Emancipate Yourselves From Mental Slavery

A Brief Respite

2009-05-07T15:11:00.000-07:00

With finals, and a busy summer coming up, I'm going to have to take some time off from this blog.

Frankly, it's a lot smaller and a lot less lucrative than the other site I run, so I'm going to try and just do the one thing right, at least for a little while.

I don't intend to close this site down, but it's going to be dead for a little while.

Apologies to those who actually enjoy the site.

Eddie Current on Fertilization

2009-05-07T11:19:00.000-07:00

Maine Legalizes Gay Marriage

2009-05-06T12:39:00.001-07:00

It's good news for the gay couples in Maine, as the governor has signed a bill legalizing same sex marriage in the state.

Interesting Stuff in the Times

2009-05-05T13:47:00.000-07:00

I have sort of a busy day today, but there's some good stuff at the New York Times.

There's been a memo on the refusal to prosecute those responsible for torture circulated within the DoJ.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates goes to Saudi Arabia to seek aid in Pakistan. I always have mixed feelings about petitioning the Saudi's, given their domestic policy, but if they're willing to help us in Pakistan, it's a good move.

The Maine House of Representatives moves to legalize same sex marriage. That's excellent for gay couples in Maine, and it will probably start a tenth amendment conversation with respect to DOMA, but it should be an interesting debate as far as the constitutional issues go.

Also, on the conservative side of the spectrum, Townhall has an interesting quote from Harry Reid stating that he doesn't expect a GOP filibuster of the Obama nominee to replace Souter. It does make me wonder if he thinks this is going to wait until after Franken, or if he thinks that Republicans are going to avoid politicizing this to keep from looking like the "Party of NO."

U.S. Military and the Establishment Clause

2009-05-04T11:11:00.001-07:00

It always seemed interesting to me that the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution was only ever applied to the Congress.

It seems obvious that the authors of the Constitution didn't foresee the use of Executive Orders, which act as an exploitation of the "executive power" clause that could have been much more specific.

That said, I'm curious what they might have thought of the military being used as a vessel for converting non-Christians in other countries.

I'm fairly certain that John Adams and Jefferson wouldn't have been particularly happy, but that's not really the point.

The point is where there is any legal action to be pursued against military personell for attempting to act as religious spokespeople while conducting business for the United States government.

Since there's no act of Congress involved here, it's hard for me to say that there has been a clear cut Constitutional violation.

Still, it's worth remembering Tripoli, which (like this military action) isn't blatantly subject to the Establishment Clause.

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of [Islam]; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any [Muslim] nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Of course, this is simple a statement that the United States will not enter into holy wars (which I think is a nice sentiment). The first part is what I think is important.

Obviously, as the United States government grants freedom of religion to all of its citizens, servicemen included, there can be no restriction placed on the practice of religion by servicemen.

My frustration with the notion of "converting the heathen" aside, there is a pretty serious diplomatic issue here.

In the uniform code, there's a provision which stipulates that active military personal cannot attempt to religiously convert another person.

This seems to be the core violation here.

I bring up the Constitutional issue because, unfortunately, I don't think that it exists. Former Prime Minister Ahmed Shah Ahmedzai seems to think there is one, but I don't see that argument either way.

That said, the Constitutional argument, in this case, in unnecessary. There should be court marshals issued to those servicemen who violated the military code of conduct, and punished accordingly.

Since this isn't a civilian issue, I don't see the legislature or the judiciary intervening, though they may feel the need to wag fingers or (in the case of the Christian right) protest the oppression of Christians in the military, but they really have no place in a military court, and they know that.

It's an interesting issue, though, and I'm curious to see how the military handles it, if we find out.

Fed Investigates John Edwards' Campaign

2009-05-03T17:22:00.000-07:00

The Federal government has started an investigation into the campaign of John Edwards to see if money from his campaign was used to keep his affair quiet.

It's the first time I think the National Enquirer has broken a serious political story.

It's an interesting story and lends credence to my general dislike of Edwards, though I have to admit that the dislike wasn't really rational, just a personality issue.

Funny or Die on Gay Marriage

2009-05-02T19:35:00.000-07:00

Yeah, they're really, really liberal, but I thought this was pretty entertaining.

A Gaythering Storm from Jane Lynch

Wait, What? with Michael Savage

2009-05-02T10:45:00.000-07:00

I ran across this quote from Savage in 2004 and, just so I'm not accused of taking this out of context, the conversation is a discussion of the San Francisco Human Rights Commission and though it seems that, for a moment, he steps out and bashes human rights in general, I almost want to pretend he's talking strictly about gay rights, as that would add some credence to his bit.

"When you hear 'human rights,' think gays. When you hear 'human rights,' think only one thing: someone who wants to rape your son. ... When you hear 'human rights,' think only someone who wants to molest your son, and send you to jail if you defend him. Write that down, make a note of it."

Firstly, the connection of gays to child molestation is an old and played out line that the religious right uses.

Man-boy pedophilia is a disgusting crime, but to pretend that gay rights activists, should they get marriage rights, are going devolve into NAMBLA is a pretty vicious ad hominem with no basis.

Now, I'm not sure how Savage makes the leap from gay rights to the Nazi's (lets not forget that homosexuals were one of the groups that Hitler wanted to destroy, despite the recent discovery of how many closeted homosexuals were in the high command of Hitler's leadership), I don't get the jump from homosexuality to child-rape.

Savage might argue that it happens within the gay community, but that's a load of crap. Many married, heterosexual men commit sexual assault on minors (male and female). Many priests, thought to be abstinent, commit child molestation.

Are we going to outlaw being gay, married or celibate?

No.

The central note here is that repression of a social group cannot be justified by a social stigma perceived as a part of their lifestyle, especially when we acknowledge that the acts we're talking about supersede that social group.

Michael Savage is a shock jock, more so than Rush Limbaugh or Hannity or O'Reilly, in my opinion (though perhaps only because I grew up hearing about him, since he was local). Still, I expect a shock jock to at least shock me with things that make sense, not with mental gymnastics.

Why the Religion-Torture Poll Isn't that Significant

2009-05-01T23:50:00.001-07:00

There are a lot of people who are very surprised at the latest poll that connects regular churchgoing to support of torture under certain circumstances.

As someone who understands the potential connection, and was awfully tempted to make it myself. The problem is that the survey's not really conclusive.

The sample size for regular churchgoing individuals is 336, and the number posted in the top two boxes is 54%.

Now, 54% is a majority, and a majority like that is a big thing in politics, especially when compared to the 42% of non-churchgoers (sample size of 168).

The problem is, people forget about the political component here.

Irreligious individuals (obviously, with exceptions, but I'm speaking in generalities) tend to be left leaning.

The heavily religious often sway towards the right, and have been pulled there more and more heavily over the last few decades.

Of course, these are generalities, but even a mild conservative pull among religious individuals could explain the trending towards support of torture.

Now, the liberal tendencies of non-churchgoers could also be used to explain the lack of support for torture, but I think that, in that respect, the off-put needs to be recognized as a little stronger.

Apart from the fact that I don't like polling data very much, especially when I look at the pool size, this trending doesn't seem surprising or significant.

If the number was 70%, I'd tilt my head and make a joke about the inquisition, but it's not. It's 52%, which means that almost half of the pews are filled with people who oppose torture. That's not surprising, and it's not significant.

49% of the U.S., according to this poll, falls into those top two boxes. Why is it shocking that there's a slight increase in the highly-religious population (and 3% is slight)?

It just seems like stretching nothing to me.

Justice David Souter to Resign

2009-04-30T21:12:00.000-07:00

Well, it seems as though Justice David Souter is going to resign from the Supreme Court at the end of the term in June.

While a lot of people consider Souter a bit of a backstabber to the conservative movement (appointed by George H.W. Bush, but fell on the left in Roe v. Wade and Lee v. Weisman, a school prayer decision), he will undoubtedly be replaced by someone the GOP likes even less, given the Democratic majority and President.

I always wonder how timed these decisions are, with Souter choosing to leave shortly after the election of a Democrat to the White House and a strong majority that will make a liberal justice easily approved.

With privacy and internet rights looking to make an appearance on the docket over the course of the next few years (as well as numerous social issues) and a possible set of decisions on torture, if the AG brings charges (though it doesn't sound like there will), it could be an opportunity for the Democrats to fill a seat with a young left winger who will camp out for some time, and with John Paul Stevens just past his 89th birthday, Ruth Bader Ginsburg battling pancreatic cancer (also 76 years old; though perhaps still strong, as she survived one bout with cancer already) and Stephen Breyer at 70 may give the Democratic Senate and President an opportunity to re-enforce the liberal end of the bench with young ideologues.

For better or for worse (and, as someone who falls on different sides based on the case, it's a little of both for me) that's how it may play out over the next four years.

Pretty Clever Satire

2009-04-30T14:42:00.000-07:00

I always like to ask where the evidence in favor of a New Earth Creation is, but I really haven't seen anything. If one sifts through answers in Genesis, one might realize it's more of a critique of method (and generally considered not a very good one, but that's another issue) than a presentation of data.

Still, if there was data, what would it look like?

There's a pretty clever parody of the discovery of an ancient dinosaur saddle which is worth checking out.

Of course, it spends a little bit of time mocking the "vegetarian dinosaur" theory, which is one of the weirdest pieces of apologetics I've ever seen (and I don't see the necessity of its tie in Genesis, though I'm sure there's a need for one if they're invoking it).

Anyway, I'm curious to see the arguments that Creationists do produce sometimes, just to see what is keeping people so attached to the position.

There are a few articles on AiG that I think provide a good summation of the data and method that Young Earth Creationists invoke.

The first is a critique of genetic relationships between chimps and humans. It's ending is a little cliched, invoking Gen. 1:26-27, but it's worth thinking about. There's no real new data here, but it's an interesting attempt to spin the genetics to support the position.

The second is on the flood Noah had to deal with. I'm surprised it doesn't invoke the Asian mythologies that are often encouraged as a way of demonstrating universality, but it focuses almost solely on the flood within the Bible and the Bible's consistency on the issue. The article is disappointing, but since I've been hearing a lot of discussion of the flood lately (since there are people talking about global warming, locally) I thought it was worth posting.

Of course, neither of these really present evidence in the scientific sense, gathered through experimentation. The first, especially, is really an attempt to present evidence in a way that makes their position seem plausible by the data that already exists.

Ayn Rand on God

2009-04-29T17:04:00.001-07:00

I don't agree with a lot of what Rand has to say (especially the sexual, sadomasochistic stuff), but this is an excellent video on one of the things I like within Rand's writing, which is this emphasis on pure rationalism and life within the here and now.

At 4:45, the host makes an argument that has become cliched, and Rand's ability to defuse it and focus on self-dependence (one of her principles that I think makes her philosophy so appealing, at least in core principle) is excellent.

Francis Collins on Genetics

2009-04-29T16:17:00.001-07:00

There has been a lot of discussion of Francis Collins' clear battle with the basics of the Second Law of Thermodynamics (and what seems to be a misinterpretation of the concept of entropy).

Still, I thought that this was an excellent post on Collins' site dealing with mitochondrial DNA and the Y Chromosome. It really is a great point, and I think means more to them than it would coming from someone like P.Z. Myers.

Collins writes:

Every woman alive today received her mitochondria from her mother. And the number of mothers who provided the mitochondria is less than or equal to the number of women alive today. Some mothers had more than one daughter, anid other women had no children at all. (See figure 1.) If we trace the passage of the mitochondria back one generation to the mothers, we have fewer women than today. If we trace back another generation, we find an even smaller number, and with each previous generation this number decreases. Eventually this traces back to a single woman from whom all women alive today received their mitochondrial DNA. Using careful measurements of genetic diversity, scientists estimate that this woman, called the Mitochondrial Eve, lived between 150,000 and 200,000 years ago. However, this does not mean that Mitochondrial Eve was the only female alive at the time. Indeed, based upon study of diversity in the genome as a whole, geneticists estimate that thousands of others lived at the same time.

It's an excellent point. Of course, we're already done with New Earth Creationism at this point, because we're talking 150,000 years, and not 6,000.

Collins then goes on to explain that the story with Y-Chromosome Adam is similar, expressing that we can track genetic progression based on mutation:

For example, all Y-chromosomes of individuals outside of Africa carry a particular Y-chromosome mutation called M168. Hence, all of these variant Y-chromosomes are descended from the single male in which this mutation occurred. Some men of African descent have the M168 mutation and some do not. This is evidence that a small group of humans left Africa and, through succeeding millennia, spread around the globe.

This, I think, is fantastically interesting, though I'm curious whether it is possible that the M168 mutation could have occurred multiple times, or what the likelihood of such an event would be.

I'm sure that biologists have thought of it before, I'm just curious to see what the answer would be.

Collins lists the standard time-table as around 50,000 years as the general amount of time appropriated to populate the earth as it is now.

I've often wondered how New Earth Creationists reconcile a 6,000 year old earth with nature of the population. It seems that if the earliest humans date back 150,000 years, or even (as Collins writes) took 50,000 years to spread and populate the planet, shouldn't the number be one utterly unreachable in a 6,000 year mark?

At the end of his piece, Collins makes a note of a bottleneck where the population was thinned out, but it still seems like there should be a significant change in the numbers.

Not being a mathmatician, or a geneticist, or a physicist, all of the things that I'm proposing are purely theoretical, but it's a thought.

Anyway, Collins' conclusion is an interesting one and, in my opinion, objective.

Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosome Adam lived at different times, were probably separated by thousands of years and quite possibly were in different locations. Thus, a pictorial diagram tracking all men’s Y-chromosome DNA would not trace back to the spouse of Mitochondrial Eve.

It's an interesting point, though not totally undermining the fundamentals of any religious faith. It's certainly an interesting to consider that the earliest matriarch and the earliest patriarch came in completely different historical periods.

George Carlin and Fred Phelps

2009-04-28T15:40:00.000-07:00

This was just too funny.

Gilbert on Prediction

2009-04-27T11:07:00.000-07:00

Daniel Gilbert of Harvard Psych.

The stuff on terrorism during the Q&A is interesting. I think there are more factors, like the sense of preventability and the feeling of animosity. Still, Gilbert's take is interesting, and the point about poverty is an excellent one.

Interesting Torture Question

2009-04-26T14:32:00.000-07:00

The video was posted to point out King's ridiculous statement that there was no waterboarding at Gitmo when we admitted that we were using waterboarding there over a year ago (during the Bush Administration).

What I think is an interesting question, though, is the question of the Central and South American dictators.

I haven't seen any really convincing evidence about Chavez in particular (though he gets attacked a lot because of his strong and brash political rhetoric), but the use of political prisons in Latin America is a really serious problem.

We spend a lot of time talking about democratic freedom, these inalienable rights that we believe in, but it becomes impossible for the United States government to ensure that they are enforced all over the world.

Even when we try to establish some degree of political freedom in countries, we are often rebutted by the political leadership, which wants to be sure that it can maintain its power.

Now, the government's involvement in Central America has never been as seemingly well intentioned as its involvement in the middle east (whatever people believed about the oil interests, there was certainly some intent of liberating the Iraqis of a dictator and establishing democracy; whether or not it was a good idea is another question).

We have created a lot of these political dictators ourselves, just as we created Saddam. The question is how might the United States government go about rectifying that mistake, if it is possible, though I'm not convinced that it is.

Certainly, there are a lot of issues in Latin America that need to be corrected, and the American government and the American people need to have some consideration for how they're going to be dealt with.

Normally, I make a point of having a solution, but I don't on this issue, because I don't think any government decisions are enforceable. Still, the Latin American situation is worth being aware of and handling, if it becomes possible.

Busy Weekend

2009-04-24T08:22:00.000-07:00

My posting has slowed down a little bit lately, because I've been trying t throw up longer posts (and, generally, haven't had as much time).

I apologize for the next couple days for not having too much interesting stuff for those who want it. I'm presenting a paper on memetics this Saturday and so I'm spending most of my day on the presentation, and then I'll spend tomorrow at the conference.

Anyway, I'll throw links up periodically over the course of the day, because there's a lot of good stuff (also, check the "Cool Stuff" sidebar if you're looking for news, as most of those blogs are updated fairly regularly).

Wait, What?

2009-04-23T11:01:00.000-07:00

Alright, so I was most frustrated by the first bit of this segment, but your welcome to watch the whole thing.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Sometimes these segments are constructive, but this one is pretty much all ad hominem, and that's pretty disappointing.

The bit about Reagan is what sort of pissed me off. Not that I'm a huge fan of Reagan's (though some of his policies, in my opinion, were pretty good), but there are a lot of people who are, and if you're going to attack a dead president, at least use some numbers.

If, every time a Democrat quoted a line about Obama being the next FDR, someone in the right wing said "FDR's dead and was a lousy president," the liberals in media would go postal, and rightly so.

There are so many better things to criticize Kilburn about.

Criticize him for being a poor representative and failing to represent the best interests of the people he serves.

Criticize him for support a policy that you don't like (whether it's refusing the stimulus money or, more generally, conservative economics).

Don't criticize him for quoting Ronald Reagan.

And, if you want to make an angry tirade about the quote, center it on something that Reagan's policies failed to do, not simply a rhetorical point about not liking Ronald Reagan.

It was a cheap joke and, unfortunately, not a very good one.

Ron Paul on Health Care

2009-04-22T15:28:00.001-07:00

Ron Paul's website is pretty straightforward. I thought the Health Care system was especially interesting, particularly given the new Democratic congress and president who will almost certainly push through some major health care overhauls.

The site reads, presumably in reference to democratic leadership:

To get elected, many politicians promise “free” medical care for everyone. But health care nationalization in European countries resulted in longer waiting periods, severe lack of choice, deterioration of health care quality, prohibition of alternative health treatments, higher taxes, and sadly (for some) permanent illness or death because they could not get the care they needed.

This is a pretty standard conservative talking point, and it happens to be true. In many socialist countries that center their health care systems on high tax principles, service is considerably lower and access to specialist treatment is not as good.

Sure, everyone has equal access. But why is that a good thing if the access isn't good. The cost efficiency of Medicare comes up every once in a while (my favorite presentation is in the seventh season debate episode of Aaron Sorkin's West Wing, where a Democratic Presidential candidate proposes fixing the health care problem by allowing everyone access to Medicare, with his argument based squarely on the cost efficiency of the system.

Medicare costs less because it's not as good. It may sound like an over simplification, but it's not.

As bad as the American health care system, it's not going to get better by bringing more people under it's coverage. You don't fix a system by forcing it to handle more work. You don't pile crap on a clogged pipe.

But that's not the big conservative bullet that they need to use. Whoever writes the site (presumably not Paul, as it's written all in the third person) saves that for a little later.

Also, a nationalized system is not “free” at all because someone has to pay for it. And why should anyone be forced to pay for someone else’s medical care? Very few decent people would personally assault their neighbors at gunpoint and steal thousands of dollars to pay for their own medical needs. How could any freedom loving person agree to delegate such criminal acts to the government by supporting a nationalized health care system?

This is a great point, and generally it gets to the fact that those who support high taxes don't consider high taxation rates as repossession, as stealing (in the metaphor Paul uses).

They think that taxes should be given up willingly to better the society, that taxes are the price we pay for better roads and schools. In that respect, Paul's argument (and this larger, conservative one of the "redistribution of wealth") becomes a strawman that they like to light aflame.

Democrats don't want to steal your money, they just want to use the IRS to compel you to give it to them.

The problem is, many people don't trust the government, many people don't want to give their money to a government that doesn't support the programs that they, as individuals, would like to propagate. So it becomes a question of the purpose of the government.

Do we want government to take our money and deal it back out? Or do we want our government committed to the preservation of the freedoms afforded within the constitution, not expanding its power?

Paul's point, really, is that people should not be compelled by the government to deal with social health care issues. The point is that people who are compelled are welcome to deal with it, and those who aren't have the freedom to abstain.

Anyway, I suggest checking out the page, as it's very interesting.

Chris Anderson on Economics

2009-04-22T07:07:00.000-07:00

Anderson's book on the Long Tail was an excellent study in the impact of the internet on economic trends (and the ability of unlimited storage space to change the way that we think about "mainstream" and widen personal interests), so expected this lecture to focus a little more on the psychological and cultural impact of internet sales, but he more or less ignored that to focus on economic trends in technology.

The four stages of development for technology aren't really a shock to anyone, I think. We all know that when an item comes out we wait a little while before we see a substantial drop in price and, if it is successful, a substantial increase in production.

Obviously, the decrease in price comes from a new thing losing its novelty (most people will pay a lot more for a new model car then they will for an older model, obviously with the exception of "vintage," but that whole concept of vintage defies the trend). The increase in production comes from a need to generate profit, but it also usually has something to do with the companies cheapening how they make the product, enabling bulk production.

Displacement is pretty common, just because new industries aren't created very often. The vast majority of products are matters of improvement more than innovation. It's a matter of taking, say, a common device and building software so that you can use your laptop to perform that function (like making phone calls on skype).

The free cycle is pretty interesting. There are some internet technologies that begin their life free (many web browsers, easily downloadable). I'm fairly certain that what he means is the approaching of "free," as very few things (as far as hardware goes) ever actually become free.

Now, as far as the freedom goes, basic studies in the impact of economics and innovation are always worth looking at. Living in a free market, the trends of that market spend a lot of time dictating our psychology, and it's worth understanding the impact.

As far as this particular lecture goes, it's so-so, but Anderson's book is really good, and gives a lot of insight into the modern market place (and actually addresses the long tale, which he kind of ignores in this lecture). Internet trending, like internet data collecting, is worth following, as it will define where we're going.

Interview with Robert Price and John Loftus

2009-04-21T15:00:00.000-07:00

Now, of course, the fact that they're former preachers doesn't really mean much to me. What means something is that Robert Price is a great Biblical scholar. Loftus is alright in this interview, but the bits with Price are very good.

Steward on Torture

2009-04-21T11:03:00.000-07:00

This pretty much says it. Peggy Noonan's statement is just unbelievable.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

M - Th 11p / 10c

We Don't Torture

thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Economic Crisis

Political Humor

Dennett on Sensory Wiring

2009-04-20T15:01:00.000-07:00

This is a wonderful talk from TED, I hope you enjoy it.

I'm a big fan of Dennett and this is a very interesting theory (worth reading more about, and I'm sure I will).

I've got to give a talk tonight on Dogen, an early Zen Buddhist patriarch, so I may not have a sizable post tonight, but I'm interested to read Dennett's book and I hope you enjoy the talk.

The Gay Agenda?

2009-04-19T19:05:00.000-07:00

In perhaps what is one of the stupidest videos I have yet run across on the internet, we see another attempt at portraying the gay agenda.

I have to say that people who say there is a "gay agenda" come off as conspiracy theorists and homophobes. Some of those people are friends of mine, but I dissent on that view. Still, lets take a look at the video.

Obviously, the point of the video is to undermine support for the LGBT "Day of Silence" protests carried out in schools, writing them off as a product of the gay agenda. I point this out only because the video reads like a good parody, but, from what I can tell, seems serious.

The quote from Lincoln to undermine the principle of the "Day of Silence" is an interesting one, and part of why I didn't personally participate in the silent part of the day at my high school (though I happily acted as one of the organizers for the event, because it's an issue that I think should be talked about).

The attempt at poetry is kind of mundane, but if the writing was the only problem with the video, I probably wouldn't be posting this.

My first beef is with the invocation of Jesus, but it always is. I've come to accept the fact that the vast majority of Americans are Christians, but as someone who grew up enjoying the story of the Exodus, I should say that the Easter talk gets annoying after a while. The "Resurrection of Jesus Christ" bit is a clear telegraph of where this is going, somewhere not fun. The invocation of it aside the removal of "Patriots' Day" is to attempt to equate American values with Christianity.

I will say that they do get the purpose of the "Day of Silence" right, which is excellent. At least they had the decency to correctly portray what they're talking about.

The truth is, though, in correctly discussing the nature of the "Day of Silence," they make an excellent point about it. Students and teachers are "asked." I was asked. I declined. I support the struggle anyway, but, if I didn't, I'm welcome not to participate.

A large part of this video is an attempt to illustrate coercion. It would be nice if they displayed an example, but they don't. This notion that gay rights are being forced on people is a little strange, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised (the same thing happened during various racial civil rights movements). People think that rights are a limited resource, that the rights of some impose on their own. I'm not sure why that preconception exists, but it does.

Also, it's not about racism, but, that's a totally semantic bit of stupidity.

This notion that homosexuality has been projected as "cool" and "hip" is true in some respects, and utterly moronic in others. The fact of the matter is, many shows do cast gay men as fashion forward, affectionate individuals. They also portray them as effete and selfconscious, constructing and capitalizing on stereotypes in the same way that a show which casts black men as great athletes with large penises might also paint them as bad in school and tending towards promiscuity.

This notion that gays are not presented with character flaws on television is a little bit ridiculous. Straight people are portrayed as basket cases, but often because basket cases make for good comedy. Gay people, it's worth noting, are also often portrayed as basket cases.

I don't know what studies they're citing that suggest homosexuals are more likely to abuse alcohol and drugs. Probably the same set of polls that suggest blacks or latinos are more likely to abuse drugs and have unsafe sex outside of wedlock. Even if it were true (which I seriously doubt), we don't get to take rights away from a group because of a predisposition to use drugs.

There was a pastor from the Fresno area who proudly presented me with a poll, in a debate, which pointed out that the children of gay couples score lower on standardized tests. There are also polls which demonstrate that minorities perform more poorly on tests than white children, and that rich kids to better than poor kids. Does that mean we should take away the rights of poor minorities to get married? No. It's a ridiculous and irrelevant point.

Now, this notion that we secular humanists are going to force Christians into the closet is absolutely ridiculous. As loud as we may yell, this notion that Christians are going to go back in the closet is absurd.

Rick Warren, bigot that I think he is, has sold 30 million copies of his book.

Of the major political forces, how many of their leaders are "secular humanists."

As much as I would like to believe in this conservative propaganda that the Christians are being forced into the closet, it simply isn't true. Christianity is the norm. I think we should work to change that by educating people, and I have no problem with religion in the public square, I just have a problem with it not being opposed while it's being taught.

Anyway, I hope the video was enlightening (even if it was frustrating). Always interesting to hear the voices of those you disagree with.

Christian Medicine

2009-04-18T08:02:00.000-07:00

The Irony of the Right to Privacy

2009-04-18T01:13:00.000-07:00

This is a classic segment from John Stewart.

The stalker producer stuff is hysterical, but the irony of Bill O'Reilly's statements has really be getting to me lately.

Firstly, the fact that Bill O'Reilly acknowledges the right to privacy while remaining openly anti-choice is not only ironic, it's absurd. The unenumerated right to privacy is either recognized or not. Since it isn't enumerated, its clear that there's an argument against it, but it's not possible to argue that the right does exists while, simultaneously, not protecting a woman's right to choose.

Now, the claim for fetal rights in this particular instance offers a fair claim, and this is where I really draw the line between religiosity and secularism in debate. If an anti-choice individual believes that life begins at conception, that a sole is injected into the egg alongside the sperm (or somesuch) then it follows that this should be protected as a human life. If you understand that the early collection of cells have no consciousness, no independence and are fewer in number than the cells of a mosquito, then it follows that society should not intervene.

My position is different.

My position, constitutionally, is that it is not the place of the government to make decisions about things that an individual is and is not allowed to do with respect to their body. There should be no federal regulation of "victimless crime."

That's my opinion.

This hinges less on an unenumerated right to privacy and more on the enumerated powers, and definitive role, of the government.

The role of the government should be to preserve freedom, not to restrict it based on puritanism. If O'Reilly, and others (on all sides of these debates) acknowledge a right to privacy, then it is only fair that they should focus on what that right entails, and O'Reilly should acknowledge that his position is a theological one, not one based in Constitutional law.

NOTE: The dynamics of Roe v. Wade, which I get asked about all the time, are an issue for me. I do really feel that it was a tenth amendment issue, and that there was a strong, legitimate legal argument for upholding the state ban on abortion. At the same time, there was a part of me that was glad to see the doctrine of unenumerated rights engaged, because I do think that is the purpose of the Ninth Amendment.

Mixed Feelings About the Tea Party

2009-04-17T10:25:00.000-07:00

I like civil unrest. There's something good about knowing that people are dissenting from the majority. When people are all on one side (or seem that way) I start to get worried about my perception of things.

Still, I have to say that while I would like to see less government regulation and less government spending, I don't entirely see what the TEA Party protesters are getting at, and there's more than a little I dissent from.

Apart from the unbelievably stupid invocation of "Taxation without Representation," I cannot help but feel that these people are missing a central point.

It's not the increase in taxes that they should be talking about. I hear a lot of people using tax day as an opportunity to whine about the amount of money that the government is taking. That's not what worries me.

The money that the government is taking in taxes is too high for my taste. But what bothers me more is the money that government is spending, because the two numbers are not at all the same.

Conservativism should be about fiscal responsibility. It should be about holding the government accountable for its spending.

As much as I would like to abolish the income tax and the payroll tax and minimize social programs institutionalized by the government, what bothers me is when the government thinks that it can have disproportionate increases in spending and taxes.

We have an obligation to reduce debt, not to encourage debtor spending.

There are a lot of problems with the government regulation of TARP. There's a problem with the federal government investing the tax payers money at a serious loss (which is what they did). There's a bigger problem with the federal government creating debt to invest the tax payers money at a loss, without any accountability.

TARP has been seriously botched, and while some of that is the fault of the previous administration, some of the blame rests on the Obama administration, which has failed to institute regulations that it needs. I realize that they want cooperation from the banks and the auto industry, but that doesn't mean we have to put on the kid gloves.

So, lets talk about the debt. Let's talk about the mismanagement of taxpayer dollars. But let's not talk about the increase in taxes as if the government was responsible for destroying the real estate and banking industry. They're doing this wrong, and I agree with that, but taxes are not, at this point, a symbol of oppression, the debt clock is.

The Bhagavad Gita: Chapter One

2009-04-16T11:14:00.000-07:00

So, I spent a small portion of my evening last night reading through the first chapter of the printed version of the Bhagavad Gita As It Is (the edition popular among members of the Hare Krishna sect).

It's actually a really well laid out translation. It has the sanscrit with literal translations of each term, and then an explanation of connotation below. Everything that someone who doesn't understand sandscrit needs to get from the original language to modern comprehension.

That said, the story itself I take some issue with. It opens with a scene on a battlefield, describing the leader Arjuna how is accompanied by Krishna. It lays out the scene, and then descends into a monologue from Arjuna on how he no longer wishes to fight.

I don't have a problem with the monologue are all (in fact, I think the sentiment is a great one), but rather the conclusion that Arjuna reaches.

I'll start with the part of the monologue that I liked, which is how it begins (Bhagavad Gita 1:32-38):

[32-35] Oh Govina, of what avail to us is a kingdom, happiness or even life itself when all those for whom we may desire them are now arrayed on this battlefield? Oh Madhsudana, when teachers, fathers, sons, grandfathers, maternal uncles, fathers-in-law, grandsons, brothers-in-law and other relatives are ready to give up their lives and properties and are standing before me, why should I wish to kill them, even though they might otherwise kill me? Oh Maintainer of all living entities, I am not prepared to fight with them even in exchange for the three worlds, let alone this earth. What pleasure will we derive from killing sons of Dhrtarastra? [36] Sin will overcome us if we slay such aggressors. Therefore it is not proper for us to kill the sons of Dhrtarastra and our friends. What should we gain, Oh Krishna, husband of the goddess of fortune, and how could we be happy by killing our own kinsmen? [37-38] Oh Janardana, although these men, their hearts overtaken by greed, see no fault in killing one’s family or quarreling with friends, why should be, who can see the crime in destroying a family, engage in these acts of sin?

What makes this translation nice is that instead of getting hung up on the word "sin," which is a term I don't much like, I can look at the literal translation listed for the sanscrit term dosam, which is "crime." Now, the specific connotations of the word may be spiritualized, but it's not worth getting hung up on, in my opinion.

What is excellent is that this attitude of non-violence, an understanding that suffering causes suffering, is emerging so early in the text. It seems easy to see when Ghandi might have taken his wisdom from, what parts of this scripture he embraced (though Ghandi was far from perfect, in my opinion).

Killing is a cause of suffering, it does not bring joy. The death of children, grandchildren, nephews, husbands, lovers and so on is not productive, not beneficial, not good in any sense of the word.

However, I take issue with the implications the Arjuna chooses to draw.

He goes on to assert that a family alter will collapse if the children are not born. This, I think, is not so. The accomplishments of fathers are not made weak by the failures of their children, though perhaps their failure as fathers may be a part of that. Arjuna's point is a spiritual one, and is very abstract, hinging on mythology, so it comes off as having tawdry premises.

The final choice of Arjuna, though, is an interesting one. He resigns himself, distraught, to his chariot. He cannot avoid the battle because of social rules, but he cannot engage his enemy with the intent of killing them as a result of this new revelation. It's an interesting predicament and is very reminiscent of actions of the followers of Ghandi at the Dharasana Salt Works, where the nonviolent protesters moved forward peacefully but were beaten down by police.

As religious sentiments go, this is an excellent one, and the logical argument is simple, elegant and one I have employed often when trying to come up with an explanation for nonviolence within the context of the modern social contract.

The argument goes as follows (when divorced from the spiritualism and dogma):

P1: [unspoken, generally] In order for an action to be "good," it must produce pleasure or some sort of long term benefit.

P2: No pleasure comes from killing.

P3: No substantial benefit comes from killing. (in fact, it results in the collapse of families)

C1: Killing is not good.

Now, the dynamics of an abstract like "good" (a term I don't like very much, but since we're dealing with absolute morality becomes necessary to discuss) are really complex. This is only one interpretation of good, and there are others.

Certainly, Malcolm X would dissent from this position by saying that the long term benefits can outweigh the need for pleasure, and that's a valid position too, but for those who favor the sanctity of peacefulness over violent uprising, as I do, Arjuna's argument is a tempting, and interesting, one.

NOTE: I am sidestepping a lot of the mythology surrounding this text, because I don't know enough about the historical nature to assess its validity. The spiritual claims it makes I'm going to chalk up to the nature of the time and the writers of the religious text, as I don't think that the Hindu leadership would really disagree with such a claim (though they might).

The Bhagavad Gita: A New Project

2009-04-15T14:06:00.000-07:00

There were a few Hare Krishna monks on campus today, and I got into a conversation with one of them. He offered me a copy of the Bhagavad Gita. Having read the story before, I considered declining, but then realized that there was no reason to. He offered me an opportunity to learn something about a belief structure I did not (and, at the moment, do not) understand.

Never, in my life, have I found a reason to refuse the offer of information.

So I took a copy of the book, and it's sitting on my already cluttered desk. Being a Hare Krishna, this particular copy of the book is translated by the founder of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness, A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada (referred to as "His Divine Grace" by his followers).

I'm going to make it a project to read, and probably post about, the philosophies and ideas, as well as the problems I might find, in the reading of the text. As I don't know much about Hinduism (I have a basic knowledge of the pantheon and an understanding of culture and ritual), it might be helpful to read the scripture and see what they are reading, as I've done with the Bible and the Koran.

Hopefully it turns out well.

Best Nine Minutes of My Day Spent on Youtube

2009-04-14T09:35:00.001-07:00

White People Problems

2009-04-13T14:33:00.000-07:00

Funny Videos | Funny Cartoons | More Video Clips

Antoine Dufour for a Saturday Afternoon

2009-04-11T13:49:00.000-07:00

1300th Post: Eddie Current's Greatest Hits

2009-04-10T21:43:00.001-07:00

His latest:

His classic-est:

His Occam-est:

His proven-est:

Good Reason Not to Go to Church

2009-04-10T20:25:00.001-07:00

Thought you guys might enjoy this:

FOREST HILLS, Pa. – Authorities and witnesses say a priest drove into a group of churchgoers after a Good Friday service near Pittsburgh, killing an 89-year-old woman and wounding four other people.

Madeline Romell's leg had to be amputated shortly after the Friday afternoon crash in the parking lot of St. Maurice Catholic Church in Forest Hills. She was pronounced dead about five hours later.

Four others were hurt, but Forest Hills Mayor Ray Heller Jr. says their injuries weren't life-threatening. He says the injuries included a broken leg and a broken arm.

Parishioner Angela Thomas tended to the wounded, including a man pinned under the car. She says the priest told her the accelerator just went.

Witnesses say the priest served at St. Maurice's.

Zombie Neurophysiology

2009-04-09T09:57:00.000-07:00

Ever since I started reading Dennett, I've developed a soft spot for Bertrand Russell's Zombie Metaphor.

As far as I've read, V.S. Ramachandran in the man when it comes to understanding neurophysiology. Pretty much every journal article I've read in the subject of neuroscience cites some part of his research, which is pretty cool, and his work on synesthesia as a root of human creativity and a device enabling metaphor has always been fascinating to me.

It's my understanding, though, that as much as philosophers try and answer questions about qualia, there isn't going to be a conclusive answer produced by philosophers. All of the answers on the subject will inevitably come from the neuroscientists with a very concrete understanding of brain functions.

That's why, when I see a lecture that addresses the Zombic problem in terms of something concrete, like mirror neurons, I'm curious what the lecturer has to say (so I hope that this lecture will be available for public consumption at some point).

What's unfortunate is that while we understand some of the functions that mirror neurons serve (Dr. Ramachandran has theorized that they have an impact on speech and imitative behavior), we don't really have a well developed understanding of how they play into human development.

There's sufficient evidence that these neurons exist, and a handful of studies have been conducted to demonstrate their presence in the brain. There are some theoretical philosophical implications that mirror neurons help in developing a sense of empathy, but, again, it's very difficult for philosophers to come up with answers to questions that can really only be investigated by neuroscientists.

Anyway, I think that neuroscience is one of the next big steps for science, and a complete understanding of the way that the mind functions may come together in my generation, and I'm very curious to see how it pans out.

Gaius Cassius Longinus, and Murder

2009-04-06T23:19:00.000-07:00

I don't really like the historical figure of Cassius, who helped plot the assassination of Julius Caeser and then fought, unsuccessfully, against Octavian and Mark Antony. Part of that has to do with not being very good at taking over the state of Rome, and part of it has to do with my general, ethical disapproval of having a dozen friends stab a rival in the chest.

Still, Shakespeare's version of Cassius gets at something that I think is very important to a possible character. In the excerpt from his famous monologue, he says:

Men at some time are masters of their fates:
The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,
But in ourselves, that we are underlings.

Jealousy can be a tool, it can be a way of improving ourselves when we might otherwise lack the motivation to aspire to greatness.

Unfortunately, murder is not a good way to promote one's station in life.

One of my professors, who teaches Latin and classics, likes to hammer home the point that a leader who attains power by force must live in fear, because he's set a precedent. This is generally a fair point, and one of the reasons that I don't really like Machiavelli's The Prince as a methodology for living and attaining power.

We play by rules in order to establish that others will do the same, this is the fundamental principle of the social contract. When Cassius and Brutus broke the social framework, when they took a form of government with a social structure that was not built on headhunting, and changed it to one controlled by whoever was most successful in violence, they put their heads at risk, and they lost.

Cassius was a philosopher, widely believed to be Epicurean, but the ambitious nature, the jealousy that led him to violate the social contract, led him to forget one of the central tenants of Epicurus' personal philosophy:

He is a wise man who does not grieve for the things which he has not, but rejoices for those which he has.

I do not think ambition is something to be ashamed of, but there is a reason why we curb it, why we don't overstep certain boundaries. We do it to be assured that the society in which we live maintains a certain level of order. That is the balance between order and advancement.

The Most Problematic Biblical Contradiction

2009-04-05T21:32:00.000-07:00

There are a lot of contradictions in the Bible, especially contradictions within the Gospels (which a lot of scholars, like Robert Price, go into at length).

Still, there's one that bothers me the most, simply because I feel that it's one of the most overlooked piece of Christian theology. That famous line in Dawkins' The God Delusion goes:

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

But that, in and of itself, isn't troubling. There are plenty of angry, vengeful god figures throughout mythology. The problem is that Christianity, at some points, preaches of a god of love and at others it preaches a god of vengeance.

From a theological standpoint, it's not a bad idea.

1 John 4:15-16 appeases the more moderate followers of Christianity:

If anyone acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, God lives in him and he in God. And so we know and rely on the love God has for us. God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him.

Of course, god's love isn't unconditional. You have to accept Jesus, but that seems like a small sacrifice for god's love.

I include the demand for the acceptance of Christ because I think it's important that Christians acknowledge that even the most straightforward verse is conditional. The love of god, in a theological sense, is conditional. If you don't accept the religion, then god does not really love you. At least, not in the same way he might love you if you did.

Still, I get a lot of Christians who mention that "god is love." If that's how you define god, that's great. Then I hope you indulge in god every day of your life, but you're not really a Christian unless you go so far as to say that god is a little more than love. For Christian theology to exist, god has to be conscious and active and do the things the Bible claims he did, and that's where the contradiction is.

Since this is Paul who said that "god is love," it is only fair that we stick to Paul's definition of love. 1 Corinthians 13:4-6 reads:

Love is always patient; love is always kind; love is never envious or arrogant with pride. Nor is she conceited, and she is never rude; she never thinks just of herself or ever gets annoyed. She never is resentful; is never glad with sin; she's always glad to side with truth, and pleased that truth shall win.

The god of the Bible meets a few of these criteria, but certainly not all.

The god of the New Testament is vengeful, openly (the Old Testament goes without saying). Revelation makes clear that god will destroy the unbelievers and those not written in the Book of Life into a lake of fire (Revelation 20).

Moreover, when Moses received the Ten Commandment, god slipped a little note about himself into Exodus 20:5-6.

"You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.

Now, the general apologetic defense is a semantic one, and not altogether bad. It goes something like this:

In a similar way, Jehovah expressed His love for Israel in the Old Testament by proclaiming to be “a jealous God” (Exodus 20:5; Deuteronomy 4:24). He was not envious of the Israelites’ accomplishments or possessions, but was communicating His strong love for them with anthropomorphic language. The Scriptures depict a spiritual marriage between Jehovah and His people.

Of course, this is a fair point. The Bible often projects god with anthropomorphic language.

The problem is that god describes the nature of his jealousy in that same portion of Exodus, so we know this isn't entirely accurate.

"For love is not resentful," (from that passage from 1 Corinthians) and so the author of the piece on apologetics writes that the jealousy is begotten out of love. So it makes sense that, in order to correct the contradiction in god's nature, the apologist attempts to disprove st. Paul by using semantics.

He insists that there is a differentiation between the word god uses for jealousy and the word that Paul uses. That may be true, but there is not a difference between the kinds of jealousy they are meant to display.

The figure of god portrayed in the "divorce from the people of Israel" that the apologist goes on to describe is an abusive husband. He kicks the crap out of his beloved bride out of resentment (though "love is not resentful"). The god that the prophets discuss is one who rains fire and brimstone on that wife, whether he has divorced himself from her or not.

We can apologize for the semantics of the piece all we want, but the semantics are meant to illustrate a behavior that god happily displays. Whether the connotation that the apologist takes from the passage shows a compassionate form of jealousy would certainly make sense, if god was shielding his people from the outside, instead of ordering him to slaughter the non-believers and then punishing them vigorously for refusing. Unfortunately, the behavior of god, as Dawkins points out, is not consistent with compassion, it's consistent with spousal abuse, and that, as the common domestic pamphlet is meant to remind us, "is not love."

North Korean Missile Launch

2009-04-05T08:39:00.000-07:00

Earlier this weekend, North Korea launched a missile which the nation's leadership claimed was to put a satellite in outer space, but most of the world considered it a demonstration of the nation's ability to make use of long range missiles, and show that they are capable of propelling a warhead into Japan.

North Korea has long been considered one of the primary military threats and most negotiation between the North Koreans and the rest of the world has gone through China. While the United States has played a roll in some of those talks, the Chinese pose an immediate threat to the North Koreans with their own powerful military (certainly the largest in the world). The American weapon of choice in negotiations has long been the use of economic sanctions, but with those in place, their only discussions have been of lifting the sanctions once the nation disarms itself.

The Chinese hold the primary bargaining chip with the North Koreans, and if they feel the threat of nuclear war is increasing with the demonstration of missile launching technologies, then negotiations may open again.

Personally, I don't like the idea of the United States negotiating unless it has to. I'm not a big fan of the "big stick" policies of Teddy Roosevelt (from my understanding of history, the policy more or less destroyed Central America). That said, it's important to show our support for the Chinese, just as its important to allow them to lead the negotiations.

The Chinese need to be at the forefront of negotiations because they're the most immediate threat to the North Koreans. A threat from the Japanese to invade Korea (or a threat from the South Koreans) is not something that will concern the officials in Pyongyang. A threat from the Chinese, before the Koreans have the capacity to do anything with what nuclear capacity they might have, is one that will frighten them (as it should).

I don't want to put the U.S. in a position where it has to look at military action in another country, at least not as a leader of the action. We're certainly not in a position to do it right now, while the Chinese are perfectly capable of handling, with support, a conflict with North Korea, so it makes sense for them to be the leaders in discussing the issue.

North Dakota is Sane

2009-04-04T11:00:00.000-07:00

North Dakota Senate rejects a crazy "zygote citizenship" bill that would, theoretically, criminalize abortion as murder.

It's another strong win for sanity in the midwest, and we do appreciate it.

A Non-Story

2009-04-03T11:44:00.000-07:00

The First Lady and the Main Lady.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

A Win and a Loss for Homosexuality

2009-04-03T08:55:00.001-07:00

Domestically, the Iowa supreme court has struck down a ban on gay marriage. This is incredibly good news and I hope that those couples the decision defends are very happy.

On the slightly less pleasant foreign not, Iraq is starting to execute people for being gay. This is a pretty frightening bit of news. So much for having a beacon of Democracy and Freedom in the Middle East.

Dismissing the Premises of Religiosity

2009-04-02T15:48:00.000-07:00

Now, when I try to explain to religious people why it is I don’t believe in god, I have to work hard not to be jumpy. There are so many reasons not to believe in god, I generally like to try and sample all of them. This isn’t the right way to go about it, I’ve discovered, as it ends in a lot of tangent conversations that don’t really go anywhere.

Instead, I have started to reduce my argument, and when I come back to the general argument against belief in a god, it comes in three parts, really, as the vast majority of theism that ends in religion is born out of three central premises:

1) The universe was created, and this creator is god.
2) This god cares about human affairs.
3) This god is good, to the point of being worthy of worship.

Now, out of hand, I reject premise one, and this is what I forget to talk about, and I think many of us do.

We know about these three premises (I’m simplifying them, but it’s not as though they’re new). Now, many theists accept additional premises, and we often attack those because they are entertaining or extraordinarily ridiculous, but it all comes back to premise one, that’s where the root of atheism needs to be.

Hopefully I’ll get into the problem with each of these, especially premise one. Clearly, though, that’s the issue we should discuss. It’s easy to attack the other absurdities of religion, and we should. It’s a real problem, especially when they attack basic freedoms and cause death, famine and ignorance (actively or through neglect), and we should attack those two.

But I thought it was important to point out the real issue with religiosity, and the reason why atheists dismiss it. We shouldn’t pretend that the reason we dismiss religion is because it’s a force for all things ignorant and disreputable. It is, but that’s not the root of disbelief.

Cult Mother Convicted

2009-04-01T10:40:00.001-07:00

It's still a cult. And so are the other religious groups. It's just a matter of whether or not their talked about.

Pray for Eddie Current's Braindead Grampa!

2009-04-01T10:09:00.000-07:00

How to Become an Abstinence-Only Educator

2009-04-01T07:19:00.000-07:00

Abstinence only education is one of the most depressing phenomena in modern American culture. It's been demonstrated not to deter sex between teenagers, and also shown to drastically increase the rates of sexually transmitted diseases and teen pregnancy, but I'm sure you knew all that already.

What's fascinating, though not surprising, is that it takes no training to become "qualified" to teach abstinence only education. Stacie Murphy has a wonderful piece about how she became certified, and why the certification systems are ridiculous, inane and irresponsible (passing an internet test qualifies you to teach children? really?).

She recounts her experience of the test:

One question asked me to identify the founder of "Playboy" magazine. Another asked whether premarital sex or abstinence was more likely to lead to "stunted personal development," and "corruption of character."

A true/false question read, "Contraception may be appropriate for some unmarried adults and teens." Knowing my audience, I (correctly, according to my testers) chose "false."

Finally, I was asked to write a paragraph about why abstinence was so important. I purposely made my statement as vague and inane as possible, just to see what would happen. How did I do? I passed with 89 percent.

Her conclusion is great, but it's only making a point that we've heard many times before. If only someone other than the choir was listening.

We are doing a lousy job of teaching our young people how to make healthy and responsible sexual decisions. But that's what comes from leaving it up to the clowns.

Worst Persons: A Religious Idiot and Other Idiots

2009-03-31T19:42:00.001-07:00

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

The BBC's Take on the Phelps Family

2009-03-31T18:52:00.000-07:00

I thought this was a pretty good segment on the religious crazies in Topeka. It does get hard to watch at points, but, if you're going to watch a segment, the third one is very good.

Apparently, Jew's worship the rectum (2:40). Nobody gave me a heads up on that. Though, the god of the old testament is a bit of an asshole.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali after the Release of Submission

2009-03-31T12:25:00.000-07:00

This is a weird day when I find a FOX News segment I agree with.

Best Lou Dobbs Segment Ever

2009-03-30T10:13:00.000-07:00

Sometimes I get annoyed with Lou, but this is a really good segment. I've heard about the resolution, but I did not realize this was binding.

Oppose the amendment.

Every once in a while, I remember why I started this blog. This is one of the reasons.

Sudden Uptick in Condom Commercials

2009-03-30T06:58:00.000-07:00

I'm not sure if Trojan is doing a campaign, but it seems that I've been seeing a lot more commercials lately.

It's good. I've always been a little annoyed by the lack of advertising that these companies get, as it's definitely not as useful for developing sexual health.

I hope there's an actual uptick and not just a perceived one, because, this time of year (with spring break at the collegiate level and prom for high school students) it's important that it be on people's minds.

All Kinds of Stupid

2009-03-29T22:59:00.000-07:00

I ran into this earlier. It's just mindboggling.

I'm concerned that my son has a secret girlfriend?
My 17 year old son has been very secretive with me lately, recently he has started to refuse to go to church with the family and tonight when I was going through his room I found a magazine with naked men in it. He obviously has a girlfriend that he is hiding from me that brought that magazine into my home and I am afraid they are having intercourse and I am greatly concerned that he is going to get her pregnant.

What should I do about this?

Additional Details
He is not a homosexual, we have taught him from the bible and he has learned though our church that this is not in God's plan. I will not teach him about condoms, that is unacceptable, we have always taught him about abstinence and that is what God and his future wife expects from him.

I want to speak to our pastor about this but I am very afraid of what he would think we are teaching our son if he things we are allowing him to sneak a girl into his bedroom. That is clearly inappropriate and we are good parents, I am very afraid what he will think of us.

This is the very unique kind of wishful thinking that religion breeds, and the kind of ignorance it encourages.

I really hope that their son learned about condoms the same place he got gay porn. That way he can at least be safe, even if his parents' behavior encourages stupidity and recklessness.

Relative Evils: Religion vs. Atheism

2009-03-29T14:53:00.000-07:00

Too Funny Not to Post

2009-03-29T11:01:00.000-07:00

At least, I thought so.

For Your Amusement

2009-03-28T13:29:00.000-07:00

Unsexy Politics: Plenty for Everybody

2009-03-27T13:47:00.000-07:00

Well, the Boston Phoenix has a list of the 100 most unsexy people, and, given the unsexy nature of politics, there are a few among them I thought were worth posting. These from the top 50:

44. Ron Christie Cubicle Gooding Jr.

Apparently, Republicans really will use any black guy they can find to mouthpiece the party — even this cross-eyed goofball window-dressing relic from the last Bush administration. Christie, author of the 2006 memoir Black in the White House, has become one of the foremost apologists for both the Bush legacy (!) and Dick Cheney (!!), and even the New York Post stimulus-package/dead-chimp cartoon.

31. Ron Prentice Prop Hate

Ron Prentice wasn’t just the ugliest member of California’s Proposition 8 committee — he was also the chairman. An entire new circle of hell formed for the demagogues who exploited religion, homophobia, and general Golden State idiocy to pass Prop Hate, and there’s a delicious cock sandwich waiting there for each and every one of them.

24. Rick Warren Pastor Prime

As if having a religious invocation at a political event isn’t intellectually offensive enough, Obama chose this sweaty, goateed buffoon to summon Christ’s light upon the new administration. (What kind of statement is that making, Barack — selecting a religious leader who not only opposes gay marriage, but who also looks like the schleppy owner of Morrie’s Wig Shop in Goodfellas?) At least he provided one of the lighter moments of the inauguration, when he channeled his inner jazz hands to oddly pronounce the presidential daughters as “Muh-LEEEE-yah” and “SAA-SHHHAAAH.” Don’t worry, Rick — next time there’s an historic first-ever presidential inauguration where the entire universe is watching, we’ll be sure to FedEx that Fun With Phonics pronunciation guide.

11. Bobby Jindal Page Boy

In delivering the Republican response to Barack Obama’s first joint-houses speech as president in February, the governor of Louisiana and erstwhile 2012 presidential hopeful was deemed a resounding flop — by members of his own party. His lack of charisma and gee-whiz oratory (as well as his dorkiness) quickly drew unfavorable comparisons to Kenneth the Page from NBC’s 30 Rock, whose political career now seems to have a higher trajectory than Jindal’s. Bonus hurricane-chutzpah points for bringing up Katrina in his speech criticizing government-funded economic-relief programs, for which his state took in billions of federal dough.

And, topping off the list, what I thought was incredibly appropriate:

1. Rush Limbaugh Jabba the Nut

America’s ugliest moment of 2009? Rush Limbaugh, his man-boobs a-jiggle, bouncing at the CPAC podium to bask in the sickly glow of conservatism’s orgy of greed, avarice, and arrogance. Here, at last, was the shining image of the 21st century Republican Party: a leeringly rich Baby Boomer squatting at the top of the mountain, reaping his jollies from the suffering of those at the bottom, praying for the failure of hope. If this hypocritical and morally repugnant reformed Oxy junkie wants to discuss “failure,” maybe we should talk about his career as an NFL commentator — or the last time he detoxed off prescription smack.

Worst Persons: Morons, Mostly

2009-03-26T22:08:00.000-07:00

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Good Morning Music

2009-03-26T09:21:00.000-07:00

I ran across Andy McKee last night and this is the song that did it. Clearly the guy has a huge following (the song has like nine million views, though a dozen or so are mine). Hope you like it.

Best Youtube Comment I Saw Today

2009-03-25T13:34:00.000-07:00

I ran into this great youtube comment, though I can't remember where it was. I thought I'd post it, just so the line is not lost.

Atheism is a religion in the same way not collecting stamps is a hobby.

I thought that was pretty clever.

Hannukkah Song Parody (for Atheists)

2009-03-25T09:26:00.000-07:00

Don't click unless you can tolerate a joke and a few errors. I'm not sure you can have a "happy atheism." I would have suggest "happy life," but that's just me.

This is great, and I'm glad he included the bits about Bruce Lee and O.J. Not that we really pray over O.J., but it was funny.

Creationist Idiocy on Evilution

2009-03-25T07:19:00.001-07:00

Luke always has good stuff going up, which is why I link to him fairly often. Still, this one is pretty hysterical. Check it out.

And will someone please by this moron a copy of "The Ancestor's Tale."

Worst Persons: A Paranoid, A Jackass and a Twit

2009-03-24T19:24:00.000-07:00

You figure out which is which.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Pat Condell on a Particular Muslim Dickhead

2009-03-24T15:27:00.000-07:00

Why Can't Jesus Eat M&M's?

2009-03-24T08:52:00.000-07:00

Because he has holes in his hands!

Courtesy of UnreasonableFaith's Daniel Florian.

Of course, every scientific report I've ever read has pointed out that Jesus would have to have his wrists nailed, as the hands would rip apart when forced to support so much body weight.

Hitchens on "Homegrown Terrorists"

2009-03-23T07:19:00.000-07:00

Hitchens' piece on Slate.com is interesting to me, if for no other reason than that I thought it delivered some insight into the side that disagrees with his position on the war.

He really does what people to call these terrorists what they seem to be, and that is an organization rather than just "homegrown" cells set off by an attack.

He writes:

Now, up until the present it has been the policy of the New York Times to describe the gang known as "al-Qaida in Mesopotamia" by the regular wording "a largely homegrown terrorist group that American intelligence says is foreign-led." This cumbersome and misleading formulation was at least intended to split the difference between those who regarded AQM as an intrusion into Iraqi affairs by the Bin Ladenists and those who saw it as a local response to the coalition presence.

Now, this, to me, seems like the greatest argument for not invading Iraq to begin with. What feeds the terrorist syndicate, what they can use as a recruiting tool, is this notion that we are in their country, this notion that they have reason to be afraid of us because we are already over there.

What makes this a strong point, perhaps, is that it has its very roots in the initial attacks of September 11th.

We thing that these sleeper cells just crop-up and connect to Bin Laden-ites. That's not really how it works. These are men who were well educated, indoctrinated by the propaganda Al Quaida puts together. (we also think that the bombers were from Iraq, which shows how little most people understand about the situation)

The U.S. government should attack terrorists, we should, even, have a war on terror if it is necessary to preserve and protect our nation. But we are not at war with the people of Iraq. We are at war with an organization within the middle eastern region.

So why are we occupying a single country? Why did we depose a single dictator?

The only answer seems to be that we didn't really understand the nature of our enemy, and that was a mistake.

An Apology

2009-03-22T08:25:00.000-07:00

I've been kind of slow the last couple of days. I'm in Los Angeles playing in a trivia tournament (actually, two separate tournaments; the first yesterday and the second was today).

I'll have more up late tonight.

Sorry about that.

Why I Don't Care About the "Special Olympics" Joke

2009-03-21T07:20:00.000-07:00

Apart from the fact that I make jokes about the Special Olympics every once in a while, I also support the Special Olympics, and have done some coaching for them.

It's a great organization, and I have a lot of respect for them, but it's a joke.

Albeit, not a very funny one, but at least he tried (though I'm not totally sure why he's doing Leno at all).

In the meantime, Sarah Palin is refusing money for kids with special needs and education. So let's talk about something serious.

I am starting to agree with some of the voices in the media that President Obama is doing too much, but I don't think it's a matter of "too much." I think it's a matter of what he ought to be doing.

Let the guy stay in Washington and work on getting confirmations and getting his legislative agenda passed. I realize that he's probably the most popular person in Washington, which makes it easy for him to get stuff done, but that doesn't mean he should take less time doing it.

Stewart on the Pope

2009-03-20T09:02:00.001-07:00

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

M - Th 11p / 10c

Pope Says Condoms Make HIV Crisis Worse

comedycentral.com

Daily Show Full Episodes

Important Things w/ Demetri Martin

Political Humor

Joining the "Atheists Out" Campaign

2009-03-20T08:56:00.001-07:00

Most of my friends know that I'm an atheist, though I'm not sure that my family really understands the nature of my positions.

Anyway, it's not a shock to anyone when my atheism comes up, but I've decided to take part in the Atheist Out campaign over at Facebook.

Please feel free to join up. We appreciate the company.

Worst Persons: A Publisher, An Ideologue and Some Congressmen

2009-03-19T19:05:00.000-07:00

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Interesting Debate Point Between Hitchens and D'Souza

2009-03-19T14:26:00.001-07:00

Note that D'Souza doesn't answer the question.

It doesn't matter if Socrates existed. If he is a fictional character, the philosophy is still legitimate.

Hitchens' response is great:

Last Weekend's New Rules

2009-03-19T09:36:00.000-07:00

Great Interview: Maher with Sarah Silverman

2009-03-19T09:12:00.000-07:00

PhillyD Does the News

2009-03-18T16:28:00.000-07:00

Mike Schermer is Amazing

2009-03-18T10:25:00.001-07:00

Luke threw this up. Go check this out. It gives a whole new appreciation for Shermer.

Worst Persons: Crazy Christians

2009-03-17T22:01:00.000-07:00

Well, they all are.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

DeFranco on the Pope and Stem Cells

2009-03-17T14:11:00.001-07:00

Pretty good episode.

The Pope Speaks Up on Condoms

2009-03-17T09:43:00.000-07:00

Listening to the Catholic Church talk about condoms is like listening to Creationists talk about Evolution, only more frightening. The reason for this is simple: at least omitting the teaching of evolution in schools only indirectly damages society by leaving us ignorant. The insistence that condom use doesn't help actually kills people. But, then again, that's nothing new to the Catholic church, now is it.

The AP released this little bit from the Pope which made me do a Scooby-Doo head tilt:

"You can't resolve it with the distribution of condoms," the pope told reporters aboard the Alitalia plane headed to Yaounde. "On the contrary, it increases the problem."

Really?

So teaching people how to have safe sex will in no way curb the spread of venereal disease? I guess he's right, though. I mean, it's not like condoms prevent the spread of AIDS. They just spread sinfulness, which is what causes all of this suffering.

Seriously, the twisted logic it takes to get from Point A to Point B with this Pope is mindboggling, and the fact that he thinks he can oppose contraception education and still be respected as a benevolent world leader is disgusting.

The way that the Catholic Church, and Evangelical churches, treats sex education in America is one thing. The epidemic of venereal disease is not as bad here, and kids can get the information other places, and they can buy condoms at the closest longs if they need them.

In Africa, though, where there's no infrastructure for education, and the parents don't always understand how contraceptives work, it is irresponsible not to teach them about it, and the way that the AIDS epidemic is right now, it has become genocide through ignorance and neglect.

If you don't believe that lies of omission can kill, then look at what Christianity has done to Sub-Saharan Africa, where children die slow, painful deaths as a result of this virus, but not before they are orphaned by the deaths of their parents from the disease that will eventually leave them shrunked, crumpled bags of bones.

This is how beneficial religion is.

Pat Condell on Defamation

2009-03-17T09:40:00.001-07:00

Worst Persons: Personal Attacks and Other Assorted Dumbasses

2009-03-16T20:40:00.000-07:00

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

The Stupid Economic Argument and a Better One

2009-03-16T07:00:00.001-07:00

I've been listening to a lot of fiscal conservatives (all Republicans, but they still call themselves fiscal conservatives, despite the track record of their party) talking about "punishing the rich."

Now, apart from the fact that this is a stupid platitude invented to make the liberals seem like the bad guys and the Republicans seem like the defenders of personal liberty (which they haven't actually been for some time), it's the wrong way to go about talking about the economic issue. The actual argument is much simpler.

The way the rich, almost entirely white GOP talks about defending the rich always makes them come off as snobbish and self-serving. While the Republican party generally is both of those things (a party of rich, white people protecting the interests of rich, white people shouldn't surprise anyone), it is still possible to keep from looking like it.

Presenting the rich as victims, whining about how they will not be successful if their taxes go up, is the stupidest thing I have ever heard, and I'm sure I'm not the only conservative who thinks that (though I may be one of the few disenchanted enough with the Republican party to say so).

So, without further ado, the argument that the moronic gaggle of Republican talking heads is missing (organized, though in a quote, by yours truly):

This isn't about loving poor people and not loving poor people. It's not about helping poor people and not helping poor people. It's about how we do it, and who does it.

It's true, and undisputable, that a rising tide lifts all boats, but the purpose of the federal government is to provide protection to those rising tides, to encourage them, not to cripple them with debilitating taxes and confining regulations.

When we use the term "redistribution of wealth," there's an implication there, an invisible word. It is really the "forced redistribution of wealth" that we don't want, that stands in the way of the American dream and frightens those who have spent their lives pursuing success and been fortunate enough to achieve it.

This notion that Democrats are the only ones who believe that the rich have an obligation to society is absurd.

The difference in opinion is that we, fiscal conservatives, don't believe that it is the role of the federal government to enforce its own set of standards for generosity.

If people want to give back, if they want to contribute money to society, they will. Bill and Melinda Gates do great things without the encouragement of the federal government, as does Warren Buffett. And let's not forget the hundreds of NGOs in this country that do great work in the world and right here at home.

Our goal is not to create an oligarchy, as the liberals would like you to believe. Our goal is to allow people to be productive members of society on their own terms, not build a federal government that decides where the money it confiscates is spent.

You see, the Conservative Movement is about the belief that people are compassionate, and that they will give of their own accord. It is also about the belief that this can be done without sending the nation into a fiscally irresponsible spending spree and just leaving it for our children.

This is where the differentiation should be drawn.

At this point, the Republican party is doing the equivalent of miming self-flagellation and pointing at the Democrats as if to suggest "this is what they're going to do to you."

This isn't a difference of good guys vs. bad guys. Republicans like to assert that they are the party of ethos and the Democrats are godless swine. That's not a good talking point when you're going into fiscal policy.

The differentiation needs to between those who trust the people (conservatives) and those who think that the government needs to enforce a stricter, higher standard (liberals).

The conservatives cannot continue to play this game of finger-pointing and insisting that they are the good guys trying to save America from the big bad liberals. They need to make this about positions, because the conservative position is an ideological one, but when it's tainted by politicized attempts to caricature both sides of the debate, they get smashed.

The voters know when they are being manipulated, and they don't like it. The conservatives in the media need to lay off that, and focus on the debate about the issues and the ideologies that drive their cause.

Ron Reagan Jr. on Stem Cell Research

2009-03-15T07:00:00.000-07:00

Very interesting interview with a very interesting guy on a topic I happen to agree with him on.

All of his points are very interesting, though I would really like to hear him talk about the organ donation element a bit more, because I think that's a huge impact of the research.

His point about human cloning is one I have to make regularly to people who just don't get it.

Science for German Kids: Enjoy

2009-03-14T21:14:00.001-07:00

My Latest Endeavor

2009-03-14T12:01:00.000-07:00

I work for a few other sites, a bit more professionally than I work here (at least in that I get paid).

My latest endeavor is to prevent the state of New Mexico from passing an amendment that would make mixed martial arts illegal in the state. It has been legal for some time, so this seems uncalled for.

However, it's a clear example of legislative overreach and very problematic for me, as someone who believe in economic freedom.

If you're a fan of the sport, or just not a fan of governments banning activities between consenting adults, then please sign the petition.

On Biblical Chauvanism: Ex 21:7 (for starters)

2009-03-13T13:58:00.000-07:00

I've had a handful of conversations with people who argue that the Bible is not the source of chauvanism and masculine dominance that I have suggested. There points are fair. Of course the Bible doesn't diminish the relationship between a man and his wife (though the servile relationship in Corinthians is the most disgusting part of the book, in my opinion).

Still, nothing is more disturbing than the outlining of male and female relationships as expressed in Exodus 21:7-11, and when I talk about a book being a subject of its time and social ethos, not inspired by any sort of diety as a book that supersedes any other ethical teaching, this is what I'm talking about.

For those who aren't that familiar with the old testament, my Hebrew translation of the verse reads:

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not be freed as males slaves are. If she proves to be displeasing to her master, who designated her for himself, he must let her be redeemed; he shall not have the right to sell her to outsiders, since he broke faith with her. And if he designated her for his son, he shall deal with her as it the practice with free maidens. If he marries another he must not withhold from this one her food, her clothing or her conjugal rights. If he fails in these three ways, she shall go free, without payment.

Now, in defense of my translation, and the use of the word "slave," many of the Christian translations I have run across use the term "maid servant." This term is incredibly misleading, as it implies the purpose of the woman is to do housework. What she is being sold into is forced concubine-ism. It is explicitly a sexual form of slavery, though I'm sure house-work would be demanded as well.

This is just to diffuse anyone who has the audacity to claim "oh, but it's not like slavery the way we think of it." Such a person would be right. It's actually what we think of as forced prostitution coupled with maid-work.

Now, there are a few parts of this that I want to zoom in on, to show how demeaning this is, specifically, to women, and how similar this is to Sharia (or at least, how similar it would be if Christians and Jews actually followed it).

The first is the obvious demeaning of women as showing them as less than male slaves. They are not "indentured servants" to be freed on the Jubilee year. They are not debtors to be forgiven. They are very much permanent possessions of their new masters.

A man who buys a woman has two options, of course, as her new master, according to this law. He can either keep her for himself (in which case he is the one who receives the sexual favor of this woman) or he can pass her off to one of his sons.

These are very similar to the requirements a man must fill under the rule of Islamic law when he takes more than one wife. This is more just a sidebar, but I think the next bit is particularly interesting and, again, refutes the notion that this is "a different type of slavery."

So I'm not refuted for taking this out of context, this is taken from the same chapter of Exodus, verses 20-21. The verses between these two sections are rules about what should happen if a man strikes and kills another. As slavery has already been discussed, I suppose it was important that they address what happens if a man should strike his own property. So, Exodus 21:20-21 read:

When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod, and he dies under his hand, he must be avenged. But if he survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, since he is the other's property.

It's an interesting differentiation, but not a particularly endearing one, in my opinion. Still, if nothing else, it does away with the notion that this form of slavery has dignity.

Not only does this obviously point to a notion that the slave owners would beat their slaves, but that they might be endeared, or feel entitled, to kill their slaves with these beatings. Of course, this is where the differentiation steps in.

A slave owner cannot kill his slaves with the beating, on the spot, but if they die a few days after (even if it is as a result of the beating) then it's fine. The slave, after all, was his property.

Now, Christians will say, this law is archaic and no longer necessary. I agree.

The problem is Jesus never rebukes slavery in the New Testament and neither does Paul. There are many Christian leaders who will argue, and do (vigorously) that Paul did not uphold the practice of slavery, but that's not the point.

The point is that if Paul or Jesus never discussed slavery in the slightest, they never discussed slavery in the slightest. What reason, then, does a Christian have to overturn the rule of the Old Testament?

Jesus said nothing about homosexuality, though Paul did, from time to time, but they did not overturn the Old Testament doctrine on homosexuality.

What is shocking about the New Testament is not what portions of the Old Testament it turns on its head, but what parts it ignores. A modern, civilized human being with a basic sense of dignity and respect for his or her peers understands that there is something incredibly disgusting about sexual slavery and girls trafficking.

Why didn't Jesus do away with it? Why didn't he come out and say "no man is to claim ownership over any other human being?"

It is far easier for me to accept that this book is the product of the writings of a desert people obsessed with mythology then that any sort of deity would allow his word to be printed with such a serious omission.

Jon Stewart Wins

2009-03-13T11:51:00.000-07:00

He smashes people with this. He smashed Hitchens on the war, and now he's smashing Cramer on economics. This is mindblowing for me. Truly a great show.

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Jim Cramer Unedited Interview Pt. 1

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things w/ Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Jim Cramer

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Jim Cramer Unedited Interview Pt. 2

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things w/ Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Jim Cramer

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Jim Cramer Unedited Interview Pt. 3

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things w/ Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Jim Cramer

Eddie Current on the Middle East

2009-03-13T00:27:00.001-07:00

"Going Galt" and Conservative Stupidity

2009-03-12T09:23:00.000-07:00

I'm opposed to high taxes on the wealthy, but listening to conservatives talk about Atlas Shrugged as if it were the anthem for conservative revival in America is hysterical, and it makes me angry (admittedly, a weird sensation).

The notion that rich people are the ones who contribute to society and that the poor have nothing to offer is a delusion of Ayn Rand's that has always annoyed me. At the risk of sounding like Karl Marx, it is important to acknowledge that there are no rich people without poor people.

I think it's good that we have rich people, and I think it's good that we have poor people. Wealth is something to be earned and aspired to, but the wealthy people that FOX News seems to want to "Go Galt" and go on strike can't just disappear, and they know it.

The modern media is so worked up over the theatrics of a novel that they seem to have forgotten that rich people can't just walk away with their money, they need to spend it in order to survive, and in order to maintain that cash flow, they need to work.

When workers go on strike, they are putting off a certain amount of income for a brief period of time to ensure that they will make more income when they return, which gives them a net financial gain.

The rich can't do that. They're not going to get a raise when they come back, and the amount of money it's going to cost them is going to be inordinate. In fact, they probably know. Nobody has told FOX News yet.

Money is only good for the rich when it circulates. The rich have large groups of people working for them, and it's not as though they can just stop paying those who do. If they choose to disband their companies and retreat out of the business world, they can, but they're not going to be rich anymore.

The real reason why this is such a stupid idea, and irresponsible to talk about, should be obvious to FOX News, but it's not.

The rich can't leave society because it would cause a major economic collapse. Stopping the circulation of money coming out of the industries like Microsoft or Google or Apple mark the end of the American economy, and rich people aren't going to do that because of a marginal increase in their taxes.

A Little Hypocrisy

2009-03-12T09:07:00.000-07:00

I would love to have a line item veto, as it helps to clear out earmarks. We'll see if it happens.

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Pet Projects

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things With Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Economic Crisis

Worst Persons: Beck, a Weatherman and a Congresswoman

2009-03-11T19:45:00.001-07:00

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

On Guns and Privacy

2009-03-11T15:31:00.000-07:00

The Colbert ReportMon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c

The Word - Locked and Loathed

Colbert Report Full Episodes
Political Humor

Rap Battle
NASA Name Contest

What annoys me is that the members of the NRA, generally speaking, do not believe in a right to privacy, so give it up.

Nathaniel Frank on Don't Ask Don't Tell

2009-03-11T10:39:00.001-07:00

Fantastic interview.

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Nathaniel Frank

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things With Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Economic Crisis

Kramer vs. Stewart, Part Deux

2009-03-11T07:00:00.000-07:00

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Basic Cable Personality Clash Skirmish '09

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things With Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Economic Crisis

Stewart is Funny, Cramer is Not

2009-03-10T18:42:00.000-07:00

That's the difference between these two guys. I look forward to seeing Cramer on the show, and I'll post the segment.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

A Thought

2009-03-09T20:09:00.001-07:00

As I was reading Luke O'Dell's latest post on Creationist Idiocy, something occurred to me.

I see more beauty in the expanding skulls of pre-homo sapien fossils than in the entire Bible. The latter is a product of antiquity and the former has given birth to the most creative and brilliant species on earth.

A New Era for Stem Cells!

2009-03-09T09:29:00.000-07:00

This is a great morning for rational people. Not only, does it turn out, are there fewer religious people than there used to be, but the rationality is making its way into government.

Today, President Obama is going to announce that he is going to use tax money to support medical research using stem cells.

As someone who is generally opposed to government projects, there is an objection to be raised about the use of federal funding, but this is better, in my opinion, than almost all of the other uses we put our money towards.

Stem cell research is one of the most promising lines of medical study in the world, and has been suggested as a potential form of treatment for everything from ALS to Alzheimers to cancer. It has been blocked by religious nutjobs who maintain that stem cells have a soul.

Well, at least we're moving forward. I would love America to stop being superstitious and take its rightful place at the helm of medical discovery. Thanks to the Obama administration for encouraging that.

The Number of Irreligious Growing

2009-03-09T07:01:00.000-07:00

A new poll has discovered, much to my amusement, that the number of religious people in the United States is declining, and that there are more people who claim they have no religious affiliation.

According to the poll:

Fifteen percent of respondents said they had no religion, an increase from 14.2 percent in 2001 and 8.2 percent in 1990, according to the American Religious Identification Survey.

Obviosuly, there are still more Catholics than anything else, but what's interesting is the sharp drop in mainline protestantism, in the study's report.

Christians who aren't Catholic also are a declining segment of the country.

In 2008, Christians comprised 76 percent of U.S. adults, compared to about 77 percent in 2001 and about 86 percent in 1990. Researchers said the dwindling ranks of mainline Protestants, including Methodists, Lutherans and Episcopalians, largely explains the shift. Over the last seven years, mainline Protestants dropped from just over 17 percent to 12.9 percent of the population.

Interesting change in the statistical trend. I do think that the atheist movement, and the secular humanists in general, have grown a lot thanks to religious bullying over teh course of the last eight years, and the failure of the GOP has been a victory for secularism in a very positive way.

Hopefully social issues like Prop. 8, which has seriously swayed in the public opinion since it's passage in November, will continue to keep people questioning religious conservatives and come to the conclusion that these really are an ignorant bunch of people.

Classic Common

2009-03-08T22:17:00.000-07:00

Two Dumb People: Gretta Van Sustern and Bobby Jindal

2009-03-08T09:05:00.000-07:00

This is a painful interview (mostly because of Van Sustern's yelling, but also because the questions are softball crap), but at least Jindal doesn't seem like Mr. Rogers.

Jindal, when he's like this, is a solid conservative candidate, but the secular right, the wealthy upper branch of the conservative movement that is leaving (guys like Hitchens and Will) is going to have a hard time voting for a guy that can have condescending moments like he did in his rebuttle, and a guy that has some serious religious tendencies, with respect of his history as an exorcist.

Personally, I can't vote for anyone who's anti-science. I just can't bring myself to do it. If, at some point in my life, I have a loved one who has a degenerative illness, or cancer, or AIDS, I will never forgive myself unless I have done all that I can to help prevent and treat those diseases. A vote for Jindal is a vote against stem cell research (and personal freedom, but that's another issue), and I won't cast one.

Great Segment with D.L. Hughley

2009-03-07T23:17:00.000-08:00

Interesting insight into the religious right.

My Long Morning

2009-03-07T13:35:00.001-08:00

I've spent a good part of my morning arguing with an illiterate youtube troll who seems to believe in the doctrine of the brother Karamazov who things that "without god, all things are permit."

It's been long and frustrating.

If you want to see a really entertaining bit, though, it's always nice to look back over the Lenski dialogue, now posted on wikipedia.