The Stone of Tear

Quote of the Day

2009-02-10T23:12:00.000-06:00

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?

2009-02-01T04:23:00.000-06:00

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"

2009-02-01T03:54:00.000-06:00

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

2009-01-22T22:03:00.000-06:00

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

2009-01-22T21:27:00.000-06:00

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

2009-01-09T01:19:00.001-06:00

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"

2009-01-06T18:01:00.000-06:00

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

2009-01-05T19:08:00.001-06:00

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

2008-12-30T23:46:00.000-06:00

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

2008-12-29T20:29:00.000-06:00

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

2008-12-29T00:32:00.000-06:00

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

(Original link.)

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

2008-12-27T23:41:00.000-06:00

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

2008-12-25T23:58:00.000-06:00

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

2008-12-24T01:16:00.000-06:00

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

2008-12-21T01:50:00.001-06:00

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

2008-12-21T01:12:00.000-06:00

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

2008-12-14T23:29:00.000-06:00

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

(Original link.)

Child murdering parents assert religious rights

2008-12-10T22:17:00.001-06:00

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

2008-12-09T23:57:00.002-06:00

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

2008-12-04T06:26:00.000-06:00

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!

2008-11-28T00:50:00.000-06:00

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

2008-11-27T03:56:00.000-06:00

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

2008-11-25T19:00:00.000-06:00

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

2008-11-25T08:53:00.001-06:00

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

2008-11-25T08:35:00.001-06:00

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

2008-11-24T05:39:00.001-06:00

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!

2008-11-18T12:49:00.000-06:00

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?"

2008-11-17T12:42:00.000-06:00

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?

2008-11-16T19:42:00.000-06:00

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

2008-11-15T03:14:00.000-06:00

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.

"Atheist Superhero Fights Psycho Cults"

2008-11-13T09:42:00.000-06:00

With a title like that, you have peeked my interest. And better yet this is dealing with a movie!

Ryan Phillippe wears a supernatural-looking mask in Franklyn, a British film coming out next year. He plays the only atheist in a city full of religious fanatics. Writer/director Gerald McMorrow spilled the beans yesterday about the film's weird set-up.
Philippe plays a detective named Jonathan Preest who lives in a dystopian alternate world called Meanwhile City, where religion is the main form of social control. The clever twist? The evil overlords don't care what religion you believe in, as long as they can use your beliefs to tame you.
"It's this place which is sort-of run by a shadowy, religious uber-power called The Ministry who has decided, over the centuries, that as long as they can get their population to believe in something - anything - they can control them. People have faiths and religions based on strange things like The Seventh Day Manicurists and Washing Machine Street Preachers. Their doctrines and dogmas are all based on things like washing machine instructions."

Sounds at least possibly interesting. Movies have a notoriously bad time portraying actual atheists. Just look at I Am Legend.

Of course, this is generic story stuff, rather than what is the actionable substance of the film (what kick starts this story? what drives it forward? this is the overarching bits of the story they're giving here). Great ideas and themes can be ruined by a really stupid action device. Maybe a treatise on xenophobia, carried out via a Godzilla attack.

And they didn't even mention the best part: Eva Green is in it! Anyway, we'll see if it turns out to be a piece of crap or not.

HBO pilot ordered for A Game of Thrones

2008-11-13T01:14:00.001-06:00

Awesome.

HBO has given the production order.

They will be filming the pilot episode of A GAME OF THRONES.

It's just the pilot so far. They'll need to see that before they decide whether to proceed with a full season's episodes. So let's all hope the pilot will kick serious ass.

Can't wait. It better be good, it's fucking HBO. No pussy-footing around this shit. Hope they find someone competent, because that's basically all they need. The content of that series is so good you just have to record the images, rather than do a lot of extra-cinematic work.

Mainstream alty-medicine crap-talk

2008-11-12T23:41:00.003-06:00

Tonight, instead of going to my cinematography class, the professor instructed us to go to an artist visitation. What he showed was a lot of fun, and quite interesting, even if on surprisingly low levels of production values. They looked like jumped up YouTube clips, and nothing more. The content was pretty good, but the way they were show was very low-tech. Even by my means, and that says a lot.

Afterward, mulling around just outside the presentation room, I was talking to some of the people I know in the class, and just basically killing a little bit of time.

I overheard one guy from my class saying that he was on "his sixth day." Curious by this phrasing, I asked what he had said earlier, and was regaled with an interesting short story.

Turns out, his girlfriend had wanted to go on a "cleanse." This was a diet of nothing but two 1-liter bottles of a certain fluid a day. Nothing else. For 10 days. The bottles were filled with few things, and he passed over them briefly, but he mentioned herbs, maple syrup, and like four other generic things. I'm quite sure it was the "Lemonade Diet" but obviously cannot be 100% in this. She then said that he wouldn't have the dedication to see it though, so he joined her on the challenge. He was on his sixth day of this, and she had bowed out after three.

I was a bit mystified by this, so I asked what the hell he was "cleansing." His answer was simple:

All those toxins in your body.

If you can't recognize a crank by this, you will soon. I asked "What toxins?" He replied: "I don't know, just all those toxins that build up from the food you eat, water you drink, and the air you breathe."

Pure bullshit.

I asked him three more times, and a girl that he was with that was apparently supporting this (though I don't believe his girlfriend) to name some actual toxins that this "treatment" is supposed to target. They couldn't name any of them.

Excuse me, but do you ever take a "medical treatment" having no idea what it's supposed to target and treat? You'd have to be very trusting of your doctor, and by law they have to inform you.

This is entirely woo-talk. If you want to get stereotypical about it, it's the "left-wing-supernaturalism." It's hardly just on the more liberal side of politics, but it does seem to flourish more here. Case in point, my friend Vinnie and his wife Candace are very smart liberals. While I haven't heard anything strange out of Vinnie, Candace does have some strange beliefs that are pure bullshit. She's making a good attempt to be based in science, but it is more chakras, fung shei, and purification attempts.

This, quite simply, is again all bullshit.

The cop out to "toxins" is the classic sign of a alternative medicine crank. Scientists don't go around shouting "Get the toxins out of his body!" Mostly because they know a few fucking facts about how your body actually works:

Kidneys: CO2 functions as an acid in the body, and the lungs and a blood buffering system keep the body's acidity closely regulated. Even small deviations of pH create a very, very sick person. The kidneys help remove various other acids produced by the body, and one of the effects of kidney failure is to be come "acidotic". The kidneys also remove excess water from the body, as water is a main by product of metabolism. Water also serves as a solvent, or vehicle, to removing excess electrolytes and other toxic metabolic wastes, such as urea.

Liver: The liver is a giant factory of necessary substances, and also serves as an organ of "detoxification". One of the ways the liver does this is by taking toxic substances that are not soluble in water, and adding a molecule that allows them to dissolve in water and be excreted by the kidneys. The liver also produces bile, which eventually helps certain substances be excreted in the stool.

Colon: The colon is not so much a detoxifying organ as a waste removal and water reclamation unit. When a colon ruptures, it is not the toxins contained in the stool that makes someone sick, but the overwhelming infection due to colonic bacteria. These bacteria normally live peacefully, even benevolently, in the colon, but they are rather nasty if they reach the rest of the body.

People don't like poo, and the colon is seen as "dirty", but it is actually an efficient, complex hunk of machinery. Certain diseases can disrupt the machinery---certain infections (some caused by antibiotics), autoimmune diseases, trauma---but there is no inherently "toxic" condition in the colon. It's just a "poop chute", and does its job well.

The need to remove "toxins?" None. Again, what are these fucking toxins? No one knows because there aren't any. It's just a verbal and jargon black hole for cranks to toss out there and try to diffuse any questions. That's why when I asked what they were, I got glazed over looks four different times, and finally the girl gave up in frustration storming away saying "You're obviously too stupid to know." Yes, obviously, I can't keep up with the fountain of your knowledge or you emaculate teaching skills.

When your body actually gets poisoned or the mechanisms for removing waste in your body break down, you get sick very badly. It's not just "Oh, I have a headache, those darn toxins are at it again. I need to cleanse." Your liver fails, you're going to die without a transplant. Get the difference in scale here?

So, if "toxins" are building up in your body enough to cause you to get "sick" without sending you to the hospital -- yeah, you can find a better explanation than "toxins."

There are a few instances where there are actual build ups in your body of toxic elements, such as heavy metal poisonings. But unless you work in an iron pit, you're not going to come anywhere near the quantities in your life time in the air, food, or water that you consume. You drink the waste water from an iron works? Yeah, go to the hospital, they'll give you actual treatment for your actual very serious condition.

I'm just continually amazed at the stupid shit some people peddle. Like those fucking Kinoki footpads.

(Original link.)

My favorite bit is the "beware of fake imitations."

Want to see how bad this thinking about passing "toxins" is? Ok.

Imagine you do this regimen. You "cleanse" your body of toxins during the day, and eventually pass them out of your body. Where do they go? If you're pissing them out, they'll eventually get back into our drinking water! Ooooo! And if you're getting this from the air, cleansing your body isn't going to do any good. What, you going to stop breathing all day during your "treatment?" The air is still full of toxins! Gotta be clean! What if you have a pet? The food, water, and air that they consume is just as toxic, and worse, they're not being cleansed! You're going to be tripple fucked! You'll have to wall yourself off in a bubble Gyllenhaal-style, and hold your breath while you take a piss or take a shit. And you can't go into a sauna or exercise, since if you sweat, you're sweating out toxins, and if that sweat goes anywhere near an oriface of yours, well you're fucked once again by that toxin just coming right back in.

The only solution obviously is to go out on your own terms, and shoot yourself in the head.

That, or stop being so god damn FUCKING stupid.

TED: Ken Robinson on creativity

2008-11-12T08:46:00.000-06:00

A fascinating and fun talk about how public schools stiffle children's creative drives. Not too much given in graph-based substance, but some very good big-picture points about the education system in general, the world over.

(Original link.)

Fuck Chuck Norris

2008-11-11T05:02:00.000-06:00

Personally, I can enjoy Chuck Norris jokes the same way I can enjoy a lot of jokes just for their comedic element. Who cares really about the subject matter as long as it can come to a somewhat funny climax? Maybe it's just because I can enjoy puns so much. If it's a bad "groan-inducing" joke, I can still enjoy it most of the time.

But really, Chuck Norris jokes get way out of hand. This usually happens when the people stop making anything close to funny or intelligent jokes involving Norris, to idolizing the actual joke. Like, thinking Chuck Norris is great because he knows martial arts. Sure, I bet he can beat up a lot of people, and...? He's a great person because he can beat up people, and you can make a joke referencing this fact? I'm doubtful.

My usual response is to say that the joke is funny, but that Chuck Norris is a theocratic tool. A kid in one of my experimental video classes (yes, I've sadly taken more than one), came across this exact situation, and informed me that "You shouldn't make fun of Chuck Norris. He's a good man."

Uh huh. Well, in fact, no, he's not. I'm sure he's fine on many issues, such as making dinner and not leaving the toilet seat up, but Chuck Norris is a theocratic tool -- and I have the video tape to prove it.

(Original link.)

Yeah, everything theocrats want to do is totally legal! The Supreme Court says so! Except that, you know, they and the Constitution says that they're wrong. And anyone who has taken a half-way decent civics and history class in school knows that America is a secular country that was founded in part to get away from a tyrannical theocracy.

So, I'm changing my response. Now, when I hear a Chuck Norris joke, I might laugh if it's at least minimally funny (they do get old), but I'll definitely be replying "Fuck Chuck Norris." Or maybe that Chuck Norris sucks cock for cab fare and then walks home. Or that Chuck Norris got in a fight with Vin Diesel, and got the shit beat out of him. Or that Chuck Norris starred in a slew of absolutely god-awful (ha ha ha! Suck it, bitch, I'm punning your ass!) movies, and has absolutely no talent except as an old man wasting away.

But mostly, just fuck Chuck Norris.

Mormons upset that people protest their bigotry

2008-11-09T21:51:00.000-06:00

Oh, those poor defenseless Mormons, and the multi-million dollars they spent to promote their intolerance and bigotry.

Once again, we call on those involved in the debate over same-sex marriage to act in a spirit of mutual respect and civility towards each other. No one on either side of the question should be vilified, harassed or subject to erroneous information.

Vilified? Damn right they should be. I don't have to respect your bigotry just because you think I should.

And what "erroneous information?" You spent millions of dollars to take away a right people already had, because... you felt weird about it. Whose the one harassing other people? I think discriminating against them and saying "You're a second-class human being" (if you go so far as to acknowledge as human!), why, that's harassment and much worse.

So, shut the fuck up you whining perpetually persecuted assholes.

The sharks are already in the water

2008-11-09T01:00:00.000-06:00

Place your bets! The next freakshow of Republican attempts at power are beginning already!

As far as I can tell, there was very little positioning among Republicans for the next presidential race for about 48 hours after Barack Obama became the president-elect. But with only 1,460 or so shopping days until Election Day 2012, that apparently didn't last long.
Mitt Romney is off on a Caribbean cruise with influential conservative leaders. Romney, Sarah Palin, and Mike Huckabee are stepping up to help Sen. Saxby Chambliss' runoff campaign in Georgia. Huckabee is poised to kick off a national book tour ... in Iowa.

Huzzah! Now all their choices are demented fuck ups, as well as losers. Wait, what am I saying? They already were this election. Fun thing is, if Palin and Huckabee both run in the primary, they'll largely be splitting the theocratic vote, giving a chance for the corporate whores like Romney to sneek past with a majority of delegates.

Honestly, I'm not ready to start this shit again. Let them have a year or two alone mobilizing while Obama works to actually get shit done.

Music to my ears

2008-11-08T22:17:00.000-06:00

Oh, so this is why elections are important and have consequences.

Transition advisers to President-elect Barack Obama have compiled a list of about 200 Bush administration actions and executive orders that could be swiftly undone to reverse White House policies on climate change, stem cell research, reproductive rights and other issues, according to congressional Democrats, campaign aides and experts working with the transition team.

A team of four dozen advisers, working for months in virtual solitude, set out to identify regulatory and policy changes Obama could implement soon after his inauguration. The team is now consulting with liberal advocacy groups, Capitol Hill staffers and potential agency chiefs to prioritize those they regard as the most onerous or ideologically offensive, said a top transition official who was not permitted to speak on the record about the inner workings of the transition. [...]
Obama himself has signaled, for example, that he intends to reverse Bush's controversial limit on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, a decision that scientists say has restrained research into some of the most promising avenues for defeating a wide array of diseases, such as Parkinson's.

Bush's August 2001 decision pleased religious conservatives who have moral objections to the use of cells from days-old human embryos, which are destroyed in the process.

But Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) said that during Obama's final swing through her state in October, she reminded him that because the restrictions were never included in legislation, Obama "can simply reverse them by executive order." Obama, she said, "was very receptive to that." Opponents of the restrictions have already drafted an executive order he could sign.

Boom.

That's a large part of eight years of fundamental ignorance, stubbornness, and anti-science attitude coming down in one fell swoop.

That, is beautiful.

A country more liberal than the US on stem cell research?

2008-11-08T05:07:00.000-06:00

How about, Iran!

Iran's Cord Blood Bank says 2.5 billion dollars will be invested in the country's stem cell research over the next five years.

Iranian scientists test treatments on mice for everything from heart disease to multiple sclerosis in state-run laboratories and private hospitals in Tehran. The fund will be used for the development of such facilities in other Iranian cities.

"Stem cell research centers will soon be opened in all major cities," said managing Director of Iran's Cord Blood bank, Mortezah Zarabi.

Right now you might just be in disbelief -- but it gets better.

Iranian scientists developed human embryonic stem cell lines in 2003, with the approval of Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei, the leader of Iran's Islamic revolution.

Despite many western countries which impose restrictions on stem cell research, Iran, a premier in the realm of stem cell research, has some of the most liberal laws providing grounds for such studies.

Muslim clerics acknowledge that life begins three months after conception, granting scientists access to human embryonic stem cells left over from fertilization trials.

Got that? The overwhelming control structure of Iran is in agreement more so than a decent portion of the United States electorate. Iran is. This is a country that has laws calling for stoning women who get raped, yet has a liberal stance widespread on when life begins. This is a fucking theocracy, setting aside good solid chunks of money for modern science, and saying "Fuck off" to this whole "controversy" surrounding stem cells.

That's just fucked up.

Iran is more progressive than the United States on stem cell research. IRAN! Those "evil guys" over there, with a bunch of oil and gas. Those people who are so "uncivilized" -- yeah, putting down large mounts of money to kick us in the ass on essentially the newest space-race.

If Iran can get this far on the issue, I don't see how we can be stuck being so far behind on this. Unbelievable.

Religious logic

2008-11-07T00:48:00.001-06:00

Yep, this about sums it up in my experience.

And really, truly, honestly: it does sadden me to say that. It shouldn't be that frickin' simple to boil something people invents their entire life in and that shapes their entire world view, down to a single image conveying the most basic reason why said people are wrong. Such things that are so important to people you'd think would be so strongly supported and reasoned out that if you questioned them, you'd get a 3 hour smack down and be thoroughly de-based.

And, yet, here we are.

Unknown extra-universal structures "tugging" at us

2008-11-07T00:28:00.000-06:00

A fascinating study, that simply cries out for more research before anything is taken too seriously with it.

On the outskirts of creation, unknown, unseen "structures" are tugging on our universe like cosmic magnets, a controversial new study says.
Everything in the known universe is said to be racing toward the massive clumps of matter at more than 2 million miles (3.2 million kilometers) an hour—a movement the researchers have dubbed dark flow.
The presence of the extra-universal matter suggests that our universe is part of something bigger—a multiverse—and that whatever is out there is very different from the universe we know, according to study leader Alexander Kashlinsky, an astrophysicist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland.

Basically, you wonder how the fuck this is ascertained. The study was started to confirm the idea that the further away galaxies are, the slower their movement.

If a cluster were moving faster or slower than the universe's background radiation, you'd expect to see the background heated slightly in that region of the universe—the result of a sort of electron-scattering "friction" between the cluster's hot gas and particles in the background radiation.
Because these fluctuations are so faint, the team studied more than 700 galaxy clusters. The researchers had expected to find that, the farther away clusters are, the slower they appear to be moving.

And it comes down to this compelling fact:

Instead, Kashlinsky said, "We found a great surprise."

The clusters were all moving at the same speed—nearly 2 million miles (3.2 million kilometers) an hour —and in a single direction.

That's fascinating, no matter how you cut it. Of course, this just has to be studied more, there's no question about it. It's best to be very skeptical of this, but it is without a doubt a very interesting phenomena. It just needs to be, about, quadruple-checked.

And there's a way to (possibly) better understand what they're talking about:

In an attempt to simplify the mind-bending concept, Kashlinsky says to picture yourself floating in the middle of a vast ocean. As far as the eye can see, the ocean is smooth and the same in every direction, just as most astronomers believe the universe is. You would think that beyond the horizon, therefore, nothing is different.
"But then you discover a faint but coherent flow in your ocean," Kashlinsky said. "You would deduce that the entire cosmos is not exactly like what you can see within your own horizon."
There must be an out-of-sight mountain river or ravine pushing or pulling the water. Or in the cosmological case, Kashlinsky speculates that "this motion is caused by structures well beyond the current cosmological horizon, which is more than 14 billion light-years away."

That does help. On about the third read-through.

Evangelicals already depressed by Obama presidency

2008-11-06T21:25:00.001-06:00

I like things like this.

Evangelicals have been a political and social force with tremendous clout, having found an ally in the Bush administration. On Tuesday night, they watched as red states turned blue, Democrats ousted Republicans and their agenda crumbled.
"We're going to have some setbacks here," Mohler said. "We're going to have some real days of disappointment. I think we need to be prepared for that. We're going to find ourselves in a situation where our voice is not going to have the kind of resonance that it once had in Washington."

Outstanding. The less you're listened to, the happier I am.

Others believe that Barack Obama's presidency could have the reverse effect, further galvanizing their constituency.
"I think many people will be in for quite a shock when he governs and that could end up helping our movement," said Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Voters for America. "If he implements the policies that he says that he believes, many people in America will -- may be shocked enough that we'll see the pendulum swing the other way."

Err, what? Let me get this straight. The people who just voted for the man to enact these policies by the largest numeric amount in history -- well, they'll just be shocked when they actually get their results. And then... evangelicals will prosper.

You know, there are a few tired and frustratingly stupid mantras that you here in politics in various forms that can be boiled down in so many instances:

1. It's bad for Democrats. No matter what happens, it's bad for Democrats. This played out endlessly under this administration. "Democrats won the Congress in 2006 -- oh, they're screwed!" Nonsense like that.

2. Conservatism can never fail; only people can fail conservatism. You're seeing this in action right now. That's why on Monday it was that Obama was a socialist, ultra-left-liberal. Today, he supposedly ran his campaign as a "moderate Republican." That's why on Real Time With Bill Maher, I got to see a woman ask blankly "You think McCain was the best messenger of conservatism?" Yep, that was the flaw here. Not that Bush was the embodiment of everything conservatives wanted for years, and had control due to the take over of the House and Senate, so that the results of his administration were unambiguously his -- the problem was McCain's talking skills. Conservatism never fails; only people fail conservatism.

Both of them are utter shit. They're mantras that are said to bolster Republicans, and they're said endlessly like so much of Republican tactics (just repeat lies as if that makes them reality!).

Evangelicals' didn't really have a candidate here. Palin was a nice bonus for them, but they weren't working for a president. They lost. They know they lost. And like Glenn Greenwald pointed out yesterday, there are three reasons that are made crystal clear today why Obama's victory was so important:

Court watchers almost unanimously believe that those first two Justices -- John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsberg -- are certain to leave the court at some point over the next four years, while the third -- David Souter -- is highly likely to do so. [...]

Had McCain won last night, it is virtually certain that at least two -- and probably all three -- of the above-listed Justices would have been replaced by those who would have decided those cases the other way, ensuring the opposite result. It is also quite likely that a McCain victory would have meant the end of Griswold, Roe and their privacy-protecting progeny, which is now likely to be preserved for decades to come.

Evangelicals no longer have the strangle-hold on the Supreme Court, and don't have a chance to upset the balance of that court for at least 4 years. That is cruical. And a big loss to them.

Furthermore, while certainly things are hardly done with the religious right, it seems ludicrous to claim that if Obama actually does what he said he will do -- to any effective degree -- that people will run back to the religious right.

Kuo said that in the movement's search to regain clout, it is undergoing a generational shift, and will likely lean toward a more progressive agenda.
"The new leaders will be young, they'll be more progressive," Kuo said. "They'll still be socially conservative, but this is going to be a generation that knows how to work an iPod, knows Facebook, knows MySpace and knows how to use all of those things to advance the religious right's political agenda."

Uh huh. Sure. One tidbit from the vote on Tuesday:

Voters in the 18 to 24 age group broke 68 percent for Obama to 30 percent for John McCain, according to the exit polling. Those in the 25 to 29 age bracket went 69 percent to 29 percent in Obama's favor.

Want some more?

Young Voters: Obama won two-thirds of the 18-29 age group. This is the fifth straight presidential election that Democrats have won the youth vote. However, Obama's margin with this group is substantially greater than any previous Democratic nominee. In fact, no candidate has won any of the standard exit poll age groups by as big a margin as Obama won the 18-29 vote in this election.

Those under 30 broke for Obama by a 2 to 1 margin. To claim that the younger voters will be "more progressive" yet somehow "still socially conservative" is ridiculous. Young voters are overwhelmingly Democratic as of now, and have been since 2006. It will only increase as more of the Millenial generation comes of voting age. Not to mention, this is a generation of voters that outnumber the baby boomer generation. There's a lot of them, they're overwhelmingly Democratic -- and they're the least religious generation so far.

So, excuse me if I laugh at the idea that younger evangelicals will somehow be "more progressive" yet "socially conservative." But say we even give them this false hope: they're still going down in numbers. When Baptists are running low on baptisms, there is a problem.

But my favorite section of this article, is this quote:

"We must pray that God would change his mind and heart on issues of our crucial concern," Mohler wrote on his Web site, urging supporters to hold fast to their beliefs on moral issues.

Yeah, because god was wrong before. You know, that whole infallibility part? It's a bitch when it doesn't go your way, isn't it?

Huh. So that's where Edward Norton has been

2008-11-06T04:59:00.000-06:00

Apparently, Edward Norton has been making a documentary about Barack Obama since he won his Illinois Senate seat. Ever since Obama left on a visit to Africa, they've been filming him. Throughout the 2006 campaign, the primary, the general, and on the 4th.

What an ending he'll have.

Probably my favorite campaign photo

2008-11-06T04:52:00.000-06:00

There were a lot of good ones, but this one I think takes first place:

It's much larger, so click for the bigger view. From this series.

State ballot measures for 2008

2008-11-05T00:32:00.000-06:00

The California measure is the big one, and it's still undetermined. That's a vital measure that needs to be defeated, and hopefully will. At this time, its 53-47% for it (which is not what we want), and 29% reporting. Plenty of votes out there still, and the exit polls (if they're worth anything, which they very easily cannot) would post about a 52-48% for the No vote (that's what we do want).

My personal favorite that is decided is Colorado. This was the measure to define life as starting at conception, and giving rights to all conceptions. With 58% in, it's failing 73-27%! That's a stark result. In the capital of the Focus on the Family evangelical vote (Colorado Springs).

This could've won here. It didn't. It failed nearly 3 to 1. That's fucking awesome.

A measure that goes along with the Colorado one, was in Michigan, where with 80% of the vote in, it passes 52-48%. Good. We need more stem cell research, desperately. It has some limitations that I think are silly, but whatever it passed and we need the research done.

Michigan also voted to allow medical marijuana legal, by 63-37% with 80% of the vote in.

South Dakota once more defeated the measure to ban abortion. With 96% in, it failed 55-45%. That's twice a ballot measure to ban abortion has failed -- in SOUTH DAKOTA. That cannot be emphasized enough. It wasn't a fluke. In South Dakota, a very conservative state, they want abortion to be legal.

Finally, with 43% of the vote in, Washington passes an initiative to allow for euthanasia via doctor-assisted suicide by a vote of 58-42%.

The California initiative is the one that needs to be defeated the most, and it's currently losing. It will hopefully win, but it could lose.

The election is called

2008-11-04T22:01:00.002-06:00

Expect McCain's concession within this hour.

Colorado defining life referendum fails

2008-11-04T21:09:00.002-06:00

Watching MSNBC, and Rachel Maddow just announced that the Colorado referendum defining life as starting at conception, has failed.

Fucking awesome.

South Dakota also defeated their measure to ban abortion. Again. After they made it "more moderate" by banning abortion, but having exceptions for incest, rape, and life of the mother.

Now to defeat the measure banning gay marriage.

Ohio for Obama

2008-11-04T20:22:00.003-06:00

If that holds, McCain is fucked. Game over.

Edited 8:28 pm: Let me explain why.

With the states Obama has won plus Ohio, he's at 195. With California, he's at 260. With Florida, he's at 287. Game over. With Virginia, he's at 273. Game over. With North Carolina, he's at 275. Game over. With Iowa and Colorado, he's at 273. Game over.

McCain can win the entire rest of the country, but if Obama wins just two states such as California (definitely) and Virginia, North Carolina, or Florida, Obama wins the election.

There has never been a Republican candidate to win the presidency -- without Ohio.

Obama won.

Edited 8:45 pm: Oh, and at the McCain rally? There is no news broadcast. They do not know they just lost. Except for those people with blackberries.

Wisconsin called for Obama

2008-11-04T20:02:00.000-06:00

Hardly unexpected.

But good to know.

Now to play the waiting game

2008-11-04T19:01:00.000-06:00

It's game time. I'm sitting here, after taking my philosphy test, flipping back and forth with MSNBC and CNN. I'm waiting for basically one moment:

When Virginia is called.

If Obama wins, as he is likely to, McCain is basically doomed. Ohio is another one, but Obama can lose it and still win.

MSNBC just called Pennsylvania as I was writing this. That's another. If they're calling it right as the polls close, it wasn't close. McCain's last ditch attempt was a failure. He loses Ohio, Florida, or Virginia, he's done.

Election Day 2008

2008-11-04T04:07:00.000-06:00

You know what to do. Vote. Drag every person you know to go get registered if your state still allows it (Wisconsin is awesome in that regard), but otherwise, just physically pry people away from whatever they're doing to get them to voting stations.

I don't care who they vote for. Voting is the important thing. Obviously, I think Obama will win, and would love to see all the more votes for him.

But the important thing is voting, since it's the most important thing we do as citizens, just ahead of paying our taxes. It's the way we show that we are still in charge of things in America, and select, not the policies we wish to see inherently, but the leaders we think best represent us.

I think it's exceedingly clear that Barack Obama is the next such leader that we will choose. I also hope that tonight will see the clear declaration of a new political re-alignment in America, one firmly establishing the influence of the newest, and largest, generation of voters.

So vote.

And just remember, what a difference a day makes.

Joe the Plumber: go the fuck away, asshole

2008-11-02T19:34:00.000-06:00

I like to think I have a high tolerance for annoying people. By that, I mean I'm far more likely to simply keep quiet around someone whose annoying the fuck out of me, than snap at them. Many times, it's to my detriment.

But, I have to say, this Joe the Plumber shit got way too far out of hand about 4 or 5 days ago.

The fucking guy is an "average Joe," who went and got a publicist, is looking for a book deal, and wants a country music contract. Are you kidding me? This dipshit was a plant to try to "get" Obama at a rally, and McCain is dry-humping this guy to try and win the election. It's not going to work, everyone knows it's not going to work, so why the fuck is this crap still going on?

Why is McCain still appealing to this douche at rallies?

(Original link.)

Everything presented about this guy was false. He isn't named Joe, he's not a licensed plumber, he wasn't an undecided voter, he wasn't looking to buy a company, he didn't make nearly as much money as he was claiming -- it was an obvious plant, simply to try to get Obama to stumble.

But whatever. Again, it won't work, and everyone knows it won't work, because who gives a shit about this fucking guy? McCain! Well, he's a tool to begin with, so that's hardly a shock. He's trotted out on stage what seems like everyday so he can blab inanities about how Obama would be bad for Israel and unbelievable shit like that.

Again, fine, for the most part. It's totally stupid, outrageously false. But hey, Republicans do that all the time.

Well, the media does as well, for whatever reason. So, of course, he has to go on Fox News.

(Original link.)

No.

You don't get to go any further, Joe. You're fucking despicable.

"His ideology is completely opposite of what democracy stands for." What ideology? Being an American, and going through the democratic process of running for president?

What are the questions about Obama's loyalty to America? There are none, except in the minds of people clearly deranged and swallowing nothing but crank paranoia.

You know what? Simply questioning the patriotism of another American, I think, is un-American. I figured that was a basic enough point for any fucking person to understand, but apparently average Joe needs things explained to him. Or we can just tell Joe to sit down in a dark cellar and shut the fuck up for a good long time, until he realizes how much he should be ashamed of himself. That works for me.

New trailers

2008-11-02T02:41:00.004-06:00

To begin with, a movie I'm looking forward to more and more, Slumdog Millionaire. I figure this will be a niche movie, sadly, since many people may know of Danny Boyle's films like Trainspotting and 28 Days Later and somewhat with Sunshine, but that's about it. They never seek out his work among the wider public, they just happen upon some of his films. When they do, usually they find a great treat. I'm thinking Slumdog will be another great one.

Of course, I have to preface that with a sad fact: trailers for Boyle's films almost always suck. Not entirely, else there'd be nothing redeeming about them. But they're just never situated for the movie itself. Look at 28 Days Later.

(Original link.)

It starts off interesting, and develops alright -- then the music changes to a rock-techno aspect and it is just jarring and out of place. Moreover, the entire trailer suffers from a feeling of only getting part of the picture. It's a trailer that looks far better after you've seen the movie. That's not great for promotion. But then! Then. The last 20 seconds or so, when the music changes to an astral sound, oooo, then you're getting into the aspect that is pure Danny Boyle. That section right there saves all of it. And then it's back to the rock music for the last 2 seconds or so.

Also, just the tone issue: they're advertising it like it's an action film. It's a drama about a horror situation. There's little real action in the film, and large sections where if people go in expecting guns blazing, they'll be bored out of their minds.

This can be seen in all of his films, much to my regret. A Life Less Ordinary (ignore the subtitles). What's with the jumpy music at the beginning? It's a surreal romantic comedy -- not an action get-away-movie! But then again, the second half of the trailer is much better, with the music and tone shift. It gets back on track.

Millions (again, ignore the subtitles, though they're more annoying). Here the basic plot is given out, if the inter-titles were in English: two kids have a few days to spend millions of dollars before the Euro change over. Great concept, and it's gotten across. Question though: where are the fucking angels? You know the "weird stuff" his brother refers to? Yeah, that's seeing real angels, quite frequently and importantly. It was done better later, but then there's a very heavy-handed narrator (which is almost always a hatred for me).

The Beach trailer isn't that bad, and captures the early tone of the film. And completely misses the rest of it. The simple life on a island recluse is there -- but what about the part of a perfect society much like Lord of the Flies, slowly becoming more alienated with the modern world while living on an island with drug producers? Bit hard to fit that it, but that's the usual problem with these films.

The best is definitely Trainspotting, and it's little wonder why it became a success when it's presented in almost exactly the same tone as the film is.

With Slumdog Millionaire, though, I think it's probably the best trailer for a Boyle film since Trainspotting. Now, I just have to see how good the movie is.

Moving on from Boyle, we have the newest trailer of Half-Blood Prince. Looking forward to it, with admittedly less interest now that I know how it ends, but that's really silly anyway. I already knew how all the films ended when I saw them, what's different now? Basically, all I have left is it dawning on me just how much they left out of the movie. Hopefully it at least works on it's own like Azkaban does, even if it really mashes the adaptation up.

A new Friday the 13th movie. Are you shitting me? Gah. I grew up watching those horrible movies, no way I'm paying for a remake of those.

Next, a trailer I saw a week ago while seeing Pride and Glory, the new Clint Eastwood movie (starring and directing), Gran Torino. Watch that one. It's fucking hilarious. I thought it was a complete spoof movie that Eastwood was playing along with. It's not. Dear me, it's just awful looking. I do remember the people sitting in front of me, though, saying that "he's still a bad ass!" No. He's not.

Then, there's Special with Michael Rapaport. Honestly, I'm conflicted. It looks like a total goof movie. But then turns somewhat interesting, while still also being a goofy comedy. At least a mild curiosity.

The Class is a movie that is extremely well acclaimed, but that's about it judging by the trailer. It's a drama about the conflicts inside a classroom over time. Well, when it wins Cannes, usually that means it's pretty damn good in a bunch of people's minds. Why not go with with popular opinion of the time? Fallacies for everyone.

There's a teaser trailer for Angels and Demons out now. Dear god, will people stop with this crap? No, I didn't read the book. I had no interest in it. No, I wasn't interested in the film. I was dragged to it, and the absolute only enjoyable thing about the 3 hour crap fest was Ian McKellan, who is fucking awesome in anything. Once he appeared, the film was fun. Once he left, good god, it couldn't end fast enough (but it took another 40 fucking minutes, rest assured!). You're making another one of this? Nuts to that.

But, they roped in Ewan McGreggor. You fuckers. Now I'm conflicted. I am that much of a fan of his work to trudge through whatever crap Ron Howard puts out with this film. Decisions decisions....

Finally, The Reader, a drama set in various time periods centering around World War II (more likely right afterward). It's got Kate Winslet and Ralph Fiennes. Enough said, look forward to that one.

A line that has always stayed with me

2008-11-02T02:07:00.000-06:00

3rd Rock From the Sun is a weird show to classify. At times, it's hokey and stupid, predictable and boring.

Other times, it's fucking hilarious, and has lines and gags that you never forget. Plus, it's got John Lithgow. You know that's a major plus, especially after the Oscar-winning film Harry and the Hendersons (yes, look it up: it won a fucking Oscar!).

One line in particular has stayed with me ever since I heard it. It's a classic example of how the show could work so well with it's original concept of aliens pretending to be humans. If only all science professors went to the lengths to get student engagement in science as we see here.

(Original link.)

My science teachers didn't go that far. But a few came damn close. At least wildly running across all boundaries of social decency to get you to understand the key point: science rules everything!

Still never heard one so bluntly explain that physics kills people. Now that's a way for me to easily get AP Physics.

Lady refuses to give out candy to Obama supporter's kids

2008-11-02T01:03:00.000-05:00

You know, I hate to keep saying this, but some people are just fucking stupid.

It was Halloween just 2 days ago, and kids were out trick-or-treating. They stopped by one lady's house, and she'd ask them and their parents: "Do you support Obama?" If they said yes, she turned them away.

Kids. Who can't vote. Toddlers.

"She can't be serious?!" Nope. She forthrightly says it, and even has a sign declaring it too: no candy for Obama supporters. She hands out candy only to McCain supporters, with McCain flyers.

One quick note: what the fuck is the point of that? Candy only to McCain supporters -- ok, if you accept the rest of this stupidity, that makes sense. But if they're already supporting McCain, why give then flyers?

But did I mention? These are fucking kids. Most of them cannot vote. For years. Quite a lot of them for a decade or more.

Now, of course, she can do whatever she wants. There's no legally binding action that says "You must give out candy to everyone on Halloween." You don't have to do anything. Hell, it's not even a federal holiday. It's her property, her candy, she can do whatever the heck she wants with it.

But how much of a fucking bitch do you have to be to turn away kids for any reason other than, you know, pulling actual pranks on you? "Do you like Grey's Anatomy? No? Well fuck off, you little runt of a 6 year old! Come back when you care about McDreamy!"

What the hell is wrong with some people?

Jeremy Bennicoff died Thursday, October 30th

2008-11-01T00:44:00.000-05:00

Someone informed me of a very sad development. It can be explained simply by passing on exactly what I know:

BENNICOFF, Jeremy D., 22, of McFarland, died Thursday, October 30, 2008.

Beyond that, all I have are memories at this time.

Fascinating video game in development

2008-10-30T05:20:00.000-05:00

This game called The Unfinished Swan looks just great. A very nice twist on the first person shooter genre, with a straight-forward concept.

Also, it could be scary as hell, surprisingly.

The Unfinished Swan - Tech Demo 9/2008 from Ian Dallas on Vimeo.

(Original link.)

Atheists are evil, so vote for me instead!

2008-10-30T02:25:00.001-05:00

Senator Elizabeth Dole is doing a good thing in North Carolina. She's damning her Democratic opponent because she took money from an atheist group, while demonizing atheists in general.

(Original link.)

I love the "godless money?" part. Yes, I'm wondering the exact same thing: what's "godless money?"

I see this as a good thing.

You see, Dole is quite likely going to lose her seat in North Carolina, because she's such a terrible Senator as well as her opponent Kay Hagan being a good campaigner. So, this ad will likely not affect the outcome at all.

Why it's a good thing is because Dole is scared enough by those "godless" people. I'm proud that there's a lobbyist group for atheists since we're a group that actually needs to be heard from (unlike, say, oil companies). The fact that there's just one group that has one lobbyist is a small but good start.

And look at the results it's already getting. "Heaven help us! The atheists are actual citizens and are involved with politics! Whatever shall we do?!"

Not to mention, Dole is insulting 10% of her state's constituents (for comparison, there's also 10% of Catholics in North Carolina; imagine a politician blankly insulting all Catholics).

This has no where to go but to rebound against Dole, and be a win for atheists in general. Atheists already get a bad rap, so our standing really has no where to go but up no matter how much we're demonized. Plus, it's good to have honesty. Dole things atheists are somehow bad and evil. Good for her. Now we know where she stands and why she should be taken out of office (though, clearly, she was in those standings before this event).

Is this a rash move of desperation? Nope. At least, it's not isolated. Here's an add that came out almost two weeks ago by the National Republican Senatorial Committee (the body that helps elect and re-elect Republican Senators).

(Original link.)

You should notice a lot of familiar things, considering Dole's ad is basically a 30 second version of this one. As well, as Daylight Atheism pointed out just over three weeks ago, there were flyers put out making the same point: atheists gave to Kagan, therefore she's an evil godless atheist intent on taking away your religiousity!

But what's said between these three incidents? What are the mortal dangers they pose?

1. Removing "under God" from the Pledge.

2. Removing "In God We Trust" from currency.

3. (NRSC ad) No longer calling Christmas a federal holiday.

That's it. That's it?! Yep, that's it.

The first two are obvious issues dealing with secularism. Can't force people to pledge that they're under god, if they're not or if they're under some other god (since it's always the Christian god and never "under Allah."). All currency is federal money, therefore the In God We Trust is invalid as well (not to mention badly placed, I must say; always thought it looked garish).

As for Christmas, I have to say I'm conflated on that one. Personally, Christmas is far more of a secular holiday to me now than anything Christian. It's far more about the gifts than anything religious to anyone I know. Maybe they're just hiding a notion that is only weakly stated until it's "being taken away" (as if it would be), and then these people would be calling for us all to go to church -- but most of them just want the damn gifts. Ask the kids what they focus on more: gifts or the whatever dude who did something. Gifts.

I can see the point of not making it a federal holiday, certainly, and think it would have merit. But, at the same time, I don't really care about that one much at all. Would probably be best not to get into the business of endorsing the holidays of any religion, though.

Anyway, these three issues are it. They toss in the usual "vile, radical liberal" shit, too, but that's expected for any Democrat. Oh my word, Kay Hagan is such an evil, evil woman! Fucking atheists, I tell you, they're destroying this country. Obviously our entire world standing is directly related to what our kids are forced to recite at the start every school day.

Oh, and Kay Hagan is a Presbyterian, who teaches Sunday School.

(Original link.)

You know, not an atheist. If only she were. She'd be the first open atheist to run for a Federal office then, and likely win. That'd be historic! Too bad.

The man with the 'stash in the video? That's Alex Castellanos who worked for Romney this year, and Bush in 2004. He also created this infamous racist ad for none other than Jesse Helms.

(Original link.)

And this guy is saying that Dole's ad goes too far. That's stunning. Granted, he does it by saying that this is a "judgement issue" regarding Hagan (essentially saying Dole was right about this, just that she fucked up the ad) but still.

And that's why I don't see this as a bad thing. It's an ad full of nothing but guilt by association and bigotry against atheist, implying atheists are inherently bad. And the reaction to it has been universal: this is despicable. Thanks for making it more widely known that people shouldn't demonize atheists.

I voted today

2008-10-30T01:26:00.000-05:00

Well, yesterday.

I took the bus down to the Milwaukee City Hall, and encountered the long lines for voting by absentee ballot. That spilled over onto two different floors. One floor had people looking to register and then vote in the same place. The other floor was for those who had already registered.

The first floor line I only passed by briefly since I was registered, but it extended about 700 feet down hallways and around corners and past the point where I got on the elevator.

The second floor was no better. From where the voting was taking place to where the elevators were was about 400 feet, and the line stretched all the way down the elevators and curled around along the walls about halfway back towards the voting stands (they're hardly booths anymore).

I filled out the envelope that would contain my ballot (not signing it because they had to witness that), and then settled in reading The End of Faith while the line slowly moved forward. The line was mixed with various people, old, young, men, women, but there were a bit more black people than white people I'd say. Hardly surprising, since Milwaukee has 75% of the entire black population in Wisconsin. They're enthused. And they're voting early in large numbers.

I tried to time how long I waited, but can't be exact. I'd say about 45-50 minutes. That's actually considered good since I got there around 2:15-2:30, past lunch time when people usually go to vote. One lady as she was leaving said to a person she knew that she had been waiting for over an hour and a half but she finally got to vote.

The process was smooth and without incident, as the election people there had been through this for a few days and knew what they were doing. I brought them my envelope and they found my ward number and ballot and I got to do the simple straight-ticket voting for a Democrat. The referendums I forgot to look up before going, but one was easy (paid sick leave for workers -- uh, yeah). The other was worded weirdly about cutting a sales tax, but then cutting funding for EMS services and parks. I'm fine with keeping that one.

On my way out I asked one of the workers there how many people she thought had voted. She had no idea, couldn't even estimate. But that things had been like they were all day long, with the lines never seeming to go down for a moment. And they had opened at 8:30 in the morning. And people were lining up at 8.

Now, I've canceled out at least one of the McCain votes that I know of amongst my co-workers and those living near me. I feel the rest of the state is up to the task of giving Obama the easy victory he'll get in Wisconsin.

Gay marriage doesn't violate your freedoms

2008-10-28T03:31:00.001-05:00

I'm always puzzled by social conservatives regarding gay marriage. Fine, they don't want it done. I know exactly why (a book and a man behind a podium told them). It doesn't convince me at all, but I can at least grasp why they are against homosexuals.

What I don't get is how we go from gays are an abomination because a book says so, and "If they marry, the world will fucking END!" And they do actually go there.

Conservative religious leaders from across the country are pouring time, talent and millions of dollars into the state in support of Proposition 8, which would ban same-sex marriage. They are hoping to reverse a California Supreme Court ruling in May that gave same-sex couples permission to marry, resulting in thousands of exultant same-sex weddings.
Similar marriage amendments are on the ballot next month in Arizona and Florida. But religious conservatives have cast the campaign in California as the decisive last stand, warning in stunningly apocalyptic terms of dire consequences to the entire nation if Proposition 8 does not pass.
“This vote on whether we stop the gay-marriage juggernaut in California is Armageddon,” said Charles W. Colson, the founder of Prison Fellowship Ministries and an eminent evangelical voice, speaking to pastors in a video promoting Proposition 8. “We lose this, we are going to lose in a lot of other ways, including freedom of religion.”

On the one hand, I know perfectly well why the California ruling is so important: California is a big state. If California were its own country, it'd be the 7th largest in the world. Connecticut and Massachusetts, sorry, just don't hold the same sway as California. There's a lot of people, a lot of money, and California does end up setting standards for a lot of the United States, and arguably the world. Gay marriage being legal there would make for millions of more marriages, and an awareness that marrying homosexuals isn't to the detriment of a state or to society as a whole. It would very quickly become more socially acceptable.

That's their reason for fighting, yes, but it doesn't answer the root question: why is gay marriage such a bad thing? I mean listen to these people:

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a conservative Christian lobby based in Washington, said in an interview, “It’s more important than the presidential election.”
“We’ve picked bad presidents before, and we’ve survived as a nation,” said Mr. Perkins, who has made two trips to California in the last six weeks. “But we will not survive if we lose the institution of marriage.”

If gays marry (like they already are), then the world is doomed! Doooooooooomed! Sure, we were given a president in Bush, and we ended up with two wars draining us of money and youth, let the city of New Orleans and much of the Gulf Coast be ruined, and let a financial meltdown occur -- but if the gays marry, well, we'll just be sodomized every time we walk down the street!

It's this simple: if you don't like gay marriage, they don't marry someone of the same sex. Some gay people don't want to be married the same way some straight people don't. Their reasoning is that marriage is a social institution that has been defined numerous ways across the world and throughout history. Contrary to social conservative claims, monogamy is a new institution, not the oldest and most "sacred." You can see this in the animal kingdom readily, where birds are around 90% monogamous, yet mammals are around 7%. The generalized stereotypes are given some support by scientific research: males produce sperm, their reproductive means generally require little more than depositing it, ease of stimulation, a general willingness to mate as much as possible, and not to be too discriminating regarding mate choice.

Very simple reasons for this, in fact there's only one: produce the most offspring. The ones that produce the most have their genes carry on in larger numbers of the gene pool. Evolution in action, regarding sex. Monogamy certainly can work with this method, but it's hardly the most optimal (one woman can only have so many children in her life even if she's pregnant every possible time).

It's a cultural decision to be monogamous or not. Cultures can be polygamist with either a man having multiple wives or a wife having multiple husbands.

The entire point is that marriage is little more than how a society defines it. It's hardly a rock-solid impossible to violate idea; it's arbitrary. Even religions just make it up. Judaism has multiple cases of polygamy such as Abraham, David, and Solomon. As with slavery, Judaism has passages regulating polygamy, and none expressly prohibiting it.

So, why is gay marriage so bad? What's the downside to legalizing it? Why should you care if you're not gay? How does it somehow damage or infringe on your rights?

Well, it doesn't, so we'll make up ways for it to!

In television advertisements, rallies, highway billboards, sermons and phone banks, supporters of Proposition 8 are warning that if it does not pass, churches that refuse to marry same-sex couples will be sued and lose their tax-exempt status. Ministers will be jailed if they preach against homosexuality. Parents will have no right to prevent their children from being taught in school about same-sex marriage.
“The idea that we would be forced as clergy to perform a marriage that was against our conscience, or that a church would lose its tax-exempt status, is ridiculous,” said the Rev. Karen Sapio, the minister of Claremont Presbyterian Church in Southern California. “If you look dispassionately at the record, there are a lot of churches with policies that are at odds with civil law.”
She continued, “I have not heard of a single Catholic church forced to marry someone who has been divorced, or a rabbi forced to perform an interfaith marriage or an evangelical church forced to marry a couple who has been living together.”

The reason most commonly cited: freedom of religion. Now would be the time to sigh exasperatedly. It comes up again that some religious people just don't understand the fucking Constitution.

On the tax-exempt status, I've already explained I think it should be revoked entirely on it's own. It's a stupid policy working under the guise that it somehow keeps religion out of politics. It doesn't. So, fuck it. Tax the bastards. They're going to keep doing whatever they want anyway. Endorse whoever you want, condemn whoever you want, be as bigoted as you want -- you're just going to pay the same taxes, you bigoted assholes.

Remove that legalistic headache, and the rest of this is simple. No one's freedom of speech or expression is going to be infringed on. Gays just won't be married in your church. I'm sure they'll be absolutely pained by it. They'll get married in front of a judge or however.

As for the schools, I don't think parents have a way to remove their kids from lessons of tolerance now regarding homosexuals. Public schools are not private institutions where any bigotry you want is on display and taught. Even before the California Supreme Court ruled allowing for gay marriage, all schools taught about tolerance for homosexuality.

But, when it's an issue dealing with religious people, there's bound to be some extreme foolishness going on:

Preachers from other parts of the country have dropped everything and moved to California in recent months. Lou Engle, who leads TheCall, a charismatic prayer ministry in Washington and Kansas City, Mo., with a large following among youth, moved with his seven children to California in September. He is holding large prayer rallies up and down the state, urging people to pray and fast for the 40 days leading up to the election. Some people are giving up solid foods; others are giving up clothes shopping or their favorite television shows.
“We believe there is a spiritual battle in an unseen realm, and that’s why I’ve called for united prayer for divine intervention,” Mr. Engle said. “It’s a defining moment for the definition of marriage in American history.”

Yes, by all means, spend all this time praying for the right outcome. Oh no! How did they ever find our fatal weakness?! Isn't there some saying like "If only my enemies were as foolish as this, I'd have the perfect life."? Or something to that effect. If only all those against gay marriage were as foolish with their time as praying for the outcome, why we'd have nothing to worry about.

New Trailers

2008-10-23T06:37:00.000-05:00

First up, Sunshine Cleaning. It's a story surrounding a few people who start a crime scene cleaning business (those people who clean up after all the murders on CSI). It's from the same producers of Little Miss Sunshine, which is a bit strange considering the title, but what's that matter? The movie looks funny.

Also, Seven Pounds, a new Will Smith drama from the same director of The Pursuit of Happyness. He's a man with a mysterious past who is looking to help a stranger. The way is not specified, nor is the title explained at all. Lots of sevens, though. Hopefully no serial killers.

That's about it. Slow time period for trailers. It's the short time of year while the bad movies are still being released (Max Payne defeating Chihuahuas for box office gross? Come on), then the Halloween fluff (a new Saw movie! I wonder who will die in gruesome ways, only to "kill" the bad guy, whose been killed several times).

But, we'll soon be swinging full gear into the intentional release schedule for Oscar films. Just about everything from about mid-November till the end of the year is placed for a shot at being nominated, for the Oscars in February (they're always around my birthday). That's when you'll see the movies to look for, and the ones you (or at least I've) been waiting all year for. Hurry up December 19th!

Lady who doesn't want a president named "Obama"

2008-10-22T01:51:00.002-05:00

I always give people props for honesty, and this lady gets mad props for her forthright bigotry and stupidity. Oh, and her self-center smugness too.

(Original link.)

Now, I know what you're thinking. Sure, she's a stupid lady who can't help but be engulfed by her narrow views and sodomized her intelligence through faith -- but the sex must be terrific.

You know, I hear all the time about these "sophisticated" religious believers. How us poor, foolish, and ignorant atheists, why we only pick on the "fringe" people who are so clearly not representative of religious belief.

I've met two confirmed creationists within a two week period. I know I've come in contact with several others over the years. Simple experience on college leaves you bombarded with calls to save your soul, to get rid of abortion, and those who will show you all manners of tasteful pictures of torn human flesh to make you go "Ewwww!"

I've yet to meet a "sophisticated" religious person. Maybe I'm just missing them. But I think it's more likely that I just happen to have a more straightforward delineation between what constitutes "sophisticated" and "living in fantasy land." Since that comes down to whether you believe what you say through actual evidence or through professions of nothing but faith with absolutely no attachment to reality, why I think the distinction is clear.

Republicans decide what is reality, when Democrats do well

2008-10-18T18:18:00.000-05:00

This is getting widespread and scary. With a mixture of just fucking funny, but still a hazard of scariness.

Republicans all over have descended into fantasy land. Well, it's not like a lot of them weren't always there, but we're talking deep into fantasy land.

For a while now, Sarah Palin has been putting forth this bullshit about there being "real Americans" and places that are "pro-America."

“We believe that the best of America is not all in Washington, D.C.,” she said to applause.

“We believe that the best of America is in these small towns that we get to visit, and in these wonderful little pockets of what I call the real America, being here with all of you hard working very patriotic, um, very, um, pro-America areas of this great nation. This is where we find the kindness and the goodness and the courage of everyday Americans.”

Ok, just get a grasp on what she's saying here.

1. The "real America" is reduced to small-towns in North Carolina. No where else.

2. Only those small-towns are "pro-America." Meaning, you live elsewhere, you want to see America fail and be destroyed. You bastards!

3. Finally, only here do you find kindness, goodness, and courage. Since, you know, if you're "against America," you obviously lack any sense of decency that normal human beings have.

Whew. But that's Sarah Palin. She's a demented fuck-wit. Of course all she can do is harp on this notion of false ultra-patriotism.

Then, yesterday, Michelle Bachmann went on Hardball and said some really fucked up things.

(Original link.)

If you'd rather not watch, I understand. She's another person who lives day-to-day with her mind soaked in crank fanaticism with no adherence to reality, and it seriously can be headache inducing to listen to such concentrated ignorance and stupidity for even a few minutes.

The gist of what she said: BILL AYERS! Ooooh! He's scary! Obama sat on a board with him! Because of that, we don't know who Obama is! Standard tripe talking points for the week from the McCain campaign and Republicans (that, and ACORN. Ugh. 90% of the fucking TV this week).

Then she goes for the really fucked up things. She says that Obama has anti-American views. She deliberately conflates "liberal" and "leftist" with "anti-American" several times. Mathews even asks her point blank to clarify what she means, and she evades this entire question to continue on with her talking points and babble.

She then calls Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi "extreme leftists" and conflates them with Ayers as well. Then the money shot:

What I would say is that the news media should do a penetrating expose and take a look. I wish they would. I wish the American media would take a great look at the views of the people in Congress and find out, are they pro-America or Anti-America? I think the American people would love to see an expose like that.

Yep. She's calling for an investigation for Congress for un-American activities....

Once more with this anti-American fantasy, along with these "dire connections" that don't exist in any such form. Fantasy land, along with quite bigoted statements.

Finally, today, we get my personal favorite. I probably like the Bachman one the most since it's the most overt and damaging. But this one is just fucking funny.

(Original link.)

You see that? No, wait, let me clarify:

You see that marked off section? Yeah, that may show up on a map and be called "Virginia" but it's not really Virginia. Why? Because I fucking say it is, asshole. Because it's inconceivable that Democrats would live in a classic Republican stronghold like Virgnia. And because McCain will lose Virginia, obviously some spinning needs to be done.

A pattern of derangement across the the board for multiple days. It's expected from a party that is going to see the worst losses in about 30 years (if not more).

But I want to close on a happy note. Mrs. Bachman? The newest McCarthyist? She's up for re-election, and in a close contest. Because of her intense stupidity, her opponent has received a little under 500,000 dollars from supporters in the last 24 hours. McCarthyism doesn't pay, in the 50s or today.

I can't tell if this is insulting or just nonsense

2008-10-18T17:26:00.000-05:00

So, there's some article in the New York Times about atheists mobilizing for political reasons. Really, it's about the difficulties of doing so.

They point out some genuine areas that make this difficult: we don't gather in churches, for instance, and we really haven't ever been courted by a campaign so there's not really a database of atheist registration, and it's not like atheists have "Atheist" tattooed on their forehead since you can't tell who is an atheist or not just be looking at them.

This is of course in comparison to social conservatives where, aside from the last example, they work quite hard at pushing to the highest levels for political impact.

Then, there is this passage.

With their trust in the power of reason, atheists might also be ill-equipped for the gritty work of retail politics — the phone banks, the door-knocking, the car pools to the polls. If nothing else, they are coming late to the craft.

Uh, what the fuck does this mean? If you have reason, well, you're politically illiterate. You're useless at it. You can't work a phone bank or knock on doors.

Flip it around: social conservatives, who are supposedly just so good at this, don't have reason. While that's a nice jab to make, it's just not true (they have loads of bad reasoning).

They're most likely getting at two other things:

1. Atheists don't see to be politically active, since they're fine with reasoning with people. That's partially right, but also wrong. I'm fine with reasoning with people if the situation calls for it. But there's no kidding yourself that many things these days require being politically active to have any chance of defeating. Creationism in schools? If reason did it alone, it wouldn't come up in the first place.

2. Atheists aren't so easily controlled politically because they exercise independent action. There's a simple reason social conservatives are so good at doing exactly what they are told time and again: a lot of them are authoritarians and seek out such power structures. You tell them what to do, and they do it. Atheists might disagree, or think the same thing can be achieved a better way, etc. It's going to be slower. That's not to say it won't ever happen, or there can't be situations where atheist agree _____ should be done. It's just far less likely than with a group of people that seek out a place that is entirely about them being told what to do.

Just a terrible section from a mediocre article to begin with.

New trailer: Push

2008-10-18T01:28:00.000-05:00

An interesting new trailer for a film called Push is up.

I'm kind of mixed about it. It largely seems to be as the site says: Heroes with more and likely better action. That's all well and good, but if it's just mindless action I have less incentive to see it. Heroes for the most part contains a decent storyline. While it's not always the best, and can veer off, the story takes primacy to the action.

You can never be sure with films like this. It's filling up and hour and a half to two hours, of course. But the "story" is a contrived piece of crap that makes absolutely no sense. That's just about everything I've heard about Jumper, by the way.

But, I like Chris Evans and Cliff Curtis. I can be either for or against Djimon Hounsou and Dakota Fanning.

So, it could be either good or bad, or entirely mixed. Need to see some more from the film to get a better feel of the movie. At least curious about it.

Racists make everyone so proud!

2008-10-17T23:37:00.000-05:00

Some sick people out there. And this isn't even, "Oh, you're being judgmental and saying this man is a racist when he easily cannot be." No, this guy is one big fucking racist.

Surprise, shock and some fear in a local neighborhood, after an anti-Obama display is hung from a tree. The display is at a home at Symmes and Hicks Road in Fairfield.

And the person who put it there says the message isn't political, it's racist. Shawn Ley spoke with the man who isn't shy about his views.

There it is, right above the "McCain-Palin" sign: a make-shift ghost, hanging from a noose. A Barack Obama sign attached upside down. Obama's middle name: "Hussein" spray painted and misspelled above.

Mike Lunsford hung the ghost in his yard. He spoke to us off-camera, saying his views could hurt his employers business ... but he says make no mistake: He doesn't want an African American running the country.

Lunsford says he believes Barack Obama is not a "full blooded American." And he says the United States is a white, Christian nation - and only with white Christians should be in power. With Lunsford not willing to share his views on-camera:

A racist and a theocrat, but the second is only secondary considering the fact if he was voting just for Christians, he could easily vote for Obama.

Some people really are empty vessels filled with just bigotry and hate.

I hope this guy's display makes him so proud that he doesn't mind his neighbors putting up signs all along their property pointing towards his that say "A racist lives here. Danger."

Yet, again, there's also a certain freshness to this. At least this man is honest about how much of an ignorant fucking bigot he is. Stand tall in the truth that you will honestly and earnestly spew your bigoted, hateful trash to others.

God wasn't mentioned; TIME is pissed

2008-10-17T00:05:00.000-05:00

What an insipid, vacuous article.

In the nearly sixteen thousand words uttered last night in the debate between John McCain and Barack Obama, one was noticeably absent: God.

Really? Hate to break this to people, since I'm such an angry atheist at any mention of an awesome diety, but I didn't fucking notice one bit.

The deity got not a single mention, not even a perfunctory “God Knows,” or “Good God,” or “God Bless America”. In fact, in the three presidential debates, McCain and Obama have completed a surprising sweep: no mention of “God”, the “Lord”, or even a higher power.

Well, I wonder whatever could be the reason....

Why the God-free gab fest this time? A few possible reasons leap to mind. First, the country’s focus is very much on real-world problems of everyday Americans right now.

Bingo! Couldn't have said it better myself. Indeed, I especially like that they focus on these being real-world problems, not those pesky, imaginary and irrelevant nonsense "problems" of religion. Why, people are concerned with the stuff that actually matters. That has an effect on real things, namely: them.

Why, of course, god does absolutely none of those things.

Just as important, though, are the individual candidates. John McCain believes religion is a private matter. He was raised an Episcopalian but now occasionally attends Baptist churches. Various political consultants, including Karl Rove, have encouraged McCain to wear his religion on his sleeve, but McCain is resolute about not faking it. That goes for his top campaign advisers as well.

Uh huh. That's why we've never seen John McCain say that the United States was founded as a Christian nation. Never seen him prop up abstinence-only sex education (when he's not being an absolute idiot blindly supporting the president), as if it was the greatest thing that worked every time. That he supports overturning Roe v. Wade. That the health of the mother being a bedrock condition for granting an abortion, is somehow too "extreme." And we've also never seen his wife endorse teaching of creationism in schools. We won't even get into his pentecostal, "protected from witches," "the war is a mission from god," creationist running mate.

Oh yeah, McCain. He clearly things religion is totally private. That's why he went on a show explicitly to talk about his faith. You know, everything is private when you talk about it with millions of viewers. You know, so you can say things like this:

(Original link.)

Totally, totally, completely private matter for McCain.

But, we close on this:

Still, the fact that both Obama and McCain chose so assiduously not to invoke “God” in any form in any of their debates is noteworthy, not least to people who care about the presence of religion in politics. "Whether intentional or not the discussion of God and the role of faith appears to have been relegated to the Saddleback forum in this general election,” says Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Council, who calls the development “troubling.”

Yeah, and if it's troubling to Tony Perkins, it's obviously something the nation should be concerned about. It's such a concern when politicans cite less religious stupidity. It's soooo horrible.

C'mon. This article quotes Tony fucking Perkins, and doesn't even go to the trouble of contacting anyone who appreciates less religion in politics? Not one? Pathetic.

Oh, did you remember to vote?

2008-10-16T23:32:00.001-05:00

Well, this should take care of that.

(Original link.)

I'm not sure if it's a good thing or not that I can name ever actor and actress that appears in there. But at least I can challenge you to know who they all are!

Pastors are likely to dismiss mental illnesses

2008-10-16T22:22:00.000-05:00

Hardly a surprising thing, but quite interesting:

In a study of Christian church members who approached their church for help with a personal or family member's diagnosed mental illness, researchers found that more than 32 percent were told by their pastor that they or their loved one did not really have a mental illness.

The problem was solely spiritual in nature, they were told.[...]
All of the participants in both studies were previously diagnosed by a licensed mental health provider as having a serious mental illness, such as bipolar disorder and schizophrenia, prior to approaching their local church for assistance.

It gets better:

"The results are troubling because it suggests individuals in the local church are either denying or dismissing a somewhat high percentage of mental health diagnosis," said study leader Matthew Stanford, professor of psychology and neuroscience at Baylor University in Texas. "Those whose mental illness is dismissed by clergy are not only being told they don't have a mental illness, they are also being told they need to stop taking their medication. That can be a very dangerous thing."[...]
Baylor researchers also found that women were more likely than men to have their mental disorders dismissed by the church. In a subsequent survey, Baylor researchers found the dismissal or denial of the existence of mental illness happened more in conservative churches, rather than more liberal ones.

A conflagration of bad results here. Pastors are people that are commonly sought in times of psychological distress, moreso than psychologists. Now, pastors dismiss a third of psychological illnesses as "spiritual in nature." Then, they even tell the people to not take their medications. And these conditions are ones like schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. These aren't even trivialities like "prone to anger" or "beating your wife." No, just dismissing people being able to tell if sounds or objects are hallucinations or reality. Nothing major there at all!

These people are not fucking doctors. They have no standing on this issue. All they can do is prattle on about their incoherent gobbledygook. "Oh, you have a spiritual problem!" Yeah. Funny how your case of being unable to tell reality from dreams or hallucinations is turned into a dogmatically held central contrast of human living.

McCain: "health of the mother" is an extreme position

2008-10-16T20:38:00.002-05:00

McCain is just disastrous on abortion.

(Original link.)

Are you kidding me? Really? Really?

McCAIN: Just again, the example of the eloquence of Sen. Obama. He's "health for the mother." You know, that's been stretched by the pro-abortion movement in America to mean almost anything. That's the extreme pro-abortion position, quote, "health."

The extreme position is that abortion should be legal if the health of the mother is in danger? So, Sarah Palin -- who is as virulently anti-choice as the social conservative Republican base loves her to be -- is an extreme liberal on abortion? This is a woman who says if her own daughter was raped that she'd force her daughter to keep the baby.

(Original link.)

But! If her daughter was in danger of dying from her baby, Sarah Palin herself would say she was right to abort the baby.

That's pretty damn convoluted. And all and all despicable.

McCain smacked in the head by a fact

2008-10-15T22:37:00.000-05:00

I can't stop watching this clip. It's just too damn funny to see the exact moment when McCain is smacked right in the fucking head with a fact and can't believe it.

(Original link.)

And, seriously, how many fucking times can you blink in under 30 seconds?!

On election day...

2008-10-14T23:42:00.000-05:00

I'd like to go to sleep seeing a map much like this:

I think it's entirely possible, and also at the same time a bit on my optimistic side. For instance, I can see Obama losing Indiana. I've read that his ground game is simply unmatched there, however. And I do mean that literally: that McCain has basically no ground game in Indiana, thinking the state was a lock, and Obama has a had a field organization that never stopped since the primaries there. So, I'm hoping aggressively.

Father names baby Sarah McCain Palin, without telling his wife

2008-10-14T23:11:00.000-05:00

Man, you just got to love this crazy shit.

A new father has secretly named his baby girl Sarah McCain Palin after the Republican ticket for president and vice president.

Mark Ciptak of Elizabethton put that name on the documents for the girl's birth certificate, ignoring the name Ava Grace, which he and his wife had picked earlier.

"I don't think she believes me yet," he told the Kingsport Times-News for a story to be published Tuesday. "It's going to take some more convincing."

Ciptak, a blood bank employee for the American Red Cross, said he named his third child after John McCain and Sarah Palin to "to get the word out" about the campaign.

"I took one for the cause," he said. "I can't give a lot of financial support for the (McCain/Palin) campaign. I do have a sign up in my yard, but I can do very little."

This is almost as good as the Chinese couple that named their baby @. Only, here you have an overt attempt at a short-term useless political gimmick, and end up with a daughter who wonders why her father didn't give a shit so much about her mother who carried her for 9 months, and will likely have to do countless hours of caring in the immediate months after as well. Cause a man that takes that initiative is obviously the one who brings home the bacon everyday!

Come on. You do this stupid shit, fine. Your choice. You're only demonstrating with remarkable speed how much you're not suitable to be a parent, since you care oh so much about the child here by enshrouding her with politics from the moment she was fucking born.

But you didn't even consult your wife? That is fucked up.

Quote of the Day

2008-10-14T02:11:00.000-05:00

The creator of Star Trek, and wise words. How unexpected.

We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes.
- Gene Roddenberry

Teach The Crucible, and you're a witch

2008-10-12T02:27:00.000-05:00

Some people are unbelievably fucking stupid.

A man assigned "The Crucible" in an adult education English class doused his teacher with a nonflammable liquid and threatened to burn her as a witch, police said.
Darin Najor, 20, ran from the classroom after the attack Sept. 11 and was sent for psychiatric evaluation after telling police "he was trying to kill the witch by pouring holy water over her head," Detective Ken Denmark said.
He was arrested Monday and scheduled for arraignment this month on misdemeanor charges of assault and battery.
The day before the dousing, Najor had asked the teacher whether she believed in witchcraft, police said. She told him she did not, calling Arthur Miller's play based on the 1692 Salem witch trials a metaphor for unjust persecution.
"The suspect threw his homework papers on the floor and declared it was all blasphemy," Denmark said. "The next day he came up behind her chanting what sounded like religious verses while she was working at her desk."

What the hell is it with people actually believing that there are witches? Ignoring that, how the hell does one get to that conclusion by being assigned The Crucible?! A staggeringly common problem with people who read the bible it seems: they don't have any reading comprehension for that book, let alone for any other. Everything must be literal, because why else write a book about whatever you write a book about?! Grrr! Don't complicate my world with allegories, metaphors, and other literary devices to promote actual thinking!

Just burn the witches.

(Original link.)

Video of heckler at a McCain-Palin event

2008-10-11T20:33:00.000-05:00

I'll just quote the description:

A man brought a stuffed monkey doll wearing an Obama sticker to a Palin campaign event in Johnstown, Pa. Realizing he was caught on camera, he passed it off to a child he didn't know.

There's not much else to be said, aside from "roll it!"

(Original link.)

You know, I have a fond memory of my mom going to get a new car. I don't remember how little I was, but I think it's one of the few things I remember from before I was 6, when most of my memories hit a brick wall of total forgetfulness. I know I was still small enough at least to be carried by my mom. Not in the infant way, but I'd say maybe 4-5.

My mom is at the car dealer, and I am with her. Out of no where, a man in a suit (minus the jacket) comes walking up and hands me a small teddy bear with the shirt of the car company on it. I remember even thing thinking, "This is awesome! Free stuff, and something I like!"

Being my usual self, I had a hard time throwing anything away, so I ended up having that bear for at least 10 years. Not like on my bed all those times, or anything, but at least in the house and I'd stumble across it every once and a while and go "Oh, that bear! Fun. Now what was I looking for? Nerf guns and Legos, right!" Hell, it's possible that this same bear is residing in one of the boxes that we still haven't unpacked.

I only bring this up, because thinking back on it, it's surprising how I kept something for years that was nothing more than an advertisement ploy, and a salesman tactic to nudge my mom to buying a car sooner. I have no doubt I was causing some disruption at the place, probably why my mom was holding me at the time ("Sit still and be good!"), but I just don't remember what it was.

But that's my experience. A decade or more of keeping an advertising memento.

Now imagine this kid ever finding out later on that a racist gave him the monkey because he spotting that he was being filmed for being such a douchebag racist. And I get sour over being advertised to as a kid.

Gay marriage: Connecticut makes a trinity

2008-10-10T23:48:00.000-05:00

Good news, everyone.

A sharply divided Connecticut Supreme Court struck down the state’s civil union law on Friday and ruled that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. Connecticut thus joins Massachusetts and California as the only states to have legalized gay marriages.
The ruling, which cannot be appealed and is to take effect on Oct. 28, held that a state law limiting marriage to heterosexual couples, and a civil union law intended to provide all the rights and privileges of marriage to same-sex couples, violated the constitutional guarantees of equal protection under the law.
Striking at the heart of discriminatory traditions in America, the court — in language that often rose above the legal landscape into realms of social justice for a new century — recalled that laws in the not-so-distant past barred interracial marriages, excluded women from occupations and official duties, and relegated blacks to separate but supposedly equal public facilities.
“Like these once prevalent views, our conventional understanding of marriage must yield to a more contemporary appreciation of the rights entitled to constitutional protection,” Justice Richard N. Palmer wrote for the majority in a 4-to-3 decision that explored the nature of homosexual identity, the history of societal views toward homosexuality and the limits of gay political power compared with that of blacks and women.
“Interpreting our state constitutional provisions in accordance with firmly established equal protection principles leads inevitably to the conclusion that gay persons are entitled to marry the otherwise qualified same-sex partner of their choice,” Justice Palmer declared. “To decide otherwise would require us to apply one set of constitutional principles to gay persons and another to all others.”

And that's really all that this comes down to. Homosexuals are people, too, so they get the rights of all other people. It's not that hard to understand. But this goes a little bit further:

The ruling was groundbreaking in various respects. In addition to establishing Connecticut as the third state to sanction same-sex marriage, it was the first state high court ruling to hold that civil union statutes specifically violated the equal protection clause of a state constitution. The Massachusetts high court held in 2004 that same-sex marriages were legal, while California’s court decision in May related to domestic partnerships and not the more broadly defined civil unions.

This says civil unions are also void. Personally, I don't care for civil unions. It's calling a marriage a different name just to make people not care about gay people marrying. I think there's also some differences in what they're entitled to get from benefits in civil unions versus marriage, but even if they were exactly equal, the point is that it'd still be fucking ridiculous. They're married. Call it a marriage.

Of course, there were dissenters, and centering on the usual stupid reason:

Justice Peter T. Zarella, in another dissent, argued that the state marriage laws dealt with procreation, which was not a factor in gay relationships. “The ancient definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman has its basis in biology, not bigotry,” he wrote.

So, you can only be married if you can have kids. Interesting. My grandfather is not married then. My grandmother died several years ago, and he re-married my current grandmother. They've never had any kids, and she is obviously post-menopausal. They can't have kids anymore, so, they have no reason to be married anymore, right?

My friend Vinnie has been married to his wife for over 15 years now. They have no children. It's entirely possible that Vinnie or his wife is sterile and incapable of having children. Is their marriage void? Shouldn't it have been illegal for them to be married in the first place?

My sister Danielle and brother-in-law Troy have been married almost 3 years. They have no children yet. Should they not have been married? After all, they've shown no potential to be fertile.

Maybe only those who are pregnant at the time can be married to the biological father? Bristol Palin would qualify, yet none of the people I mentioned would.

Marriage is not about procreation. People can fuck and have kids and no marry, and they can be married and never have kids. Marriage is just saying that two consensual adult people love each other enough to be monogamous with each other. In most cases, they go on to have children, but that's not the requirement to be married at all. It's not part of the marriage certificate that you sign that says:

Now, you know, that you have to pump out 6 kids by the time you're 30, right? Else this is void, motherfucker!

Of course, this is usually the more "civilized" way of saying you don't want certain people to have the same rights that you do.

I was at work once with one of my co-workers, Steve. I was stocking the cooler, and he comes in briefly to help. Steve is a very nice guy, I believe 19 (maybe 20, but definitely not 21), a carpenter and wood-worker. He built his own full-size trebuchet once. He's also looking to get into construction and leave Kwik Trip, and he's currently out of state on a ranch being an actual cowboy.

Steve is also a bit of an evangelical and social conservative. I say bit only because I don't quite know how religious he is (for instance, I don't know if he's a creationist, because I just have never asked), and he refers to friends of his being even more conservative.

Anyway, we're in the cooler, and all of a sudden Steve asks me who I am going to vote for this November. This is one of those first weird conversations, because for basically all of the five or so months I had been working at Kwik Trip, I'd mostly talked to Steve about things directly related to work, anecdotes, jokes, music, and movies. You know, largely irrelevant stuff (except for movies!). I don't have a problem about being asked about my political beliefs, but there still was that sense of "Huh, this topic doesn't ever come up between Steve and I."

I told him that I'd be voting for Obama, and he reacted fairly well, with how much he saw it as incorrect. Why vote for Obama? I listed things like Obama's views on technology and the internet, science and education, health care (still don't know if his is the best, but between him and McCain it's obvious he's for a whole step towards universal healthcare, which is very much needed), climate change, secularism, as well as issues like stem cells and actual sex education.

Steve then asked me if I was pro-choice, and when I said that I was, he got a bit worked up about how sick that was. Asking me if I'd ever seen the pictures of aborted fetuses and so forth. It probably didn't go down the best that I asked if he'd ever seen a picture of a family destroyed by the fact that their mother got pregnant and they can't afford another child. But, hey, I don't really care much for being nice when I'm called a sicko.

This carries on for a bit, then dies down, and Steven then says "So, I guess you're for gay marriage then?" When I said yes, he shook his head and wondered how I could be. I asked how could he be against it? His answer was simple:

It's not love.

It's affection.

He then went on to say that this was because they're choosing to have a narcisstic obsession with each other (narcissism, about other people... yes, you read correctly). The grand point was, of course, that homosexuality was a choice, and that they're sick for choosing that.

I honestly can't remember what I said after that (I think I asked if he knew any gay people, but again I'm not sure). I know I replied with something, however, I was so struck by his declaration. It's not love. No grey area at all -- it simply wasn't love.

I don't think that's what Steve was really getting at, though. I think he was more generally saying that because they were homosexuals, that they weren't human. How else could one defend this position against meeting an actual homosexual couple that is no different than a heterosexual couple? Hmm, they're caring for one another. And they're making sacrifices for one another. They're consoling one another. They do numerous things together. They want to spend the rest of their lives with one another. They obviously like each other a tremendous amount and get along great.

Nope, they're just obsessed with... something. They just want a cock up their ass, and this is a charade until they get their fix. They're not in love. Not at all.

It still is quite shocking to see such ignorant bigotry, especially from people you get along with.

WAIA: lack of miracles

2008-10-10T02:08:00.001-05:00

Continuing the series I started just over a week ago, I wish to detail another reason why I am an atheist.

I said previously that my objections tend to follow along three generalized points, or combinations of them:

1. There's no evidence to support supernatural belief, of any kind.

2. Supernatural beliefs are incoherent, contradictory, self-refuting, and just in general make no sense.

3. I don't see the point to believing any of them, since I get along just fine in my life without them.

This time, I want to focus on miracles. Specifically, their suspicious lacking in the world today.

One of the things I can't stand that is ubiquitous in newspapers and in people's thinking these days, is ascribing to any unlikely situation or outcome the status of being a miracle. A "man" is pregnant? A miracle! Oprah said so, I believe it! Statues bleeding, Jesus' face appearing in Cheetos and in tacos, to Virgin Marys in water stains. Here, have just a small list of purported miraculous objects that people see gods in. 60 people killed out of 200 while worshiping at a church when an earthquake struck? Praise Jesus, a miracle saved us! Forget the 60 that needlessly died, and focus on the ones that survived that obviously were miraculous. And don't forget the statues that survived the earthquake!

Quite frequently, stories like this are brought up in religious people's justification for their beliefs. I remember being in my theatre class just last semester when we had to give our introductory talk in front of the class. Say who you are, give a few details about yourself, what your major is, etc. Basic things to break the ice and fill up the entire first day either before or after they cover the syllabus.

One woman got up and does the basic things we were supposed to, and then segues into talking about how Christ saved her. She had been in a car accident with her mother and son, and everyone came out surviving, and it was a miracle that proved Jesus loved them and was looking out for them.

Stories like these are so common they become grating on me. You and your family survived a car crash. Good. I'm happy for you. Too bad about the over 37,000 people that died last year in car crashes (41,000 if you count motorcycles). Sucks to be them. Guess god was just busy all those days.

But more basic with this is just that these wouldn't be miracles. There's nothing supernatural about surviving a car crash. People do it everyday, there's no need to invoke a deity in order to explain why.

Miracles are by their definition something cannot naturally happen, and thus need a supernatural explanation in order to make sense of them. Even this though, is hardly convincing, since we can not know of any way it occurred now, but it's entirely possible we'll know a natural reason why such events occur sometime in the future (after more study, for example).

Those are the miracles of today. Many of those are easily explained away as not miracles at all, instead relying on favorable coincidences, kind or courageous acts performed by human beings, and so on.

The miracles of the bible are the interesting ones. Those are not at all about people saying "Hot damn, that was fucking close!" Biblical miracles are people raising their hands and telling something impossible to happen, and it happens. Noah crossing the Red Sea. God snapping his fingers and creating the whole of existence in seven days. Jesus healing the blind and raising the dead.

The big question is: where are those miracles these days? Jesus has the power to raise the dead, including himself (as well as all of the saints), but he's just keeping it real now and working on getting his cheeto self-drawing down?

This gets interesting regarding prayer, since prayer heals all sicknesses.

Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up.
-- James 5:14-15

We should be able to bring about miracles on our own, through prayer. Doesn't happen today. It just ends up killing children. There aren't any amputees re-growing limbs through prayer.

But there are two replies to this that are inevitably brought out.

1. You don't have faith, so you do see them as miracles or don't get miracles. It's a cute way of saying "You're blocking my chi from affecting the secret quantum fields of the zodiac!" It's bullshit to try to cover over the fact that it doesn't happen for anybody. It happens all the time with psychics and fortune tellers when they're getting caught or "having a bad day." "Oh, you're blocking me." "Oh, I lost the spirit." "You don't want to believe this, you just want to 'rebel' and nothing I do can convince you." Uh huh. Sure. Well, then you do it, and let's see the results....

2. How dare you test god! It's very likely here that a bible verse will be thrown at you:

Jesus answered him, 'It is also written: Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'
-- Matthew 4:7

If you can't see why this is also bullshit, it's simple: if the facts and observations of reality did not support your view that you wanted everyone to believe, wouldn't it be a major coincidence if you prohibit the testing of those beliefs or creeds? It's shutting you down, and saying "Believe it or get out."

However, this is once again only what we see today. In the old times, according to the bible, there was loads of testing of god.

In the Old Testament, Gideon tests god not once but twice regarding the same instance:

And Gideon said unto God, If thou wilt save Israel by mine hand, as thou hast said, Behold, I will put a fleece of wool in the floor; and if the dew be on the fleece only, and it be dry upon all the earth beside, then shall I know that thou wilt save Israel by mine hand, as thou hast said. And it was so: for he rose up early on the morrow, and thrust the fleece together, and wringed the dew out of the fleece, a bowl full of water. And Gideon said unto God, Let not thine anger be hot against me, and I will speak but this once: let me prove, I pray thee, but this once with the fleece; let it now be dry only upon the fleece, and upon all the ground let there be dew. And God did so that night: for it was dry upon the fleece only, and there was dew on all the ground.
-- Judges 6:36-40

He makes god get a fabric wet while keeping the ground dry, and then asks god to reverse the same procedure getting the ground all wet while keeping the fabric dry. An explicit test, done two different ways, and god going along with it just fine.

In the New Testament, Acts 9:1-18 has Saul being deliberately blinded by Jesus by a vision, and then Jesus sends another man directly to Saul three days later fulfilling the vision exactly and curing him of being blind. That's a pretty big thing to intervene with a man's life deliberately in that way, and making it fairly clear that this is a supernatural event.

Also in the New Testament, and dealing with the resurrection, Thomas doubts that Jesus was risen (he was gone while all the other disciples saw Jesus). He even explicitly says what it would take for him to believe Jesus came back:

The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the LORD. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.
-- John 20:25

Uh oh! Someone is asking for physical proof of Jesus' resurrection. And this is a guy that has been following Jesus around, seeing him cure the blind and bring back the dead -- and he still doesn't think Jesus came back. What a high-standard douche! Smite him, god, smite him!

And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you. Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. And Thomas answered and said unto him, My LORD and my God.
-- John 20:26-28

Or you could go back physically to Thomas, show him exactly what he requested, and remove all doubt that he had. Sure, don't say "Rely simply on blind faith." Man, Jesus is a jackass in regards to expectations....

The bible makes it clear: miracles happened all the time in the past. In the Old Testament, Noah and god are on a first name basis. Now a days? Nothing.

So, the big point of all this is straight-forward: if I am to believe anything about Christianity, or any religion, I want to see some evidence. Religious people claim miracles occurred. Fine. Show some evidence.

Jesus is powerful, all knowing, and everywhere? Perfect, I want to meet him. I want him right here so I can have a chat about all these questions I have regarding the stories about him. It's only fair (and just) if he's going to do that for one person, for him to do that for all people. I want that first-hand, personal, physical evidence for god's existence. This shouldn't be hard at all for an omnipotent, omniscient being to do. What's it going to cost him? If he didn't lose anything by spending over 30 years as a human being down here, I doubt he'll lose anything for the couple hours I'd inspect wounds and ask questions.

And if you wish to say that I don't need to do this, because I can read the bible instead, you're missing the point entirely. The bible shows that there is a higher standard that can be requested. How can I be denied a request for bedrock proof for a belief that would without a doubt be a completely world-view changing belief? How am I not justified in withholding my belief until I see that evidence?

Finally, is it really just coincidental that god never acts in reality as he is shown in the bible? I don't think so.

Posts in this series:

Why Am I an Atheist?

TED: Paul Stamets and fungi

2008-10-09T04:55:00.000-05:00

Cool fact number one: we're more closely related to fungi than to any other kingdom, such as bacteria or plants.

Rest of the cool facts summarized: you can use fungi to solve a bunch of problems in the world, such as climate change, oil spills, combating smallpox, and flu epidemics.

Stamets' data showing how fungi are really the first things to reform a disaster area (like an oil spill) is just fascinating. Really cool stuff.

(Original link.)

TED: Jeff Hawkins and brains

2008-10-09T04:39:00.000-05:00

A very interesting talk about developing a theory about brains. Jeff Hawkins explains that we have a shit-ton of data and observations about brains. We know a lot of details. But generalized theory, we really don't know squat. There's no generalized principle that can be easily explained about brains that is revolutionary, like there was for heliocentrism, evolution, or tectonic plates. His talk is about developing that theory.

(Original link.)

Republicans talking about the Senate is just comedy

2008-10-09T02:29:00.000-05:00

I know I am getting a good understanding about the Senate elections in 2008 when all I can do when I see Republicans talk about their "prospects" is laugh. This is an article detailing that Democrats have a chance for the first time in 30 years to have a 60 seat majority, and therefore have a filibuster proof majority. In other words, they have a chance to get the number of seats to say, "Shut the fuck up, we're doing this." In the Senate. The hardest place it is to do that.

So, get your laughs ready:

According to Rebecca Fisher, a spokeswoman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, Republicans are confident that they will, at the very least, keep their current seats.

This is hilarious to me just because of how ambiguous it is. They'll keep their current seats? All of the current Republican held ones? Or do they mean the ones that aren't open seat elections, because of Republicans retiring?

Of the 35 Senate seats on the line this year, 23 are held by Republicans. Five Republican senators are retiring: Pete Domenici of New Mexico, Wayne Allard of Colorado, John Warner of Virginia, Larry Craig of Idaho and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska.

Five Republican Senators are retiring. Keep that in mind.

Fisher, the GOP committee spokeswoman, said "Democrats should have learned from past experiences that it's dangerous to predict victory this far out."

Hahahaha! Yeah, like that oh so long time ago, 2006. When Democrats won six seats in the Senate, and didn't lose a single incumbent? You know, something that has never happened before in a US political election?

"Polls show that most of the competitive Senate races are currently in dead heats. That's encouraging news for us going into Election Day since we have much stronger candidates," she said.

Oh my word, this is just stupid and not worth laughing about. But damn is it still funny!

The most competitive Senate races are dead heats. Wow. Thanks for pointing that out! No one could've ever guessed that if the polls were tied or within the margin of error at the time, that those races are the most competitive. Absolutely no one could've put that fucking pearl of wisdom together without Becky Fisher.

Notice how she doesn't say a damn thing about those races that are so in the bag for Democrats that they aren't competitive in any real sense.

Fisher said the GOP is "very confident that we are going to defend our incumbents and [have] a good shot at getting a majority of our open seats."

Ha ha ha ha -- ok, I've laughed enough.

Again, this is just stupid. A majority of your open seats? There are five open seats. You'd have to win three of them. The open seats are Virginia, Colorado, New Mexico, Idaho, and Nebraska.

Of those five, what are the current standings?

Virginia: (D) 58.5%
(R) 31.7%

New Mexico: (D) 54.9%
(R) 40.1%

Colorado: (D) 44.3%
(R) 38.7%

Nebraska: (D) 37.4%
(R) 55.8%

Idaho: (D) 31.8%
(R) 52.5%

Basically, if a politican is running over 50%, they're either an incumbant, or virtually one. Virginia and New Mexico are essentially over with -- Democrats gain 2. (For comparison, Virginia, an open seat, is polling better or the same as an open seat in Wyoming. Understand how easily that seat is a gain for the Democrats?) Nebraska and Idaho are the same, for Republicans. Colorado is the tie breaker, and look at that, the Democrat is up almost 6 points with a month to go.

Now, will Democrats get 60 seats? Impossible to say. If we knew that for sure, we'd be gaining a hell of a lot more seats than 9. But the possibility is there for 60 seats. That alone is stunning. Hasn't happened in 30 years.

But the idea that Republicans have anything good to look forward to this election? Laughable. Republicans won't gain any seats. No Democratic incumbant is in any realistic danger of being unseated. Five seats currently for Democrats are almost for sure locks, bringing us to a 56 seat majority. The best Republicans can do, is point to the fact that Democrats did not get a filibuster proof majority this election year. And, again, that's not a sure thing. It is possible. Probably unlikely, but still possible.

And the election map for 2010 is still coming where it's very possible that Democrats will get 60 seats.

Act tough Republicans. That's all you can do about your prospects in the Senate this year: act.

Poe's Law, Sarah Palin, and Stephen Colbert

2008-10-06T20:21:00.000-05:00

Poe's Law is a decently well-known concept. Basically, creationists and fundamentalists hold such ridiculous beliefs that if anyone ever tries to parody them, someone will mistake that parody for a genuine belief. Robert Ebert recently tried to parody creationism, to quite bad results. It's quite difficult to make an comparison or parody of religious beliefs that doesn't sound like it's entirely possible some religion holds. The FSM meme is probably the best case, but even there the deliberate attempt to make it even more into a classic religion is present (a bible, a schism, orthodox and reform members, etc.).

A very good real-life example of this was just said by Sarah Palin.

"Either do the math or just go with your gut," Palin said at a rally here this morning. "Either way you’re going to come up with the same conclusion — Barack Obama is gonna raise your taxes. So there’s a pattern here of a left-wing agenda that is packaged and prettied up to look like mainstream policies."

I can just picture Stephen Colbert saying this, or "refuting it" tomorrow. Something like "Wrong, governor. Math is elitest, and based on thinking. Stop encouraging communism!"

But it's pretty bad when something that so easily can be seen being said by a parody comic becomes a talking point by a major politican.

Blindness

2008-10-04T18:41:00.000-05:00

The world (or at least, apparently, São Paulo though it's meant to be impossible to tell) begins to go blind suddenly, and out of everyone there is only one person who can still see. That's the concept of Blindness, and you'd be forgiven for thinking it was eeriely like the basic zombie concept, especially when you learn that it's a contagious condition that starts with one person going blind, spreads to everyone else very rapidly, there's an attempt by the government to quarantine everyone, and there are scenes of city-wide desolation and emptiness. And everything basically goes to shit, rather fast.

The movie stars Julianne Moore as... well, the wife of an eye doctor. That's one thing I didn't notice until the end credits, was that no names are ever given. Even when the first person exposed goes to Mark Ruffalo, the eye doctor and Moore's husband, there's no "Dr. _____, the patient is ready" or whatever.

After more and more cases of the blindness occur, eventually the people who have been turned "white blind" (the blindness is like seeing through thick milk -- your eyes are fine, and it's not dark, but you still can't see anything) are rounded up by the government and contained in a facility that is guarded by the military. Divisions soon form with Ruffalo trying to lead peacefully and reasonably, and Gael Garcia Bernal acting practically out of survival for himself. Conditions inside get unsanitary, as much as they try to improve them. Moore is keeping her vision a secret out of need for protection for herself and her husband, but uses it to improve thing slightly. The military outside only care for keeping the people inside, and hence kill a few under what they thought were attempts to flee.

Bernal procures a gun, and eventually takes over the food shipments and controls them. With the help of a man that was born blind they quickly get into control. He asks first for money, jewelry, technology, whatever they have. When the people run out of items, he asks for their women. Nine women from their "ward" go in exchange for their food. The next day that the control group (lead by the genuine blind man) comes for the women again, they're told that one of the women was beaten badly enough to kill her the previous night.

Eventually, Moore kills Bernal with a scissors, leading to a short stand off but ultimately a destruction of the compound when it is intentionally set on fire. Everyone heads outside, expecting to be killed by the military, but they are now gone presumably falling ill to the same infection.

The group of people from the ward is then lead through the city streets by Moore as they try to restablish anything. Other people are going around in groups, but there's absolutely no control, no order, and everyone is out for themselves. That point is made clear when Moore goes for food and is nearly killed by random people for that food.

Eventually, the group makes it back to Moore and Ruffalo's house where they are getting some semblance of order -- when the first man who went blind can now see again. The film ends there, implying that everyone will essentially have a mass re-visioning, just like there was a mass breakout of blindness. The timeline is vague here, but we're given a general notion of how much time has passed based on the rotting of a specific bowl of fruit in Moore's home. Three oranges turn from ripe to black and mold crusted. The time is likely under a month for all the events in the film.

To begin, the rape scenes are quite hard to watch due to their atmosphere, naturally. As it happens, there was a man sitting in front of me who got up and left at this scene, who I figured walked out. He came back about 10 minutes later, well after the rape scene, but so far later that it was when Moore is just about to kill Bernal -- while more raping is going on. This pour guy must have thought we sat through 10 minutes of nothing by rape.

Next, I honestly do not understand what the hell the blind community is protesting this film about.

“The movie ‘Blindness’ is a demeaning depiction of people's reactions to losing their eyesight," stated Mitch Pomerantz, president of the American Council of the Blind. Dr. Ronald E. Milliman, a blind university professor and also a member of the ACB, says, "In a very mythical sense, something like what is being shown in the movie might have happened hundreds or thousands of years ago, but certainly not in any civilized society such as what we have in the United States today. The movie is at best totally misleading, and at worst serves to frighten deeply those who see it."

People who make the obvious joke about them even seeing the movie likely have a special circle of hell to go to, but come on!

The movie isn't demeaning to blind people -- it's a depressing portrayal of people. How hard is this to see as being simply a pretext for examining what people easily have the potential to do? This isn't about people suddenly losing their sight alone -- it's about society as a whole going to fucking hell brought about by everyone losing their sight. That's like saying 28 Days Later is about one person reacting to getting the flu. You're fucking kidding me, right?

Vinnie did raise a very valid concern about the man who is born blind and goes on to assist Bernal in his villainous ways. That's valid. But that's also much more of a specific case. Now, might that not be the best thing? Sure. But I doubt people will move from "Oh that natural blind man in Blindness was bad, so all blind people are!" As well, the man has a definite moment of pause when he's told that one of the women died due to being beaten the first night of the rape. The rest is much more easily chalked up to the same general point of the whole film: that people when they're in an extreme position, such as societal collapse, tend not to turn into the best people.

Another part of this is the claim that "blind people can't do anything without help or take care of themselves." Bullshit. I seem to recall this scene where Mark Ruffalo saves his wife from a mob of starving people, then goes back for coats. That's obviously being a completely useless person, right? The sanitary conditions are part of a lot of people being crammed into small quarters, that to begin with are not very good. As well, it's a further comparison: their conditions go to shit as society goes to shit. Get it?

Really, the rest of this is made moot by one of their concessions:

However, there is an enormous amount of assistance that is available to newly blinded people.

The whole point is that there really isn't in this film. That's, again, the movies claim to what happens when society falls apart.

Once again, I doubt anyone is really confused by this movie. They know it's a movie. They know it's an extreme situation in a scenario that is basically never to happen. We never find out what did happen, we never find out the cause of the blindness or why it is lifted at the end. It's a mechanism to get at deeper things. They're protesting the movie entirely about surface issues.

Regarding the rest of the film, I liked the majority of it. I don't think there's really anything I found badly done or poorly acted. It would've been nice to discover the cause of the blindness, but it works on it's own the way it is and I doubt there was ever really even a conceived bullshit reason why it happened. It's like the lack of pregnancy in Children of Men. No cause given, it's not really ever needed. It's not about the cause of the blindness -- it's about the societal effects of collapse.

Even though I enjoyed it, it didn't knock it out of the park. Like when I saw City of God (another work of this same filmmaker), I enjoyed the film but it's not like I'll rave about it to anyone I come across.

No one could've predicted...

2008-10-04T02:11:00.001-05:00

That evangelicals would go and watch a movie because their pastors told them to.

You can almost picture the Hollywood studio execs scratching their heads.
A film that was made for $500,000, relied more on word of mouth than television and print ads, and is headlined by an actor best known for a 1980s television show, opens at No. 4 in the country and rakes in $6.8 million in ticket sales.
"Where did this come from? We didn't see this on the radar," actor Kirk Cameron imagined the execs saying. "What is 'Fireproof?'"
After this week, few will be left wondering. The Christian-themed film, which stars Cameron as a firefighter whose marriage is on the rocks, is the latest aimed at the 80-million strong evangelical audience. And, like the instant popularity of Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin, it's a sign that the strength of the evangelical community has not waned.

As usual, when Kirk Cameron imagines something, it's absolutely dead wrong.

Question.

You have a pool of people that are willing to do basically whatever is told of them. Especially if it's frivolous and not too much of a burden. You're in a position of seemingly absolutely power in these people's worldview. They look up to you. You are their source of guidance. Half of your major work is telling these people that they should not, and bordering on cannot, make major decisions for themselves, and that they should give in to your judgment.

Now, you request that they go see a movie.

Just what do you think they will do?

Hmm, I don't know, maybe go see the fucking movie.

Building an audience for "Fireproof" took some unusual marketing methods. "The evangelical audience doesn't react as well to advertising," said Meyer Gottlieb, the president of Samuel Goldwyn, the distributor, along with Provident Films. "The outreach to the ministries and having them tell their followers were far more impactful."[...]

Provident also encouraged churches to rent out theaters for their congregations to see the film and even suggested they provide babysitting for parents. The First Baptist Church in Nashville did just that last Friday.

Who would've ever fucking guessed?

I mean it's not like anyone had ever seen a movie like this before. It's not like there was ever a movie that tickets were sold only through Christian churches in some countries. It's not like there was ever a movie that at the time held the record for the most pre-ticket sales in Hollywood history. It's not like there was a movie that became the highest grossing R-rated movie in history. It's not like there was a movie that became the highest grossing religious film in worldwide history. It's not like there was a movie that became the highest grossing subtitled film in US history.

I mean, it's not like there was a religious movie that grossed 370 million dollars in the US alone, over 200 million dollars in rentals in the US, and some 604 million dollars worldwide.

No, certainly, there was never a movie called The Passion of the Christ that came out February 25th, 2004. It never existed. It certainly isn't the biggest example of a movie being promoted because people were told to go see it from their church, and they went. No, it never happened.

For the Kendricks, "Fireproof" is more than a film, it's a mission. The brothers are ministers at Sherwood Baptist Church in Albany, Ga. Their production company, Sherwood Pictures, is actually a ministry of the 3,000-member church. And all profits from the film are funneled back into the church.

And you thought Hollywood studios were greedy moneytraps. But what's that compared to acting ability made by god?

Cameron called the role of Caleb Holt "the most difficult I've ever done, for sure," but said the experience of making the film was by far his favorite. When a scene presented a challenge for the actor, Kendrick would ask 20 volunteers to pray.

Oh yes.

WAIA: crucifixion and resurrection

2008-10-02T00:31:00.002-05:00

A typical thing happens to me. I run across someone by some means (a person at school, online in various forms, traveling, etc.) and atheism comes up. I explain that I am an atheist and they usually ask why or how. Quite frequently, I'm at a loss at this point, since there's really just so much that I could say I don't know where to begin.

Inevitably, my response falls along three general areas or all of them together:

1. There's no evidence to support supernatural belief, of any kind.

2. Supernatural beliefs are incoherent, contradictory, self-refuting, and just in general make no sense.

3. I don't see the point to believing any of them, since I get along just fine in my life without them.

And yet all this time I've been bombarded with various arguments for why I should be an atheist. Or, more commonly, statements of profound stupefaction at how I can be skeptical about such and such claim. Generally, these are the great big central areas, but they can be arguments tangential to the belief in question. And, really, if I can't believe in the very central points of a religion or supernatural claim, I don't see how it's possible some arcane "philosophical treatise" will convince me that my skepticism is unwarranted.

So, I'm undertaking a hopefully recurring section here, called Why Am I an Atheist (WAIA)? I'll look at some claim, argument, or general fact about a religion and explain why I am not convinced by it. I won't hide the fact that most of these will probably deal with Christianity simply because (as is well known) it's the most popular religion in the world and in the United States, as well as the one I was raised in.

The first one I wanted to do were the two central parts to Christianity, and both are linked together: the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus.

I'm not doing this from any structural perspective. I'm not starting from the hugely marco-mega-viewpoint of why is faith good, why should I believe the bible, or even discussing the lack of historical evidence for Jesus' existence. I probably should. It'd be neater and more sensible to, but I also know myself pretty good, and I'd find an argument that I'd like to discuss at that time and want to post about it, but then realize "I got to keep to my system!" only to totally ignore it at some future point. So, screw that. Hopefully some sensible order will arrive organically, but I'm really just addressing whatever argument I come across at the time or whatever tickles my fancy at the moment.

And right now that's Jesus being nailed to a cross!

We all should know the story (most of us were indoctrinated with it, after all). God decides he has to intervene in the world, finds a mother, impregnants her even though she remains a virgin, and she gives birth the Son of God. Even though the son is really god. Time passes, he gathers some followers, he's betrayed, and is sentenced to be tortured and crucified to die for all mankind's sins. He dies, and miraculously comes back to life three days later, and ascends bodily into heaven.

Thus giving rise to inane statements like "He is Risen!" when not referring to an errection.

Again, there are reasons why I don't buy this that haven't been addressed and far proceed this point. I don't buy anything that the bible says as true. It's almost completely wrong on any issue you pick up, especially historical ones. I don't buy the fact that Jesus ever existed, and I think a case can be made that he never did. Even if a man like him and named Jesus existed, I don't buy that he was the son of a god or had supernatural powers.

But we'll dump out all those objections and central reasons why not to believe this story. Why am I still an atheist, even though I know of the story about the crucifixion and resurrection, just on those grounds?

1. Because it still doesn't make any sense.

2. Because by it's own definition it'd be meaningless.

3. Because it'd be entirely unnecessary.

Why doesn't it make sense? One of the key components of the Christian (Western) perception of god is that god is immortal. You can't kill god. That's the definition of immortal. If you do, how was it god in the first place? So, if god is immortal, how does he "die on the cross?" He obviously did not die since he's still supposedly around. An immortal being dying is like saying an even number is not divisible by two. It's an oxymoron, nonsense strung together totally without any meaning.

Why is it meaningless? The whole point to this story is that god is making this great big sacrifice on our behave because we are just so damn sinful. The whole point of a person sacrificing their life is, well, they die. It shouldn't have to be pointed out that the major meaning derived from that is that they also stay dead.

If I go run into a burning house and save someone's life but die going back in for others, that person might have a great appreciation for me saving them and others at the cost of my life. I'm gone. I'm dead. I'm not coming back. If I could just pop back into existence, well, what's really the big deal in what I did? "Yay! I did something that had no harm to my well-being or continuation of life!"

Where's the sacrifice? The only thing I might possibly be giving up is the time I could be spent doing other things like watching TV. Man, what a onerous thing to give up. It'd be a stunt. Hell, and then at the end of this meaningless stunt, I'd get all the cool praise for it. I'm not losing anything, I'm gaining a lot for doing something that doesn't effect me. It'd be like getting awarded $100,000 for drinking a bottle of water.

This sacrifice would pale in comparison to any sacrifice any mere mortal has made. And it's somehow being held up as the definitive action for all of human history? Please. I'm more in awe of my mom taking time off work to help me move in.

As well, that whole thing of being tortured. Isn't the horror of torture the fact that the person being tortured is utterly helpless to what is going to happen/is happening to them? God at any moment can go "Ok, I've had enough" and stop everything. He could make it like the Harry Potter books say the witches had no fear of burning to death -- just use your power to turn the fire into nice tickling sensations.

Why is it unnecessary? It returns back to the point of sin. Humans supposedly became sinful because we disobeyed god and were thrown out of the Garden of Eden. God then thinks he has to rectify this, and the only way to do that is... to go to Earth as his own son, live 30 odd years, then be tortured and "killed" only to come back to life?

How about a more efficient means? God could forgive mankind. Said "Ok, you disobeyed me, I was mad, but I've gotten over it, so forget that whole sin issue."

Or, and this is really more efficient, he could've created mankind without the capacity of sin, and also having the ability to freely decide what to do. Would it somehow be impossible for an omnipotent being to do that? Don't see how it could, that's again the definition: power to do anything.

This entire thing, this "sacrifice," is the most inefficient and ineffective solution to a problem god intentionally created for mankind.

If Jesus didn't die for mankind's sins, Christianity is wrong on it's central tenent. If Jesus did die, then he wasn't immortal to begin with, wasn't god, and Christianity is further wrong on it's central tenent.

Posts in this series:

Why Am I an Atheist?

Economic disaster: the gays did it

2008-10-01T00:29:00.000-05:00

There are only three words to say to such people.

In a September 25th blog post titled 'The Nation Will Right Itself If It Fixes Sex', Christian Civil League of Maine Executive Director Michael Heath writes that the financial crisis facing Wall Street is a symptom of America's sinful sexual culture, including the acceptance of gay unions.
"Our crisis is a symptom, not the cause," writes Michael Heath. "I am not saying I know whether this financial crisis is God's judgment or not. It is not for me to know that definitively."
Heath goes on to list policy changes that would make God "crack a smile," including: End abortion rights and defund non-profit groups supporting it, amend state constitutions to ban gay marriage and eliminate domestic partnerships and civil unions for gay and lesbian couples, and end discrimination against private religious schools and homeschools.

Go fuck yourself.

Religulous

2008-09-30T23:22:00.000-05:00

Yesterday, I was fortunate enough to get sneak preview tickets to Religulous, a new documentary starring Bill Maher that discusses religion in society.

I had been curious to see the film when I first heard about it, but to be honest I wasn't that big on seeing it. I watch Real Time with Bill Maher whenever I can because I feel it's a decent show for the most part, funny at times, sometimes not. I also think Bill Maher is pretty good at detecting and calling people on bullshit -- at least the bullshit that isn't his own. If it's dealing with politics for the most part, he's decent. If it's religion, he's above average. If it's anything to do with medicine, oh fuck is it god awful.

So, I was curious for both the topic and because it's a topic Maher is usually good at, but I was kind of indecisive about what I'd seen from trailers thinking it might be good, might be unnecessary, might be pretty bad. When I got an offer to see it for free, not to mention early, hell, that settled that. My curiosity can be fulfilled on the cheap!

The movie opens with Maher at the supposed site of the end of the world according to the bible. It then follows Maher as he tries to get a better understanding for why people need religious belief. His position throughout the film is just that he does not know, and that anyone else doesn't possess some cognitive function he doesn't, so how do they know what happens after you die or anything else dealing with the supernatural. He begins by detailing some of his personal history, and talking to his mom and his sister about his family's take on religion. He then branches out into Christianity in general, which takes up about 40 minutes. He visits a trucker church (a church in the back of a trailer at a truck stop), an ex-gay man who helps reform other gays, the creation museum (talking to Ken Ham), the Holy Land theme park (where they have crucifixion reenactments every day), a preacher obviously of the prosperity bible, Senator Mark Pryor, and finally visiting the Vatican (before being kicked out). I forget if in this segment he also makes his trip to the Mormon church and talks with some ex-Mormons, or if that's separate as well.

The next part begins I feel with him making a trip to the rest of the world, starting with London to talk at Speaker's Corner where he goes as a preacher talking about the tenants of Scientology. No ab-libing or creating anything new, he's just proclaiming "what Tom Cruise believes." He then heads to Amsterdam to talk to a "religion" centered around pot smoking (had to be in there!), talks to one of the leaders of the Taliban church there, talks to a Muslim rapper who has lyrics evocative of terrorist bombings. He also heads to Israel to see the Temple Mount, the Wailing Wall, and the Dome of the Rock. He also meets (I believe still in the US) a Jewish man who doesn't acknowledge the state of Israel (and in fact met with Ahmadinejad at the Holocaust denial conference he threw), as well as a latino man who claims to be the second coming of Christ.

The film overall I thought was quite funny, and I was not the only one. The crowd was full in the theatre, and there was just about everyone laughing at the same things I was. For instance, when Maher is meeting with the preacher of the prosperity gospel, the man asks to be called "Doctor" instead of Reverend, even though -- as the subtitles inform you -- he's not a doctor, and doesn't have any degree of any field of study.

The content of the film, what they actually capture, varies at times, but for the most part is pretty good on its own. Some of the people of course say ridiculous things that are funny themselves, or are just so damn wrong it's pathetic. In Israel, Maher visits this science compound where they are developing tools in order to allow strict Jews to still do tasks around the house on the Sabbath -- by creating loopholes. Can't press a button, so no using the phone, unless you invent one that dials without pressing any buttons.... They're justifications for this is basically "Well, the intention is clearly there, but if we find a loophole, why don't we exploit it?"

A large feature of the film is the use of jump cuts, either to go from an interview that Maher did and cut to him giving some thoughts on what was said that couldn't be included at the time (about to be kicked out, it'd completely shut down the interview, etc.), or to go to another clip of some other material to underscore the point or go for a laugh. For instance, there's one moment at the trucker meeting where Maher says something that falls completely flat there, and they cut to a movie from the Technicolor 1950s where four Romans are around Jesus and one slaps/punches Jesus in the face. Another when they're discussing Mormonism shows a black and white instructional film clip called "Meet the Mormons" (another very obvious 50s propaganda-era treasure).

Some of these work pretty well just for jokes, some are informative (like when they're refuting what an interviewee just said), some don't work very well, and the entire thing can be laborious for people. I personally didn't mind it much, except at times when they felt like they had to underscore the danger of certain things (most prominently military action). But these were few that annoyed me briefly.

The main thing is that the movie is trying to make you think just a little bit about how you know what you know if you're religious, and to get some laughs. It closes on the message that you have to wake up to the danger religion brings about, and I can see people tuning out at that point if they disagree.

The audience, as I said, was very responsive to the movie, and I felt a lot of people enjoyed it or at least thought it was quite funny. Again, just about everyone was laughing at the same things I thought were funny. One surprising thing that struck me was how old the audience was. I was completely expecting it to be a young crowd, primarily under 30. But at least a quarter of the audience were senior citizens. Maybe they were there to pan it to their church groups, but the ones that I saw were laughing along with everyone else.

So, if you don't like Bill Maher, I can see why you wouldn't go. He's in basically the entire film. If you disagree from the outset, fine, stay away. But if you think some of religion is nutty and want some laughs, there's quite a lot in the film. It's hardly a ground-breaking film cinematically, but that was never part of it's goals. It's a comedy centered documentary. You can enjoy it as that.

No, that's my only weak grasp of the 80s!

2008-09-30T03:12:00.000-05:00

Apparently, Hollywood has decided to remake basically every film that my brother grew up with, and then proceeded to force me to watch. Or the ones that happened to be on HBO in the afternoon.

Red Dawn? Remaking it. Hell, that right there is about 50% of me and my brother's conversation, no matter the original topic.

The Karate Kid? Remaking it. With it being possibly directed by Will Smith. Fuck, I mean, that horrible movie only made me realize how damn good it was since it led to a perverse desire to see Sidekicks. I still also remember driving past the local karate center (on the way to the store, for instance) and thinking how glad I was that I was not as big of a douche to take those lessons.

Weird Science? Remaking it. And there's no substitute for Bill Paxton to be an amorphous blob. Absolutely none.

Friday the 13th? Remaking it. Those entire movies were the first "horror films" I saw as a kid, and they at least scared me at that time, on Halloween night, curled up with the old raggedy brown sleeping bags we had (cause who didn't sleep in a sleeping bag in the family room for no reason? You know you all did, too!). Oh, and I was 8 at the time I first saw them I think. As well, I have fond memories of that series, simply because of the Jason Goes to Hell VHS cover, due to seeing it in the video store all the damn time and never getting a chance to see it.

Short Circuit? Remaking it. For fuck sake, I used to watch that movie a lot and the shitty sequel. I even knew that movie was directed by John Badham, who is much more known for directing WarGames -- which got a shitty sequel.

Top Gun? Yes, they're fucking remaking it (or at least a sequel). With Tom Cruise. Yes, with Tom Cruise. Gotten through yet? I was never that big of a fan of the movie, but it's hard to argue that a movie that made almost 345 million dollars wasn't popular. Not to mention, it did teach me about gay tolerance....

(Original link.)

What's next, Ghostbusters?

YOU MOTHER FUCKERS, NO!!!

It's like they're trying to destroy absolutely everything about the 80s. Hmm, come to think about it, that's not half bad....