That's all Folks!

Well, that's most of the older ones. I didn't repost all of them. I left out the ones that were personal, I thought anyone who wanders across these postings most likely wouldn't be terribly interested in my various whinings and fits of bad poetry, merely my rantings. In retrospect, I have to wonder if many were interested in the rantings. It strikes me now, what an act of arrogance or desperation posting a blog is in the first place. As arrogance has never been a very strong trait in me, I have to concede that my sin is most likely desperation. Just a small, insignificant voice crying out in the darkness, begging to be heard.


Well, here's hoping that someone will listen... to all of us

Valentines Day: A Brief History-ish (No Really)

Originally posted on 02/14/07

Most people in today's society think of Valentine's Day as just an excuse for card and candy companies to make money and to generally make single people feel bad. This could not be farther from the truth. To find the origins of this holiday, we must set the way-back machine to the third century Rome and the martyred St. Valentinus or St Valentine.

Valentine was a priest who served during the third century in Rome. When Emperor Claudius II decided that single men made better soldiers than those with wives and families, he outlawed marriage for young men -- his crop of potential soldiers. Valentine, realizing the injustice of the decree, defied Claudius and continued to perform marriages for young lovers in secret. When Valentine's actions were discovered, Claudius ordered that he be put to death.

Legend says that St Valentine sent the first Valentine while imprisoned. This was an amazing coincidence that he was able to not only find something that bared his name while in prison but was able to accurately figure out what should be done with it. While in prison he fell in love with his jailer's daughter who would visit him frequently. Sadly, all this took place before the invention of the conjugal visit.

Before his death he managed to write and send her a letter in the Valentine through the assistance of his friend and fellow prisoner St Hallmark who for unknown reasons doodled a cartoon heart holding flowers in its gloved hand and big smile across the letter's face. The letter was signed "from your Valentine".

For many years this act was celebrated every February by lovers who would unjustly imprison and killing each other. This practice continued up until the beginnings of the Spanish Inquisition. Upon its creation, the Inquisition put an immediate stop to this practice as it leaders felt that they didn't need the competition. Valentines Day, as a holiday, as a result, remained uncelebrated for many many years.

This remained the state of affairs until the winter of 1929 when a man named Al Capone revived the holiday by ordering the gunning down seven members of George 'bugs' Moran's gang against the rear inside wall of the garage of the S-M-C Cartage Company in the Lincoln Park neighborhood of Chicago's North Side. The five gunmen, all dressed as police officers for that extra added sense of whimsy (a practice used by strippers to this very day), all used machine guns filled with little chalky candy hearts. In this way they honored the long forgotten tradition of killing loved ones and added the new wrinkle of also bestowing candy on them.

Thus was reborn this noble holiday. Things continued on for a time with imprisoning and bludgeoning with candy of young lovers. The old holiday had made a full comeback. In March of 1940, the practice came to a final close in the wake of a particularly bloody Valentines Day when someone in the American congress pointed out that necrophilia was, in fact, illegal. This was met with howls of protest from the chain and chocolate covered weapon industry but cheers from the greeting card industry which immediately put its full support behind a ban on unlawful imprisonment and murder of loved ones.

The public was, as usual, slow to accept change and the death rate during February continued on at its staggering level. It was only through a marketing blitz by the Greeting card companies, in an attempt to convince the public that a nice card could be just as effective as a chocolate covered ax to the skull at expressing romantic love that the idea of a Valentines Day not resulting in fatalities gained popularity. With time, and a wider degree of acceptance the old holiday evolved into the romantic and, usually, non-fatal expression of love that we know and enjoy today

(Thanks to wikipedia and various other sites for background)

Stop Crying Wolf

Originally posted on 02/06/07

Ok, I just watched the snickers "kiss" ads. Here they are since Mars, Inc caved and pulled them off their website.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHkoZ7ngAM0 "Chest Hair" ad

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCOQTVbQPbY "Wrench" ad

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dkKPgZNA-Y&NR "Motor Oil" ad

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rb3bN7pUyE&NR "Love Boat" ad

Now, apparently, various gay rights groups (GLAAD, Matthew Shepard Foundation and HRC) are all pissed off about these ads. All of these groups, in my opinion, have missed the point of these ads. First off, in all actuality, these ads had no real political agenda one way or another. Like all ads, the only agenda was to sell a product and make money. That's it. No more. No less. I took the ads as making fun of these kinds of "manly" men, men who would rather do something stupid than be thought of as gay. I laughed because I have met these kinds of men. I am betting most of us have at one time or another. They are moronic and they deserve to be made fun of. After all, making fun of a stereotype it the first step in getting rid of it, right?

Some people have gone so fare as to say that the only way you could find these ads funny is if you are homophobic. This is a stupid statement at best and a prejudiced one at worst. Not everyone who doesn't think the way you do is homophobic. Not everyone is out to get you. I'm not saying there isn't homophobia out there, just that there isn't homophobia EVERYWHERE out there. Getting one's knickers in a twist over something like this simply lessens the attention paid to something that actually should inspire knicker twisting. We all know what happens when one cries wolf.

People should not take themselves so seriously. Bigotry in all its forms is a serious matter but humor can be a powerful weapon in combating it. Losing that simply to avoid offending one group or another lends the appearance of legitimacy to that bigotry and that hurts everyone.

On a side note, as a furry bastard the "Chest Hair" one really made me wince as well as laugh.

Rant over... for now

Not Christian? Screw you!

Originally posted on 08/14/06

That seems to be the message that the president is trying to say when he signed into law the transfer of the public land upon which sits a giant cross in San Diego from the state to the control of the department of defense. He did this to circumvent the decision of a federal court that ordered the cross removed from public land.

Here is the history of the Mt Soledad Easter Cross from the wikipedia article:

Three different shaped Christian crosses have been constructed since 1913 on City government property at the apex of the Mt. Soledad Natural Park in the Village of La Jolla.

The original cross on Mt. Soledad was erected in 1913 by private citizens of La Jolla and Pacific Beach, but was stolen in 1923 and later in the year of 1923 the wooden cross was affixed back in the ground on Mt. Soledad Natural Park only to be burned down by the Ku Klux Klan.

The second cross was erected in 1934 by a private group of Protestant Christians from La Jolla and Pacific Beach. This sturdier, stucco-over-wood frame cross was blown down by blustery winds in 1952.

The third and current 29-feet tall cross on top of a 14-feet tall stepped platform was installed in 1954. It still stands today. A windstorm damaged one of the flimsy constructed cross members in 1955 and the concrete structure had to be repaired.

A wind storm, huh? Isn't that one of those "act of god" sort of things? Oops, I forgot, that only counts when it is convenient, right?

So 17 years ago an atheist gentleman sued to have the cross removed from public lands due to its violating the separation of church and state. Eventually the federal courts agreed with him. Since all the other problems have been solved, Bush decided that it was a good idea to tell everyone who wasn't Christian to go fuck themselves.

The argument is that the cross is a memorial for veterans because, as we know, all people who have ever served this country are Christians. Since only Christians serve in the military and only Christians pay taxes it would be just a fine idea to keep this religious symbol on public lands, supported by public tax dollars. Seems perfectly logical to me.

The effect of the transfer is that the cross will no longer fall under the jurisdiction of the state constitution and will now fall under the jurisdiction of the federal constitution. But wait, you say, isn't the separation of church and state guaranteed in the federal constitution? The answer, of course, is that the constitution guarantees what the Supreme Court says it guarantees regardless of what is actually written down. The administration, having been stacking the Supreme Court for some time now, is reasonably sure that they will say what they want them to, just like all "patriotic" Americans should.

It has been argued that the constitution does not actually contain the phrase "separation of church and state" and therefore it is not guaranteed by it. This is a false argument. Separation of church and state, while not actually spelled out, is very much implied by the first amendment. Their argument breaks down when you consider that no where in the constitution does the phrase "fair trial" appear. It states that you have the right to a speedy trial, but nowhere does it say "fair". It does, however, imply it. Lets have a little consistence here, shall we? If you are going to argue against separation on those grounds, you must also argue against a fair trial on the same grounds. So I say we immediately falsely accuse all these bastards that are trying so hard to set up their own theocracy of any capital crime, set up a kangaroo court, find them guilty and sentence them to be ass-shagged to death by syphilitic rhinos. Who's with me on this one?!? And as they scream, bemoaning their rapidly enlarging colons, we need merely remind them that we were using their standard for what is and what isn't guaranteed.

This is a quote from the article from a catholic school teacher's aide:

"We vote for things to become law and then we have people that fight it," she said. "If they don't want to look at the cross then don't come up here."

This is profoundly stupid. If you don't like it don't look. I would agree with her if the cross was on private land but it's not. The people of California still have to pay for it regardless of whether or not they look at it. And now anyone who is paying federal taxes will be paying for it. I wonder if this lady's opinion of “if you don't like it don't look" would be the same if we were talking about something that didn't suite her beliefs so well. Would she be as supportive of, say, a 29 foot pentagram perched upon the mountain? I highly doubt it, but, who knows.

One gentleman asks if we remove the cross then wouldn't we have to remove all the crosses from Arlington National Cemetery? This is a false comparison. Any religious symbol in Arlington is a monument to the person directly beneath it who was whatever faith the monument is from. It is not a generalization for a whole state, now country, of individuals. If there is a cross over a grave in Arlington it is because the occupant of said grave was Christian. Last time I checked, not everyone in the United States is Christian.

We have freedom some in this country. Some beliefs are granted the freedom and respect they deserve while some just have to bend over and take it and hope they use lube.

This is the article that got me going:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20060814-1449-bn14cross2.html

Rant Over... For Now

I'll have the Race Card with a Side of Hypocrisy, Please

Originally posted on 08/08/06

I am so not going to make any friends with this one.

Last night a 14 year old boy was shot by police near the Cabrini-Green housing complex on the Near North Side of Chicago. The boy and a friend were identified as the perpetrators of an armed robbery. According to the police when they ordered the boy to but his hands in the air the boy pulled a gun out of his pocket and pointed it at police. At which point the police opened fire critically injuring the boy. Some witnesses say that the boy was leaning over to lay the gun on the ground.

Now I'm not a big fan of the police in general. Of all the cops I have met in my life I think I have met maybe two that weren’t total putzes. Now maybe this is due to my bad luck, but there you are. Despite my distaste for cops, if I were to pull a gun on them, especially in a bad neighborhood, and they shot me, good on them! Pointing anything even remotely gun shaped at a cop is a dumb idea no matter who you are. If you do this, you are too stupid to live!

If the witnesses are correct and the cops are lying, what a shock that would be, the cops are still not at fault. If a cop stops you and you pull a gun out of your pocket, odds are better than average that you will get shot. If a cop stops you and you have a weapon in your pocket, you do not reach for it, you tell the cop that there is a weapon in your pocket and do what he or she tells you to do. A cop who sees a gun in the hand of a suspect has only a split second to asses the threat and act. If I were a cop and saw a weapon moving in my general direction, I am going to err on the side of you being dead and me being alive. Not that that is a good choice, but sometimes that is the only choice.

I am actually amazed that they even hit the kid. Cops are notoriously bad shots. It is like they all went to the Stormtrooper School of shooting. Like that cop who emptied his gun at a suburban mini-van at point blank range... and missed. Missed with all his shots! You've gotta feel really "special" after doing something like that.

Now the race card comes into play when a community member had this to say:

"Another black man has been shot down by the police," said Fred Hampton Jr. "Excessive force is putting it mildly. Our babies aren't even immune to this."

Wait! What?!?! This is a case of someone doing something stupid and getting shot as a result of it. This is not a case of "Hey, there's a black guy! Let's shoot him!" I'm not saying that this doesn't happen; I'm just saying that that doesn't seem to be the case here.

This guy seems to be an opportunist, nothing more and nothing less. Why else would he refer to the boy as a man (i.e.; someone who should be able to face the consequences of his actions) and in the same breath, refer to the boy as a baby (i.e.; someone who is defenseless and needs to be protected)? This is a case of crying wolf.

People like this make it harder on people who are victims of actual racism. Everyone is so used to it being thrown around that it has lost its impact. It has gotten to the point that when I hear someone crying racism, I am very skeptical at best.

I appear white, blindingly so. What do you think would happen if I pulled a gun on a cop? Would he or she laugh it off, pat me on the head and tell me to be a good little white boy? No, he or she would empty his gun into my dumb ass because he or she would have no way to know if I am going to shoot them or show them my nifty juggling routine. He or she would make the only real choice available.

Green is the only color that matters in this country anymore. It has been that way for a little while now and it will most likely continue to be so for a while longer.

Now here's where the hypocrisy comes in. If it was me who was shot, would this guy be crying over me? Most likely not, because I am not black. Now tell me again, how is that not racist? It is not only racism when a white person discriminates against a black person. It is still racism when a black person discriminates against a white person.

Now be for anyone says that I don't understand because I am white. I assure you that I have been discriminated against at times. I even got the crap kicked out of me and my nose broken by some black adults when I was a child, simply because I didn't have the right pigment in my skin.

Does this mean that I now think that all black folks are racist? No, of cause not, just the few nimrods who have acted against me. And not all white people are racist either. Saying that they are simply destroys one's credibility and hurts the actual victims of racism.

Here is the article that got me going:

http://www.nbc5.com/news/9644162/detail.html

Rant over... for now

Lets All Wiz on the Lonely Grave of Parental Responsibility

Originally posted on 08/07/06

This week an entire family of meerkats from the Minnesota Zoo was killed (that's right, Timon is dead). Now I freely admit that the meerkats are the schmucks of the Serengeti, but these particular meerkat's deaths are a direct result of a parent or parents not doing their jobs.

It seems that a nine year old little girl was bitten by one of these animals. Now by Minnesota law, one of two things could have happened at this point. Either A) the little girl could have gotten a series of admittedly painful rabies shots, or B) animal control could have all the animals in the enclosure killed and tested for rabies. Guess which option the parents went with.

All of you who said: "kill the little bastards", give yourself a gold star and go to the head of the class. Some of you may say that you wouldn't want your child to have to go through that painful series of shots, I agree with you. That would not be my first choice either but the girl would have survived the shots. It seems the meerkats didn't fair as well as she would have.

Kids (and people in general) need to learn that actions have consequences. At 9 years old I knew that animals bite and if this kid didn't, the parents were not doing their job. Before anyone says that the zoo might have been at fault, read this:

"The girl had to work to get her hand inside the enclosure. Zoo officials said she must have crawled over a driftwood barrier, climbed up more than 3 feet of artificial rock and reached over 4 feet of Plexiglas to get her arm into the exhibit.

Because meerkats stand just a foot tall on their hind legs, she had to have dangled her hand low for an animal to bite her finger"

Two things: First, enroll this kid in a triathlon immediately. And second, beat this kid's parents to death with the biggest, heaviest parenting book you can find. What were these people doing while their little darling was practicing her poll vaulting? They certainly weren't watch their little idiot larva, were they? If there is anywhere common sense would tell you to keep a close eye on your offspring it's the zoo. I mean, there are animals in the zoo and, as previously mentioned, animals bite. That's what all those little pointy things in their mouths are for. If you spook an animal, it will bite you. This is what we call a "duh concept"!

Now some might say that I can't really talk about this because I have no kids. This is a stupid proposition. I don't have kids because I am not ready to take care of the little buggers. I have no sympathy for parents. Parenthood is a choice. No one is forced to be a parent. If you can't do the job, don't sign up! If you get knocked up accidentally, abort the thing if you can't do the job. If you are against abortion, that also is a choice and all choices have consequences both good and bad. Take some responsibility! Besides, think of all the meerkats you'll save!

A while ago, at another zoo, a woman got her arm bitten off by a tiger. The whole fucking arm! This woman fought with animal services to make sure the tiger was not put down. She had done something stupid, stuck her arm in the tiger's cage, and accepted the consequences, -1 arm. This I can respect. She didn't blame the tiger and make it suffer for her mistake. She took responsibility for her actions and that is what it's all about.

Personal responsibility is important and parental responsibility even more so. The children first learn by watching the parents. If the kids see the parent acting like irresponsible doorknobs, guess what the kids are going to grow up to be. That's right... president.

Here is the story's page:

http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/15202942.htm

Rant over... for now

Freedom of Speech, as long as no one is offended

Originally posted on 07/31/06

Ok, I know I am going to lose so "friends" over this one. C'est la vie, can't be helped.

The Westboro Baptist Church was in the news again today. This time it seems that Fred Phelps and his family were again protesting the funeral of a marine who was killed in Afghanistan, Lance Cpl. Matthew A. Snyder. Well, it seems this time the father of the slain serviceman, Albert Snyder, has decided to sue the Westboro Baptist Church over the protest.

These people are a disgusting group of self-righteous hate-mongers and should all die in a fire. That said, however, they are acting within their rights under the first amendment. Freedom of speech and expression does not refer to only that speech and expression that is inoffensive, it refers to all speech and expression. Like it or not, when that marine took the oath to defend the constitution, he was swearing to defend these rat-bastards as well. I can't blame the father for this as he is acting out of pain. We all do things we may not ordinarily do when we are in pain. It is up to the courts to act in a logical manor (stop laughing, it could happen).

The law must protect the rights of citizens to carry out peaceful gatherings and protests. As long as they did not physically assault anyone or create a physical danger or trespass on private property, they were acting within their rights. Yes, what they did was horrendously offensive, but it is not our right to not be offended. If we had that right, I would be able to sue every asshole I saw driving around with a bumper sticker supporting George Bush. I find his policies extremely offensive and the sheep that blindly follow him even more so. But, it is not my right not to be offended nor is it yours.

There is another thing to consider. Since this group has started protesting the funerals of members of our military there has been a tremendous amount of outrage against them. While I agree the act is horrid, I have to ask where was all this outrage when they were protesting the funerals of homosexuals and AIDS victims? Where was the outrage when they protested the funeral of Matthew Shepard, a young man who was brutally murdered in 1988 for being a homosexual? Where was the outrage when they tried to get a plaque put up in a Wyoming park commemorating Mr. Shepard’s "entry into hell"?

Was he any less deserving of our sympathies because he wasn't in the military? Or was it that he was just a "fag"? Some would say that the members of our military are nobler because they chose to defend our country. There are three problems with this line of thinking. First, most people who join our military do not do so with the noble goal of defending our country. The most common reason for joining up is for college money and career advantages. There is nothing wrong with that; I tried to join up for the same reason. Second, our military, as of the moment, is not defending our nation. It is defending and enhancing the wallets and portfolios of a select few of this country's upper one percent. They are, right now, being used as a tool of the rich. Third, they are there to defend the rights of all Americans, not just those that they agree with.

Now, I'm sure some would say that I am bad mouthing the military and that is fine. It is always easier to pigeonhole someone and dismiss them than to actually think and consider a different point of view. I respect the idea of the military and what they are supposed to stand for. I do not in any way, shape or form condone the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church but I do stand up for their right to be the scum of the Earth if they so chose.

Another thing to consider is that by suing them, they get exactly what they want, attention. This is Fred Phelps wet dream. You can't buy publicity like this. The worst thing one could do to these nimrods is ignore them. They thrive on negative attention. And like all attention whores, deprive them of what they want and they will fade away.

The constitution guarantees the freedoms of all not just a select few. If we take away the rights of those we find distasteful, what happens when someone finds you distasteful?

Rant over... for now

And Now For Something Not So Completely Different

Originally posted on 04/09/06

Humans strike again! If you find yourself walking through life feeling good about the human race, its always nice to know you can count on organized religion to lower the bar. Today's act of self-righteous indignation and intolerance comes to us from our Christian friends New Zealand. It seems that a group of Christians, mostly Catholics, were offended by the airing of an episode of South Park called, I believe "Bloody Mary". For those of you who haven't seen the show it has to do with a bleeding statue of the virgin Mary.

Over 2000 were apparently so pissed off by this cartoon that they took out a full page ad in a local newspaper to announce that they were boycotting the network that aired the show. There are a few things that strike me about this. First let me say that I have absolutely nothing against Christianity or any other religion. If you want to believe that the nailing some guy to a cross thousands of years ago somehow makes you a spiritually better person, more power to you. Hell, happiness is so hard to find in this world that if worshipping a doorknob makes you happy, I say go for it. Now, that having been said, we still should maintain at least some small sense of priority.

First off, we are talking about South Park here, one of the most intentionally offensive shows on the air. I love it, but if you turn on the show expecting for it not to do it's best to offend your delicate sensibilities, you are stupid and should immediately do us all a favor and stop wasting our oxygen. Its satire people, lighten the fuck up. Are people so insecure that they need to jump up and down screaming because someone said something that they didn't like? And really, how strong is your faith that something done on a cartoon, a fucking cartoon, can threaten your devotion.

And speaking of priorities, which we weren't but probably should have been, don't these people have anything more important to take care of than what was said on a cartoon? Are all these people so perfect that they have nothing within themselves or their respective religious organizations that need attending to? Now maybe its just me, but I find the act of supporting and actively shielding child molesters slightly more offensive than anything that could ever be shown on any cartoon. Just me, huh? And that's setting aside the fact that these people are breaking their own rules (i.e. Matthew 7:1-5). Its not my rule, folk, its theirs.

Now there are a couple of things in this specific case that merit special attention. The first of which is that these people were offended before they even saw the show: "However, it must be said that the offence had been well signaled by many Catholics and others in advance of the screening." The show hadn’t even aired and they had their knickers in a twist. I understand, though. I mean, why bother actually viewing the show and processing it through your own mental faculties when it is far easier to just agree with the rest of the sheep and agree with what everyone else says you should think. I mean, you talk about a time saver!

The second and most frightening thing is this statement: "The advertisement came two days after the Solicitor-General's office confirmed it wouldn't take legal action against CanWest for blasphemy". I mean, it is good that they didn't but the fact that this was ever even an option I find terrifying! On the up side, at least we don't have to feel so alone in the world for having our country ruled by a bunch of religious nuts.

If you find yourself thinking that I am being intolerant in my rant and opinions, keep in mind that I am merely stating my opinion, not attempting to force it onto other. I am applying no pressure to anyone. It is my opinion; take it for what it is.

Here's the page that set me off: http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3632694a1860,00.html

Rant over....for now

Stupid on Many Levels

Originally posted on 04/03/06

Okay, so I just read an article about some problems people have been having with this movie that just came out called "ATL". Apparently it is a movie about drug trafficking in Atlanta or something. I could care less about the movie but it would take some serious effort on my part and quite frankly I'm just too goddamn lazy to put in that kind of time.

Anyway, I haven't seen this movie so I'll have no comments on its contents or it's worthiness as a contribution to American cinema, not my point. The point I want to bring up is the stupidity of humans in general and humans in groups all together. I have long held the theory that if you gather more than three humans in a group, chances are better than average that two or more of those people are either nuts and/or stupid. And the evidence just keeps on coming. In this case in Toledo, OH a fight broke out in a mall theater after a showing of the film. Reading the article two forms of stupidity were immediately clear. First, The people who decided it would be a good idea to start punching the guy next to them because he didn't happen to enjoy the movie as much as he really should have. Ladies and gentlemen, this is why we don't have a city on the moon and cancer is still not cured. If it is your heartfelt belief that this is the proper way to express a differing opinion, please report to the nearest suicide booth an remove yourself from the gene pool. Hey, I'll give you the quarter.

While this is bad enough the media makes the whole thing worse by printing this little gem: "The movie may also be responsible for the death of 17-year old in Chicago early Saturday morning."

What?!? At what point did strips of celluloid become fully autonomous homicidal killing machines? I seemed to have missed that memo because unless the movie jumped down off the screen, picked up a gun and shot the kid in the head I'd have to say that this one is a little far fetched.

If I watch a movie, read a book or view a program that upsets me And I go out and beat ninety-two and a half people to death with a flaming spiked dildo, guess whose fault that would be. Go ahead and guess. I'll wait....... Ok, those of you who answered the dildo manufacturer go to the back of the line. In both cases the responsibility lies not with the stimulus (i.e. film, book, whatever) but with how we act upon that stimulus. The choice to pick up that gun or flaming spiked dildo and do harm to another being is entirely our own. This is just another shovel full of dirt on the shallow and urine-soaked grave of personal responsibility.

For whatever reason be it random chance or some deity's slow afternoon, we were all given a mind and the ability to use it. Sadly the desire to use said mind seems to have been overlooked in about eighty to ninety-five percent of the world population. We all think of ourselves as intelligent human beings, how about we try and start proving it. I know we can be better than this.

In case you are interested in reading the article that pissed all over my cheerios you can find it at: http://www.nbc24.com/Global/story.asp?S=4714025

Rant over......for now.

Back in the Closet, You!

The article in question:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-070312pace,1,864651.story?coll=chi-news-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Peter Pace, stated in a newspaper interview on Monday that homosexuality was immoral and the military should not support immorality by allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the armed forces thus securing his title of Lord God King Nimrod. Hail to the king, baby!

From the article:
""I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts," Pace said in a wide-ranging discussion with Tribune editors and reporters in Chicago. "I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way.

"As an individual, I would not want [acceptance of gay behavior] to be our policy, just like I would not want it to be our policy that if we were to find out that so-and-so was sleeping with somebody else's wife, that we would just look the other way, which we do not. We prosecute that kind of immoral behavior," Pace said."

(So only acts between two individuals are immoral? What about three or four?)

Let's examine a few points on this one, shall we?

First, get a little perspective here!!! The top member of an organization whose duties include the killing of other human beings thinks that homosexuality is immoral?!?! Did I miss a memo or something? When did who you shag surpass who you kill in the moral hierarchy? So it's ok to invade another country, with all the killing, mayhem and general wackiness that goes along with it, based on a lie but having an affinity for people with the same naughty bits as you is wrong?

I'm sure he thinks that he is making some sort of stand for what he believes in. My take on the matter is somewhat different (I know. Shocking, huh?). Notice that he doesn't say that they should not serve, just that they shouldn't serve openly. If he was really standing up for his beliefs, wouldn't he have said that they shouldn't be allowed to serve at all? Oops, that's right! I forgot that humans are not very good at standing up for what they believe in when it becomes inconvenient. Fact is, the military needs all the warm able bodies it can get right now.

I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning! It smells like...

So, we should just have two standards then, right? The heterosexuals can talk about and express themselves in the manner that most humans are accustomed to but homosexuals should keep their mouths shut and just play along. Sure the standard will be separate, but they will also be equal, right? That should work out just fine, separate but equal. Wait, why does that sound familiar? Seems to me there was a time in our relatively recent history when the government tried to tell another group of people that things would be separate but equal and that worked out oh so well didn't it?

Now normally I would be the first one to defend an individual's right to express his or her own opinion but in this case, there is a bit of a snag. He didn't express this opinion as a private citizen, he expressed it a member of our government. Do we really want our government deciding what is and is not "moral"? I know it already does this to a certain extent, but that just goes to further illustrate my point. Do you agree with the government on everything that it says is right and wrong? Are these folks the shining examples of what should be?

This man signed up for a very simple job, do what is best for the country. I would love to hear the logic underlying the conclusion that having gays serve openly hurts the country. Notice I said logic. "Because it is written in a book somewhere" or "Because that's the way I was brought up" do not count as logic. They count as a painfully weak attempt to legitimize bigotry.

I freely admit that he is not alone in his opinion. Many members of the service I have spoken to share the same opinion. Not one of them, however, has been able to give me a logical, well thought out reason why they have this opinion. The usual response is either "because it is just wrong" or "you can't trust someone who might try to jump on you the second you bend over for something". The former is a non-argument, the latter it evidence of delusions of grandeur. Unless you happen to be me, not everyone in the world is so attracted to you that they just cant help but try and get near you. (stop laughing, it could happen! Or, ya know, not.)

I have also heard it said that the sex drive is the strongest drive in the human psyche. Not so. It is only the second strongest, the first being the survival instinct. I don't care how attractive a woman is, if shots are fired, my first impulse is not to try and get in her pants. Maybe that's just me though.

No matter how you cut it or try to frame it, bigotry is still just that




Rant Over... for now

UPDATE

03/14/07 2:17 am

To his credit Gen. Pace has said, in light of all the flack he garnered for his comments, that he should not have voiced his personal views and should have just stated his support for the current "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Unfortunately, thing cannot be un-said and we were all offered a view up the good General's skirt and the view was not pretty. Bigotry is still bigotry, even if it isn't said out loud.

The fact remains that there is still a double standard, on set of rules for homosexuals and one for heterosexuals. The "don't ask, don't tell" policy was a necessary first step, but that's all it should have been. It was necessary because humans, as a general rule, are slow to accept change. You throw in many, many years of tradition in there and you really have an uphill battle. The time, however, has come to move on to what comes after. The time has long since come for us to allow everyone to serve openly regardless of orientation.

Rant Over... for now... um, again

So this is How We Treat Heroes, Huh?

In today's political climate it would be an act of political suicide to suggest that the men and women of our armed forces are anything other than heroes. Whether or not they are or not is irrelevant, the political climate says they are so the politicians tow the line. (There is a rant in there somewhere.) Right or wrong, this is the world in which we live at the moment.

My question is this: If they are such heroes, why does the very government that proclaims to hold them in such high esteem do it's best to screw them over.

Case in point: A friend of mine is serving his country in the service and has been for some time now. He has been overseas during his service and has been put in harms way as a result of it. So far so good, that's what you have to expect when you sign up. However, at some point he suffered a massive injury and as a result he became permanently disabled and in constant massive pain ever since. Also ever since, the service has been doing it's best to get rid of him as well as keep from doing the very things that it had promised him at the moment he signed the enlistment papers. He has had many surgeries and seen many doctors in an effort to repair some of the damage done to him, through no fault of his own, and the service has fought him every step of the way up to and including having doctors lie to him. Is this how we treat heroes?

If this was just an isolated case I could just chalk it up to bad luck and running into a pack of assholes. Unfortunately, this has been the case of everyone that I have met who has been injured in the line of duty. Now maybe that means that I am bad luck but my raging ego refuses to consider that possibility. So what does that leave?

When you enlist in the armed forces you make an oath but you are not the only one. The service also makes an oath to you. If you break your oath, it is a crime. If the service breaks it's, it is business as usual.

I am not against the armed forces. I believe in the importance and even nobility of the idea of all forms of public service. What I am against is the bloated self-important bureaucracy that is more worried about the financial bottom line than the wellbeing of the people that have pledged their very lives to it's stated cause. They espouse noble ideals then cast them aside when they become inconvenient.

That, also, seems to be the way of the world in which we live.



Rant Over... for now

It Started with "Vagina", and then My Head Asploded!

Originally posted on 03/06/07

It all sounded so straight forward. It was a news story about three high school girls that got suspended for saying the word "vagina". What could be simpler, right? Easy equation: censorship = bad. This article contains so many examples of things that are wrong with this society and species. Bear with me as I super glue the skull fragments and lumps of gray matter that exploded in all directions when I read this article. Here is the link, have super glue standing by: http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070306/NEWS02/703060363/1018&GID=xi+6X4FdPrduoI2j4z90HCGbIVUKXnx7c7Gbd64k1iw=

Ok, as I am running low on glue I will endeavor to narrow my focus.

Now, the story is this: Three high school girls, during a school's "open mic", read a selection from Eve Ensler's "The Vagina Monologues". As a result of the use of the word "vagina" in the passage, the three girls were given in-school suspensions.

Now normally this would be a no-brainer for me to rail loudly and possibly incoherently against the basic stupidity of both the society and the species in general. This time however, there is a snag that has me slightly conflicted. The school is claiming that the girls agreed not to say "vagina" and the fact that they broke their word is why they are being punished.

The reason this has me conflicted, admittedly only slightly, is my basic distaste for lies in general and lairs specifically. In this world, the only thing we really have, that can not be taken away from us is our word. Everything, up to and including your life can be taken from you, but not your word. No one can "make" you break your word once freely given. Now don't get me wrong, I am a realist and I do realize that in the world we live in, some lies are necessary and that not all lies are equal but I still have that basic visceral reaction.

Now let's play devil's advocate for a moment and say that the girls did agree not to say "vagina". Shame on them for lying. But an even bigger shame should be felt by the school for asking them not to say it in the first place. Let's ignore my basic belief that words are just words and that there is no such thing as a "bad" word. Was this a slang word? No. Was this one of those words that are generally considered a "curse word"? No. Did the saying of this word cause any harm what so ever to those within ear shot? No. Was this word an accurate biological term intended to describe an aspect of human anatomy? Yup. Is a school the sort of place that one should learn and, indeed, be free to use accurate biological terminology? Again, yup. Now explain to me again the reason a school, a supposed institution of learning, should ask any student not to use a word that, realistically, should have no connotation other than its definition? Seriously, explain that one to me.

The school sighted the fact that there would be small children in the audience. So what! Lord deliver me for those that rally under the battle cry of: "We are doing it for the children!" I love children, I really do. I hate what parents make them into today by abdicating their responsibility to be parents, but I do love children. I have a little secret for you though, some of those little children that they were protecting, actually have vaginas. Maybe it is just my crackpot theory (I certainly have enough of them) but wouldn't it be a good thing if they knew what they were. Just a thought.

The fact that a school would choose to stifle knowledge and expression in order to avoid offending some prudish, self-righteous morons or indeed to indulge in their own "moral" point of view is unconscionable. It also should be a big red flag that the system is not working. Does anyone know what we do with systems that don't work? If you said "ignore them" welcome to the human race.

As I said, there were many red flags in this article but this is the one I wanted to discuss first. The rest will have to wait until another time. Fortunately for me, there is no statute of limitations on my bitching. Now if you will excuse me I have to go scrape a chunk of cerebellum off my wall. Cheers

Rant over... for now

It's Not Prejudice if Most People Say it's Okay, Right?

Originally posted on 03/02/07

I just read an opinion piece by syndicated columnist Paul C. Campos that just made me cringe. Here is the URL for the article: http://www.milforddailynews.com/opinion/8998903624125906943

This article is entitled "There are Few Genuine Atheists". Right away, I have a problem with this title. Who is to judge what is and isn't genuine when it comes to someone else's belief system. For every belief system, outside of a few core tenets, there have been multiple definitions. In fact, I would be willing to bet that there are almost as many definitions for various belief systems as there are people who hold them. How many of them are not "genuine"? And more importantly, who's definition do we use to define what is "genuine" and what is not? His? Mine? The preacher screaming fire and brimstone down from the pulpit? That emo kid down the street who cuts on himself? Whose opinion do we pretend is fact?

How about Mr. Campos? He is a law professor and presumably and intelligent man (those two things don't always go together. There are a lot of educated idiots out there). He seems to think it is just fine that in various opinion polls a large percentage of the American public would not vote for a candidate for president simply because he/she was an Atheist. Ok, I seemed to have missed something. If it is bigotry not to vote for someone because they are a Jew (a particular belief system), why is it not bigotry not to vote for someone because they are an Atheist (another particular belief system)? Why is it ok to discriminate against one and not the other? Isn't discrimination discrimination no matter who it's aimed at?

Mr. Campos concludes his article with this statement:

"Conversely, when one presses a purported atheist, one almost always finds that the person believes in various propositions that simply don't make sense without a belief in some source of an ultimate moral order, i.e., what most people would call "God." For instance, almost everyone who claims to be an atheist still makes lots of "ought" statements, as in "we ought to preserve biological diversity," or what have you.

The latter view is that of the famed biologist Edward O. Wilson, in his new book "The Creation." Written in the form of a letter to a pastor of the Southern Baptist faith in which Wilson was brought up, Wilson argues that atheists like him and religious believers ought to agree that preserving biological diversity, and therefore in the long run humanity, is a profound moral imperative.

Wilson is a brilliant man, but this kind of thing has always seemed to me nonsensical on its face. After all, the human race has existed for an eye-blink of cosmological time and will certainly cease to exist in another eye-blink or two.

The only response a genuine atheist would have to that fact is, so what? Which helps explain why there are almost no genuine atheists."

Apparently, Mr. Campos was absent that day in law school when the covered the topic of "research" and the concept of "false assumption". I have to question whether or not he has even met an Atheist. In truth, this is not the first time I have heard this assumption. Also, his conclusion that a religious person would be more concerned about the ending of the species than an Atheist is completely ridiculous. How many times have you heard this phrase when bad things happen: "It's all part of God's plan". Wouldn't the end of the species also be viewed as "part of God's plan"? If you think not, allow me to remind you that most religions do have myths that tell of the end of the world in accordance with "God's plan".

The notion that a Human being is incapable of moral decision and position without some sort of outside agency has always struck me as very sad. Most humans, excluding of course sociopaths, have a conscience that allows them to discern right and wrong in addition to also being a product of the environment in which they were raised. "Morality", at least in my opinion, at least in its conception, is a society's or individual's attempt to do what is best for the species at least on a subconscious level. Survival of the species is an inborn instinctual imperative, not something we have because we were told to do by some guy with a book of supposedly divine origin.

I was of the opinion that bigotry was unacceptable under any circumstances. The going against someone simply for their belief system while not examining their specific beliefs and how they would impact the job they want to do is bigotry no matter how many degrees one possesses. If you don't vote for someone simply because they are of one belief system or another think carefully the next time you bitch about bigotry in this world, you are could be talking about yourself.

Rant over... for now

It's Hoo-Hoo, Damnit!!! Get it Right!!!

Originally posted on 02/25/07

Ok, some of you have heard this story. There was a theater down in Florida, I believe, that was putting on a production of "The Vagina Monologues". So, they did what anyone would do when they are putting on a show, they put the title up on the marquee. You can see where this is going, huh?

Apparently, a woman was driving down the road with her 5-year-old niece. This little girl saw the sign and asked her aunt what a "vagina" was. So this woman turned to her niece and calmly and rationally explained that a vagina was a part of the female reproductive system. The young girl further inquired as to the nature of said reproductive system to which the aunt went on to explain, again in a calm and rational manner, the nature of the system. She further added that although our society tends to cast shame and doubt on the various aspects of the human body and function thereof, it was actually a perfectly natural thing and in no way deserving of shame.

Ok, now see if you can tell me which part of that story bares absolutely no resemblance to what actually happened.

Go ahead. Guess. I'll wait.

Got it? If you said the last bit was complete bullshit, fondle yourself in a happy place, you are a winner!

Yes, rather than choose the above or similar rational course of action, she immediately called up the theater and complained very loudly (I'm guessing) that she was deeply offended that not only did her niece see the dreaded word but she also had to explain it! Oh, the humanity!! The horror, the horror!!!

To this the theater politely respond by apologizing that she was a repressed, prudish, neadrethalic git but that was the name of the show and they would not bow down to attempted pressure of anyone, least of all to someone who most likely wouldn't have been interested in seeing the show in the first place. They ended the call by suggesting that humanity, and her niece, would most likely be better served if she would drop the little girl off at her parent's home and go die in a fire.

That part really happened, right?

Of course not!! Humans aren't allowed to have reasonable reactions to things!! You should know this by now! No, they immediately caved and changed the marquee to read: "The Hoo-Haa Monologues". For when censorship of any sort rears its ugly head they bravely gave in like a two dollar whore with a five dollar bill (there's some imagery for you).

Eventually they did change the name on the marquee back to the proper title. I would like to say that they did so because they came to their senses and decided that integrity was more important than the whining of an idiot. I would LIKE to say that, but, if I did, I would be lying. They made the decision to change it back for the same reason that most decisions are made in this country (don't know about other countries, sadly, I am not yet widely traveled). They made the decision for the love of money! Apparently, whoever wrote the contract for usage of the material figured that this might be a problem and added a clause that said that it could only be performed if the title was displayed correctly. Whoever wrote that agreement: Bravo to you!!!

Now this upsets me for three reasons. First, I get kind of nervous around any type of censorship. Any time anyone tries to force ones own morality on another, that bothers me. I know, I am strange like that. Go figure.

Second, this woman was upset that she had to explain to a little girl, her niece, what a vagina was. This makes no sense. They both had them!!! Barring some horrendous accident, the both had vaginas!!! How could this be offensive? Now, if you have the urge to write and tell me that this is another illustration of how we live in a patriarchy, sit on your hands, take a deep breath and realize that not everything will fit in whatever little box you want to cram it in to make yourself feel all nice and safe and superior. This is a much larger issue that has nothing to do with gender. In this case, vaginas just happen to be involved. Don't believe me? Try to put on a show called "The Penis Monologues" and see if you don't get some complaints. Better yet, you and a male friend go walking down the street naked, doing nothing of a sexual nature, and see if you don't BOTH get arrested. This is an issue that goes past any gender issue. It is an issue of shame. Both sexes have been conditioned to feel ashamed of their bodies. This also goes into a larger and more basic issue of the human condition, one that I will most likely rant about at some later date.

The third thing that bothers me is the use of the term "Hoo-Haa". This is just completely wrong. The correct euphemistic term for the vagina, should you ever need one, is "Hoo-Hoo". "Hoo-Haa" is too close to "Yee-Haa" which, to me, brings back both disturbing flashbacks to my days in the deep south and equally disturbing images of our country's current foreign policy.

Rant over... for now

Boobies = Bad?!?! WTF?!?!

Originally posted on 07/27/06

This would be funny if it weren’t so sad. The August issue of Baby Talk magazine came out recently and on the cover was a picture of a baby nursing. Now the shot has the baby and breast in profile and is shot in such an angle that the nipple is not visible. Despite the angle of the shot and despite the fact that most of the people who read the magazine are mothers who have babies, the magazine has received quite a few letters complaining about the cover.

Are we so horrified by the human body that the sight of a woman feeding her baby is so shocking that it leaves deep psychological scars on those have breasts themselves? It would seem that that was the case.

"I shredded it," said Gayle Ash, of Belton, Texas, in a telephone interview. "A breast is a breast -- it's a sexual thing. He didn't need to see that."

WTF!?!?

If a breast is a breast and it is a sexual thing no matter what wouldn't that mean that any woman who ever breast fed their child was guilty of molestation? That's right, all you mothers out there you must do the "moral" thing and walk into your local police station and turn yourself in as the dirty pedophiles you are. And remember kids, if mommy breast fed you, you are a victim of molestation and should immediately seek therapy for the trauma you suffered.

"Gross, I am sick of seeing a baby attached to a boob," wrote Lauren, a mother of a 4-month-old.

Gross?!?! This woman needs help! If her body image is that poor there has got to be some serious self hatred going on.

Why is it that the female upper torso is so disgusting and yet that upper torso of a male is just dandy, no matter how large his boobies happen to be.

"Lady, you'll have to cover up. There are children present for god sakes!" "No sir, that’s just fine. Lose the shirt. After all, it's a hot day. No, it's ok that you have 38Ds. At least you aren’t a woman."

Does that seem right to you? It sure doesn't to me.

I'm of the firm belief that clothing should be optional anyway. Some say that some people look bas naked. Well, that's true, but, by the same token, some folks are ugly. Should they be made to walk around with paper bags on their heads? And if so, who decides who gets the bags. After all, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, right? Your idea of beauty and mine might be very different. Which one of us is right?

Some say that is we all ran around naked there would be so much rape and sexual assault that it would be utter chaos. The statistics would seem to refute that claim. In societies where there is a less puritanical the rate of sex-related crime actually drops. The quickest way to make someone want something is to tell them they can't have it. When you make it into a taboo, what do you think happens then?

A body is what it is. It is neither beautiful nor disgusting and yet can be both. Both states are completely subjective, dictated by the viewer. What is not subjective is the fact that the natural state of the human body is nudity. I wasn't born with clothing, were you? (If you were, contact Ripley’s immediately and go on tour)

Here is the article that started me off on this tangent:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2006/07/27/entertainment/e134753D90.DTL

Rant over... for now

Repression, Party of One

Originally posted on 07/20/06

Wow, just wow. And I thought I was messed up. Check this out:

http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/6/202006a.asp

Ok, quick quiz: how many of you, regardless of where you fall on the Kinsey Scale, chose to be attracted to whatever you are attracted to? I know I didn't. There was never a moment in my life when I sat down and said: "Hmmm, should I like males or females?" I never needed to make that choice and there is no amount of "therapy" that would change the orientation that is hardwired into my system. I could repress, my orientation, just like anyone can repress any drive or emotion. By this guy's "logic" one could "cure" heterosexuality in the same way. He even admits it himself: "It is not a choice to have homosexual desires, the IHF director contends, but it is a choice to act upon those desires." So according to him it is indeed a natural state and yet it is somehow wrong. Why? Because some book or group of people tells him it is?

And the Lord said: I shall give unto a certain group of people a strong basic drive that I have deemed to be naughty! And then, should they act on this drive that in no way causes harm to any soul, I will send them to hell to burn for all eternity, just to fuck with 'em!

Does that sound about right to you? I don't know what you think, but this God fellow sounds like an ass! Unfortunately, this is not the wackiest thing I have heard of being done in the name of religion.

This world is so hard and so fucked up that if you find someone who loves and respects you and is willing to help you through it all, it doesn't really matter what kind of plumbing they have. As long as you are both happy it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks. That's my 2 cents anyway.

If anyone wants to see the video of this guy in action, you can find it here:

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/PZ-cohen.mov

Rant over....for now

Have You Seen Her?

Originally posted on 06/21/06

Read these. It's important:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/06/21/BUG9VJHB9C1.DTL&type=business

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060620/ap_on_bi_ge/police_phone_data

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13337155/

Unfortunately these are not isolated incidents. Every day more and more of our freedoms are disappearing one by one in the name of national security. As much as I would like to lay this all at the feet of the Bush administration, this has been happening at a very slow rate for decades. The Bush administration just got an excuse to accelerate the process that it could sell to the American public. So now Big Brother is not only watching you, he's bending you over and making you his bitch! I love America; I just haven't seen her around in a while. Let me ask you this: Do you feel safer? I personally do not.

I like this famous quote by Benjamin Franklin:

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

What would he think about an America where the phrase "domestic spying policy" is used by people defending the practice of invading the privacy of the citizenry without judicial oversight? An America where the "patriot act" is considered a good idea by many? An America where the citizenry is so blind in it's coma-like sleep that we will send our brothers and sisters, sons and daughters of to die and be maimed based on completely fabricated "intelligence"? Essentially, a lie!

It has been a long time since that lie was exposed and yet we march blindly ahead. The death toll for our people has reached over 2500. That is not counting the 18,490 wounded or the thousands of our "enemies" that have died. Where are we when attempts at honest frank discussion are viewed as unpatriotic?

When fear and suspicion of our own government dominates the land what are we then? America? Not the one I was taught about in school.

Rant over...for now

Oy, not this BS again

Originally posted 0n 06/06/06

Ok, go read this and come on back:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13121953/site/newsweek/?GT1=8211

Go ahead, I'll wait...

Ok, I read this article and it reminded me of the last time this bit of hate disguised as a politics rolled around. Last time, I actually had a couple of folks show up on my doorstep campaigning for this bullshit. They came to the door and asked me if I wanted to protect the institution of marriage. My first question was: "Is it in danger?" They went on to explain to me how allowing gays to marry would undermine the sacred bond that was supposed to be between a man and a woman. I blinked at them and shut my door.

This is a stupid concept on many levels. First, if marriage is so sacred, why is divorce legal? It seems to me that logically if you wanted to protect a union you would ban the very act the literally nullifies it. I wonder how many of these crusaders who have such a raging hard-on to protect this sacred institution are divorced. Do you smell that? It smells like hypocrisy! Oh, my! Hypocrisy involved in a "moral" issue!?!? What are the odds? Pretty damn good.

Another thing, if I were married, how exactly would it affect me if Bob and Joe two states over are doing the naked pretzel under government sanction as well? Answer: It doesn't affect me in the slightest. If your faith in the bond between you and your spouse is that easily shaken not only should you not be married, you should immediately kill yourself and spare us all from your existence. You are too stupid to live. Stop wasting our air and polluting the gene pool!

This issue is all just smoke and mirrors anyway. There is no legitimate reason why gays can't get married. "Because god said so" is not a legitimate reason! Whose god is right? My god says that you should send me all your money and supermodels should have large amounts of sex with me. Now whose god is right? I'm sure you can imagine which god I'm voting for.

But, you know, it is a slippery slope. First the gays are allowed to marry and then the blacks then Jews then mixed marriages and then, before you know it, the sun goes supernova and we all have our atoms scattered across the cosmos! That's what happens, apparently: Gay marriage = Supernova. But at least we will all be able to enjoy the same rights before it all goes boom. You know, equal rights, the thing that 99.8% of the population says they want.

Can you smell that....?

Rant over...for now

Welcome to the Dark Ages. Next Stop: Burning at the Stake, You Dirty Heretic!

Originally posted on 04/12/06

Best prayer I've ever heard: "Lord, protect me from your followers"

"Because god said so" is not a scientific theory. A scientific theory must have some basis in, oh, I don't know, maybe SCIENCE! Calling it "Intelligent Design" doesn't make it anymore true than calling it "Creationism". A scientific theory relies on observable and testable facts, not just saying that something is true because it is. Just because sheep a herder manage to jot something down thousands of years ago in-between molesting the livestock does not make it a fact.

Despite that being the case, Cornell University has decided, in its finite, wisdom to offer a class on the "science" of Intelligent Design. This is several levels beyond stupid and the fact that this is being done by a prestigious university only serves to amplify they tragedy. Intelligent Design is part of a religious belief system and therefore should only be mentioned in a comparative religion class, philosophy or theology class, certainly not in a science class.

Science says: Here are the facts. What conclusions are supported by these facts? Religion says: Here is a conclusion. What facts can we find to support it? Science has no agenda save that of the acquisition of knowledge. The same can not be said for "Intelligent Design" This does a tremendous disservice to the students who are taught that religion and science are the same thing. Not only does it encourage faulty reasoning in this area but it also encourages faulty and biased reasoning in other areas. For instance if you accept that life exists because some invisible man in the sky said it should and the only source you can cite is an old book of exceedingly dubious origin, what's to stop one from excepting as fact things from other dubious sources. I fear the day I go to the doctor with a head cold and he tells me that I seem to have come down with a nasty case of demon possession and the only cure is a nice healthy burning at the stake.

I mean one can not even scientifically prove the existence of god much less his/her/it's influence. That's why the call it faith, boys and girls. Now I am all for everyone believing whatever they want to get them through the night but don't tell me just because you believe it that it is a scientifically provable fact. That is just stupid. For instance I believe that rabid wolverines love belly-rubs, however my numerous contusions and lacerations speak to the contrary. Just because I believe something does not make it a fact!

Now as much as I'd like to place this all at the feet of the loser we now have sitting in the Whitehouse, all this was well on its way before captain D.U.I. got into power. There were always religious nuts out there; he is just the most visible at the moment. There is a reason the rest of the world is kicking our asses as far as education goes.

I'll leave you with one of my favorite bits from "A Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" That I think is appropriate to the rant, and of course the webpage that got me all worked up:

Now it is such a bizarrely improbably coincidence that anything so mind bogglingly useful [the Babel fish] could have evolved by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.

The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."

"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

-- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy (book one of the Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy series), p. 50

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49674

Bonus Quote:

Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so.

-- Douglas Adams, from Last Chance to See

Bonus Bonus Quote:

"To illustrate the vain conceit that the universe must be somehow pre-ordained for us, because we are so well-suited to live in it, he [Adams] mimed a wonderfully funny imitation of a puddle of water, fitting itself snugly into a depression in the ground, the depression uncannily being exactly the same shape as the puddle."

-- Richard Dawkins, in "Lament for Douglas" (14 May 2001)

Rant Over.... for now

Well, Here I Am. Now What?

Well, the first thing I'll do is repost some of the blogs I have posted other places. You have been warned. Cheers.