Quote of the Day

Always nice to have context for other people's shitty lives, to compare to yours. Fuck My Life is a great site for that. Recent favorite:

Today, I received my passport in the mail. They got my birthdate wrong. Then I picked up my birth certificate that I had sent in with the application. Turns out my parents have been celebrating my birthday on the wrong day for 16 years. FML

Right up there with a sister masturbating with her brother's electric toothbrush.

Majority of Britain questions evolution?

A worrying poll, if true indeed.

More than half of the public believe that the theory of evolution cannot explain the full complexity of life on Earth, and a "designer" must have lent a hand, the findings suggest. And one in three believe that God created the world within the past 10,000 years.

The survey, by respected polling firm ComRes, will fuel the debate around evolution and creationism ahead of next week's 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin.

In the survey, 51 per cent of those questioned agreed with the statement that "evolution alone is not enough to explain the complex structures of some living things, so the intervention of a designer is needed at key stages." A further 40 per cent disagreed, while the rest said they did not know.

The suggestion that a designer's input is needed reflects the "intelligent design" theory, promoted by American creationists as an alternative to Darwinian evolution.

Asked whether it was true that "God created the world sometime in the last 10,000 years", 32 per cent agreed, 60 per cent disagreed and eight per cent did not know.

Of course, it's not as bad as America, where at times the majority view (sometimes supermajority) is that creationism is true.

The thing that makes me a bit skeptical about this, though, is that while they say this was done by a respectable polling firm, it's going to be published by a theology think-tank.

The findings – to be published tomorrow in a report by Theos, a theology think-tank – follow a row over the place of creationism in education.[...]

The research for Theos shows that the level of support for creationism is much higher than Professor Reiss's estimation, but also indicates that many people who believe in God also consider evolution to be the most realistic explanation for the origins of living things.

Paul Woolley, the director of Theos said: "Darwin is being used by certain atheists today to promote their cause.

"The result is that, given the false choice of evolution or God, people are rejecting evolution."

Well, pardon me, but when a person gives such statements, it makes me question their objectivity. Again, they say this firm did it, instead, but who wrote up the questions? Those are quite easy to bias, even for those who have no agenda. Word a question the wrong way, the results can change dramatically.

But whatever. Bottom line is one that isn't too surprising: a lot of people are ignorant about science.

And, of course, there is more of the obligatory atheist bashing:

Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, accused Dawkins of evolving into a "very simple kind of thinker".

He said: "His argument for atheism goes like this: either God is the explanation for the wide diversity of biological life, or evolution is. We know that evolution is true. Therefore, God doesn't exist.

"I'm an evangelical Christian, but I have no difficulties in believing that evolution is the best scientific account we have for the diversity of life on our planet."

Not quite, dunce. There are numerous possible explanations for the diversity of life. The reason evolution is accepted is because of the evidence for it (so, you're partially right here: we know evolution is true). Dawkins isn't saying god doesn't exist because evolution is true. He is saying that a major reason people invoke for justifying their belief in god, is demonstrably false. Therefore, we have no reason to believe in god, and therefore god probably doesn't exist.

And what a surprise, you can turn your brain into inconsistent positions. Good for you. Bit harmful, but good for you!

Oval office too much of a "locker room"

Obama's been president for over 12 days now, and people are bitching of course. But it's unbelievable how stupid some of things they're criticizing. Such as, the dress code.

CARD: I found that Ronald Reagan and both President Bushes treated the Oval Office with tremendous respect. They treated the Office of the Presidency with tremendous respect. And some of that respect was reflected in how they expected people to behave, how they expected them to dress when they walked into the symbol of freedom for the world, the Oval Office. And yes, I’m disappointed to see the casual, laissez faire, short sleeves, no shirt and tie, no jacket, kind of locker room experience that seems to be taking place in this White House and the Oval Office.

Yes, if you don't wear a suit jacket, you're no different than a football player standing naked and drying their crotch with the floor rug.

Oh my god, people took their jackets off in the fucking White House! How will we make sure the terrorists don't win now?!

This piece of shit Andy Card was chief of staff to Bush while he was spying illegally on Americans, torturing people overseas, and starting wars on complete lies. But because Bush wore a fucking jacket, he was the ultimate in respecting the White House. It's hard to criticize others for not wearing a jacket, when you treated the Constitution with the same respect a chimpanzee would: by flinging shit at it.

Illinois moment of silence ruled unconstitutional

Good news.

A federal judge ruled Wednesday that the state law requiring a moment of silence in public schools across Illinois is unconstitutional, saying it crosses the line separating church and state.

“The statute is a subtle effort to force students at impressionable ages to contemplate religion,” the judge, Robert W. Gettleman, said in his ruling.[...]

As passed by the Illinois General Assembly, the law allows students to reflect on the day’s activities rather than pray if that is their choice, and defenders have said it therefore does not force religion on anyone.

But Judge Gettleman upheld critics like the American Civil Liberties Union, who say the law is a thinly disguised effort to bring religion into the schools.

The “teacher is required to instruct her pupils, especially in the lower grades, about prayer and its meaning as well as the limitations on their ‘reflection,’” Judge Gettleman ruled.

“The plain language of the statute, therefore, suggests an intent to force the introduction of the concept of prayer into the schools,” he ruled.

This was a very open and shut case. It was such an obvious attempt to promote religion in schools, it was laughable. They were trying to justify it as saying it would stop fucking school shootings.

Not to mention, a major proponent of this standard said atheists had no right to be in the state and that atheists believe in destroying.

It was stupid from the start, and it was overtly illegal. It was struck down as it should have been. Now, they'll hopefully shut the fuck up.

2009 Oscar Nominations

The Oscar nominees were announced today. Let's begin the speculation. This is tough, because it's basically a head to head between two of my favorite living filmmakers, David Fincher and Danny Boyle. And, in my opinion, it's going to result in a slew of awards for one film, and few for the other. Both films are extremely high quality, but the Oscars aren't run just on merit: money and politics do play a role (sadly). Considering one is a film that was budgeted at 150 million dollars, and the other was budgeted at one TENTH that amount, you can see where the weight might go naturally.

The nominees are here, but a more accessible list is at IMDB. So, let's go through some of these. I'll give the picks that I think would win, and if they're different, the picks that I think should win.I'm starting with my bad categories, the ones where I've seen few of the films or none.

Best Live Action Short Film: No clue. Haven't seen any of these films, and haven't heard much about any of them. So, it's impossible for me to even speculate beyond picking a title at random.

Best Animated Short Film: Presto. It's the only one I've seen, true. But it's still damn entertaining and quite wonderful. This is the Pixar short that was put in front of Wall-E.

Best Short Subject Documentary: No clue. Again, haven't seen any of these nor heard of them. Can't judge them at all, aside from picking one at random.

Best Documentary: Man on a Wire. I haven't heard one bad thing about this film. Every review I've seen of it has been ecstatic about it, and it seems pretty clear it's the winner. The real competition seems to be with Werner Herzog's film Encounters at the End of the World. Herzog is considered one of the best documentary filmmakers living -- and hasn't even been nominated before. But I haven't seen any of these films myself. However, again, the numerous reviews I've read about Man on a Wire are unanimous about it's quality.

Best Foreign Language Film: The Class (Entre les murs). I sadly haven't seen any of the foreign language films either, but I was interested in seeing The Class earlier. It did best picture at Cannes, so don't take it lightly. The other contender seems to be Vals Im Bashir, an animated film from Israel.

Best Animated Picture: Wall-E. Seriously. Is there any question here? Wall-E was fucking amazing, and probably should've been nominated for Best Picture instead. It will easily win, when compared to... Bolt. Yeah. That ones a given.

Now, we get into the categories where more difficulty and wiggling is presented.

Best Achievements in Visual Effects: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. Yeah, The Dark Knight will get shafted. At least, that's how some will see it. Key distinction here: if it's a practical effect that is done on set and for the shot, it's a special effect. If it's an effect done in post-production, almost entirely done with computers now, it's a visual effect. The Dark Knight is a movie with surprisingly few visual effects, and a lot of special effects. It does have some great instances (Harvey Dent's face, hello...). But compared to the visual effects that suffuse Benjamin Button, it's a bad comparison. Benjamin Button is basically a category shift, and deserves its award for it's flawless effects.

Best Achievement in Sound Editing: Wall-E. This is a tough one for me, since most of these films I've seen only in theatres, and to really appreciate the effects of good sound and sound editing, you have to be able to turn it off. Very difficult to understand just how important sound is to a film without being able to do that. But Ben Burtt is an icon in sound design in Hollywood. You may not know his name, but you've seen the films that gave him 12 nominations (including these) for his sound work, and the two that he won. Just a few titles: Star Wars, ET, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. However, I can still see this award going to either Slumdog Millionaire or The Dark Knight, though I'd favor The Dark Knight in that contest. But, remember, Wall-E had no dialogue for the first 30 minutes or so. All the emotion relied on the images, actions, and sound -- not words.

Best Achievement in Sound: Wall-E. It's basically the same reasoning as above, just with the added complication of The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. I can easily see a close competition between the four nominees of the category, and slightly favoring Benjamin Button. And seriously, what the fuck is Wanted doing on this list? Wanted is a two time Oscar nominated film? Nuts to that.

Best Original Song: Jai Ho (Slumdog Millionaire). Slumdog Millionaire is a very good film, and one of the best things about it is it's score and use of music. This original song is very entertaining on its own, and the dance ending is strange to most western films, but tame by Bollywood standards (the standard number they have in most films is 6 dance sequences in a film, and not just one at the end credits).



(Original link.)

Best Original Score: Slumdog Millionaire. Again, Slumdog Millionaire does a lot of things right, and the score is definitely one of them. However, there's also Wall-E to remember. I haven't seen Milk, but Danny Elfmann did the score, and that's to be considerd. Benjamin Button is also up, and could potentially sweep this along with other awards. I'd stil bank on Slumdog Millionaire, though.

Best Achievement in Makeup: The Dark Knight. This is kind of the reverse of the visual effect category I think. Benjamin Button has spectacular aging effects, and certainly used makeup very well. But The Dark Knight relied on it more. And, of course, you're dealing with the Joker....

Best Achievement in Costume Design: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. It's a time-spanning epic piece, from many different time periods that are re-created to exacting detail. I could see Australia sneaking up and winning, but I doubt it.

Best Achievement in Art Direction: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. Largely same reasoning as costume design. But I'm less certain on this one.

Best Achievement in Editing: The Dark Knight. I've gone back in forth on editing with the Oscars over the years. At times, I go with films that are deliberate with their editing, slower films that cut at the right moment just as they want to to get the best result. Other times, the academy goes for films that seem to be saying "It's amazing this thing is coherent with all those cuts" (IE: Bourne Ultimatum -- even though it was great). I'm thinking it's another year like that, so I have to go with The Dark Knight. Slumdog Millionaire might also sneak up here for the same reason, since it's a very rapid pace movie.

Best Achievement in Cinematography: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. Changeling and The Reader I dont think make the cut. Slumdog Millionaire I just cannot accept getting this, because this was the one complaint I had with the film: at times, the print is so grainy it's just too distracting to enjoy, and dramatically out of step with the rest of the film. I can understand that in those situations most of the time they were limited to what they were filming with, smaller cameras at faster speeds to keep pace with the rapid environment they set up. But still. It didn't look good, and even if it's making do, it could've been better. Benjamin Button is, again, flawless in its cinematography. Runner up is The Dark Knight, which could win due to the technical achievement of working with the IMAX cameras.

Best Adapted Screenplay: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. The screenplay categories generally get the reserves. By this, I mean, if there's a big title movie that is in chance of sweeping all awards, it's likely that one of the screenplay awards will be the reserve pick for a more "true artistic" feel. The one that sticks closest to this to me is Eternal Sunshine winning in 2005, but even the year before when Lord of the Rings swamped the awards, Lost in Translation won for best original screenplay. Still, I see Button winning here as the big picture, with Slumdog as the runner up.

Best Original Screenplay: Wall-E. Again, the first large section of Wall-E is without dialogue, and the screenplay follows that format just as strictly as the film. It's an impressive feat. Milk or In Bruges could combat and overcome it, but I feel strongly Wall-E will win.

Now, the big five.

Best Supporting Actress: Viola Davis (Doubt). Doubt is a good film, even if I wasn't exactly blown away by the leads. But Viola Davis as the mother of the boy supposedly abused... stunning. She's only in the film about 10 minutes, but steals it entirely once she appears, and makes you remember her after the film. The runner up here for me is Taraji P. Henson as Queenie in Benjamin Button. She also gave a very strong performance. But Viola Davis was just astonishing.

Best Supporting Actor: Heath Ledger (The Dark Knight). I needed to see the other nominees before I would say it, but with these contenders, I feel it safe to say that Ledger will get the posthumous Oscar. I hear Josh Brolin is great in Milk, but I haven't heard anything in comparison to Ledger's role in The Dark Knight. Everyone knows he absolutely carried that film, and was the rigging that held it in place. He did it magnificently.

Best Actress: Anne Hathaway (Rachel Getting Married). I always feel bad judging best actress categories, since it always seems I never see enough of the films to seem confident. Here, I've only seen Doubt. I wanted really badly to see Rachel Getting Married, but the timing never worked out. I wasn't too impressed with Meryl Streep in Doubt, beyond her being Meryl Streep. Part of the trouble of being a terrific actress: her expectations are so high, if she meets them it seems ordinary. As for Kate Winslet, I do want her to win, and she could with her Golden Globe wins as a booster -- but I am doubtful about The Reader, personally. Plus, everyone knows it doesn't matter if she gets one now: she got fucking robbed for Eternal Sunshine, and any award now is cheap droppings in comparison to that role.

Best Actor: Mickey Rourke (The Wrestler). Yeah, I'll give it to him. Runner up would probably be Frank Langella, since he was damn good as Nixon. Haven't seen Milk, but could see Sean Penn winning, though it's a bit tampered by him already having won an Oscar (but, hey, Tom Hanks won back to back Oscars in two years, so that's hardly an exclusion for Penn). I liked Pitt in Benjamin Button, but I just don't think he'll land an Oscar for the role.

Best Director: David Fincher (The Curious Case of Benjamin Button). I think it's about damn time he wins. It's a toss up between Fincher and Boyle here to me, and as much as I like Boyle's work and Slumdog Millionaire, I do think Benjamin Button was the more successful and impressive work. A final factor in this, is that there has been an intense lobbying effort on behalf of Benjamin Button. You can see that with the amount of nominations, as well as the funding the film had. Fincher has the leg up on that fact I feel, but he already would've won to me without it. But, if neither of these guys win, I'll go fucking ape-shit.

Best Picture: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. As with director, I think it comes down to Slumdog and Button. One of the two will win. I think Button is the stronger film overall, the more impressive, and has the better behind the scenes pull to win. But the first two qualities are the more important ones.

So, my totals:

The Curious case of Benjamin Button -- 7 Oscars.

Wall-E -- 4 Oscars

The Dark Knight -- 3 Oscars

Slumdog Millionaire -- 2 Oscars

Rest are various one hits. Again, I by and large fell that it's Benjamin Button and Slumdog Millionaire going head to head, and Slumdog is going to lose out in more instances than it will win. But it's not like I'm going to be pissed if Slumdog wins more than Button.

Some Christians just can't get this atheism thing

Richard Dawkins and the British Humanist Association in England are off to a good success with their bus advertisements that say "There's probably no god." They're off to such a success, they're already being threatened with calls for investigations by Christians. Why?

Angry Christians have protested to Britain's advertising watchdog over an atheist ad campaign claiming "there's probably no God" on the sides of buses, asking for proof, they said Thursday. [...]

But Stephen Green, national director of the Christian Voice lobby group, has complained to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), saying the ads breach its codes on substantiation and truthfulness.

"It is given as a statement of fact and that means it must be capable of substantiation if it is not to break the rules," he said.

"There is plenty of evidence for God, from people's personal experience, to the complexity, interdependence, beauty and design of the natural world.

"But there is scant evidence on the other side, so I think the advertisers are really going to struggle to show their claim is not an exaggeration or inaccurate, as the ASA code puts it," he added.

Ok. First, the only correct response to this: Ha hahahahahaha!

You're fucking kidding me, right? Wait, wait, wait, wait.

A Christian is calling for proving a negative -- as a reason for removing an ad. Bravo! You manage to make a standard and common stupidity into something unique and hilarious.

You can see this easily by simply applying the same standard Mr. Green desires, to the ads he supports:

The ads were the brainchild of comedy writer Ariane Sherine, who objected to Christian adverts on some London buses that carried an Internet address warning that people who rejected God would spend eternity in "torment in hell."

So, Mr. Green, get to work:

1. Prove that god exists.

2. Prove that hell exists.

3. Prove that people continue to exist in some form after they die.

4. Prove that those who reject god continue to exist in some form and are sent to hell.

Good fucking luck. Twit.

You can't prove any of those. Any evidence you cite is invariably false, specious, and flat out not evidence (IE: "because god is love!", "because I have morals!", etc.).

The atheist adverts are just saying that: you can't prove any of this shit, so why believe it? There's no reason to. Any time spent trying to genuinely ascertain the validity of religious claims is going to lead to realizing that there's no reason to believe in god, and therefore probably no god. So, why not continue to live your life as anyone else would, just without that belief? Exactly as you live without the belief in the lactating-mutating purple banana that creates elves that lives under my bed. You lived your life just fine until hearing about the banana just now, right?

The most basic way of defining atheism is the simple lack of acceptance of religious claims. By just saying "You know, I don't believe you can prove any of this, or give any evidence for these ideas." So, why follow them? Why accept them? Absolutely no reason at all -- so don't.

It is astounding how many Christians (and religious people/supernatural claims in general) fail to understand that the burden of proof is on the one making the claim: them.

Spain becoming "militantly secular"

Whenever I hear people use the word "militant" with secularism or atheism, I have to say I'm more than a bit offended. That doesn't amount to much, aside from my judgment of their standards. Let's compare two recent examples, and you can decide if you think my judgment is correct. The first:

In an unprecedented decision here, a judge ruled in November that the public school must remove the crucifixes from classroom walls, saying they violated the “nonconfessional” nature of the Spanish state.

Although the Roman Catholic Church was not named in the suit, it criticized the ruling as an “unjust” attack on a historical and cultural symbol — and a sign of the Spanish state’s increasingly militant secularism.

Ok. Public school classroom walls cannot have overtly religious and sectarian icons displayed. The problem? It's an "attack" on an cultural symbol.

Well, it's not an attack, since it's hardly banning the material from the entirety of Spain. It's a public school. Private Catholic schools can have pictures of the Pope up above every fucking student's chair if they way -- public schools are non-denominational. Because it would be an attack on those who do not subscribe to Catholicism or Christianity. If you're so offended by this, imagine the other people who have to put up with your bullshit all the time, when they shouldn't have to. You're pressing for preferential treatment, and Spain is just saying "No, you can't have it."

I mean it's not like you had four decades of being an official state religion, under that of a dictator....

But, this is too militant for the Catholic Church. Ok. The second example.

At least 220 Palestinians, including women and children, have been killed in an Israeli aerial bombardment on Hamas security installations.

Israel launched air attacks across the besieged Gaza Strip on Saturday, threatening that further operations would be carried out. Emergency services said that at least 700 people had been wounded.

Israel launched a bunch of missiles into populated areas of Gaza.

Now, I hate to be so simplistic about this, but there's not much to complicate it. To be "militant," well, you kind of need a fucking MILITARY. Guns, bombs, troops, the whole works aren't required but they sure make for nice images.

Having a court deliberate on a case and then say "No, sorry, these people cannot do this because it breaks the secularism of the government" is not being militant. If they broke into the homes of all Catholics in the country, took away their crucifixes by gun point, shot the ones that resisted, you'd have a point in calling them a bit militant in doing that.

I can't stand it when people overreact to the simple defense of secularism or the promotion of atheism. It trivializes all these other conflicts that actually are military in nature. The ones that cause the death of civilians, war crimes, and possible genocide every now and then.

It's cute of you to think that atheists and those promoting secularism are such dangers, but trust me, there's not going to be any bombings done by us. If there's a war that is going to erupt over secularism, it's not going to be started by us.

Roland Burris: god gave me this senate seat

Another thing that should be filed under not true, and useless to say if it was true.

"I am now the junior senator from the state of Illinois," he said from the pulpit of a South Side church on what he said was the eve of his trip to Washington.

Burris and his backers described his future in religious terms, saying his move to the U.S. Senate is preordained.

"Friends, we're going to have to have some powerful prayer. . . . They can't deny what the Lord has ordained,'' said Burris at New Covenant Baptist Church, 740 E. 77th, surrounded by ministers, politicians and activists.

Uh huh. After all, god does everything. So, it's useless to point out "God did this, suckers! Eat it!" God does everything....

Or, you know, god doesn't exist and this was an appointment that came about because a governor, a physical corporeal human being in power in Illinois, made that appointment. Something simple like that.

As for this issue of sitting him or not, I honestly don't care. Blagojevich seems to be doing this more to be a jackass than to do it out of actual care for the issues of the state. That's his fuck up. I don't know if Burris is corrupt, and it doesn't immediately extend that if Blagojevich gave him the appointment, Burris is corrupt. Does it give a burden to Burris? Sure. But that's just appearances it seems.

Seat him or not. Don't give a shit. As long as this guy is a placeholder, I don't care. Have an actual election in 2010 to get a genuine elected official, since appointments aren't that great to me. Just let the voters decide. Democracy -- the cop out for complicated situations.

Wisdom teeth are gone

I had my wisdom teeth removed this morning, and 15 hours later, my chin, lower front teeth, and lower lip are still numb. Don't know why.

Oh well, hopefully it will go away tomorrow. Everything went fine. I don't even get a funny story out of it. Went into the room. They clamped on heart monitors to my wrists (wrists?! yep, wrists), and one to my index finger. They then began some gas, and soon enough I wasn't getting tired it just seemed like things were getting less important. They told me that I was going to get my IV right as the put on the gas, and I know the trick to reducing needle pain is to look away so I closed my eyes as they did it. Still felt the pain, even with closed eyes and being gassed, but it was severely reduced.

There was no "count backwards from 100" shit. I've always wondered what the effect of that is supposed to be. If it's just to get the gas into you easier (somehow...), tell them to breathe deeper. They just said "Before you get too sleepy" and put a piece of plastic in my mouth to keep it open.

I was getting quite relaxed at the time, and they said to relax my arm. I didn't notice that it was tensed at all, but it really wasn't. I was just continuing to hold it in the same position it was when they started the gas. But once they said to move it, it just fell down. There was a slight light headed feeling, then I was out for good.

Woke up in the car, on the way to Walgreens so my mom could fill the prescription. No dreams, no kookie feelings of "There's something in my mouth!" Mom told me that it took about twenty minutes, then they came and got her to say that I was in the recovery room -- no remembrance of being moved. Totally normal procedure.

I remember all of that quite clearly, it's the after surgery part that isn't necessarily gone, it's just getting more faded as the day has worn on. I was totally awake and conscious walking around in Walgreens, I just don't remember what I did in there at this time. I do remember being in the store, and checking my teeth in a mirror with glasses and seeing a mouth full of blood, with completely red gause pads. Then failing to properly change them twice.

Came home, laid down, mom gave me some ice cream and I fell asleep for 6 hours. Took some pills, put an ice pack on my cheeks to keep down swelling, then went to get some hamburgers (oh, smart idea!). Only took 20 minutes to eat those, compared to the usual 5 or so. Biggest difficulty: this fucking numb lip. Hard to get food in your mouth then.

No real complications, difficulties, or funny incidents. I just can't talk completely normal yet, though close enough. Otherwise, I'm fine, just with four frickin' holes in my mouth.

Abstinence still doesn't work, and makes kids less likely to use protection

What a surprise, given every other abstinence study has come to the exact same conclusions.

Teenagers who pledge to remain virgins until marriage are just as likely to have premarital sex as those who do not promise abstinence and are significantly less likely to use condoms and other forms of birth control when they do, according to a study released today.

The new analysis of data from a large federal survey found that more than half of youths became sexually active before marriage regardless of whether they had taken a "virginity pledge," but that the percentage who took precautions against pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases was 10 points lower for pledgers than for non-pledgers.

"Taking a pledge doesn't seem to make any difference at all in any sexual behavior," said Janet E. Rosenbaum of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, whose report appears in the January issue of the journal Pediatrics. "But it does seem to make a difference in condom use and other forms of birth control that is quite striking."[...]

By 2001, Rosenbaum found, 82 percent of those who had taken a pledge had retracted their promises, and there was no significant difference in the proportion of students in both groups who had engaged in any type of sexual activity, including giving or receiving oral sex, vaginal intercourse, the age at which they first had sex, or their number of sexual partners. More than half of both groups had engaged in various types of sexual activity, had an average of about three sexual partners and had had sex for the first time by age 21 even if they were unmarried.

That's the take away from faith-based education. It doesn't work, and what it is effective at, is making people less likely to use methods that do actually work. You need that faith-induced mental protection to make asshat statements of this calibur:

"It is remarkable that an author who employs rigorous research methodology would then compromise those standards by making wild, ideologically tainted and inaccurate analysis regarding the content of abstinence education programs," said Valerie Huber of the National Abstinence Education Association.

Yes, it's the ideology of the researchers that is the problem here. Of course....

"Abstinence education programs provide accurate information on the level of protection offered through the typical use of condoms and contraception," she said. "Students understand that while condoms may reduce the risk of infection and/or pregnancy, they do not remove the risk."

Uh huh. And which part of being told that Mountain Dew can negate a pregnancy is "accurate information?"

Flat out bullshit. Abstinence-only programs repeatedly and intentionally spread false information to make kids afraid of sex, and to make them afraid to use contraception. How else do teens get bullshit like this in their heads:

Many American youngsters participating in federally funded abstinence-only programs have been taught over the past three years that abortion can lead to sterility and suicide, that half the gay male teenagers in the United States have tested positive for the AIDS virus, and that touching a person's genitals "can result in pregnancy," a congressional staff analysis has found.

Sex maybe bad to them, but contraception -- why, that's unnatural, because you're "stopping life."

Abstinence doesn't work. It never has worked. It's not education to spread fear. What does work is teaching your kids about sex, how to protect themselves against sex, and instilling in them that sex is of their choice and to make the correct one when the time is right for them. It's not "Sex is evil and bad! Hold it in until you burst!"

Most importantly: stop spending my fucking money on this crap that doesn't do anything, except pay people who don't know shit.

Atheist poetry -- Storm

Poetry can be good and fun, even when it involves atheists.



(Original link.)

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is directed by David Fincher, who previously has directed Seven, Fight Club, and Zodiac as his most popular movies (also Alien 3, The Game, and Panic Room). It stars Brad Pitt as Benjamin Button, a man who is born old and ages in reverse, ending up as a baby when he's 80 or so years old. Cate Blanchett plays Daisy, the love of his life that he continues to strive to get for many years.

The movie is simply stunning and terrific.

There's not much else to say here, really. It's just a fantastic film, all over. The visual effects are, of course, the big thing everyone is talking about because they're absolutely seamless. None of the crap that was in The Day the Earth Stood Still -- these are visual effects made by extremely talented person, and overseen by one of the biggest experts on digital technology today.

The story is a very moving and poignant work by Eric Roth, the writer for Forest Gump, which Button is being compared to a lot. Both are expansive and epic stories told about the life of a single person over decades, and both involve significant dedication to visual effects and technology advancement.

It's a romance movie, that really isn't that sentimental, but also is very moving. It can't be much simpler to state than: it's a movie about death. Hardly the thing of romance. But from beginning to end, death is the theme, from Benjamin being raised in an old person's home constantly being visited by "an old friend" to the fact that no one really knows when Benjamin is going to die, since they don't know anything about his condition (and we never learn -- no explanation, just happens, go with it). It addresses loss and grief throughout, and the need to overcome that. When Benjamin's relationship with a woman ends, this is quite nicely summed up as "it ran it's course."

It's amazing that this movie even got made, honestly. Think of the practical difficulties: you're taking an actor and having to make them look older and younger, throughout a majority of the film. And doing that with more than one actor. And having it be convincing, and flawless (Brad Pitt's make up took 5 hours every day, for instance). You can begin to understand why the first pre-production phase on this movie was in 1994, and was passed around to various directors like Speilberg, Ron Howard, and Spike Jonze before being made by Fincher. That's really for the best, because if it was made earlier, it probably would not have been anywhere as good since it just wouldn't have the authenticity factor. That's the key thing with the effects: they're so wonderful to look at, but you can't really tell where they are, aside from the times when you "know" it has to be an effect (IE: really old Brad Pitt at 7 years old). But, in other instances, the effects are just as good, but they're subtler so you don't notice them -- because they're not meant to be noticed. Odds are, if you were to try to find exactly which were effects in which scenes, you'd miss half of them. Odds are, there's not a shot in the film that doesn't have a visual effect of some kind in it.

I really can't stress how wonderful this movie is. It looks beautiful, the acting is without any problems, the story is never dull and without it's pull, and really the only downside is the length at two and a half hours (159 minutes). But that's not a bother to me, it's well worth sitting through every minute of it. It maybe the only film of the year to rival The Dark Knight for overall best, and at this point I'd be tempted to give it to Button.

Oh, and when you go to see it, don't bring a fucking gun. Ok? Ok. My theatre was packed, so, odds are there's going to be one asshole in the theatre.

Let Jesus into your heart or, better yet, don't

Proselytizers just love my work it seems. I've had people give me pamphlets about heaven, I've seen fliers at my work for months that openly call for religious discrimination, and seen a defense of the US being a theocracy (though, admittedly, that was in the paper, not an proselytizer in person).

Today, being Christmas, I guess it should be expected that something would come up. I mean, every other Christmas has been uneventful, but this town just seems to love it's Jesus so much, it can't help but get a little bit on you.

About twenty minutes before the end of my shift, the friend of a co-worker of mine stopped in. They talked for a bit, my co-worker began to count down his drawer. I was helping customers, and so I only to got to hear and not partake in a nice long rant about this co-worker needed to accept Jesus into his heart. He's got to worry about sin, work towards eternal life, and understand that Jesus made all the bad stuff go away.

Would've loved to have been able to say "Sorry, but if you don't work here, you can't sell anything here, especially bullshit." But, again, customers. Why be possibly offensive to them, when it was just that douchebag that needed a signal to take a hike?

Usual standard replies. Why do we need to imagine an omnipotent being, who creates people then blames them for his own mistakes? You are your body and your brain. I sell soda, cigarettes, energy drinks, and now beer all day -- my job is to allow people to alter their brain chemistry to feel different and change their moods/behaviors. There's nothing that we know of in human experience that requires a soul -- so what's there to save? What's there to live on "eternally?" What's so good about spending eternity doing nothing by telling a guy "Good job, you righteous dude!"?

So on, and so on.

Of course, sadly, customers come first. ~Sigh~

I sold my internet for QI

It's much better than selling my TV for crack. New QI episodes will begin in January, but the Christmas episode was broadcast last night. It's enough to slate me till January. Hopefully...



(Original link.)



(Original link.)



(Original link.)

Selflessness has a neuropsychological basis

Interesting, if in a frustrating way.

All spiritual experiences are based in the brain. That statement is truer than ever before, according to a University of Missouri neuropsychologist. An MU study has data to support a neuropsychological model that proposes spiritual experiences associated with selflessness are related to decreased activity in the right parietal lobe of the brain.

This study, along with other recent neuroradiological studies of Buddhist meditators and Francescan nuns, suggests that all individuals, regardless of cultural background or religion, experience the same neuropsychological functions during spiritual experiences, such as transcendence. Transcendence, feelings of universal unity and decreased sense of self, is a core tenet of all major religions. Meditation and prayer are the primary vehicles by which such spiritual transcendence is achieved.

“The brain functions in a certain way during spiritual experiences,” said Brick Johnstone, professor of health psychology in the MU School of Health Professions. “We studied people with brain injury and found that people with injuries to the right parietal lobe of the brain reported higher levels of spiritual experiences, such as transcendence.”

This link is important, Johnstone said, because it means selflessness can be learned by decreasing activity in that part of the brain. He suggests this can be done through conscious effort, such as meditation or prayer. People with these selfless spiritual experiences also are more psychologically healthy, especially if they have positive beliefs that there is a God or higher power who loves them, Johnstone said.

“This research also addresses questions regarding the impact of neurologic versus cultural factors on spiritual experience,” Johnstone said. “The ability to connect with things beyond the self, such as transcendent experiences, seems to occur for people who minimize right parietal functioning. This can be attained through cultural practices, such as intense meditation or prayer or because of a brain injury that impairs the functioning of the right parietal lobe. Either way, our study suggests that ‘selflessness’ is a neuropsychological foundation of spiritual experiences.”

The frustrating thing about this, is reading through this crap about "spiritualism." Meditation is a cognitive process that has been shown to have positive effects. It's never that much, really, but it helps lower blood pressure and stress levels. Of course, this is all pretty tentative, since there's a crap ton of absolutely abysmal studies done. Meditation isn't going to solve major problems right now, and not much beyond calming you (unless it helps you concentrate on a problem you can take further action on later -- but so can thinking in general).

Prayer, is bunk. When they say prayer and meditation being used here, it basically seems that they're calling the same process by two different names. You're not invoking a deity that then gives you these experiences -- you have them because of the concentration used in prayer.

That remark about those believing a god loves them being healthier, that seems like an opinion put out. Really, wouldn't you be healthier if you had beliefs that people loved you, in general? The idea that belief god loves you trumping other very strong beliefs about love, seems very dubious. After all, you don't have to be religious to be psychologically healthy, or to not have positive beliefs about god's love to be unhealthy (such as depressed).

But the real core of this, is what makes calling this "spirituality" so stupid: everyone has these basic experiences. They have a neurological basis. So... what's the spirit part of the word for? What's "spirituality" even mean? It's a word completely empty of meaning, that anyone can morph into anything they feel. By it's roots, it should deal with supernatural phenomena, but many people use it for things completely separate from the supernatural.

If what are commonly called "spiritual" experiences are ultimately just normal experiences... what's the use of this word then? If selflessness and transcendence are a part of us all, the religious aspect of it is non-existent.

I've had several of these experiences, and they're fun to me. I distinctly remember when I was much younger (probably 7-9 years old), and while trying to fall asleep I was trying to imagine looking down upon the entire Milky Way galaxy. I changed this slightly to go as if there was a camera looking down on me while I was in my bed, and slowly lifting up off of the earth, through the solar system, and eventually escaping the Milky Way to a point where it could be seen entirely on its own. Really fun imagination exercises, and all throughout this, I do remember feeling an almost quiver in my body, and a sense of enormity at trying to imagine the scale of the entire galaxy. I also knew that I would fail at this, since it's just so large that you can't get there, even if you can imagine extremely huge scales that make you feel dwarfed (but don't worry -- the galaxy is still larger).

But, again, I don't call these spiritual experiences. They're fun imagination exercises that can give you some cool feelings. They can give you a sense of perspective. It's ultimately nothing more than trying to understand what you know, just on a huge scale.

Their ending is quite funny to me.

“Our research focused on the personal experience of spiritual transcendence and does not in any way minimize the importance of religion or personal beliefs, nor does it suggest that spiritual experience are related only to neuropsychological activity in the brain,” Johnstone said. “It is important to note that individuals experience their God or higher power in many different ways, but that all people from all religions and beliefs appear to experience these connections in a similar way.”

Translation: don't take offense! You're religious beliefs are important! You're all special, except that these are common to everyone!

Science -- not just a fringe idea anymore

Under the Bush administration, science was treated as a hostile force. It constantly came into conflict with the ideology of the administration, and they did their best to repress science at every turn.

Now, that ends.



(Original link.)

Make sure you Count

It's old, I know, but I still fucking love it.



(Original link.)

Child murdering parents assert religious rights

Who would've guessed?

A Clackamas County, Ore., couple accused of letting their infant daughter die by relying on prayer, rather than medicine, today asked that the charges be dropped, arguing that they infringe on their freedom of religion and their right to raise their children in their own way.

The infant girl died March 2 from bacterial bronchial pneumonia and an infection, both of which could have been cured with common antibiotics, the medical examiner said. [...]

"Mr. and Mrs. Worthington maintain that their prosecution contravenes their right 'to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences,' as guaranteed by the Constitution of the State of Oregon and the Constitution of the United States," the motion said. "Further, Mr. and Mrs. Worthington urge that this prosecution contravenes their fundamental right to raise their children without interference by the State." A hearing on the motion is scheduled for Jan. 7, 2009.

Uh, no. No, wait, beyond no. FUCK YOU, type of no.

You killed your child.

You're fucking stupidity and willful ignorance, led to the easily avoidable DEATH of your child.

You don't get to say "Hey, whatever goes with my religious beliefs."

You killed your child. You don't get to just wipe that clean and say "Oops! Get out of jail free card. I got religion!"

If you're claiming that you can raise your child anyway your conscience sees fit, well, how interesting. I wonder what their reaction would be to all the child molesting parents that exist. Not a crime? They're just raising their child as they see fit, after all. So what if what they see fit includes a little rape? If their religion or conscience gives it sway, well it's a-ok!

These people murdered their child. They should be punished to the fullest extent of the law for they're incredible and willful stupidity.

Quote of the Day

Succinct and so applicable.

Many years ago, when I was a Psychology student, we had a lecturer who told stories of his own early life as a young clinical psychologist. One story he told was of a psychotic patient who was under his care. This man was quite normal in other ways, but he believed that he (the patient) was dead. So one day my lecturer decided to try some cognitive therapy on him:

Lecturer: You think you're dead, yes? Well, do dead people bleed?
Patient: No, of course not. How could they?
Lecturer: (Sticking a pin in him) Well, how about that?
Patient: Good God! That's amazing! I was totally wrong! Dead people do bleed!

Think of your own applications, but I'll give you a hint.

Proposition 8: The Musical

Like herpes, it's going around. But unlike herpes, this is hilarious.

See more Jack Black videos at Funny or Die

(Original link.)

Pope: cell phones and modernity destroy your soul!

Who listens to this guy anymore?

“In the age of the cell phone and the internet it is probably more difficult than before to protect silence and to nourish the interior dimension of life,” Father Lombardi told the Vatican television show Octavia Dies. “It is difficult but necessary.”

“There is an interior and spiritual dimension of life that must be guarded and nourished. If it is not, it can become barren to the point of drying up and, indeed, dying,” he added.

“Today, this is a very grave threat, and it is the most irreparable misfortune.”

Spirituality! People need more... whatever it is!

Blah blah blah, utter nonsense. Modernity is bad for you because it somehow doesn't emphasize the "inner self." Nevermind the fact that modernity makes people more connected than ever, and is helping to lead to more fulfillment for people than ever. Nevermind that most people are overjoyed at the fact that modernity gives them the 70+ years that they'll have to work on their "inner self," especially if they have access to some great health care, like the dear old fart has. Nevermind the fact that all the people in the world going to bed hungry, thirsty, sick, not knowing if they're going to die tomorrow from raids, skirmishes, or whatever local conflict, why, they might just wish to have a bit of that modern lifestyle this idiot is so sure is causing oh so much trouble.

Spiritualism crap. "You'll lose your soul!" Uh huh. Terrific. And masturbation makes you go blind. How about we revert back to the standing rule with dealing about moral statements the fucking pope makes: don't take moral advice from a person who hides and protects pedophiles. I'd think that'd be a soul-removing action.

Not to mention, he's a fucking hypocrite.

However, Pope Benedict has embraced many aspects of modern technology in order to convey the Catholic message to a young, tech-savvy audience.

At World Youth Day in Sydney, the Pope texted daily messages of inspiration and hope to attendees, while digital prayer walls were erected on-site.

Good job trying to rid younger people of their souls, pope. Just fuck off, already, you old fool.

Evolutionary algorithms design better antenna

And creationists' heads go boom.

In this instance, Casey is annoyed because a group of people at NASA used evolutionary algorithms to create a better antenna.

The fascinating thing about the antenna story is that no one had any idea of just what a "better antenna" would look like. In fact, they wound up with something that looks like a paper clip bent into triangles. Let me repeat the key thing here: a bunch of engineers wanted a better antenna. They had no idea what that better antenna would look like. But by throwing it into an evolutionary algorithm, they produced an antenna better than anything designed by a human being.

That's pretty damned impressive, and pretty difficult evidence to confront for anyone who wants to claim that random mutation plus selection can't produce anything new.

You'll have to click on through to read the hilarious "response" by the creationist in question.

Developing high speed rail in the US

This is what I want to see more of.

Specifically, the High-Speed Rail for America Act of 2008 provides $8 billion over a six-year period for tax-exempt bonds which finance high-speed rail projects which reach a speed of at least 110 miles per hour It creates a new category of tax-credit bonds – qualified rail bonds. There are two types of qualified rail bonds: super high-speed intercity rail facility bond and rail infrastructure bond. Super high-speed rail intercity facility bonds will encourage the development of true high-speed rail. The legislation provides $10 billion for these bonds over a ten-year period. This would help finance the California proposed corridor and make needed improvements to the Northeast corridor. The legislation provides $5.4 billion over a six-year period for rail infrastructure bonds. The Federal Rail Administration has already designated ten rail corridors that these bonds could help fund, including connecting the cities of the Midwest through Chicago, connecting the cities of the Northwest, connecting the major cities within Texas and Florida, and connecting all the cities up and down the East Coast.

I've always wanted to have some great transportation routes around here. And I say that when I live in Milwaukee, which has a phenomenal bus system, comparatively. I say that as a person who can get to Chicago for two bucks.

Still, I want high-speed trains. Just look at Europe, and France in particular. In Spain, you can travel that day on the same route as a plane, for less than a third of the cost. The times are also comparable, for anyone who has waited around in an airport or on a plane for hours knows.

Most importantly, I can see the immediate benefit here. I'm supposed to understand that there's some important reason to give away more than 700 billion dollars (really, it's much more, that much I do know) to whomever -- but I don't. I don't know where that money is going or what it's even supposed to do. Sure it could be necessary and have some benefit, but I don't see it so am hardly enthused about spending it. I know there's absolutely no good coming out of the 10 billion dollars a month in Iraq, aside from the feeling of "We're killing less people now! (supposedly)"

Cheaper competitive means of transport, to bind together regions of the US for easier traveling, and not to mention faster ways to move goods. And those are just the brief immediate ones I can see and get happy about -- there must be others that I just don't know about. I really don't care either, the ones I see are already good enough, but add on more great news if you want.

Two trailers from two anticipated films

First, another full trailer for The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. Honestly, I'm not too enthused by that trailer. It seems to have a very different tone to the film. I've heard reports that this is basically a non-sentimental romance movie. And here? That sure seems way sentimental. We'll find out in one month.

Next, the full trailer for Darren Aronofsky's newest film, The Wrestler. It's a film that is quite different from his other ones in basically every way. Except, he's making it, and Clint Mansell is doing the score. With those two factors in the mix, what the hell else matters? Can't wait to see it. And I hate wrestling.

A great photo is all about contrast

The anti-Christ being the president, America being doomed with Iraq because of gays, and just all around fucked up delusional beliefs about they're on certainty while everyone else is a morally compromised piece of horrible shit....

But vampires, they're a-ok. Hell, they're fucking awesome!

Show you're smarter than you representatives

Enjoy a nice civics test, with the possibility of bragging rights.

WASHINGTON (AFP) – US elected officials scored abysmally on a test measuring their civic knowledge, with an average grade of just 44 percent, the group that organized the exam said Thursday.

Ordinary citizens did not fare much better, scoring just 49 percent correct on the 33 exam questions compiled by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI).

"It is disturbing enough that the general public failed ISI's civic literacy test, but when you consider the even more dismal scores of elected officials, you have to be concerned," said Josiah Bunting, chairman of the National Civic Literacy Board at ISI.

"How can political leaders make informed decisions if they don't understand the American experience?" he added.

I got just over 90% (I think it was like 90.91% or something weird) getting only three questions wrong. That's actually stunning to me, since there are quite a few economics questions, and even though a few of them are basic ones, still, I exclaimed several times that it's not a fucking econ test, it's a civics one.

But, then again, there's also a question on the Scopes Monkey trial, so I couldn't help but laugh and see this as an area where some people got really wrong answers. Or with this one:

Forty percent of respondents, meanwhile, incorrectly believed that the US president has the power to declare war, while 54 percent correctly answered that that power rests with Congress.

That one I'm at least genuinely sympathetic to, since presidents really do have the ability to declare war these days. Not officially, of course, no, but they do have powers way too broad, and open-ended.

Anyway, I screwed up the Lincoln-Douglas debates (it was obviously about slavery, but I got the sequence of what they debated wrong), a question about the Federal Reserve (hardly a surprise; again, I'm astounded I didn't get 6 or 7 wrong with that focus in there), and another one I've sadly forgotten. I think it was mis-reading an answer about the powers of government about levying income taxes, but I am not sure.

Oh well. I'm still as smart as two fucking representatives. Now, give me a job.

Enough with the "pregnant man" shit!

My goodness, I am so sick of this fucking shit.

Thomas Beatie, known as "the pregnant man," was interviewed Monday by CNN's Larry King. Joining Thomas was his wife, Nancy. Thomas gave birth in July to the couple's first child, Susan, and now they're expecting again.

Aww, isn't that wonderful. You know what would be better? If people could get the simple fucking delineations right.

Here's the answer to this mystifying question for the media:

Thomas: No. We -- I lived my life as a woman at that point. Legally, I was female. But inside I still felt male. So the way other people perceived us, they saw us as a lesbian couple. [...]

King: What kind of birth was it?

Thomas: It was natural birth.

King: Not Cesarean?

Thomas: No, it was rumored that it was. But it wasn't.

Case fucking closed you twits. This isn't a man, ok? If you are human and you have a vagina, you're either a woman or a hermaphrodite. This was a woman who went through hormonal therapy to become more like a man -- but still has a vagina, and gives birth.

It's not a fucking miracle that through hormone treatments you can do this, and that if you have a functioning vagina, you can inseminate yourself with a turkey baster.

I am so sick of this fucking story. I'd rather see 10,000 articles about a spider in the space station than this crap.

Newsweek asks: "Is Obama the Antichrist?"

Are you fucking kidding me?

Already Barack Obama had drawn the attention of apocalypse watchers after an anonymous e-mail circulated among conservative Christians in October implying that he was the Antichrist. Former "Saturday Night Live" ingénue Victoria Jackson fueled the fire when, according to news reports, she wrote on her Web site that Obama "bears traits that resemble the anti-Christ." Now Strandberg was receiving up-to-the-minute news from his constituents in Illinois. One of the winning lottery numbers in the president-elect's home state was 666— which, as everyone knows, is the sign of the Beast (also known as the Antichrist). "It is very eerie, and I take it for a sign as to who he really is," wrote one of Strandberg's correspondents.

That's it? That's your standard for what makes an "anti-christ?" That on the Evening Pick 3 for November 5th, the winning numbers were 666? Oh my, what shocking and important evidence! Why it almost surpasses the 779 that won in the Midday drawing for that exact same day! Or the fact that it happened on October 23rd's Midday Drawing, that 0666 was on the Evening Pick 4 on July 5th, that 666 came up on the Evening Pick 3 again on March 22nd, and then again on January 16th.

I mean it's not like this hasn't happened two other fucking times in the exact same way, and with another case that can be made to show "the anti-christ has arrived!"

And these were just within this year. Three similar events happened in 2007, twice in 2006, twice in 2005, and so forth.

You want to know something REALLY fucked up? I mean, gasp-inducing, "This is obviously a sign that is of absolute importance, and I'm about to be raptured-away" shockitude?

On Christmas Day, 2004, the winning Pick 3 numbers for Illinois were 6-6-6. How is that not the ultimate sign of the anti-christ?!

Maybe because it's coincidental shit that fucking idiots are looking anything into to feed their epic delusions from reality due to their religious beliefs which are centered entirely on fear? Yeah, that one works.

And this stupidity from Newsweek continues:

After years of tribulation—natural disasters, other cataclysms (such as the collapse of financial markets)—God's armies will vanquish armies led by the Antichrist himself. He will be a sweet-talking world leader who gathers governments and economies under his command to further his own evil agenda. In this world view, "the spread of secular progressive ideas is a prelude to the enslavement of mankind," explains Richard Landes, former director of the Center for Millennial Studies at Boston University.

No wonder, then, that Obama triggers such fear in the hearts of America's millennialist Christians.

Wow, nice balanced treatment here, Newsweek. Take something completely fucking crazy, and say "Well, no wonder this applies, we're telling you that it does." Good job!

Oh, but these people aren't nuts?

Mat Staver, dean of Liberty University's law school, says he does not believe Obama is the Antichrist, but he can see how others might. Obama's own use of religious rhetoric belies his liberal positions on abortion and traditional marriage, Staver says, positions that "religious conservatives believe will threaten their freedom." The people who believe Obama is the Antichrist are perhaps jumping to conclusions, but they're not nuts: "They are expressing a concern and a fear that is widely shared," Staver says.

Yeah, and irrational, delusional fear which is not based on anything except that instilled fear from their religion, leading them to belief things that are fundamentally not true and not in accord with reality. No, that'd never be crazy. That's "special" or some shit.

Here's a tip: if you're looking for the anti-christ in the lotto numbers, yes, you're fucking crazy.

Newsweek should be ashamed of this travesty they put out. And I'm not leaving out any section that explains how this is clearly a falsehood or silly or anything like that. It's a short article, and the entire thing is a gullible tract on amping up fears of Obama in fundamentalists (not like many needed any more reason, but still). This is just irresponsible, and absolute bullshit. Not to mention fucking stupid.

Obama's big choice: what church to attend?

I'm not sure about Amy Sullivan. I think she's a well intentioned person, and has several correct beliefs, if I remember some of her interviews correctly.

But, then again, the thing I'm most familiar about her, is her religious gobbledygook. She can be good on issues, such as climate change and AIDS prevention, but she feels it's necessary to say "You know, religion is great at helping with this too!" That political parties should enlist and seek out evangelicals and so forth.

The basic divide for me is easy: if you're concerned about taking action on the issue, I don't really care about religious affiliation. I can work easily with evangelicals on the issue of climate change, for instance, and they'd be a great help. If you care about the dogma instead, there's the problem. If you're the Pope and say that the only way to fight AIDS is through abstinence, you need a reality check.

So, I was gazing over some headlines and saw this winning piece: What Church Will President Obama Attend? Begin the silliness, with this such dire and important decision.

A lot of it is fluff stuff, and without mention. "Obama needs to find a good church to fit his personality." Uh huh. Ok. Sure. Then it moves into suggestions, and it hits a point that makes me go what -- the -- fuck.

I talked to a number of people who know the religious world here in Washington and solicited their church recommendations. At least two people thought that since home churches are a growing trend, you might want to start your own in the White House. A "Church of the Obamas," however, might just fuel the messianic talk. But I think you'll find some good options here, including a couple of intriguing — dare I say maverick — possibilities.

Uh, no. No, no, and double-uber-fuck no.

Sorry, but if there's ever a place that will never be a church, it's the fucking White House. It's this little thing called secularism. We have it here, so that any public property (which the White House is included!) cannot have any religious affiliation. It has to treat all faiths and no faiths as welcomed, or to not treat to them at all. Because the first is so difficult, the default is to not treat on religious issues at all.

You want to know a simple and easy solution to this nightmare of selecting a church? Don't. Don't go to church. Be religious on your personal time, without making your own church in the fucking White House (the White House! A serious suggestion for theocracy! Gah!), but realize that it's just that: personal worship. It'd likely free you to do a bit more work on the actual job you were elected for, rather than kneeling and mumbling. Not to mention, it increases the Lincoln comparisons, so what's to lose?

New Half-Blood Prince trailer

There's a new full Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince trailer out, and it's rather good.

One curious thing to note is how epic the score is getting. John Williams' scores are usually in that great big sweeping style. But this is a bit more. You can really tell in the end of the trailer, but there's a definite note of scale and/or importance being made in just the score. Of course, we all know why because it's getting closer to the end of the series. It's still interesting, though, that it's changing to such a degree.

Still great.