Delicious Irony Department

So Dan Florien found another case of a religiously motivated bigot have a rather unfortunate turn of events (as seems to be exceedingly common):

From the mmmm-delicious-irony dept:

Early Wednesday morning, State Sen. Roy Ashburn (R-Calif.) was pulled over and arrested for drunk driving. Sources report that Ashburn — a fierce opponent of gay rights — was driving drunk after leaving a gay nightclub; when the officer stopped the state-issued vehicle, there was an unidentified man in the passenger seat of the car.

Ashburn has issued an apology for the incident:

“I am deeply sorry for my actions and offer no excuse for my poor judgment. I accept complete responsibility for my conduct and am prepared to accept the consequences for what I did. I am also truly sorry for the impact this incident will have on those who support and trust me – my family, my constituents, my friends, and my colleagues in the Senate.”

Well isn’t that nice that he accepts the responsibility and is prepared to accept the consequences? I’m sure he’s not hiring lawyers and trying to weasel his way out of anything!

Ashburn’s voting record shows that he’s voted against “every gay rights measure in the State Senate since taking office including Recognizing Out-Of-State Same-Sex Marriages, Harvey Milk Day and Expanding Anti-Discrimination Laws.”

Sometimes, when I get cynical, I think there’s a private gay club where all the anti-gay Republican representatives are members…

The thing that makes this even more of a gem are the comments:

"The arresting officer said that Ashburn’s breath smelled like cocktail sauce . . ."

"I’m sure it’s simply an unfortunate misunderstanding. He was probably just taking the gay guy somewhere to kill him by stoning."

"Senator Ashburn was in the gay club rescuing a wayward family friend who has been “turned” by the militant gays. Senator Ashburn went to the lions’ den under the pleading of the confused young man’s family – life long friends of the Ashburns. On his way escorting the young man out of the gay club, Senator accidentally swallowed a glass of milk that was spiked with shots of Yager and was subsequently pulled over and cited for DUI. See, the Senator didn’t have a gay problem, he merely had a drinking problem.

We should all applaud the Senator’s courage in the face of certain danger."

Yes, I am laughing at these pathetic excuse for human beings. I'd feel pity for them and all the self hate they must endure if it wasn't for the way they were fucking up other people's lives as well with their institutionalized bigotry made into law...

Maybe god hates the Republicans?

Okay, so the Republicans held a much publicized prayer to stop health care. Never mind that study after study has shown prayer to be totally ineffective. Although, with the votes that the Democrats had, this would have been a PERFECT chance for something supernatural to happen. Yet, nothing did, and old skydaddy gawd shows himself to be totally impotent and imaginary. Or, maybe, since the Republicans are so firm in their belief in this infallible skydaddy, he wants healthcare reform? Did they ever think of that? All the defeats of the GOP leading up to this is actually gawd telling them that he's on the side of the Democrats? Could it be?

Of course, the theitards will rationalize this with some sort of non-sense about god working in mysterious ways or testing them further. Well, that just seems like a really assholeish thing to do. Maybe he doesn't like you? I know I sure as heck don't like you!

Guess what?! Your god hates the US!

So, I am always amused by people saying this is a xtian nation, or ending speeches with "god bless the USA" and the like. Why? Well, basically the entire notion of a democracy or republic is actually against the basic tenets of the bible! Therefore I can only conclude that big ole skydaddy is really pissed at us all for going against his explicit directions. Let's just take a look shall we? First let's look at what distinguishes this nation as a republican democracy:

Republican democracy. Through a public ballot open to all adult citizens, Americans elect candidates who will represent them at the local, state and federal levels. All officials of the American government are either directly elected by the people or are appointed by others who are elected.

Separation of powers. The American government is divided into legislative, executive and judicial branches. Through various mechanisms, these three branches can check each other's power - the president can issue pardons and veto legislation, Congress can override vetoes and pass constitutional amendments, and the courts can rule laws and executive actions unconstitutional - which prevents too much power from accumulating in the hands of any one individual or group.

Federalism. The U.S. is set up as a series of states with a limited degree of autonomy, united together and overseen by a central, federal government. Power is shared between the two, with some areas being the province of the states and others set by the federal authority.

The process of amendment. The U.S. Constitution can be changed in any way, either to pass new clauses or to repeal existing ones, if the proposed amendment is approved by a two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress and three-quarters of the states.

Religious freedom. The Constitution explicitly provides that no religious test shall ever be required for any public office in the United States, nor shall the government officially establish any religion. No law which infringes on the free exercise of religion is permitted.

Freedom of speech, assembly, press and petition. The First Amendment to the Constitution provides that no law shall be passed which abridges the citizens' freedom of speech, nor their right to protest and petition the government, nor the right of the press to report information on the events of the day.

Protection from search and seizure. The police force in America may not enter a person's home or search their possessions without proving reasonable suspicion and obtaining the consent of an independent magistrate, in the form of a search warrant.

Trial by jury. Americans accused of crimes can only be convicted by a jury made up of people living in the area where the crime has taken place. In addition, people on trial have the right to confront witnesses against them and may not be compelled to testify against themselves.

Protection from cruel or unusual punishment. Cruel, degrading, or torturous punishments are constitutionally forbidden.

Equality of all people under the law. Most fundamental to the American experiment is the idea that all people have equal protection under the law, that no one group has any more or fewer legal rights than any other. This more than anything else is the idea that defines us, and though we have not always lived up to it, throughout our history we have steadily been making strides toward expanding the boundaries of liberty to include all Americans.

Now, let's see what Biblical equivalents, if any, these principles have:

Republican democracy: Explicitly denied by the Bible. Rather than democracy, the Bible's preferred model of government is a divine-right kingship, where one individual is hereditarily chosen and wields supreme power. This is what America's founders were rebelling against when they brought forth this nation.

Separation of powers: Explicitly denied by the Bible. As above, in the Bible's divine-right monarchy, a single individual wields supreme power over all functions of government. Some apologists seek to find an equivalent in a verse from Isaiah 33 - "For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king" - but what they overlook is that this verse explicitly envisions all three of these powers as being held by the same person.

Federalism: Partial equivalent in the Bible. The Old Testament's society, where each of the twelve tribes of Israel has partial autonomy over its own region, is similar to the American model of states. However, there is a notable dissimilarity as well: the Bible envisions membership in a tribe as hereditary, whereas states are made up of free collections of individuals who can move around at will. In any case, some sort of hierarchy is unavoidable in any organization too large for a single person to directly oversee.

The process of amendment: Explicitly denied by the Bible. Rather than creating a living, dynamic system of laws that can be improved and mended as society sees fit, the Bible claims that its laws are eternal and immutable, literally set in stone, and can neither be added to nor changed. The Old Testament says that each of its laws "shall be a statute forever" (Leviticus 23:41), and the New Testament says that anyone who suggests a different gospel should be accursed (Galatians 1:8-9).

Religious freedom: Explicitly denied by the Bible. Far from granting people the right to worship as they see fit, the Bible says that anyone who encourages believers to serve other gods, or anyone who speaks "blasphemy", should be killed (Deuteronomy 13:6-9, Leviticus 24:16). God himself joins in on many occasions by slaughtering people who worship different gods (Exodus 22:20). Although Jesus does say that people should "render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's" (Mark 12:17), there is no indication that any non-Christian should enjoy the same freedom of worship as believers.

Freedom of speech, assembly, press and petition: Explicitly denied by the Bible. As above, the Bible does not grant freedom of speech, but rather threatens death for those who speak in unapproved ways. Ancient Israel had no concept of the press, but there are also many cases in which people were killed for unapproved assemblies or for questioning their leaders (Numbers 16:35).

Protection from search and seizure: No equivalent in the Bible. Lacking a judicial system or separation of powers, ancient Israel had no notion of search warrants or of protection from arbitrary seizure.

Trial by jury: No equivalent in the Bible. Again, the Bible has nothing like our custom of the legal or judicial system. It does say that a man who suspects his wife of committing adultery can bring her before the priests and force her to drink "bitter water" which will cause her belly to swell and her thighs to rot if she is guilty (Numbers 5). If anything, this is most similar to the barbaric concept of trial by ordeal. It also says that anyone who accidentally kills someone may be killed without consequence by a relative of the deceased (whom it calls the "avenger of blood") (Joshua 20). Again, no mention is made of convening a jury to determine the guilt of the accused. Finally, it says that any person may be convicted of a crime on the testimony of just two witnesses (Deuteronomy 19:15), which is a far cry from the American legal system.

Protection from cruel or unusual punishment: Explicitly denied by the Bible. One of the most common punishments prescribed by the Bible is stoning - bludgeoning a person to death by smashing in his head and face with rocks. This penalty is prescribed for crimes such as disobeying one's parents (Deuteronomy 21:21), picking up sticks on Sunday (Numbers 15:36), or being gay (Leviticus 20:13). This is "cruel and unusual" punishment by any rational definition of that term.

Equality of all people under the law: Explicitly denied by the Bible. The Bible makes it clear that the Israelites enjoyed special favor as compared to everybody else, and were treated differently by the Mosaic law code. For example, foreigners taken as slaves could be kept indefinitely, while Israelite slaves were freed every seven years during Jubilee (Leviticus 25:39-46). Even among Israelites, there were stark divisions: women are worth considerably less than men (Leviticus 27:1-7), and the handicapped are discriminated against (Leviticus 21:17-23). Even Jesus joins in by making statements comparing non-Jews to dogs (Mark 7:27).

In sum, the basic principles of American democracy cannot be found in either testament of the Bible. This is hardly surprising: America's founders drew their ideas from the rational philosophy of the Enlightenment, as well as from the English common law; they said so themselves.

And to this evidence, we must add the fact that many of America's most influential founders held notably unorthodox religious views. Far from being the monolithic group of pious, church-going, by-the-book fundamentalists that today's religious right imagines them as, the founders were a diverse, freethinking group, few of them strictly obedient to any creed. It is almost certainly no coincidence that, while divine-right monarchies across the world have ended in degeneration or destruction, the American system of government whose origins were based in reason and not hobbled by rigid dogma has survived and flourished.

Oops! Not to mention that there is that pesky Treaty of Tripoli to deal with, the total lack of mentioning any jebus or god in the Constitution, etc...

Stay In School

I am just going to post Dr. Plait's blog entry on this here. I am so saddened and dumfounded by the reactions of the right on this that I probably couldn't say anything even remotely kind... And before you think I am giving the Dems a free pass, no, they showed their fucktardery when George Sr did his bit... Why are the majority of our elected officials such fucking idiots? I'm starting to think they all dropped out of school (right onto their pointy little heads!).

Perhaps you’ve heard all the uproar about President Obama’s speech today. A group of folks is very concerned about a speech of his today, because he’s talking to schoolkids. And hey, didn’t Hitler talk to kids…?

That’s about as good as their logic gets. I wish I were kidding. Read the transcript of Obama’s speech, and see if you can find the alarming parts where he calls for the formation of Brown Shirts, or the extermination of a group of humans, or the invasion of Poland. I must have missed it, instead seeing things like where he says,

Now I’ve given a lot of speeches about education. And I’ve talked a lot about responsibility.
I’ve talked about your teachers’ responsibility for inspiring you, and pushing you to learn.
I’ve talked about your parents’ responsibility for making sure you stay on track, and get your homework done, and don’t spend every waking hour in front of the TV or with that Xbox.
I’ve talked a lot about your government’s responsibility for setting high standards, supporting teachers and principals, and turning around schools that aren’t working where students aren’t getting the opportunities they deserve.
But at the end of the day, we can have the most dedicated teachers, the most supportive parents, and the best schools in the world – and none of it will matter unless all of you fulfill your responsibilities. Unless you show up to those schools; pay attention to those teachers; listen to your parents, grandparents and other adults; and put in the hard work it takes to succeed.
And that’s what I want to focus on today: the responsibility each of you has for your education. I want to start with the responsibility you have to yourself.

Call the Allies! Load the B-29s!
Seriously, read this whole speech. It’s inspiring, wonderful, and designed to inspire kids to stay in school, accept the responsibility of the education, learn things, and then go and and do good for the world.
Of course, there is a lunatic fringe in this country who will go ballistic about Obama no matter what he does; these are the ones saying the speech is indoctrinating children into accepting his socialist health care plan that will mutilate puppies and convert our elderly into Soylent Green. These people may be rabid racists, or simply mentally unbalanced, but we know for a rock solid fact that these people are utterly, completely wrong. Whatever you want to call them, it’s clear they are so far from the norm of the American people that they can’t even see the horizon from where they are. Simply reading the speech transcript shows that simply and clearly. But it’s also a fact that this subset of the population will always be with us.
But you know what? That doesn’t mean we have to give them a voice in the mainstream press. They have a right to their speech, but that doesn’t obligate anyone to pay attention to them, especially on the platform of national TV. I’m looking you right in the eye, Fox News. Not only do you give these people — factually wrong and provably so — a voice, you reiterate their comments and use your own voice to back them up.
This sort of thing mainstreams a view that is charitably called crazy. Again, I urge you to read Obama’s actual speech. It’s awesome, and something every kid should see and hear.
Yet because "news" media like Fox have aired so much invective from the wildly fringe reality-polluting community, even mainstream folks are arguing that Obama’s speech is evil. I saw a news report yesterday about an elementary school in North Carolina where they didn’t air the speech because so many parents complained. I can’t help but wonder what they would would have said if George Bush had made this same speech. Of course, Bush never would have said something like:

You’ll need the knowledge and problem-solving skills you learn in science and math to cure diseases like cancer and AIDS, and to develop new energy technologies and protect our environment. You’ll need the insights and critical thinking skills you gain in history and social studies to fight poverty and homelessness, crime and discrimination, and make our nation more fair and more free. You’ll need the creativity and ingenuity you develop in all your classes to build new companies that will create new jobs and boost our economy.

And maybe if he had said those words, the people I’m talking about would’ve complained anyway. Critical thinking skills? Ha!
If I sound angry, then, yeah, I am. I’m tired of ignorance held up as inspiration, where vicious anti-intellectualism is considered a positive trait, and where uninformed opinion is displayed as fact.
It’s killing any real debate in this country, where the system of government depends utterly on a well-informed public. When rampant idiocy is presented as reasonable discourse without any rebuttal, then we all suffer.
What we need are government officials not afraid to talk like Barney Frank did to such a voice of lunacy. To reiterate, crackpots have a right to air their diseased notions, just as we have the right to tear those ideas to shred when they do. More than that, the news media have a responsibility to do so.
Let me leave you with this revolutionary and dangerous notion from President Obama:

Don’t be afraid to ask questions. Don’t be afraid to ask for help when you need it. I do that every day. Asking for help isn’t a sign of weakness, it’s a sign of strength. It shows you have the courage to admit when you don’t know something, and to learn something new. So find an adult you trust – a parent, grandparent or teacher; a coach or counselor – and ask them to help you stay on track to meet your goals.

I would add that we all need to not be afraid to speak out against nonsense and to call out willful ignorance when we see it.
Never give up. Never back down against evil. Never tire, because this struggle will be eternal.

Politics: Americans Not Playing With a Full Deck

Running short on time today (and will be for the next few weeks), so reposting an essay I found:

If any decisions were to be made by using reason and evidence, political decisions would have to be among them - but Americans generally don't do that. Only a small percentage appear to have a coherent political philosophy, consistent beliefs, and an ability to explain what they decide. The rest go by gut instinct, so they're inconsistent and react poorly.

If this is how people deal with politics, where a significant amount of the relevant and necessary information is right in front of them or easily accessible, can be understood with perhaps just a little effort, and can be sorted out with a little more effort, then how can we expect people to deal with religion any better?

Louis Menand wrote in The New Yorker a couple of years ago:

[W]hen [electoral] competence began to be measured statistically, around the end of the Second World War, the numbers startled almost everyone. The data were interpreted most powerfully by the political scientist Philip Converse, in an article on “The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics,” published in 1964. Forty years later, Converse’s conclusions are still the bones at which the science of voting behavior picks. Converse claimed that only around ten per cent of the public has what can be called, even generously, a political belief system. He named these people “ideologues,” by which he meant not that they are fanatics but that they have a reasonable grasp of “what goes with what”—of how a set of opinions adds up to a coherent political philosophy.

Non-ideologues may use terms like “liberal” and “conservative,” but Converse thought that they basically don’t know what they’re talking about, and that their beliefs are characterized by what he termed a lack of “constraint”: they can’t see how one opinion (that taxes should be lower, for example) logically ought to rule out other opinions (such as the belief that there should be more government programs). About forty-two per cent of voters, according to Converse’s interpretation of surveys of the 1956 electorate, vote on the basis not of ideology but of perceived self-interest.

[A]fter analyzing the results of surveys conducted over time, in which people tended to give different and randomly inconsistent answers to the same questions, Converse concluded that “very substantial portions of the public” hold opinions that are essentially meaningless—off-the-top-of-the-head responses to questions they have never thought about, derived from no underlying set of principles. These people might as well base their political choices on the weather. And, in fact, many of them do. ... Seventy per cent of Americans cannot name their senators or their congressman. Forty-nine per cent believe that the President has the power to suspend the Constitution. Only about thirty per cent name an issue when they explain why they voted the way they did, and only a fifth hold consistent opinions on issues over time.

Rephrasing poll questions reveals that many people don’t understand the issues that they have just offered an opinion on. According to polls conducted in 1987 and 1989, for example, between twenty and twenty-five per cent of the public thinks that too little is being spent on welfare, and between sixty-three and sixty-five per cent feels that too little is being spent on assistance to the poor.

So, it would appear that Americans are just idiots, right? Maybe so — but not in a way that should be surprising. When we take the same sort of behavior and place it in a different context, it looks a lot more understandable:

Any time information is lacking or uncertain, a shortcut is generally better than nothing. But the shortcut itself is not a faster way of doing the math; it’s a way of skipping the math altogether. My hunch that the coolest-looking stereo component is the best value simply does not reflect an intuitive grasp of electronics. My interest in a stereo is best served if I choose the finest sound for the money, as my interest in an election is best served if I choose the candidate whose policies are most likely to benefit me or the people I care about. But almost no one calculates in so abstract a fashion.

Few people have time to do all of the research necessary in order to ensure that they get the best possible stereo in exchange for whatever amount of money they are willing to spend. Their time is worth more than that — they quite simply have better things to be doing. Don’t you? So, naturally, they use mental short cuts and that usually works well enough.

Why would anyone expect people to act differently when it comes to politics? Sure, politics is more important than stereos, but the fact of the matter is people use these short cuts all the time. We’re used to them. Changing all of the sudden is difficult (remember, we don’t vote that often). So it’s only to be expected that we reach for our short cuts in order to reach conclusions. It’s sad, really, but understandable.

And there’s nothing we can do about it. The next time you hear someone complaining about how political ads (or even commercial ads) push style and looks over substance, just remember the above data — and remember that the people crafting those ads already know all of this, that’s why the ads look this way.

But what does this mean when it comes to religion? Doesn't it suggest that it may be a hopeless cause to try and get most people to think more critically about religion and theism? Perhaps. Are there ways for atheists and skeptics to take advantage of these shortcuts and get people to use shortcuts that lead them more readily to secular atheism? Perhaps, but then it wouldn’t be an atheism based on reason, skepticism, and critical thinking — and is that any better than a theism that is similarly ill-founded?

GOVERNMENT DEATH PANEL SUPPORTERS!

You are all aware I am sure of the "Government Death Panels" that are in the healthcare reform debate. But I bring you two of its most ardent supporters:

Sarah Palin

Newt Gingrich

Here you see BOTH of them supporting such RADICAL and un-American concepts as advanced care planning, living wills, counseling, and coordinating records through electronic media. You know, the DEATH PANELS!!!!!!!!!

Okay, this is YET ANOTHER example of the outright lies and distortion you the public are getting from these first class hypocritical fucktards! You want to know something even funnier? If you go to the State of Alaska web page listing all the proclamations, scroll down to April 2008 (when Sarah "I'm a fucking tard" Palin made her proclamation), and click on the link for it, you get nothing! She had it taken down? Good thing for archives! Newt's article was specifically on reform, but it's incredibly hypocritical and disingenuous to tout advanced care planning to be covered by Medicaid as a fucking death panel. Come on, is lying so ingrained that you feel that this isn't anything more than a scare tactic?

After all, if the Terry Shaivo fiasco of 2005 didn't get people to actually think about really planning for this shit, I doubt they'll do it on their own. As a matter of fact, the Schaivo incident is yet another example of hypocrisy and fear mongering douchebaggery. Back then, you had the Senate all wrapped up in interfering in a family's private decision on end of life planning. NOW however, they say it isn't a place for them to get involved. Okay, make up your fucking mind already! Or are you just so politically fickle that you have no actual convictions, and live your life according to Faux Noise "news" coverage?

Again, I have stated repeatedly that I am not sure that we as Americans deserve any healthcare on a universal basis. Not until we actually DO something about our health! Stop thinking that a triple whopper, large fries, apple pie, and a diet coke is a healthy meal... Get off your ass and do something like going to the gym, or just take a walk. Take the stairs instead of the escalator or elevator. Don't drive to the mailbox. And for fucks sake, we need some massive tort reform. Anyway, here is a repeat of a previous blog entry:

As for the actual agenda of a national healthcare plan... My view is that we need to get the insurance companies out of running it entirely unsupervised. Incentiveize people to be healthier first of all, and then see what we can do to make the system efficient. Right now it's yet another bunch of douchebaggery that is out of control, and the government hasn't done a damn thing to stop it. Too much Laize Faire will result in abuses too... Because people are greedy douche bags!

And AGAIN the Republicans are being SUPREME douche bags... The only study they are taking talking points from is the Lewin Group. They seem to be leaving out a KEY fact though:

The political battle over health-care reform is waged largely with numbers, and few number-crunchers have shaped the debate as much as the Lewin Group, a consulting firm whose research has been widely cited by opponents of a public insurance option.

To Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia, the House Republican whip, it is "the nonpartisan Lewin Group." To Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee, it is an "independent research firm." To Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, the second-ranking Republican on the pivotal Finance Committee, it is "well known as one of the most nonpartisan groups in the country."

Generally left unsaid amid all the citations is that the Lewin Group is wholly owned by UnitedHealth Group, one of the nation's largest insurers.

Oh Snap!

REALLY?!

So, do you think that the Republicans feel ANY guilt for out and out LYING about the health plan on the hill? Calling Hospice counseling "Planning to die"? Americans totally suck (are even RETARDED) when it comes to actually planning and looking ahead to the future, so planning something like this seems like a good idea. Yet, the party of fearmongering has latched onto this in a way that makes me want to bitchslap the lot of them.

Look, I think this plan isn't the best idea, only because we're a bunch of whiny lardasses that don't deserve healthcare until we can take care of ourselves, but really? Making claims like this? Are the Republicans TRYING to come off as total tards? I mean, partial tards I can understand, but TOTAL tards? Seriously Repubs, you are not only pissing me off with your religious pandering, and whoring out to big business, but now you just fucking lie your asses off because you are totally mentally, morally, and intellectually bankrupt? To think I even tried to identify with you morons... Seriously, if you are going to win any elections beyond those set up by vast amounts of money supplied by your toadie masters, or in areas where IQs hover below room temperature, you need to change your tune!

Man, that got me so pissed off... How about a coule of blog entries from some other folks? I really enjoyed this one (follow some of the links in thatone, make fr a series of good reading):

Why Do Atheists Have to Talk About Atheism?

Whenever the subject of atheism comes up, anywhere that isn't an atheist discussion group or something, one sentiment almost inevitably comes up:

"I wish atheists wouldn't talk so much about atheism."

The sentiment gets worded in many different ways. "The new atheists are so evangelical." "This atheist criticism of religion is just intolerant." "You atheists are just as close-minded as the hard-line religious believers you're criticizing."

But the essence of it is the same: The fact that many atheists are talking publicly about our atheism, and are trying to persuade people that we're right about it, shows that we're ... well, evangelical, intolerant and close-minded. So today, I want to explain why so many atheists think it's important to talk about atheism ... and why many of us try to persuade other people that atheism is correct.

The first answer is the most obvious: Anti-atheist bigotry. Atheists talk about atheism because there's a lot of misunderstanding and hostility toward us. It's nowhere near as severe as racism or sexism; but it does exist, and it has real-world consequences.

Parents are denied custody of their children for being atheists; people are harassed and and their homes vandalized by their neighbors for being atheists; teachers are suspended for being atheists; teenagers are harassed and suspended from school for being atheists; politicians whip up anti-atheist fear to try to get elected. (And that's just in the U.S. I'm not even talking about parts of the world where atheism is a crime punishable by imprisonment or death.)

Making ourselves visible, coming out about who we are and what we do and don't believe, is the best way we have to counter that.

That's only a small part of the story, though. Another part -- and probably more important -- is that many atheists see religion not just as a mistaken idea but as a harmful one. We see it as a serious social problem, a type of belief that on the whole does significantly more harm than good ... and one that, because of its ultimately unfalsifiable nature, has little or none of the reality checks that other belief systems eventually have to measure up to.

We see people bombing buildings, abusing children, committing flagrant fraud, shooting political dissenters, etc., etc., etc., all behind the armor of religion ... and we feel a need to speak out.

Even that, though, is missing the crux of the issue. The crux of the issue, the most important answer to the question, "Why do atheists have to talk about atheism?" is this: Why shouldn't we?

Thinking you're right, and trying to persuade other people you're right, is not intolerant or close-minded -- it's a cornerstone of democracy. That's how it works: people explain their ideas, debate them, make arguments to support them, revise or refine or drop them in the face of valid criticism, make snarky jokes in the face of stupid criticism.

The marketplace of ideas won't flourish if people don't bring their ideas to the market. Being close-minded doesn't mean thinking you're right; it means refusing to reconsider your position, even when the evidence suggests that you're wrong. And being intolerant doesn't mean thinking other people are wrong; it means refusing to listen to them, and dismissing them entirely as stupid or wicked, simply because you disagree with them.

Think of it this way. Is it intolerant or close-minded to say that single-payer is the best plan for the American health care system? That public funding for solar power will reduce our dependence on foreign oil? That global warming is real? That the theory of evolution is right? Is it intolerant or close-minded to try to persuade people to come around to any of these points of view? And if not ... then why is it intolerant or close-minded for atheists to explain why we don't believe in God and to try to persuade people that, of all the ideas people have about religion, atheism is the most plausible?

See, here's the thing, atheists see religion as a lot of things. But for many of us, religion is, above all else, a hypothesis about how the world works and why it is the way it is.

Obviously, we think it's a mistaken hypothesis: inconsistent with itself, inconsistent with reality, unsupported by any good evidence. We can't prove our case with 100 percent certainty -- that's pretty much impossible, especially when you're trying to prove a negative -- but we think we can make a pretty good case.

But more to the point: We see no reason to treat religion any differently from any other hypothesis about the world. We think it's valid to ask it to support its case just like any other hypothesis ... and just like any other hypothesis, we think it's valid to poke holes in it in public.

And we think one of the main reasons religion has survived for so long is that it's so impressively armored against criticism and indeed against the very idea that criticism of it is an acceptable thing to do.

So we therefore think criticizing religion is not only valid, but important. It doesn't just chip away at religious beliefs themselves. It chips away at the idea that religious beliefs should be immune to criticism. It chips away at the armor that religion has used so effectively for so many centuries to shield itself from any and all questions and critiques.

Now, playing devil's advocate for a moment: Some may argue that I'm being hypocritical; that I'll decry the evangelism of evangelical believers, but am willing to defend it in atheists.

But I don't, in fact, have a problem with evangelical believers trying to persuade others that they're right. Don't get me wrong: I think many of their specific beliefs are mistaken. I think many of their specific beliefs are bigoted, hateful and harmful. I have serious problems with many of the methods they use to persuade, with their reliance on fear and false promises and, in some cases, outright lies.

And I think far too many of their rhetorical devices simply deflect legitimate criticism instead of answering it. But I don't think it's wrong of them to express their beliefs and to try to persuade others that they're right. Again -- that's the marketplace of ideas. And I'm in favor of that. I can disagree passionately with someone's ideas without thinking they're jerks simply for wanting to share them.

I think a little historical context may be in order. This "I'm so tired of hearing about (X), proponents of (X) who advance their views in the public eye are intolerant" trope has been used against every major social-change movement I can think of.

Queer activists were "in your face"; civil rights activists were "hostile"; feminists were "strident." And now atheists who make our case are "intolerant" and "evangelical." When people speak out, not against atheism, but against the very idea of atheists persuasively expressing their views, I always want to ask if that's really the side of history they want to end up on.

Besides, it's not like we're standing outside anyone's window with a bullhorn at 3 a.m. We're not holding a gun to anyone's head and making them read Pharyngula. We're not even knocking on people's doors at 8 o'clock on Saturday morning to share the good word about Darwin. (Well, except for that one guy...)

If people don't want to hear what atheists have to say, there is a wide, wide world of blogs, newspaper articles, magazine articles, YouTube videos, movies, TV shows and oodles of other media available with just a flip of the page or a click of the remote or the mouse. If someone is seriously angered because they occasionally see the word "atheist" in a headline, or have to change the channel if Richard Dawkins is on, then I have to wonder if what's upsetting them is not the evangelical intolerance of atheist activists, but the very idea of atheism itself.

Now, if someone disagrees with us, then by all means, I want them to say so. If someone thinks that there's solid, reliable evidence supporting religious belief, or that the good done in the name of religion outweighs the harm, then I strongly encourage them to bring their ideas to the conversation and to make their case.

But there's a world of difference between, "Here's why I don't agree with you," and, "You are a bad person for even opening your mouth." The former is an attempt to engage in the conversation. The latter is simply an attempt to shut us up.

If someone comes to the marketplace of ideas and the only thing they have to offer is, "How dare those atheists set up a stand here! They're trying to convince us that we're mistaken and that their ideas are better! That's so intolerant!"... then I don't see any reason why I should take that seriously.

Surprised at lack of News Coverage

Okay, so I saw a news story about YET ANOTHER senator being a total hypocrite and doing something that they publicly condemn, rail against and basically froth at the mouth saying is a BAD Thing. Yet I am surprised that I really haven't heard that much about it in the news. Is it become such a regular thing now that it's not even worth a section by Jeannie Moos? Here is what I heard over at Daniel Florien's blog:

State Sen. Paul Stanley is a good ol’ Republican boy. He teaches Sunday School at a United Methodist Church and is on their school board. He sponsored a bill to keep gay couples from adopting children. He’s quoted as saying that he “didn’t believe young people should have sex before marriage anyway, that his faith and church are important to him, and he wants to promote abstinence.” He’s married and has two children.

And now he’s admitted to having sex with his 22 year-old intern and taking nude photos of her.

How utterly shocking!

Okay, not really.

It came out when the intern’s boyfriend tried to blackmail the senator for $10,000.

He doesn’t want gay couples to adopt children because, in his bigotry, he sees them as depraved individuals who are not fit to raise children. The irony is his own religion condemns him — he committed adultery, which goes against one of his precious 10 Commandments. By his own standards, he’s not fit to raise children. It’s unlikely he would admit that, however. There’s nothing like hypocrisy to make fundies find excuses for what they normally denounce as heinous sins.

So no coverage? I mean, even Faux Noise can't run a story about this and "accidentally" put a (D) after this guys name like they did with Foley, and Craig, and Ensign, and whoever else they were afraid to give real reporting to since it reflected bad on their ideology. Too bad these morons and the C Street fucktardery is so rampant that it can't be hidden by these "mistakes". Not to say the D's are innocent. Hell, some of them are part of the C Street cult of fucktards... *YIKES* Although generally they aren't all up in arms about people's personal business and aren't trying to legislate it. Although, it seems that the Congresscritters are just another example of what happens with power. You'd think we would have learned with Rome.

Oh, did anyone catch The Daily Show?

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Bill Kristol
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Joke of the Day

Yep, I have great health care, and none of you slobs deserve it, so suck it! Well, that seems to be the message from this douche bag. Amazing! So CAN the government run something good, or can't it? Make up your mind!

P.S. As for the actual agenda of a national healthcare plan... My view is that we need to get the insurance companies out of it. Incentiveize people to be healthier first of all, and then see what we can do to make the system efficient. Right now it's yet another bunch of douchebaggery that is out of control, and the government hasn't done a damn thing to stop it. Too much Laize Faire will result in abuses too... Because people are greedy douche bags!

And AGAIN the Republicans are being SUPREME douche bags... The only study they arte taking talking points from is the Lewin Group. They seem to be leaving out a KEY fact though:

The political battle over health-care reform is waged largely with numbers, and few number-crunchers have shaped the debate as much as the Lewin Group, a consulting firm whose research has been widely cited by opponents of a public insurance option.

To Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia, the House Republican whip, it is "the nonpartisan Lewin Group." To Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee, it is an "independent research firm." To Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, the second-ranking Republican on the pivotal Finance Committee, it is "well known as one of the most nonpartisan groups in the country."

Generally left unsaid amid all the citations is that the Lewin Group is wholly owned by UnitedHealth Group, one of the nation's largest insurers.

Oh Snap!

Time for Fat Tax

Okay, so I just saw that advert where the family goes fishing and it says that we don't need a tax on the crap that we buy that's bad for us. Sadly, I think we do need that tax...

Come on, be honest, how many people look like those in the advert? How many people that generally by chips, soda, and that type of junkfood actually DO eat responsibly and actually exercise? This is a case where we have acted so irresponsibly that we abdicated our right to consume like the obese cows we have turned into. If obesity wasn't an epidemic, I would agree with the sentiment of the commercial, but just looking around on the beach, it's like several hundred pods of whales have washed up! Heck, I'd go so far as to force people to humiliate themselves before being allowed to buy soda, chips, and other junkfoods. If they have those items in their cart, they will have to step on a scale that measurs their bodyfat (we have some pretty good ones now that are accurate to within a percent or two), and if they are lardasses, a big flashing light goes off, and a speaker announces to everyone in the store that a "fatty fat fatso is getting fatter". And since this behaviour is going unchecked, and is also responsible for so many health problems, I have no sympathy that the burden comes on them.

I enjoy a cigar from time to time as well. I know that's not the healthiest habit, but again, I am willing to pay extra for that. Heck, there are a lot of things that drive direct costs to how incredibly unhealthy this nation is, that may be occasional pleasures to people. You need to make it a cost benefit analysis to them. Not something that makes it more convenient. Hell, tax the shit out of McDonalds and their ilk too.

Some things that I even thought would help people get more motivated to change their lardass lifestyle:

- Make Helath Club dues tax deductible (provided the guym is actually used).
- Give people a tax break if they are able to pass a PT test (administered by the health club, not the gubment).
- Make the total cost of all FRESH fruits and vegetables a tax deduction as well.
- In other words, make people care about being healthy and benefit from it in ways that matter outside the quality of life (let's face it, looking like a fucking blob doesn't seem to matter to folks...).

Shit like this bugs me, because I'd rather not see us having to resort to this, but let's face it. As a nation we're about as unhealthy as a nation can be, and still be able to walk over to the Ben and jerry's counter without collapsing of a heart attack. We stopped caring, so at this point we need to be treated like the children we are acting like, and have some sense beaten into us.

Just my rant for the day. Now, I'm gonna go jogging, and then my wife wants me to cut up some veggies for our dinner tonight.

EDIT TO ADD: I did want to make an acknowledgment that there ARE medical conditions that do make life difficult for many people. However, that doesn't mean to just give up on an attempt at a healthy lifestyle. It's no excuse to have a 5000 calorie per day diet. Put down the deep fat fried Twinkie dipped in baconaise, and have an apple instead. I doubt that 32% of the US has an uncontrolled thyroid problem (obese)! Or that 65% are just big boned (overweight). Heck, I know that I myself need to take my own advice and lose a few pounds and have a better diet. That commercial just really pissed me off.

The Real America?

As I mentioned in the "Douchebaggery" blog, I may not agree with everything President Obama is doing (on the domestic side), but also realize that we've put ourselves in a bad position where these solutions are what is left. But what I would like to talk about (thanks Aaron for giving me the idea) is this "Real America" thing.

I can't express how thankful I am that President Obama won. In his mind, there aren't two Americas that are real and not real. He's not about dividing people up just because they don't adhere to whatever is your ideology. Not so with the GOP. Even more and more I am hearing that they represent the "Real America". What the fuck are they talking about? Is it really their goal to alienate and piss off anyone who isn't a fundamental xtian? Let's face it, the GOP has turned into the Fundamental Christian Political Action Group, and is no longer in any way a Grand Old Party.

And what determines what makes a "Real American" anyway? Serving your country in Uniform? Being a god fearing church goer? Really, all I see again out of the GOP is incredibly childish, short sighted, divisive actions. And this is coming from someone who was a registered Republican for 25 years!

So really, what the fuck is a Real American, and what the fuck is a fake american? I'd like to know, just so I can see exactly how deluded and childish the dividers are.

Douchebaggery....

Okay, today's blog is going to be all over the place...

I got a link to this article about a guy that is a total asswipe and nutcase. Why do I use such harsh language? Well, anyone who is still one of the psycho "birthers" is about as crazy as the flat earthers. It's not like this has been rehashed again and again and again:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp

http://msgboard.snopes.com/politics/graphics/birth.jpg

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

Of course, then the "birthers" go off on the wild goose chase of the "long form" certificate. Never mind that the one shown is perfectly acceptable and a legal document on its own. It's as if these nutters are a cop that stop you for going 55 in a 55 with their radar gun stating 55, but they still give you a ticket because they don't have a picture of your speedometer from the time they took the reading...

So I am glad they booted this idiot. He's clearly mentally unstable. Not to mention that it's perfectly legal under the UCMJ to do that to him since he's disopbeying a legal order. Not only that, he'd be bad for good order and discipline (a case where I agree with that verbiage). And finally, my hypothesis is that he's a pussy, and was too afraid to deploy (PUSSY!).

On the vein of DOUCHEBAGGERY; while I don't agree with all of President Obama's domestic policies, the douchebagger of the past 8 years has forced us into a corner. When Billary tried to ram rod healthcare reform back in the 90's, there was still hope that the system could do what needed to be done. Sadly, since then, douchebaggery has been rampant, and any sort of humane compassion has been abdicated by the example set in our national leadership, and now the system is so broken and fucked sidways that we have no choice but to let the government step in and pick up the pieces. The "less government" libertarian part of me hates to see all these government programs put in place to do things that we as responsible citizens should be able to do for ourselves, but I have to face the facts that we fucked things up so bad, that we need to be rescued from our worst nature. Of course, now that there is a statesman and rational thinker instead of a supersticious sheeple in charge, we may get a better example set for us.

Finally, I want to present a blog from another writer that talks about the douchebaggery in education. Today is the 40th anniversary of the launch of Apollo 11. An amazing time in history for the entire human race. And today, the US is barely able to get to low earth orbit, and will in all likelyhood get beat by the Chinese back to the moon, and even Mars. So here is that blog. While he states many things as "facts", i think he's a bit on the side of hyperbole, but his sentiments are right on. If you look at reports about the state of US education (or just watch Jaywalking), you know what I mean,

40 Years After Moon Landing: Why Aren't People Smarter?

Editor's Note: Forty years ago this month, humans landed on the moon for the first time. We asked Benjamin Radford why, four decades later, humans have not become any smarter.

A look at old periodicals reveals something very interesting about human nature. Newspapers and magazines from the early 1900s were full of advertisements for instant weight loss gizmos, miracle cures, and all other forms of self-evident quackery. A century later, this stuff is still being advertised - and lots of people are buying.

You would think that by now people would know that you can't lose 10 pounds a week taking a "breakthrough" miracle pill, and you can't earn $50,000 a week working from home in your spare time (at least not legally).

Despite a long tradition of free, compulsory public education (and more college graduates than ever), as a whole we don't seem to be getting much smarter.

Many of us still buy the newest fad items and get suckered into the latest conspiracy theory. We still fall for the same logical traps, the same wacky ideas, the same old discredited snake oil in shiny new bottles that plagued our forefathers-and their forefathers.

Why? If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we rise above bad thinking?

Education

Education is a big part of the problem.

Our educational system tends to focus on rote facts and memorization: names, dates, places, and events. It is easy to teach children basic facts, and to test their knowledge of those facts; either students know the capital of Argentina or they don't, and either the correct oval is darkened with graphite or it isn't. (The emphasis on "teaching to the test" also undermines critical thinking, favoring compartmentalized factual memorization over in-depth understanding.)

Being smart involves being able to understand the relationships between events, finding and questioning hidden assumptions, and so on. The fact is, most students are not taught how to think analytically and critically.

Critical thinking classes are rarely included in typical educational curriculum. The vain hope is that in the process of studying geography, math, English, biology, and so on, students will learn to think critically. But critical thinking should not be an afterthought or happy byproduct, it should be a primary goal because it is a way of thinking that can be applied to all academic subjects and areas of life.

Cognitive limitations

The widespread failure to teach critical thinking (or even recognize its importance) is only part of the problem. Efforts to make our kids smarter will inevitably crash up against a biological barrier: Our brains are actually hardwired to hinder our attempts to think critically.

Critical thinking is often counterintuitive, and our brains are easily fooled.

Superstition and magical thinking come easily to us; we jump to conclusions without evidence; our biases and prejudices influence how we interpret the world. We see faces in clouds and patterns in events where they do not exist. Personal experience and vivid anecdotes are much more easily learned and remembered than facts. Our fears and emotions often override facts and logic (for example, the factual knowledge that air travel is very, very safe does little to calm many people's visceral fear of flying).

In a way, the better question is, shouldwe expect people to be any smarter?

Critical thinking is a skill, and like any skill it can be taught, practiced, and improved upon. Expecting the average person to think logically and critically is like expecting the average person to play the piano or write a book. With study and practice, almost anyone can do it with some level of proficiency, but most people don't learn how to think critically or analytically-nor are they even aware of its value.

More data, same processors

The amount of human knowledge has increased exponentially over the past few centuries. We have more information than ever before on virtually every imaginable topic, from physics to medicine to sociology. (The notable exceptions are paranormal, possibly non-existent subjects like ghosts, Bigfoot, and psychic powers; the body of knowledge about these topics has not increased at all.)

But all that data and information is useless if people can't effectively understand or apply it. Without logic, wisdom, and reasoned analysis, facts are useless.

The United States - and indeed the world - is faced with a daunting set of challenges, including climate change, influenza pandemics, warfare, the search for renewable energy, and so on. Solving these problems will require an educated public able to critically and logically analyze the issues. Hopefully that will happen, but if history is any guide, we will instead stumble and muddle through, just as we always have.

• And Another Thing: Why Can't We Cure Cancer?
• SPACE.com Special Report: The Apollo Moon Landing
• Top 10 Conspiracy Theories

Benjamin Radford is managing editor of the Skeptical Inquirer science magazine. His books, films, and other projects can be found on his website. His Bad Science column appears regularly on LiveScience.

• Original Story: 40 Years After Moon Landing: Why Aren't People Smarter?

LiveScience.com chronicles the daily advances and innovations made in science and technology. We take on the misconceptions that often pop up around scientific discoveries and deliver short, provocative explanations with a certain wit and style. Check out our science videos, Trivia & Quizzes and Top 10s. Join our community to debate hot-button issues like stem cells, climate change and evolution. You can also sign up for free newsletters, register for RSS feeds and get cool gadgets at the LiveScience Store.

Fucking Frightening, but NOT Surprising

If you read this blog, then I'm sure you probably saw the Rachel Maddow bit about the C Street House and a group called "The Family". Now, even if you aren't liberal, or even atheist, doesn't this group sound like a bunch of fucking crackpots!? What the fucking fuck!? Here, just have a look:

Really, are these people on the same fucking planet as the rest of us? And again, this just goes to the whole idea that religion empowers people of power to abuse that power because it's perfectly okay to do so according to their god(s). Why can't people see through that thin veneer that tries to hide how utterly ridiculous religion is? As I am fond of saying: "Science will fly you to the moon. Religion will fly you into buildings." While many folks will extol the virtues of religion, and its impact on art, music, and even philanthropic efforts, all those could easily be accomplished, and surpassed by secular efforts.

On the good news front, I finally got to see the Fareed Zakaria episode where he interviewed the British Foreign Minister, an atheist! Considering that this man is a possible leader of the Labour Party, and then even in line as a Prime Minister actually had my wife and I cheering as we watched the show. He's articulate, intelligent, well spoken, and has a balanced view of the world (even with Fareed's jab on the Kashmir region). Imagine that! The part that got me cheering was at the 18:58 point in this video.

Okay, just a quick blog for today. I am still doing the whole application of jobs and trying to ensure that me and my family are well taken care of, while still contributing to the world. While this blog is fun and all, it doesn't quite meet that mission statement. :)

Partisan STUPIDTY

Have you ever had the pleasure to observe someone incredibly competent, thoughtful, skillful, and a leader in their field perform a job (such as brain surgery)? And then some fucking retard who hasn't the foggiest clue how to do this job criticizes ("What I'd do is cut right through that there Medulla Oblangata...")? Watching the way the Republicans are criticizing President Obama over his reaction to the Iranian Election protests is sort of like that.

Do the Republicans WANT to be a tool for the hardline government? Do they ENJOY being played like some ten cent banjo? Do they have no understanding of the history we have in that country that stretches back sixy years? When a statesman like Henry Kissinger says you are handling things correctly, don't you think the retards with an (R) after their name can listen?

I was particularly dismayed at the comparison one congresscritter had with President Reagan's "Mr. Gorbachev, that wall is none of our business." mental drivel. Does he really thing that the situations are even on the same planet of comparison? Is he so daft as to think that the history is remotely the same? Again, if the GOP wants to be a viable party, they need to find people who have IQs higher than room temperature to represent them (I'm not saying that Rebuplicans actually ARE retarded, but they are acting like it!).

Again, I urge all to support the Demonstrators in Iran, and we should hope for some sort of regime change. However, UNDERSTAND that it is not the place of the President of the United States (no matter who) to really take sides. He's screwed either way, but the sure fire way to give material support to the hardliners is to issue unequivocal support for the reformists. Read that again. Now think about it for a while, and maybe you can understand the staesmanship actualy involved here.

No matter how this turns out, also keep in mind that we have the spectre of a nuclear Iran to deal with. When the dust settles, no matter who is in power, we will still need to deal with them. Again, but interfereing or even taking sides, we potentially cut off any opportunity to tackle this issue. And the reformists are smarter than the Republicans apparently, and understand this. Iran is an intensely proud nation, and they understand that their revolution needs to come wholly at their own hands. And if we lend aid, we're just repeating the fiascos we seem to cause on a regular basis in that region.

Tell the congresscritters and talking heads that are criticizing President Obama to shut the fuck up and let the grown ups do real work, okay?

WTF? Just, WTF?

Um.

Yeah.

Hm.

Honestly, I have tried starting this post about 6 times, each time weighing a new opening. Do I talk about the nature of a democratic republic? Do I start with a statement about Barry Goldwater shitting his pants? Since I decided that I can't have it all, I've decided that I'll have none of it.

It seems that the Paradigm Research Group has issued an ultimatum to the President:

"[E]ither disclose the reality of the Extraterrestrial presence by June this year, or prepare to face an onslaught of media based inquiry and scrutiny."

Look out, President Obama! Scrutiny! HAHAHAHA!

OK, how is the Paradigm Research Group going to incite the entire media to, uh, inquire about the real alien invasion?

The plan is simple: failing President Obama's open and direct admission to the American public (and the world) that Extraterrestrials exist and are currently engaging Earth and its citizens, PRG and its network will provide the media with all the documentation and information they require in order to further ramp up the pressure.

If you have evidence, why do you need the President to take the lead on this one? I merely ask because the logic is so bent. Why should the President spend a smidgen of his valuable time appeasing PRG? I mean, there's some big stuff going down right now, and the adults have some serious work to do. Well, you see, in the conspiracists' worldview, all things are usually connected:

Disclosure may be far from President Obama's mind these days, but the seemingly endless series of crises thrust upon him and his administration may also stem from a far greater and problematic issue, mainly the holding back of information concerning whether or not other sentient and highly advanced life forms are present and engaging us as a species.

The aliens are responsible for assuming bad debt? They are giving us Mexican Jumping Flu? They are tossing Madonna off of an endless series of horses? (Stay off, dumbass! You clearly suck at riding!) I can't even process that claim it's so far out there.

I Agree 100% with Obama About the Torture Tactics

So there has been some talk in the news about the CIA methods used to interrogate certain high level targets. I have to agree with President Obama on this one. We as a nation should be better than this. We should be better because it's more difficult as well. We don't take the easy way out, and we don't compromise our standing. That's it! End of story.

Sadly, I see so many things that went wrong with the whole idea here that I have to expound on them a little bit more...

First of all, torture is notoriously unreliable. I honestly can't think of any research or evidence that says torture of any kind is a reliable method for gathering intelligence and data. It's effective at humiliation and making the target hate you over the long term, but I don't think that should be the goal. Besides, isn't the United States one of the most technologically advanced nations in the world (as long as we can keep fundies off our school boards)? Don't we have many other methods to gather information, and even determine their veracity? And I'm not only talking the intelligence community, but with using much more effective psychological methods on detainees of interest. Heck, even at survival school they gave us a little exposure to a lot of different methods that are a heck of a lot more effective than just plain old beatings...

Another worrying aspect of this is that it highlights the whole idea that people will do terrible things if they are dogmatic followers. By abdicating responsibility to some higher authority, they justify doing the most atrocious things. I'm sure that former President Bush justified it by the fact that he was doing god's work. Isn't that just a bit sick? If you have an imaginary friend that takes responsibility for everything bad you do, then what makes you any different from people flying airplanes into buildings? And it's a type of mindset that is at play here (not just being a theitard). One thing that a lot of people seem to forget is that human beings really are just a type of animal. While we have a highly developed altruistic sense, there are parts of our brain that are frightening. By prostrating ourselves to former President Bush and his cronies, the United States became that which we abhor. That just made me sick. I am glad I never received any orders to work at Guantanamo, and if I had, I would probably be facing UCMJ action for disobeying orders and revealing what has finally come to light.

I don't care that people are all upset at President Obama about this. I'm 100% behind him. The people that are complaining or bitching and moaning should get some FBI attention, because they are clearly sociopathic on some level or another.

My thought for today.

Fighting the Party, not Ideas

Maybe I am just fed up with the current US political system. It seems to me that people on "The Hill" aren't fighting the ideas they put forth, but rather just fighting each other. The basic core of their ideas seem so similar that I can't help but to think they are out of original ideas! In this day and age, the battle lines are clearly drawn strictly by political affiliation. And they don't even attack the ideas that are presented except on minute differences that have no real bearing on the overall gist of the idea. Instead they spew forth terms lie "The Democrats" or "The Republicans" without examining what it is that they are attempting to accomplish!

I see this as a symptom of what is really at the heart of the broken aspects of the two party system. There is no incentive to build a coalition. It's down to an all or nothing system. It's all the same ideas with different banners and bumper stickers. Perhaps the American public is satisfied with this?

I do tend to wax philosophical from time to time about the overall stupidity of the American public, and with them getting suckered in to this fight over slogans just seems to confirm my worst opinions of "people" in general. What I'd like to see are substantive debates on the ideas and issues, not window dressing cat-fights. And as George patton once said, "If everyone is thinking alike, no one is really thinking." It seems that they have sold off their intellectual capabilities for just attacking the other party because they are the other party, and nothing more.

If a candidate wants my vote, they must show several items, and none of them have any basis in any party. They need to first of all show intelligence! Some claim that being an elitist is a bad thing, but dammit, we are expecting this person to run the most powerful nation on earth. I damn well expect them to be elite! I don't want an average brain surgeon or average mechanic either. I want the best, and that should go for the President or any other elected official. I want them to be responsible. Not only in their actions, but for their ideas and mistakes. The idea of passing the buck has become so ingrained in today's society that it's almost startling when someone owns up as says they screwed up. I want them to exhibit some imagination! I think that's probably a deal breaker for most politicians. The inertia of doing things the same old way has totally stifled Washington.

Well, just my thoughts for today. What do you think?

Thank you PRESIDENT Obama

Today was a historic day for the United States. Not only because we had a peaceful transition of the most powerful office in the world, nor because an African-American man took the mantle of that office (although both of those events play larger than what I am about to write about). Today PRESIDENT Obama acknowledged non-believers! I was already sitting up straight and proud as he took the oath of office (even with his little flub), but when he actually mentioned non-believers in his inaugural address, I finally felt as if I may be part of America, as opposed to sitting on the outskirts fighting a battle against bigotry, hatred, and small-mindedness. Like most of America, I feel incredible pride and hope for the future, albeit for different reasons than most Americans.

In a country where it would be easier to get elected to office as a felon than an atheist, it's nice to get some recognition from Citizen #1. We can only hope that this will lead to a more civil discourse on the secular nature of the Constitution, as well as understanding that Freedom OF religion requires a specific type of Freedom FROM religion. Lastly, maybe there will be more of a focus on SCIENCE as opposed to childish superstitions. Maybe I am hoping for too much?

Anyway, I was glad to hear even a slight acknowledgment. Again, thank you PRESIDENT Obama.

Burn The Vote

Tired of throwing your vote away in the two party system, or do you just not bother to vote?

It's that time of year again where we go to the polls, and pick the lesser of two evils. Or do you even bother? Do you feel that the system is essentially broken, and your vote doesn't count? How are "they" supposed to know? I have spent the best part of my adult life defending the Constitution of the United States of America, and I share your frustration. The two political parties in control do not represent the People. But the challenge is how do we make our voice heard? Right now there are numerous different parties to vote for, but even if every single one of the dissatisfied millions voted for someone else, it would just be white noise to "them". But if you don't actually DO something, then how can we tell if you are pissed off, or if you are just too lazy, drunk, stupid, or whatever to bother to vote? Hence you need to "Burn the Vote!"

The reason for this page is several fold:

* Get EVERYONE out there to exercise their Constitutional right to Vote and take part in the process.
* Encourage people who are inclined to do so, to make a STATEMENT about the process.
* Encourage a change in the process while respecting the Constitution of the United States.

What I propose you do:

* Get yourself registered to Vote. That's the most important thing.
* If you are disgusted with the system, "Burn Your Vote!"

How do you "Burn the Vote" you may ask. Well, this is a bit of a sensitive issue, so here are my suggestions. Keep in mind, I am NOT advocating any sort of overthrow of a legal government, but rather you use your voice as a voter to make yourself heard. The Constitution is a beautiful document, so let's use it as it was written. Also, do not ever, infringe on anyone else's right to exercise their vote. However, you can still make a statement:

* If you can, go to the polls, and fill in a blank ballot. Write about your dissatisfaction and feelings on the ballot, and make sure it gets handed in.
* If you are more inclined to a dramatic statement; take your paper ballot, set it on fire, and walk out. I don't think you need to make any sort of speech, that will be a statement enough. Be prepared for repercussions! Whatever you do, again, don't interfere with other people's right to vote. If you can, video record it, and submit it to YouTube.
* Send your video, links, blog stories to me at my email with the title "BURN THE VOTE". I will post those links, stories, and things to help spread the word.

I know this is rather late in the process, and as such I have this reserved for the next few elections. We need to let "them" know we are tired of the two party system that only gives us the lesser of two evils to choose from on nearly every level of government.

This web page is not in any way associated with any government agency or political party. This is a site of the people and for the people. This site does not endorse the overthrow of the US Government, just the political parties that have a strangle hold on our voice. We neither endorse, or denounce any particular candidate.

Thank you for reading.

Florida Fucktardery (Politics)

Yeah, so I am stuck in the Panhandle of Florida, or lower Alabama as many call it. If it wasn't for the incredibly beautiful beaches, and a great job, I'd really want to move out of here. The theitardery that goes on here is simply amazing!

So, come november, Amendment 2 is up on the ballot. Basically this is the "Marriage Amendment" bull that the far right use to bring out the masses. Now the local pastors are reving up their intollerant masses:

http://www.nwfdailynews.com/news/marriage_11209___article.html/amendment_church.html?orderby=TimeStampDescending&showRecommendedOnly=0&oncommentsPage=1#slComments

Not only that, but these gems of literature were published in the opinion section:
Called By god: http://www.nwfdailynews.com/opinion/sarah_11248___article.html/john_real.html
Palin: god's pick: http://www.nwfdailynews.com/opinion/presidential_11249___article.html/palin_vice.html

Needless to say, I dispair more and more being a rational thinker. And what gets me down more are the comments some folks make on these stories. It's simply amazing to read the vile filth they write in the name of their god(s).

So, what do you do if you live in an area like this to keep from going into a deep dispair (or on a homicidal ramapge)?