expelled = no intellignce

Ok, I know I probably should've watched Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed years ago. But, I was waiting so that I wouldn't have to pay to see it, so that I wouldn't give any of my money to the I.D. movement. I did end up having to pay for it, but I bought it at an excellent second-hand bookstore called, Half Price Books. So, none of my money went to creationism.

The movie is probably the second most immoral movie I've ever seen (the Birth of a Nation is still number 1). I think that telling people that I.D. is on the same level as the theory of evolution is extremely misleading. And, that's exactly what this movie does.

It starts out saying that good scientists are losing their jobs because of their skepticism of evolution, or their belief in intelligent design. But, nothing could be further from the truth. Read Skeptic magazine's article on the real reason why Dr. Gonzalez (someone interviewed in the documentary) was denied tenure here.

The rest of the documentary is about how superior intelligent design is to evolution. But, like with all I.D. stuff, it provides no real evidence for I.D. Then, at the end, we get to be lectured that Nazis believed in evolution, and therefore evolution was a necessary component of the Third Reich, Stalinism, and other various forms of social evils. That is, of course, just like I.D., utter nonsense.

I think it's immoral to make such a documentary. The last thing the U.S. needs is for more religious mumbo-jumbo to be mixed up with science. No one who actually knows what they're talking about disagrees with the theory of evolution. The only good thing about this movie is that it did poorly at the box office.

natural cures "they" don't want you to know about... because they're not really cures at all

Alternative medicine seems to be all the rage today. In fact, even my little Midwest town has a "health" food store that sells supplements, natural remedies, and environmentally clean food. And, it's right next to the town's local colon cleansing business. Yes, in this town you can get clean shit, then you can get your shit cleaned out all in one stop!

I think the owners of my local "health" store mean well. But, I just don't think that their products actually do what they say they do. I mean, you know what they call alternative medicine that works, don't you? They call it medicine. Meaning, as soon as there is enough evidence that something (anything) cures an ailment it becomes mainstream medicine. The very fact that we call this stuff alternative medicine means that it's not medicine at all. In other words, that shit don't work!

Just because something is natural, organic, exotic, not genetically modified, herbal, or is some ancient "remedy" doesn't mean it actually works. In fact, in some cases it can be harmful. Go here for a short list of things that can (and have) gone wrong, and became dangerous, when it comes to alternative medicine.

rev. jeremiah right

There's just one more issue about race that I'd like to mention this Black History Month. And that is Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Basically, I don't think that either he, nor Obama, are racist.

First of all, going by some definitions of racist, a person in the oppressed group cannot possibly be racist against the privileged group. Second of all, I have never heard anything that either of them have said that was racist.

I think that Rev. Wright mentioned something about the U.S. government giving black people HIV. And, I don't think there's any evidence for that. But, that's the only thing I've heard him say that was unreasonable. Everything else he's said has been perfectly reasonable, and certainly, nothing he's said has been racist. The same is true of Obama.

The very fact that the two of them have both been painted racists shows you how much work that still needs to be done in the way of race relations in the U.S.

And, the fact that Oprah went to Rev. Wright's church makes me want to laugh hysterically. I mean, just the idea of her being a radical is awesome.

the real spirit of the olympics

I watch the Olympics. Or more to the point, my mom watches the Olympics, therefore I watch the Olympics. I enjoyed watching Michael Phelps in the Summer Olympics, and I'll always watch a good Olympic basketball game, track event, or speed skating event. However, I think the Olympics is indicative of something really, really horrible.

Basically, I think the Olympics preys upon, and instigates jingoism. Besides, the obvious jingoism in all of the flag waving, there is the fact that people just really want to see their nation kick the other nations' asses. And of course, the wealthier the nation, the better training their athletes have, and the more they win. I mean seriously, when has Somalia ever won an event?

I think that if I was amazingly good at a sport and was asked to go to the Olympics, I would turn down the offer. At least, I'd like to think I would. I'm sure, though, that I will continue watching the Olympics with my mom. And the whole time, I'll be thinking about all of the moral implications of me watching this program while I enjoy the spectacular sporting event.

GO SOMALIA!!!

why i hate philosophy

Good philosophy describes science using scientific terminology and logic. Bad philosophy (which, unfortunately, is most philosophy) basically amounts to nothing more than well-educated mumbo-jumbo.

Just look at the many conversations that Bertrand Russell had with Ludwig Wittgenstein. Wittgenstein was always using mumbo-jumbo, and Russell was always the realist. One such conversation went something like this: Wittgenstein said that there could be an elephant in the room with them (even though, there was obviously no space in the room for an elephant). Which prompted Russell to vehemently object, look around the room, and ask Wittgenstein where this elephant could possibly be.

Most philosophy is just mental masturbation. Though, it's not as fun as real masturbation, it serves the same purpose: to entertain the person committing the act without them actually doing anything meaningful.

why not privatize the military?

If you believe that corporations always do a better job than the government, and you want to have the best military in the world, why not privatize the military?

It makes sense to me. If you believe "A" and "B" then you must believe "C."

Of course, it should be mentioned that a great deal of the military is already privatized. Scary, ain't it?

Most people are socialists. It's just that some people want government programs that help people out, and others want government programs that kill people. But, we all want government programs.

i'm a white panther

It's Black History Month, so I'm going to blog a little bit more about race relations in the U.S. The Black Panthers are often times portrayed as the black version of the KKK. In other words, a group full of black people who are racist against white people. And, consequently, they are reviled by the mainstream media, government, and academia (with few exceptions). But, based just on what I know about them, this extremely negative image appears to be very inaccurate.

The Black Panthers gave free breakfasts to elementary school children in low income neighborhoods. They founded and funded free clinics in those same neighborhoods. And, they even helped poor people, of all races, organize since they were primarily socialists.

This is not the gun-toting, violent, racist image of the Panthers that you see in the media,... not at all. Nevertheless, this is the more accurate image. So yeah, I'm giving the Black Panthers some credit.

the new jim crow

Well, it's Black History Month again, so I would like to talk about a serious problem concerning the African-American community. In fact, it's probably that community's biggest problem. It is the huge amount of incarceration of people of color here, in the U.S.

First off, let's get a few facts straight. The U.S. imprisons more people than any other nation in the world (that's including the extremely regressive ones). And, no nation imprisons a higher percentage of its minorities population than the U.S. These facts are sad, but true.

The drug war began in the 1980's and continues right up till today. There is no reason for any drug to be illegal. Which means that a lot of the people that are in prisons are there because they committed a victimless crime.

I am reading a book titled, the New Jim Crow, Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness, by Michelle Alexander. And so far, it's an excellent book. The book describes how the huge increase in incarceration among people of color throughout the 80's, 90's, and 2000's has led to one of the worst racial situations in American history. She puts it in the same league as slavery and Jim Crow. She also writes about how the major civil rights establishment has completely ignored the problem, if they even know about it at all.

There are so many things wrong with the drug war I don't think I could name all of them here. So, I'll just mention a few things. Like I said earlier, there is no reason for any drug to be illegal in the first place. Marijuana is nonlethal and nonaddictive, whereas alcohol and tobacco are both incredibly lethal and addictive. Prevention and treatment is, by far, the most effective way to handle the drug problem. Yet, it receives the least amount of government money when compared to other ways to handle the problem. It is entirely immoral, hypocritical, and probably illegal for the U.S. to destroy drug crops in other countries when we are a country whose economy has historically been centered around the sale of tobacco! Plus, in the process of killing the crops we kill the people of these countries with our chemicals, and we drive them off their own land. Lastly, almost all drug laws, and enforcement of those laws, have been racist and classist. Wealthier white people commit drug offenses just as often as poorer black and brown people do, they just get arrested, convicted, and sentenced less.

If you don't have the freedom to put whatever you want into your own body, then you ain't free! And, if you have racist or classist attitudes or tendencies, just come right out and say it. We can work on it together. But, if you have these feelings, please don't let them influence your decisions on how government should treat minorities and the less privileged. It's a despicable act.

for howard zinn, the moving train has stopped

Unfortunately for us, Howard Zinn can now be neutral.

To all of Dr. Zinn's family and friends: my heart goes out to you.

That is all.

spending freeze?

So, Obama, our savior, is going to try to put a freeze on spending. But only social spending. Which means that we can still increase spending on the two wars we're waging and other various military expenditures. That's just FAN-FUCKIN'-TASTIC!!!

We get to hault spending money on programs that save lives, while still being able to spend money on programs that kill people! Brilliant! Gee, I wonder how this is going to work out.

FULL DISCLOSURE: I'm on medicaid and SSI.

Oh, and this is my 5oth post! YAY FOR ME!

the enemy's soldier

Sometimes, when we hear about wars that the U.S. is involved in, we are told what the total amount of dead U.S. soldiers is. And, on occasion, we are even allowed to know the conservative estimate of total civilian deaths.

How come we are never told what the total deaths of the enemy's soldiers is?

I mean, we are told that they are the enemy, so therefore they don't matter. But surely, these soldiers matter to somebody. A parent. A child. Or, perhaps just a friend. But these people do, indeed, matter.

I doubt that most of these soldiers actually agree with, or even like, the leaders of their armies. Most of these soldiers are forced into joining their armies. In many cases, it is the only way for them to make a living. Much the same as with our own soldiers.

Before we go passing judgment on the morality of our enemy's soldiers and believing that their lives mean nothing, we should try to see that they are not really our enemy, but rather they are the victims of our enemy, so that they don't become the victims of us as well.

children should be allowed to vote

A few months ago, perhaps a whole year ago, an Ohio judge ruled that a homeless person can put the park bench he/she sleeps on as their address when registering to vote. When I heard about this I actually felt a sense of pride from being an Ohioan. Now don't get me wrong, I don't think that voting is the most important, or even the most powerful, ingredient for democracy. In fact, I think that it is very over-hyped. But, I do think it is an essential ingredient for democracy.

Which is why that I think that children, imprisoned convicts, ex-cons, and undocumented immigrants should have the right to vote. In short, the only criteria that one should be forced to meet in order to vote is: are they able to understand that pulling that lever, pushing that button, or punching that hole through the paper indicates that they are voting for that candidate or issue? And, that they live in the region in which they are voting. Their age, police report, and immigration status shouldn't matter at all. I can think of no good reason why these things should matter.

Just think of how much better schools would be if children had a say in what goes on in them. Or, think about how much more humane the U.S.'s immigration laws would be if the very people who are most affected by these laws had the opportunity to make them. Another thing to keep in mind is how George W. Bush managed to win Florida in the 2000 election, or more to the point, why the election was even close. It was close because a lot of Floridians who were ex-cons couldn't vote.

Why no one is even mentioning this issue is indicative of the very reason why this issue exists.

crazy motherfuckers

I'm one crazy motherfucker. Just read my second blog post here to find out how crazy I am, or at least was at one time. But I have embraced my craziness. I have owned my craziness. I have accepted my craziness. And, I would like for other crazy people to do the same with their craziness.

Black people call each other the "N" word, women call each other bitches, white people call each other rednecks. Well, I just want for mentally ill people to call each other crazy motherfuckers. Basically, I want to reclaim the phrase "crazy motherfucker."

I mean, crazy motherfuckers outnumber normal people. We're all over conservative talk radio. Crazy motherfuckers are on the news all the time doing crazy motherfucking stuff. And, most of us get elected to office. So, why the hell shouldn't we own the phrase "crazy motherfuckers?"

I have crazy motherfucker pride!

a world ruled by the catholic church wouldn't be all bad

Both of my parents are Catholic, so I was raised Catholic. But, if you've been following this blog, you'll know that ever since I was mature enough to really understand religion I have been an atheist. There's always been something about the non-religious which has perplexed me. They say that a world ruled by the Catholic church would be a horrible world to live in. Now of course, it would by no means be a perfect world, but it'd be pretty ok.

The Catholic church has said that the big bang, evolution, and climate change theories are all correct. So, you wouldn't get any arguments against those things from the papacy. The church is against the Iraq war, in fact the modern church is against most of the wars that have happened throughout history (including wars that the papacy itself orchestrated!) There is probably no organization in the world that has a more stellar record of helping the poor than the modern church.

I mean sure, the church is bad on many issues. But, on most of them people just ignore the church and go about their business. In fact, in the case of the church's opposition to contraception even devout Catholics ignore the church's teachings.

labor is dead

Here, in the U.S., we are working longer hours for less money per hour than we have in modern history. We have less days off than other, comparable economies. We have, quite possibly, the worst healthcare system in the industrialized world. And, there is some evidence that our poor are worse off than the poor of many European countries. Why is this? Because, in the U.S., the labor movement is dead. And, it was killed by the right wing as the left wing watched.

First off, the labor movement itself is partly to blame for its own demise. It wasn't until the 1990s that the mainstream labor movement invited immigrants to be apart of it. It even took awhile for women and minorities to be accepted. And, none of these demographics are completely accepted. Also, the mainstream U.S. labor movement has yet to help out workers of other countries in any significant way. Considering that they badly need the help, and that U.S. labor should act in solidarity with the labor of other countries, it would be of great benefit to the global labor movement if this happened.

The U.S. government decided in the 70s that it would begin to switch the U.S. economy from a manufacturing-based economy to one that would benefit corporations and a select few individuals more financially. This spelled disaster for the working class. The government also began instituting a stricter neoliberal trading policy for other countries, the U.S. of course being exempt from these policies. This crippled whatever labor movements that existed in developing countries.

Finally, the nail that sealed the coffin of U.S. labor was the left wing. Basically, liberals forgot all about labor unions, the poor, and the working class. They substituted other causes for them. Some, such as gay rights, are noble causes and should be pursued. But unfortunately, others were just plain nonsense, nuanced nonsense, sure, but nonsense nevertheless. These were things such as the alternative medicine movement, tantric sex, and conspiracy theories like the JFK assassination and the 9-11 truth movement. Nuanced nonsense is still just nonsense, only better educated.

It's my opinion that the U.S. needs a rebirth of the labor movement. The concerns of the poor and working classes need to be taken seriously. This means not manufacturing their bigotted concerns of gays and immigrants running a muck. Instead, it means universal healthcare, no war (seeing as how they are the ones who fight wars), free education from K to PhD, and more welfare among other things.

sports and politics

First off, no, this post has nothing to do with Tiger Woods or performance enhancing drugs. It has to do with how sports, sex, and art are used to distract people. In American society, these three things are supposed to be all that we care and think about. If you're not sexualizing some teenage girl *ahem* Miley Cyrus *ahem,* or hero-worshipping some exceptional athlete, then you must be obsessed with Twilight and Britney Spears. You can bet that the elite powers know this, and love it!

Sports, though, is a peculiar one. Not only does it distract people from issues that actually matter, but it does so with such great detail. Just look at all of the lengthy, in-depth, and creative statistics that people know about sports. People who are obsessed with sports know every, single record and stat that they could possibly know. But, how many of these people even know who their representative in Congress is? Shit, I don't even know that!

Also, the best reporting in any newspaper or on any TV channel is always the sports section. They look at a situation from every angle. analyzing it thoroughly. They never just take an athlete, coach, or team executive at their word. They always base their opinion on sound fact.

If regular reporters acted more like sports reporters, they wouldn't be regular reporters at all. They'd be real reporters!

where are the bluedog republicans?

Throughout this entire healthcare mess all that I keep hearing is about how the supposedly liberal wing of the Democrats have to compromise with the right wing of the Democratic party, the so-called Bluedog Democrats. The whole time I'm wondering where are the liberal Republicans? Where are the Bluedog Republicans?

Answer: they don't exist. For a long time now, the U.S. government has been far to the right of the views of the American public. Ranging on everything from healthcare to war, the U.S. government doesn't listen to the American public.

It's partly the public's fault for allowing horrible things to happen in their name right in front of their eyes. It's partly the media's fault for not doing their job. But, it's mostly the fault of government and other concentrations of power for setting up the political system that the U.S. is currently under. We deserve better. We need better.

bill clinton, the psychic

The phrase "fake psychic" is an oxymoron. All psychics are fake, whether they, themselves, realize it or not. They always use one of two techniques: cold reading or hot reading. Sometimes they use both.

Hot reading is when the psychic does something like placing a microphone in the lobby of their place of work to pick up any conversations the victim might have while there to be used later, during the reading, or basically, anytime the psychic knows something about the victim before the reading begins. Though this takes planning, it is usually much easier than cold reading.

Cold reading is when the psychic babbles on during the reading and accidentally stumbles onto something that makes sense to the victim. This is much harder to do than hot reading because it requires a certain amount of conversational and people skills from the psychic.

I suppose that cold reading is able to occur simply because the victim wants it to occur. Afterall, even a die-hard skeptic wants to talk to his/her dead mother just one more time. All that needs to happen is for the victim to forget the five misses, and remember the one hit.

But this forget-the-misses-remember-the-hits phenomenon occurs in other areas of life as well. Just look at American politics. People forget that Bill Clinton orchestrated a murderous sanctions policy against Iraq, cut welfare, and led an immoral war in eastern Europe. But, they remember that the economy did well under him (if you were wealthy). And so, people regard him as being a good president. It's basically the same for Reagan and Kennedy as well.

Just because you wanted something to happen, doesn't mean it actually happened. This is the reason why people pray, seek alternative medicine, and believe that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. You wanting something to happen is not the same as you willing something to happen. The latter requires work.

my love / hate relationship with bill maher

Religulous was a great movie, no doubt about it. And, most of the time, Bill Maher is correct in his analysis of religion. Which is why it is so hard for me to understand his preoccupation with medicine. Apparently, he thinks that Americans are taking too many pills and not questioning vaccines enough.

Given that Americans are largely underdiagnosed, or, perhaps even worse, misdiagnosed I can't understand how he comes to his conclusions about pills. He once said that no one ever got a headache due to an aspirin deficiency. This is true, aspirin deficiency is not the cause of a headache. But, aspirin does, quite often, alleviate the symptom of headache. He is a believer in holistic medicine, whatever the hell that means. Here's a little snippet from the American Holistic Medical Association:

Founded in 1978, the AHMA remains true to its original mission, serving as the leading advocate for the use of holistic and integrative medicine by all licensed healthcare providers. We embrace integrative, complementary and alternative medicine techniques; we hold onto what is helpful in allopathic medicine, and we understand that healing includes your body, your mind, your emotions, and your spirit.

'Nough said.

As for his thing about vaccinations, I haven't the foggiest idea of as to why someone might think that maybe vaccines are a bad thing. Vaccinations might be the greatest life-saver in human history. And, when you add in natural vaccinations, such as someone getting a few flu germs in them from someone with the flu, well then you're talking about the greatest life-saver of all-time for any species. Period.

Bill Maher dazzles me with his wit and critical thinking skills, but he amazes me with his diligent support of contrarity.

what richard dawkins gets wrong

Richard Dawkins does a lot of great work, and he is very knowledgeable. However, he does one thing wrong. I assume that his goal is to reduce religiosity in the world, which I do not disagree with him on. But, where I disagree with him is how he goes about doing this. My suggestion to him would be, rather than nit-pick at everyone's irrationalities, he should spread freedom and democracy throughout the world. Because, where there is much freedom, there is little religiosity, and vice versa.

There is, however, one glaring exception to this rule: the U.S. The U.S. is a very religious country considering how free it is. That is because Americans don't see themselves as being very free. We have the freedom to speak out against our own government in any way we see fit. Yet, we rarely do so because we live in an incredibly democratically deficient society. Our democratic institutions barely function, if at all. Even though we have near complete control over our lives, we do not perceive the situation as such. And so, we turn to religion for some sense of control over our lives.

But, it wasn't always like this in the U.S. In the 1920's and 30's, when the labor movement was strong, we believed we had more control over our lives, because in many ways we did, that is if you were white. But, during the 1950's there was a sort of "atomization" of society. Basically, it was the suburbanization of the country. Before it, you lived, went to school, went to church, shopped, and worked all in the same neighborhood. So, community activism was much easier, and people actually knew what was going on, perhaps not on the other side of the planet, but they certainly knew what was going on in their own backyards. Nowadays, you're lucky to do just two of those things in the same neighborhood.

This atomization was what mostly spurred on the great religious revival of the 1950's. Before it, Americans were much less religious than they are now. Sure, if you had asked Americans in the 20's and 30's if they were Christians, you'd get a higher percentage to say "yes" than if you were to ask the same question to Americans of the present. However, if you were to ask about specific stories of the Bible, such as talking snakes, a man walking on water, or changing water to wine, you'd find more people saying that they believe in these things nowadays than in the beginning of the twentieth century.

So, if Dr. Dawkins is to ever conquer religion he is going to have to build up freedom and democracy, not tear down irrationality and absurdity. Although, I suppose doing the latter would help too.

my love / hate relationship with michael moore

Lately, I've been watching a lot of Michael Moore documentaries. I watch them more for his humor than anything else. But, you would think I'd watch them for their facts since I agree with him on pretty much everything. But, I have my issues with him.

Although I have never seen his documentary, "Roger and Me," I've heard it was about him trying to get a meeting with the CEO of GM. Apparently, that's what the entire movie was based on. And, he did indeed get that meeting. The only thing is, he didn't put it in the movie. You'd think that would be something important to the movie and that it should be in it. But, that's not how Moore saw it.

Hearing stories like this makes me wonder about his sincerity. But then, he does stuff like this:



and, I'm right back to loving him.

my love / hate relationship with penn & teller

When I first saw Penn and Teller's Showtime series, Bullshit, I was ecstatic! I thought, "finally, a show that gets religion right, and is entertaining as well!" At the time, I also kinda aligned with them politically because I was kinda flirting with free-market libertarianism. But, the more that I thought about it, the less enchanted I became with that particular branch of politics. I was becoming more and more of a socialist.

Meanwhile, Penn and Teller still ardently believed in capitalism. There was a growing schism between us. I think it started when I realized exactly how sure they were that capitalism was good, because I certainly had many questions about it.

Nowadays, I figure that I'm as certain about capitalism not being good as they're certain that it is good. I still love them though for their genuine sincerity. I just don't always agree with them anymore, especially when it comes to economics. But, they're still balls-on-accurate when it comes to religion. And perhaps most importantly, they still make me laugh when they call the hustlers assholes.

liberal media, b.s.

Think back to the start of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. Can you think of one, single person in the mainstream U.S. news that condemned these wars with a principled argument? I'll bet you can't. Because there wasn't.

Even today, it's hard to find a principled argument against these wars. Sure, you can find plenty of news people saying that these wars have become too costly (money, not blood), that we are fighting a losing battle, that we made a "mistake," or there is even the absolutely racist and absurd opinion that Arabs are too stupid to use democracy properly, so we shouldn't bother "liberating" them.

I would like to hear one of these supposedly liberal commentators say something like, "the Afghanistan and Iraq wars are illegal, immoral, and murderous. They are crimes against humanity. Those who orchestrated them, and those who continue to orchestrate them, should be charged with war crimes."

But, the one person who I would love to hear from, and the one person who nobody ever hears from, is the Afghan and Iraqi person. Their voice is never heard. And yet, it is the only one that should matter.

the real reason why 2012 matters

December 21, 2012 is a date that has many people very nervous. Supposedly, that's the day the Mayan calendar ends. So, obviously, that's the day the world has to end. You know, because people have been so incredibly accurate at predicting the end of the world in the past; and certainly, with the Mayan's superior knowledge (they were, afterall, an ancient society, so they kinda have to have knowledge vastly superior to ours) on the end of the world it must be true, right? In reality though, this date is just as randomly arbitrary as any other date. However, given all the hoopla, I'm sure there will be a small group of people who will commit suicide the day before. And this (no joking here) will definitely be tragic. But, there is another tragedy here.

The nervousness some people feel about this date points to something that runs much deeper, and is much more problematic. As a society, we are scared of a human-made apocalypse. We aren't scared at all about a huge asteroid hitting us, or any other type of natural apocalypse. No, we're just scared of the human-made ones, such as nuclear war and global warming. We intuitively know that there's nothing we can do about the natural disasters, so we don't worry about them as much. We worry about the human-made ones precisely because we know there are steps we can take to avoid them. And yet, we are doing absolutely nothing.

In the case of nuclear war, for example, the U.S. was about two minutes away from it with Russia on January 25, 1995. The Russian military mistook a U.S. scientific probe that was launched in Norway to be a nuclear missile heading for Russia. Yeltsin was two minutes away from firing a real nuclear missile back at the U.S. when it was determined that the Norwegian rocket would have landed well outside of Russia. And so, Yeltsin never gave the orders. Read about it here. And yet, we still have nuclear missiles on hair-trigger warnings. In the case of global warming, the three most recent U.S. presidents, the O-bomb, the W, and Slick Willie have all, in one way or another, rejected the Kyoto protocols. And, the Kyoto protocols are by no means a cure. Read about that here.

So you see, there are real reasons to be concerned about the end of the world. And, there are real things we could be doing about it. And, we know it. But, we don't believe that our government will listen to us..., um..., because they don't listen to us. That's why anytime someone mentions the end of the world people go ape-shit.

So, when December 22, 2012 rolls around, I'll be saying, "I told you so!" And, we'll all still probably be fucked anyway.

why i love noam chomsky

trying to understand the nonunderstandable

I don't disagree with religion. Of course, I don't agree with it either. But the point is I can't disagree or agree with it. You can disagree or agree with capitalism, socialism, democracy, the theory of evolution, or even the efficacy of Phil Jackson's triangle offense. Why? Because you can understand all of those things, and then decide whether or not you agree with them.

Before deciding on whether or not you agree with something, there are two things you must do first. The first step is to assume the subject in question is, in fact, understandable. Then, you must understand it fully. Only then, after completing these first two steps, can you decide on your agree-ability with it.

However if you cannot understand it, then you're stuck on step two. In the case of religion, I am perpetually stuck on step two. I have no problem assuming religion is understandable. That part is easy. But, actually understanding it? Now that's quite difficult. In fact, it's probably impossible. Trying to comprehend the concept of "god" is enough to make me slam my head against the wall in frustration. And, when you're trying to think clearly, slamming your head against the wall is not what you should be doing!

So you see, I never get to the part where I get to decide whether I agree with religion. I'm just trying to understand it. So, there are three possible conclusions to draw from this. Either I have not studied religion enough to understand it, I do not have the mental capacity to understand it, or religion is inherently nonunderstandable. Going by the title of this post, I think you can guess which one I'm banking on.

why i hate theology

I'm on Myspace. And at one time, I had a thread going in one of their forums. The original post in this thread was a statement I made about there not being a god. And, the rest of the thread was one big debate on the existence of a god. It started out fun. But, I began to notice that the exact same lines of logic were given all the time for the existence of a god, and sure enough, the exact same lines of logic were given in rebuttal... all the time.

Eventually, I grew tired of the same arguments being used all the time. So, I was kinda glad that the thread, which I started, got removed. But, observing the world around me, I still have yet to find a different argument for the existence of a god. All of the arguments I know of have been perfectly rebutted. In fact, to be honest with you, to the best of my knowledge, there has been no new arguments since the 1600's. And, as I said, those have been perfectly rebutted.

I mean, if there was some new argument, we could analyze it, and come to a conclusion about it. But, the same old arguments yield nothing but the same old conclusions.

Frankly, the way to sway the skeptics isn't through philosophy. It's through evidence. If you're not going to provide evidence for the existence of a god, and all you're going to do is try to philosophize with me, I'll just ignore you. Because, I've heard it all before. If you have no evidence, I'm not going to believe in it. You can have all of the philosophy and theology doctorate degrees in the world, and you can debate with other philosophers who, though they don't believe in God, still have no idea what they're talking about; I'm sure that the two of you will have a very intellectually stimulating conversation, but I want no part of it. Unless you have some evidence, it'll be boring and it'll lead to nowhere. I don't need a doctorate's degree to know that I shouldn't believe in something that there is no evidence for.

All of this begs the question: exactly what, then, do they teach in theology classes at the collegiate level? If there isn't evidence for it, then it's nothing. Therefore, theology is the study of nothing. You might as well teach a class on the study of scientology! I'm sure it would be a very intellectually stimulating class about absolutely nothing. But it's still just nothing. So, why should theology be taught in universities? It doesn't make sense to me, and I know nothing.

ohio's death penalty

I live in Ohio. And as such, I feel compelled to blog about the death penalty. A man, who was on death row for several years, had his execution date set to be a few days ago. But, when the executioner was searching for a vein, so that they could inject the poison to kill the prisoner, there was no vein to be found. The executing team spent about two hours searching for a vein in all of the prisoner's extremities. They never found a vein. As it turns out, the prisoner was a former heroin addict. This occurred here, in Ohio.

After reading about this, I started thinking about the death penalty in general. It's known that even lethal injection can be extremely inhumane. Sometimes the prisoner just suffocates to death, because the paralyzing drug works but the lethal drug doesn't. We also know that many innocent people have been put to death, as well as many more who have been on death row, but later exonerated.

I believe that prisoners should have their entire lives to prove that they are innocent. Their lives shouldn't be cut short due to vigilante-style attitudes that would rather see an innocent person be punished, than for no one to be punished.

As for this particular case in Ohio, I don't know if what happened constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment" and therefore shouldn't be tried again. I just know that it never should have been tried at all in the first place, no matter how heinous the crime was. And it certainly was heinous.

hannitycare

According to the pundits, Sean Hannity included, nationalized healthcare would destroy America. The biggest problem, they say, would be that it would lead to government rationing of healthcare. In other words, if you're old, the government might say that you are too old to get a surgery, and so you won't be able to get it. Or, that you won't be able to get a certain drug because it costs too much. Glenn Beck even brought up a case where, in England, a man in his twenties who was an acoholic desperately needed a liver transplant. But, he wasn't able to get one due to the fact that he couldn't prove to the socialized, Brittish healthcare agency that he would never drink again. Well, I've got news for you, pundits: In America, THIS ALREADY HAPPENS!!!!!

Full disclosure: I receive medicaid. But, I also work in a retail pharmacy. In America, if you're old and have private health insurance, you might very well be denied treatment based on your age. Insurance corporations have the "right" to do this. They also have the "right" to deny people drugs based on their cost. I've seen it happen a million times in my pharmacy. And, if you're an alcoholic who desperately needs a liver transplant who can't prove that you'll never drink again, you automatically get placed last in the line to receive a transplant. Why? Because, you, unlike many other people with failing livers, caused your liver problems by drinking. None of this is anything new in America.

I wonder, do these pundits believe that a sick person should be denied medical care in emergency rooms because they don't have health insurance? Well, if they don't, then they would certainly believe that that person should be treated as cheaply as possible. And, it just so happens that the cheapest way to treat most of these cases is through preventative care. That means that it is cheaper to pay for their healthcare throughout their life than it is to wait until a mild health problem turns into a health catastrophe and pay for their care in the emergency room. So, let's do the smart, humane, and economically sound thing, and bring socialized medicine to the U.S.

moon-landing deniers and intelligent design

Just recently, I learned that there are a group of people who deny that Neil Armstrong (or for that matter anyone else) ever walked on the moon. In fact, they say that we have never even landed on the moon! This is a very intriguing belief as it is not widely held.

Now, of course, they have a lot of different kinds of "evidence" to support their claim. However, their denial of the moon landing stems from their amazement of the event itself, I believe. The actual moon landing event was so far from what people thought of as possible that the entire event seemed decidedly impossible. In other words, their amazement of how complicated the event had to have been in order to have occurred clouded their reasoning, and so they found it impossible to believe that it did indeed happen. And yet, it happened by way of many, simple procedures!

The same mental phenomenon occurs in the minds of the people who believe in intelligent design. They look at something natural and complex, such as a human cell, and say that it is so amazing that it could not have came to be through a simple process. An intelligent designer must have created it! Their amazement of how complex it is clouds their reasoning, and so they believe that something even more complex and amazing must have created it! And yet, it evolved by way of many, simple procedures.