that when it picks up the cup, that the wall won't turn blue, or that night will become day... it can't ignore anything. As humans, we have this amazing ability to ignore massive amounts of stimulus and thoughts. We know that when we pick up the pen off the table, that our children won't disappear. It sounds silly, but think about it. How do you program a robot to know how to ignore?

Also, think of how incredibly, ridiculously complicated every system in our body is, specifically our CNS. No computer or piece of machinery has come even close to the sophistication of the computers in our skulls. And when I say not even close, I mean father than 8 universes away in comparison to Earth. Maybe replicating our biological systems isn't the key, I mean, the last thing we want is terminator 2 to come true, even though it was an awesome movie.

We have been living with the basic formalizations made by McCulloch and Pitts (1943) for over fifty years now. Their formalization included that the activity of the neuron is an "all-or-none" process, that a certain fixed number of synapses must be excited within the period of latent addition in order to excite a neuron at any time, and this number is independent of the synapses' previous activity and position on the neuron, that the only significant delay within the nervous system is synaptic delay, that the activity of any inhibitory synapse absolutely prevents excitation of the neuron at that time, and that the structure of the net does not change with time.

What I am most certainly going to do is update this blog, or maybe make a new one with more information from that paper that I wrote, because all the good research is in that paper, and I can't even remember the names of the problems common with AI. But these are just things to think about in the meantime.

Some problems I will be expanding on:

3D worlds are infinitely larger in the digital world than 2D landscapes, to this date, we have no hard drive big enough to hold enough 3D information to make a robot or a flying unmanned vehicle useful.

Uhhh... other stuff also.

Iran, Nuclear, 10 years

2006-04-17T09:47:00.000-07:00

FUCK!! I lost my post, I'm so upset. I wrote this whole thing about Iran and... ARRGGG

Okay, I'm gonna try and recreate it.

A major U.S. intelligence review has projected that Iran is about a decade away from manufacturing the key ingredient for a nuclear weapon, roughly doubling the previous estimate of five years, according to government sources with firsthand knowledge of the new analysis.

Yes fascinating, no? So why are we attacking Iran? You know that this summer we will bomb them, I can smell it coming. The only deal is, we're doing it because we don't want them to have a nuclear arms, but it looks like they wont. 10 years is a long time, a lot can happen in 10 years, I'll be in my 30s (yikes), infocats will probably long gone, WIS will have been sold to google for 100 billion dollars, and maybe we'll have someone with a brain in the presidential palace, as well as congress hopefully. The world could be a different place.

The carefully hedged assessments, which represent consensus among U.S. intelligence agencies, contrast with forceful public statements by the White House. Administration officials have asserted, but have not offered proof, that Tehran is moving determinedly toward a nuclear arsenal. The new estimate could provide more time for diplomacy with Iran over its nuclear ambitions.

So what the hell is Bush doing? Could he be trying to drum up support for an unfounded invasion into Iran? I made this prediction a long time ago here in WIS. I propose that we create a new topic "Invasion and occupation of Iran". It will happen, he will do it, the only question is, how can we stop him? Will leading intelligent officials not stop him? They seemed to help him during his little warantless spy program.

Our own UNs weapons inspection is actually more accurate than our conservative children would like you to believe.

Feb. 9 issue - "We were all wrong," says weapons inspector David Kay. Actually, no. There was one group whose prewar estimates of Iraqi nuclear, chemical and biological capabilities have turned out to be devastatingly close to reality—the U.N. inspectors. Consider what Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the U.N. nuclear agency, told the Security Council on March 7, 2003, after his team had done 247 inspections at 147 sites: "no evidence of resumed nuclear activities ... nor any indication of nuclear-related prohibited activities at any related sites." He went on to say that evidence suggested Iraq had not imported uranium since 1990 and no longer had a centrifuge program. He concluded that Iraq's nuclear capabilities had been effectively dismantled by 1997 and its dual-use industrial plants had decayed. All these claims appear to be dead-on, based on Kay's findings.

Why do we do this to ourselves? Oh wait, I know why, because Bush wants his money and his oil. Appeal to your congressmen to not ignore this. Bush needs to know that they cannot just attack whomever they please... can they? NO! Fuck no, actually.

I'm still mad I lost the original post, but, thats life. Let us all now gear up for another invasion of a middle eastern country for no good reason. People will die, and tensions will raise, and we'll probably get another terrorist attack as a result.

Bad Christians, BAD

2006-04-17T09:41:00.000-07:00

Bad christians, BAD! I shake my finger down at you for being bad, like a dog. I have little respect for those supporting the death penalty, but even less respect for those who do the JhWhicker style of pick and chose faith... its just so bad.

That being said, I've probably offended a lot of you already... good... thats why you read my blogs.

I've done a little research into the Jesus thing and what he thinks of capital punishment.... more over, if you're a believer in the Jesus, how your support for the death penalty is a contradiction.

Abolitionists often quote Jesus' treatment of the adulteress in the Gospel of John as support for their position. (That passage, John 8:7, was probably not written by the author(s) of John). She had been sentenced to death by stoning, but Jesus used a cleaver ploy to gain her freedom. On many occasions, Jesus taught about forgiving people who have wronged you.

This is true, let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Why do we ignore this important teaching from our magical friend? Here is an interesting quote (probably illegal) of a Jesus, christian believing type... a nun I think she called her self...

Jesus Christ, whose way of life I try to follow, refused to meet hate with hate and violence with violence. I pray for the strength to be like him.

I cannot believe in a God who metes out hurt for hurt, pain for pain, torture for torture. Nor do I believe that God invests human representatives with such power to torture and kill. The paths of history are stained with the blood of those who have fallen victim to "God's Avengers." Kings, popes, military generals, and heads of state have killed, claiming God's authority and God's blessing. I do not believe in such a God.

This constantly changing font is driving me nuts as well, no worries. But this is important, Jesus did refuse to meet hate with hate, he was about forgiveness, wasn't he? I mean, I never met the guy (how could I, he's dead... right?).

"I was raised a Christian. I remember Jesus talking about forgiving your enemies and not judging others. I don't recall the part where he said we should gas people and inject them with poison. I could have just skimmed, but somehow I thought we were supposed to leave retribution to His Dad. So I get a little peeved when all the good Christians get together with the so-called liberal politicians I helped elect and suggest that we should butcher people. It makes me feel like one of us is a hypocrite."1

Her dialogue is met with guilty silence. Her partners, some of them self-described Christians, do not refute the implication that a Christian who believes in God's love for the unlovable while condoning the God-given right for a civil government to execute a guilty criminal, is a pious fraud.

This is from another blog I came across. I like the way its put... pious fraud. And it is so. You see, capital punishment is a sin, not only thou shall not kill, but what about vengeance? All capital punishment does is satisfy a need for vengeance, there is no other viable explanation. Here is an interesting article to read:

Leaders of the Episcopal Church, Presbyterian Church USA, the United Church of Christ, Catholics Against Capital Punishment, the Quakers, and the Union of American Hebrew Congregations signed a letter stating the pain of McVeigh's victims, of their community, and of the nation "cannot be healed through the retribution of capital punishment or by vengeance."

Last week, speaking for the U.S. Catholic Bishops, Cardinals Roger Mahony of Los Angeles and William Keeler of Baltimore reiterated the Catholic Church's longtime opposition to capital punishment, saying executing McVeigh will not bring healing or closure. Rather, the Cardinals said, "it will be just one more killing."

Its true, really think about it. Its just another killing, that is all it is. One more dead body, it doesn't make the other dead people come back alive, it is only an addition of violence to the chaos of the universe. How can you support this? Its our devolved human sense of vengeance, and our need for public blood. Look how popular any reality TV show is depicting violence. I'm guilty of it as well, we all are, but I refuse to put it into practice. I never support any institutionalized violence of any kind.

So I ask of you, if you think you know Jesus, what would he do at an execution? Do you honestly think he would strut in there and sit down and watch a fellow soul have barbarians fill his veins with poison for the express purpose of putting him down? No, he would use his special magical powers to halt the execution. He would then ask the executioners "Let he who is without sin stick the needle in the arm first".

Capital punishment is a cold, institutionalized, cruel act that we as a country support with our feelings and emotions... we spend more money on it (its more expensive than life in prison) and we're the only country left that isn't a 3rd world country that does it. And we're suppose to be so much better than the rest of the world. America= a scary place to live.

----------UPDATE FOR INFOCATS-------

Of course I would suggest incarceration for life if there is no hope of rehabilitation. I don't give up on humans as easily as infocats does. Further more, Infocats obviously hasn't done his homework, and makes yet another poorly thought out assertion that incarceration for life is more expensive... its actually cheaper, and anyone with half a brain can ascertain a simple conclusion that a life sentance is cheaper.

Although the costs of incarceration are expensive (about $25,000 per year per inmate), that amounts to $750,000 to $1,000,000 depending on whether a person lives 30 or 40 years after his or her sentencing. The death penalty, on the other hand, costs an additional $2 million per execution.

Look it up dipshit.

Besides, this post is about christians and their betrayal of jesus when they support the death penalty, if you want to discuss death penalty in general, please refer to the past where I have answered this in length.

Stop trying to kill me

2006-04-14T10:56:00.000-07:00

I've been really sick recently, thats why I haven't blogged in a while. Got some really nasty symptoms about 3 weeks ago, then last week, they came back... its been hell, absolute hell. So I ask of you world, stop trying to kill me with your tiny viruses. I hate them, they're constantly trying to pierce me, and I don't need it. They're everywhere, and they cause my angst.

Seriously, I've been really sick, and for the first time in my life, I went to the doctors. They gave me some amazing liquid hydrocodone, but even that could not take my pain away.

I am recovering pretty well, and also slowly. I haven't been able to kick ass at karate for two weeks, they probably think I've left or something. I didn't leave, I'm still here damnit!

I felt like I wanted to repeatedly stab myself in the face, and burn the pubic hair off of my balls. Why? I'm not sure, but back to being sick. Yeah, sickness. None of my stupid roommates god sick some how, stupid immune living in New York City for 4 years bastards. Thats what it is you know, a New York city virus of some kind. A killer, not the flu (influenza) or a cold (rhinovirus), or poop in your butt virus. Its something nasty, so watch out, its really small, has a few green spots on it, answers to the name of George for some reason, likes donuts, but don't give him any donuts, he'll be offended... a very strange virus.

Kill him on site.

Isn't this blog interesting, poignant, and relevant?

P.S. - If anyone can tell me what the picture is a reference to, I will give that person 20 dollars, for reals.

Burshing el dents

2006-04-02T09:54:00.000-07:00

Honestly... I really hate brushing and flossing. Not only does it take a really long time, but there is nothing comfortable or fun about it. You take this brissiley stick, and rub it on your gums and teeth until you bleed, then, you take a thin wire, and chafe the part of your gums that no one is supposed to touch.

Not to mention toothpaste which makes everything taste bad for 3 hours after, like orange juice and cereal. I just really don't look forward to brushing and flossing. I only do it because I have to, if I didn't have to, I wouldn't do it. But beyond that, I really dread it, I mean, I sometimes would rather stab myself in the eye and eat my own eye ball then brush my teeth. Do you ever accidentally touch the Brussels to the sink or the faucet? Don't you feel as if at that point, there is no way to recover your toothbrush, its already gotten dirty sink germs on it and you can't get them off? How about them electric toothbrushes, yeah, like I want to stick a battery powered object covered in water into my mouth hole.

It also takes the longest out of everything. You have to stand there like a jack ass, staring at yourself in the mirror foaming at the mouth, for 2 minutes, repeating the same jack off - like motion over and over in your mouth. Then, you got spit, and I don't like spitting, nor am I any good at it. I really dislike having to watch my own saliva, and blood mixed with toothpaste go down the drain in the sink. I try to aim for the hole in the sink so I don't have to see it, but I suck at spitting, so I often miss. And I spit at least 10 times, I never feel like I've gotten all the extra toothpaste out of my mouth, just like how when I take a shit, I never feel like I'm done.

I move to fund scientific research into brushing and flossing alternatives. I am sick of having 10 cavities, and going to the dentist to have them tell me I'm going to die, and brushing my teeth every day just to get up and do it again, like the night before didn't count or wasn't good enough. What say you?