sapien's place

stirring the pot

2011-09-27T18:51:00.000-07:00

Now that all the brouhaha over the 10th anniversary of 9-11 (make that the second 9-11, as people in Chile call it) is pretty much over I will post a comment I posted on an article in one of my local newspapers. Here is the article. Below is my comment.

I can remember where I was and what I was doing on the morning of 09/11/01. I was 20 years old and was at work in the OSU Cancer Center labs washing lab glassware as I was listening to NPR discuss the incident as it happened. I thought it would be a great opportunity for the U.S. to go on an anti-terrorism crusade. And, I was hopeful that that’s what would happen.

But, that was not what happened. Instead, we simply engaged in terrorism ourselves by starting two wars (which seem to have no end in sight). We also made things as hideous as torture officially part of our national “security” strategy.

I mean, suppose the KKK, a U.S. terrorist group, were to become extremely ambitious and go over to Nigeria and kill about 3,000 Nigerians. Would this give Nigeria not only the right, but in fact, the obligation to start bombing the U.S.? I think not. If it’s not ok for them to do it, then it’s not ok for us to do it.

What should’ve happened after 9/11 was good, solid police work. We should’ve arrested those we suspected of being responsible for the heinous act and brought them to trial. If convicted, they could’ve been sent to prison. It’s that simple. No lives lost.

To be honest, I really don’t know what killing innocent people has to do with defending my freedom. In fact, in a way, I think I’d rather not even have my freedom if it meant that so many people have to die. Since the U.S., my country, has taken these actions, and I have not done enough to stop it from happening, I am a much less moral person. Pride is not what I will be feeling on the 10^th anniversary of 9/11. I will, however, be feeling shame, guilt, sorrow and, yes, even anger.

Howdya like it?

i'm not racist, but...

2011-07-03T18:42:00.000-07:00

I'm not racist, sexist, or homophobic. But....

..., that's all. I'm just not any of those things.

my thoughts on the killing of osama bin laden

2011-06-30T11:55:00.000-07:00

I'm sure that Bin Laden did everything that people said he did. But, when he was killed he was unarmed. In fact, apparently, his greatest defense was when one of his wives threw herself at one of the commandos. But, the U.S. commandos killed him anyway, rather than simply arresting him and bringing him to trial. Everyone, and I mean everyone, has a right to a trial. So in my opinion, killing Bin Laden was an injustice.

And because of this, I think that all the celebrating that went on in the U.S. over his killing was really very ultra-nationalist and jingoist. I didn't understand it. I mean, I understand the desire to keep him from committing another atrocity. But, I don't understand why that automatically meant that he had to be killed, not arrested.

Also, I can't help but think that the reason why we killed him was because we really didn't have any serious evidence against him. I mean, do you remember the U.S. government ever producing any evidence? Now, I do believe that he did it. But, it's just a belief, it's not something that I know to be true from overwhelming evidence. That being said, I am glad that at least he won't be able to kill anyone.

P.S. Couldn't we have done this before the invasion that has lasted approximately ten years?

a challenge to believers

2010-09-23T05:31:00.000-07:00

Of course, anytime someone tells me that they believe in something or identify as something, I have no reason to not believe them. So, I assume that they believe as they say they believe or are what they say they are. However, sometimes I wonder if they actually believe in it, or if they just think that they believe it.

Every time someone tells me that they believe in God I perform the following thought experiment in my head. Suppose the person's life depends completely on whether or not they pull a lever. If the lever gets pulled, they live. But, if the lever isn't pulled, they die. How would they go about pulling the lever? Well, I believe that everyone I have ever known in my life would just simply walk over to the lever and pull it. Which makes them all nonbelievers in God. Because, if they believed in God, they would pray to God that He will pull the lever for them. Afterall, what if the building they are in caves in before they could reach the lever? You see, anything could happen that would prevent them from pulling the lever. But, if God tried to do it, surely it would get done since God can do anything. And, since God answers all prayers, praying to Him would be the best course of action for the true believer.

This little thought experiment points to the biggest flaw in religious beliefs: they defy logic and nature. If you hate your job, you wouldn't pray to God that He gives you a million dollars so that you can retire. No, instead you go to work every day because you know you have to put food on the table. And, if someone tells you that if you toss a ball in the air it will never come down, you know not to believe them because you know that gravity exists. Religion is that voice telling you the ball will not come back down. Logic is that voice telling you it will!

my epiphany

2010-09-05T08:48:00.000-07:00

I consider myself to have been born an atheist in the sense that I was born without a single religious belief, including a belief in a god. I don't remember the first time I was told that God existed, but I'm sure that I believed that person as soon as they told me. That is, in so far as a child can believe in something like God.

I also believe that from a very young age I had a hunch that most power structures in the world were illegitimate. I knew that corporations and governments, if left unchecked, did very bad things. Now, I had no idea what these things were, but remember this was just a hunch I had as a little kid.

I don't think that my parents took me or my sister to church when we were infants or toddlers (at least I can't remember going). Even though, both of my parents were Roman Orthodox Catholics. I can, however, remember my mom reading Greek and Roman mythology to us. In these stories there were giants, centaurs, and many other exotic creatures. I remember my mom telling us that people believed these stories to be true a long time ago, but that nowadays everyone just sees them as being very fantastic myths.

I grew up listening to my mom and her parents talk about how my grandpa was on strike a lot at his mine or factory. And how very pro-labor union they were as a family. They were also an Italian immigrant family.

Then, my parents started taking us to church. I liked Catholic church. It was peaceful. There was a sense of calmness about it. And, I enjoyed getting dressed up. We went to Sunday School. But, since it was Catholic, it was taught on Wednesdays. I found that to be boring. I remember one of my "Sunday" School teachers telling me as a teenager that if I looked at a woman in lust I have committed a horrible sin, and that if I didn't repent, I wasn't going to go to Heaven. I thought, "hasn't everyone, at some time, looked at another person in lust? Are we all going to Hell? Why would a just god, who loved us, do something like that?" I never really believed anything the "Sunday" School teacher told me, but I didn't put up a big fight about it either.

As a young teenager I reached the mental age where you start looking for answers to big questions about the world. And so, I became very interested in religion and politics, but especially religion. But, not just the Catholic religion, all religions. I found all religions to be basically made of the same stuff: essentially, it was all Greek and Roman mythology. It was all stuff about things that couldn't possibly have happened and creatures that couldn't possibly have existed. I began thinking that maybe all religion was just nonsense. So, at that point, I began considering myself an atheist.

I still had yet to find a really good political identity though. I just knew that I didn't like the Democrats, and I liked the Republicans just a little bit less. I can remember the first time I knew, for sure, that my government was lying to me. I heard on the news that President Clinton had started the Kosovo bombings. Then, I heard on the news that atrocities had taken place in Kosovo (after the bombings). How did President Clinton justify the bombings he ordered? Well, he simply said that the atrocities happened before the bombings, and that the bombings were meant to stop full-on genocide! This mostly passed without question in the press. My political ideas had just begun to take shape. But, my views on religion were already pretty well grounded.

My line of reasoning about religion lasted about seven years, until I was 21 and I had an epiphany about the theory of evolution and the last bits of religious belief left me. I came to this epiphany while wondering how organic things, full of life, could be exactly the same as inorganic things, non-living. Because, I knew from my chemistry classes that organic and inorganic things were made of exactly the same stuff. I was also thinking about how an inorganic, and therefore lifeless, earth could give rise to life. The idea that inorganic and organic material is made of exactly the same stuff profoundly changed the way I thought about religious beliefs.... I no longer had any.

I began personally denouncing things that, though they weren't established religions, were religions in my mind. Things such as alternative medicine, UFOs, conspiracy theories, spiritualism, psychics and other pseudo-scientific nonsense. Which, I now consider to be religion because of their anti-science tendencies.

I also began to search for other people in the media who had the same epiphany I had. And, I found a great deal of them. One, in particular, was Noam Chomsky. I knew that Noam Chomsky was an atheist, like me. But, that he was also an anarchist and socialist. I could get down with anarchism easily. If you believe in extreme democracy, as everyone I know does, then you are automatically an anarchist. But, his socialism was a bit more difficult for me to understand. So it took a little while, but eventually I came around to believing that corporations were nothing more than private tyrannies. And, that if governmental tyrannies were illegitimate power structures, then so were corporations, and I became a socialist.

"Socialist," "anarchist," "atheist," these are difficult words in our society to be associated with. Hell, they were difficult for me to associate with, and still are! Because, they are "scare words." Words meant to scare people away from being allies or sympathizers to their technical definitions. They are meant to conjure up images of punk-rocking arsonists running amok, raising hell. Not dedicated, rational organizers trying to make a better life for themselves and others, which is the definition of the words that I choose to associate myself with.

memorial day

2010-05-31T11:46:00.000-07:00

It's Memorial Day. Which, for me means going to an excellent movie festival called Cinevent here in Ohio. It also means that I get to laugh at my dad for putting up so many American flags. One is fine, two is patriotic, but three is overkill.

I'm sure that the O-Bomb will give some speech at some patriotic place somewhere. But, I won't be listening. I don't care at all what politicians have to say about the troops, because I don't think that Obama and Co. care at all about them. If he did care about them, I doubt he'd be deploying so many of them to their deaths, or to other people's deaths. Which is worse, to be killed or to kill? I don't know. I just know it sucks all the way around... for everyone.

Today should've been the day that our government really thanked the troops..., by bringing them home to their families.

keep the government out of my medicare!

2010-04-24T17:51:00.000-07:00

A lot of tea partiers are white, male, middle to upper class, and over the age of 45. This didn't surprise me. But, the fact that about half of them are either on medicare themselves or they have someone in their family on medicare, and about half of them are either on some form of social security or have someone in their family on SS is extremely interesting to me. Those figures are according to a New York Times/CBS News poll. Keep in mind that this probably isn't a very scientific poll, but it is a telling poll.

The reason these figures are so interesting is that they describe the whole Tea Party Movement perfectly. The tea partiers think that their hard earned money is being taken from them and given to lazy, black, poor people. But, people who receive government help aren't lazy. Hell, most of them aren't even black. But yet, this is the image we have in our heads of someone who receives government help. The tea partiers, like everyone else, love big government when it helps them out. But for some reason, the tea partiers don't like big government when it helps someone else out.

For years now the phrase "big government liberal" has been code for the phrase "someone who wants to give white people's money to poor, lazy, black people." And it's about damn time this message stopped! Only someone with racist tendencies, conscious or unconscious, believes this sort of language. Now of course, not everyone who believes that social programs are bad is racist. But, that doesn't change the message that so many people hear on a daily basis.

The tea partiers are made up of people who have, for the past thirty years, seen their wages stagnate or decline, their benefits gone down, and their work hours greatly increase. All the while their productivity has increased, and their CEOs' salaries have sky-rocketed. Of course they're pissed off. Who wouldn't be? But, this is the fault of big business. They shouldn't take their anger out on the poor.

I will leave you with a paraphrasing of a letter to the editor that I read in a newspaper recently:

The tea partiers don't want to pay taxes? Fine. They shouldn't have to pay taxes then. But, since they aren't paying any taxes, they can't use any government programs. They can't use streets and highways. They can't use medicare, medicaid, or social security, they can't use public education or transportation. If their house is on fire, they can't use the fire departments. If they get mugged, they can't use the police departments. And, if international terrorists take them hostage, the military won't rescue them. We can live in our "socialism," and they can live in their "utopia."

FULL DISCLOSURE: I am on medicaid and SSI.

the cost of coal

2010-04-13T17:19:00.000-07:00

What happened in West Virginia earlier this month was horrific. But, it'll be even more horrific if steps aren't taken to reduce the number of miners who die in mines every year. You shouldn't have to risk your life just to do your job. If we had a functioning labor movement in the U.S. this probably wouldn't have happened.

One way to reduce the amount of deaths in coal mines is to become a mostly nuclear powered country. There are fewer deaths in nuclear power plants than in coal mines. And an additional benefit is that it's cleaner for the environment. The only trouble is in where to store the nuclear waste. But, I'm sure that proper arrangements can be made.

I'm a grandson of a coal miner. And I can tell you that working in a coal mine is like having a second family. My heart really goes out to all those affected by this tragedy. I only hope that we learn that safety regulations, compliance with safety regulations, and enforcement of safety regulations are an absolute must-have.

mumbo-jumbo

2010-03-18T15:52:00.000-07:00

I just now read here that a phrase I've used in this blog probably has racist origins. Mumbo-jumbo is apparently derived from white people making fun of indigenous Africans' rituals. However silly these rituals may have been (and perhaps, still are), there is waaaaaay more than just a tinge of racism here. And, I want no part of it. So from now on, I will not use the term, mumbo-jumbo. Instead, I will say, "gibberish," or "gobbledygook," or "bullshit."

expelled = no intelligence

2010-03-06T11:30:00.000-08:00

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

2010-03-02T16:52:00.000-08:00

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

2010-02-18T20:36:00.000-08:00

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

2010-02-15T13:29:00.000-08:00

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 plays 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

2010-02-09T16:17:00.000-08:00

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?

2010-02-04T16:34:00.000-08:00

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

2010-02-03T18:52:00.000-08:00

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

2010-02-02T11:17:00.000-08:00

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

2010-01-27T21:44:00.000-08:00

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?

2010-01-27T15:20:00.000-08:00

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

2010-01-25T17:45:00.000-08:00

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

2010-01-23T17:47:00.000-08:00

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

2010-01-09T20:41:00.000-08:00

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

2010-01-01T21:07:00.000-08:00

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

2009-12-22T11:16:00.000-08:00

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

2009-12-13T18:30:00.000-08:00

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?

2009-12-12T18:00:00.000-08:00

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

2009-11-29T17:17:00.000-08:00

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

2009-11-23T17:20:00.000-08:00

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

2009-11-22T14:58:00.000-08:00

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

2009-11-18T20:36:00.000-08:00

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

2009-11-17T10:54:00.000-08:00

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.

2009-11-16T16:32:00.000-08:00

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

2009-11-15T12:36:00.000-08:00

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

2009-11-14T17:31:00.000-08:00

trying to understand the nonunderstandable

2009-11-12T21:58:00.000-08:00

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

2009-09-22T18:29:00.000-07:00

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

2009-09-20T18:45:00.000-07:00

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

2009-07-27T05:21:00.000-07:00

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

2009-07-12T19:00:00.000-07:00

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.

robert s. mcnamara

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

So, at age 93, Robert S. McNamara died. What I don't get about this guy isn't that he orchestrated the Kennedy/ Johnson war machine, it's the fact that he had an "epiphany" on the Vietnam war and recently determined it to be a horrible mistake. Funny, whenever a politician has an "epiphany," it is exactly when the political winds change and are blowing in the opposite direction. But, that's not really what I want to talk about.

First of all, the Vietnam war was no mistake! It was an intentional assault on the Vietnamese people to gain a foothold in their land. It was an act of imperialism. Plain and simple.

Second of all, it doesn't do much good to have an epiphany about something twenty years after it happened (he wrote a book about his "epiphany" in 1995). I mean, if only he was in a position of power during the '60s so he could have changed the Vietnam policy... um... you know, like the Secretary of Defense, or something!!!!

I watched an interview of him given by Brian Lamb in 1995 on C-Span. It was a good interview. He rightfully claimed that nuclear war almost broke out during the Cuban missile crisis in 1962. But, he failed to mention that it was completely due to horrible U.S. and Russian policy decisions. The orders to fire nuclear weapons at the U.S. were, in fact, given; but fortunately, ignored by the Russian officer who, apparently, had at least an ounce of humanity in him.

Frankly, I don't care at all if Mr. McNamara is sorry for what he did. Would it make a damn bit of difference to you if the murderer of your child apologized to you? It wouldn't to me. And, I doubt it does to all the Vietnamese who lost loved ones, homes, and security due to the actions of Mr. McNamara.

I would say Rest In Peace, but fortunately for Mr. McNamara, there is no afterlife.

why pay for sex when the government fucks you all the time?

2009-07-06T13:33:00.000-07:00

The American government has the perfect gig. We give it as much money as it wants, and it puts the money towards whatever project will benefit it the most. Most of our federal tax dollars go to the war machine. But, do we have a decent healthcare system? No. Do we have a decent education system? No. But, look on the bright side, if any other country so much as looks at us the wrong way, we can bomb the world to holy fuck and back. Now, doesn't that make you feel better?

Now of course, I'm a guy who collects both social security (SSI) and medicaid. So, it would be hypocritical of me to join the Tea Party partiers. But, I have to say, if we didn't spend so damn much on "defense," and kept to spending only on necessary things (healthcare, education, welfare, etc.), I think we could probably retain some of that tax money as citizens.

And why the hell does government spend any money whatsoever on the arts, or libraries? Are they telling us that an abstract painting and War and Peace are more important than someone's life who can't afford healthcare?

I question the Tea Party partiers' motives, but my heart is with them.

george tiller, the hope fulfiller

2009-06-01T20:36:00.000-07:00

Sorry about the lame title, I just had to find something that rhymed with "Tiller" that wasn't "killer."

Anyway, I'm not going to talk about whether or not abortion should be legal, and under what circumstances. I've already discussed that here. Instead, I'm going to talk about HOW IN THE HELL A MAN WHO MADE A LIVING SAVING WOMEN'S LIVES CAN BE KILLED WHILE ATTENDING CHURCH!!!!!!!!

To be perfectly honest with you, I have the deepest respect for people who are pro-life. They believe that the most innocent, helpless people among us are being murdered, and yet all that they do is stage friendly protests. That's being pro-life. The person who did this, however, does not qualify.

It is one thing to have an extreme viewpoint. Most people have at least one. Hell, damn near all of my viewpoints are extreme. So, there's nothing wrong with being an extremist. But, there is never any reason to be a fanatic. Fanatics flew planes into the World Trade Center. Fanatics orchestrated the Holocaust. And, a fanatic, unfortunately, took the life of George Tiller while he was attending church because he was providing women with life-saving medical procedures.

Now, I know that this was just one man, and that there are millions of people dying at the hands of other people everyday. But, for some reason, this one murder just gets to me.

If Dr. Tiller's family and friends are reading this, I want you to know that you have my sympathy. My heart goes out to you.

star trek and real physics

2009-05-27T14:16:00.000-07:00

I just watched the new Star Trek movie. And, I loved it! But, I just couldn't get past the irrationality of it's plot. Oh, and yes, I am one of those super geeks that can't just simply appreciate a good movie without overanalyzing every minute detail of it to make sure it could actually happen in real life. So, bear with me, please.

First of all, warp speed (a speed faster than the speed of light) is complete bullshit. 'Nuff said. Second of all, "beaming" people up? Bullshit as well. But, neither of these is what I want to discuss. I want to talk about black holes and time-travel. Every physicist believes that black holes exist. But, if your spaceship was as close to one as big as the ones in the movie, your ass would be grass for sure. It's gravitational pull would suck you in before you even had a chance to react.

And time-travel? Well, I suppose that there are some physicists who believe that black holes lead to worm holes which enable you to travel through time. But, suppose you did, in fact, travel through time. Whatever you did in this new time (if it was the past) would, certainly, change present-day. What if you killed your past-self? If you killed your past-self, then you wouldn't have lived long enough to kill your past-self. Or, did I just blow your mind, man? So, traveling to the past is impossible. And, since the future is utterly unknowable and unattainable, it's impossible to travel to the future.

I suppose that that's the magic of movies, and why I love them so much. Movies can make the impossible..., well..., possible!

Live long and prosper.

just another liberal kissing malcolm x's ass

2009-05-20T19:43:00.000-07:00

Ok, I get it, Malcolm X was a ccmplex man, and his life was inspirational. Fine. But, don't tell me that I should admire someone who advocated violence and racial segregation.

If you don't believe that the KKK's advocation of racial segregation was a good idea, then you can't believe that Malcolm X's was a good idea. If you don't believe in one, then you can't believe in the other. But, if you believe in one, then you automatically believe in the other. Because, there is no difference between the two philosophies.

Everytime someone mentions King, Ghandi, Malcolm X, or Che there is no shortage of use of the word "great." And, this implies that in order to make meaningful, positive social change someone has to be "great." This builds apathy. Oh, and I hate to break the news to you, but Ghandi was racist, and Che was a warmonger.

But never mind all that! If you're a liberal you must kiss these people's asses!

Tell me, how can you claim to hate segregation, bigotry and violence, and at the same time worship people who are segregationists, bigots, and warmongers?

I am writing this in response partly to all the foaming at the mouth of other liberal bloggers about Malcolm X's birthday (which was a few days ago). But, mostly because I am tired of people hero-worshipping people that they don't even know.

the wisest thing anyone has ever said is: "i don't know."

2009-05-18T16:39:00.000-07:00

I can remember that, as a kid, I realized that you could ask the question, "why?" in response to anything anyone ever said about anything. My mom would say, "good morning."

I'd respond, "why?"

"It's a good morning because I'm happy and it's morning."

"Why?"

You can just imagine how much my parents loved this realization I had. I actually thought that I was the only kid who figured this out. But apparently, every kid goes through this stage.

My parents would usually answer my "why's" by saying three words, "I don't know." I thought that this was just a cop-out; that if they really wanted to answer me, they could look up the answer. So, it was never satisfying. But, looking back on it now that I'm an adult, I do believe that the simple phrase, "I don't know," is actually the wisest phrase ever uttered.

It's not smart, because it doesn't answer the question, but it is wise because it is absolutely true. If you don't know something, such as how the universe began, or if there is a god, just say, "I don't know." Don't say that you believe aliens with superior intelligence created the universe. Don't scramble to find an answer, any old answer. Just say, simply, that you don't know. Then, if you're ambitious enough, try to find the answer.

aliens (no, not the mexican kind, the martian kind)

2009-05-18T06:07:00.000-07:00

Stephen Hawking once said that intelligence is overrated in the process of natural selection, which makes intelligent extraterrestrial beings almost an impossibility. ALMOST. Some people still believe in them.

Roswell is the grand-daddy of all UFO stories. But, unfortunately, it is greatly misunderstood. Was there a government cover-up of the Roswell incident? Yes, but not for the reason that most people believe. Were there hundreds of people making claims of the Roswell incident? Yes, but they're not as reliable as they seem.

Project Mogul was an American top-secret balloon program that was designed for intelligence gathering of the Soviet Union's nuclear weapons capabilities just after the second world war. It just so happens that one of their balloons accidently crashed near Roswell, New Mexico on a July day in 1947. The government didn't think that people would make a big deal out of it, so they just said that it was a weather balloon. Almost no one knew about the incident.

Then, in 1978 a UFO researcher named Stanton Friedman interviewed one of the officers who collected the wreckage. This interview began a cascade of other research into the incident. All of which amounted to nothing more than finding a lot of people who wouldn't mind stretching the truth a little to get some publicity. The overwhelming majority of them weren't even eye-witnesses.

Crop-circles are the next biggest UFO bullshit. It seems as if crop-circles have been springing up everywhere. And the people who believe in UFO's say that they are undeniable proof of existence of beings with superior intelligence and superior technology. Otherwise, how could they have been made?

Then, some people began to feel guilty and fessed up. They said they had made crop-circles as a prank. That's right, all that you need are some (probably drunk) teenagers with some rope, some wood, and a compass to make a crop-circle. So much for superior intelligence and superior technology!

It's true that there are many galaxies in the universe, and therefore many opportunities for aliens to have evolved. But, that doesn't mean that you should believe everything you hear, and join a scientology community. Keep your skepticism alive.

animal rights, or animal wrongs?

2009-05-16T18:03:00.000-07:00

I don't have a single spiritual belief. So, I certainly don't believe that non-human animals (or, for that matter, human ones) have souls. I also don't think that eliminating animal products from your diet is very healthy. But yet, I totally understand where animal rights people are coming from.

I think that every thinking being in the entire universe should have but one goal: to eliminate pain and suffering in the world. Most farm animals in the western world have a horrible life full of various types of pain, as well as many in the developing world. So, the question is: is this pain necessary? I don't believe it is. By choosing to not buy animal products this suffering can be reduced, if not eliminated.

It's not the eating of animals that I object to. If there is a way to raise livestock and kill it in a pain-free way, I'd be all for that. It's the needless inflicting of pain on the animals that I object to. We shouldn't treat animals the way that we do.

In a related note: I'm a complete hypocrite. I buy animal products all the time. It's a character flaw of mine. I'm working on it.

the mistory channel

2009-05-09T13:03:00.000-07:00

I have been meaning to blog about this topic for a long time now, so it's good that I get this off my chest. The History Channel isn't a bad channel, by any means, as far as TV channels go. It often has some very interesting, educational programs on it. However, I do have a beef with it.

The History Channel will often give quite a bit of credence to nonsense. Spiritual nonsense, that is. It will broadcast the opinions of any UFO-ologist, ghost-believing "medium", or even a Nostradamian without so much as a word from a skeptic of these beliefs! Crazed conspiracy theorists with way too much time on their hands run rampant with no adult supervision whatsoever!

Then, it aired the 9-11 conspiracy theories show. I was expecting more of the same: a few half-baked theories about how Bush orchestrated 9-11 (and, let's be honest, Bush can just barely orchestrate putting on his own tie) to scare people into his wars. And, that's exactly what the show was... except, it had something the other shows did not, skeptics!

Yes, finally, the History Channel aired the believers' opinions alongside the opinions of smart people with opposing views. And, wouldn't ya know it, the skeptics' opinions appeared much more intelligent. Amazing!

But then, I thought about it. Virtually the only time they air the skeptics' opinions was when the skeptics sided with the government's official story, as well as the majority opinion. I can't help but think that this is just another example of how the media is nothing but the government's pawn.

The History Channel should make their 9-11 show their own, personal standard on how to tell the truth about conspiracy theories. But, they should not keep that standard pent up in a corner of their closet, only to be used when it is convenient. They should use it all the time, for all cases.

james randi vs. paranormal psychology

2009-05-03T15:40:00.000-07:00

My very first vlog ever!!! Enjoy.

all we ever do is eat and fuck

2009-04-26T19:48:00.001-07:00

All that we ever do is eat and fuck. Seriously. Think about it. You're a fetus in your mother's womb. What are you doing? You're feeding off your mother. That's eating. What's she doing? She's providing her offspring with food and shelter. That's a part of fucking.

You're born. What's the first thing that you do? You cry because you want food. That's a part of eating. Then, if you're like most babies, you shit your pants. Well, that's a part of eating too. You're raised by your parents. Which is a part of both eating and fucking. You're eating because you're staying with your parents, who are a constant supply of food. And, they're fucking because they are raising you, the product of their fucking.

You get educated so that you can eventually get a good job so that you can eat and look attractive to whomever you are attracted to, so that you can have sex with them. That's eating and fucking.

You get your good job, and in order to look good for your job you bathe daily (eating). You also try to look good so that you can be attractive (fucking). You harness skills. Some, so you can do your job better (eating). And, others, so you can seem attractive (fucking).

You find a mate, and you take them out to dinner (eating). Then, you fuck them (fucking). You have offspring with them (more fucking).

Then, you do everything your parents did for you (fucking). But, remember, you can claim children on your taxes, which saves you money (eating).

You hit retirement. Which, gives you less stress and more free-time (fucking). You play with your offspring's offspring (fucking).

Then, you go back to shitting your pants (again, eating).

Finally, you die because you have ate and fucked too much.

why i am an anarchist

2009-04-11T19:18:00.000-07:00

I am not a racist. So, I don't think that people from one particular part of the world are innately better than people from a different part of the world. I believe that there should be solidarity amongst all people. No one group should be singled out for privilege, or for sufferage. There should be no royalty or rulers. Representatives, perhaps, but certainly no rulers. Everyone should live under democracy. And, people should be able to come and go as they please, wherever they please.

There should be no nation states, only communities. Sovereignty resides in the individual.

why i hate mensa

2009-04-08T17:32:00.000-07:00

Mensa, for those of you who don't know, is a group of people who have extremely high IQ scores. I think that if you're smart, and you know it, there's no way that you should even take an IQ test. Why? Because it would be the epitome of narcissism and vanity. The only reason why you would do such a thing would be to show-off. The same is true of beauty pageants. If you're physically beautiful, and you know it, why the hell would you enter a beauty pageant? To give your self-given pride a boost, perhaps? I think so. Of course, I'm a tall guy who played basketball. So, what do I know?

However, if you are dumb, and you know it, and you take an IQ test anyway, you are the awesomest thing ever!! Why? Because, you know that you are doing it for all the right reasons, to challenge yourself, and to work hard at something that you know you suck at. This goes for fugly people entering beauty pageants as well.

I mean, why would a porn star like Jenna Jameson have sex off camera? She knows she's going to be great at it, which would (pardon the phrase) suck all the fun out of it. Jenna Jameson just shouldn't have sex off camera... unless, it's with me of course!

UPDATE: I think that Leonid Stadnyk just might be the coolest guy in the world. He claims to be 8'4" tall. Which would make him the tallest living person. But, he has refused to let Guiness Records measure him! I don't know why he refused. But, I'd like to think that it has something to do with what I mention in this post.

putting the christ back in christmas

2009-04-05T15:51:00.000-07:00

I know that this is an old, tired, beaten to death topic. But, I can't think of anything else to write about. I do not understand why some people care so much that I celebrate the birth of Christ on Christmas as opposed to just getting in the holiday spirit by celebrating the Santa Clause part of Christmas. Why can't they just celebrate whatever they want, and let me celebrate whatever I want?

I mean, I read an essay on this by Ben Stein. In which he talked about how, even though he's Jewish, he doesn't mind people using the term "Christmas tree." Yes, he actually had nothing better to do than to write a few paragraphs about how the "Christmas wars" piss him off. *ahem*

For the life of me, I can't understand why anyone would be upset by someone calling it a "Holiday tree" as opposed to a "Christmas tree." Everyone knows that people who say "Holiday tree" and "happy holidays" are just trying to be nice, and include as many different groups of people as possible. They're trying to be inclusive. What's wrong with that?

why i am not a capitalist

2009-03-31T11:21:00.000-07:00

A dictatorship is what occurs when one person controls the actions of other people, or sometimes just one other person, without their consent. It is considered by everyone to be immoral, undemocratic, and anti-freedom. You might think that I am talking about Hitler, Stalin, or even Hussein (not Barack Hussein Obama, of course. His dictatorship has a limit of only four years). But, even though they are certainly all dictators, I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about corporations.

Yes, I consider corporations to be dictatorships. Think about it: in a purely capitalist system, one person, a CEO, dominates the actions of everyone under them. It is my belief that all forms of authority should be evaluated as either good or bad for the society. In some cases they are good, such as the relationship between a child and their parent. But, in most cases, such as in the case of dictatorships, they are bad. And, corporations are no different.

Since the late 1800's corporations have been granted personhood in the courts, so that they now have the same rights as a person. But, in fact, their rights have been extended well beyond that of a person. They are able to kill people without any legal ramifications. When they lobby Congress for money, do they lobby for welfare benefits, like an average person would have to do? No, of course not. They collect subsidies, not welfare.

This is why I believe in work-place democracy. I think that the workers of a factory should own the products they produce. I don't believe that they should be forced to have managers who not only control what the workers do, but actually own the workers' products. If there is to be any managing done, it should be by representatives of the workers who respect workers' rights, not by dictatorial managers who respect only their accumulation of profit.

A world without dictators is what is needed if we ever want to have a free, democratic society.

an agnostic atheist

2009-03-22T17:55:00.000-07:00

Sometimes after I tell someone I am an atheist, they say, "no you're not. You're just an agnostic." To which I reply that if you ask me "do you believe in God?" I will tell you that I am an atheist. But, if you ask me "do you know that there is no God?" I will tell you that I am, indeed, an agnostic. Because, I don't know that there is no God anymore than I know that there are no invisible unicorns on pluto. I can't say for sure that there are no invisible plutonian unicorns, in the same way I can't say for sure that there is no God. But, that doesn't mean that I believe that there is a God, or invisible plutonian unicorns, just because I happen to not be able to prove their non-existence.

feminism?

2009-03-17T11:09:00.000-07:00

Well, it's women's history month. So, I thought I'd write a little bit about feminism. I already expressed my views on abortion, so I won't repeat it here. But, I do have a few more bones to pick with mainstream feminists.

One in particular is homebirthing. For the life of me, I cannot understand why anyone would choose to deliver their baby at home with a midwife as opposed to going to a hospital, you know, where there's doctors, nurses, medical technology, maternal units, that sort of thing. You cannot possibly say, with a straight face, that a widwife is as qualified to deliver a baby as an entire team of doctors..., with modern medical technologies at their disposal. But because I believe in freedom, I think that women should have the choice, even if that means they will make a dumb decision.

Another one is eco-feminism. As I understand it (and remember, I understand very little), eco-feminism is based on the belief that human oppression of nature is very similar to human oppression of women. In my opinion, this is just nonsense. The two are utterly unrelated to one another. The oppression of women is entirely built on a false belief that men are superior to women. Whereas the oppression of nature is built on the idea that humans can manipulate nature to suit their wants and needs. The two are very different. One day there might no longer be oppressed women, but as long as humans roam the earth, there will always be the oppression of nature.

And lastly, I think that manistream feminists believe not just that men are equal to women, but that men are the same as women. But you see, eventhough I believe that men and women are equal, I don't believe that men are the same as women. My opinion is kind of like saying that 2+2=4, but 2+2 is not the same as 4. It's obvious that men and women aren't the same antatomically. So, why would you believe that their brains are the same? It doesn't make sense to me. And, I don't see why it might be considered sexist to point this out. If I say the truth about men and women, that is in fact, the exact opposite of being sexist. But then again, now that I think about it a little bit more, I don't think that you would say that a female liver is any different than a male liver. So, why would you say that a female brain is different than a male brain? Hmmm. I'll have to think a little more about this one. Maybe I should actually do some research on it.

In any case, I guess that I agree with feminists on everything else, for the most part. So, all in all, feminism is good.

the atheist blogroll

2009-03-13T19:54:00.000-07:00

Sapien's place has been added to The Atheist Blogroll. You can see the blogroll in my sidebar. The Atheist blogroll is a community building service provided free of charge to Atheist bloggers from around the world. If you would like to join, visit Mojoey at Deep Thoughts for more information.

the religious mafia

2009-03-12T09:38:00.000-07:00

There is a bit of schism, I believe, in the non-religious community. There are those who believe that the worst part of religions is the organization of them, the so-called "organized" religion. And then, there are people like me who believe that the worst part about religions is that they harbor irrational thought.

In my opinion, when you say that organized religion is bad, but that unorganized religion is just fine, or worse, good, then you are missing the point of what is at the root of all religion, irrationality. Irrational thinking is the enemy, not people organizing their life and/ or morals around a central idea. In fact, that is what they probably should be doing! But, it's just that it should be a rational idea.

To tell you the truth, I believe that the organization of religion is actually the best part of religion. In fact, it may very well be its only redeeming quality. It organizes people for political movements, charity, community activities, and a discussion of morality. And all of these are good things.... As long as they are based on rational thinking. Which is why, as I've said, it's the irrational part of religion which non-believers should rally against, not the organizational aspect of it.

oh, freaking heck! gosh, darnit!

2009-03-09T17:11:00.001-07:00

Words that substitute for swear words.
Just say the damn swear word! Don't say "dang," "dag," or "darn!" Say "damn," damnit! Don't say "shoot." Say "shit." If you say "heck" instead of "hell," you're not a freaking dumbbutt. You're a fucking dumbass!

some thoughts on war in general

2009-03-07T18:29:00.000-08:00

I should tell you, right from the very beginning, that I am not a pacifist. If a guy punches me, more than likely I will punch him back. And, I suppose that there are certain circumstances that make war necessary. However, I can not think of a time in history when this has occurred. But remember, I don't know very much.

In any case, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq do not meet the criteria to be a "necessary" war.

Iraq was/ is a war that is solely about global hegemony and dominance of resources..., and everyone knows it. Afghanistan is about the same thing, it's just that no one knows it. As it was recently dubbed by Time magazine, "the right war."

I believe that whenever war is proposed a simple analogical test must be met to decide whether or not it should be followed through: imagine a cop, in a crowded shopping mall, witnessing a murder. Would the cop be a good cop if he/ she immediately pulled their gun out and started shooting at the alleged criminal? Of course not. Why? Because, they're in the middle of a crowded mall, an innocent bystander could easily be hurt.

This is the test which must be met. If it's not ok for the cop to start shooting, then it's not ok to commence a war based on a similar situation. Of course, if the circumstances that the cop was under changed a great deal, then maybe it would be ok for him/ her to start shooting. But, the situation has to be pretty severe for that to happen.

A war on terror is a good idea, if it is a mental war. But, we must be careful that we do not become terrorists ourselves.

penn jillette and twinkies

2009-03-02T16:12:00.000-08:00

I was listening to Penn Jillette's (he's the larger, louder half of Penn and Teller) radio show about a year ago (it's off the air now), and I heard an interesting story.

A kid, 16 years old, has a very treatable form of cancer. He was going to chemotherapy to get rid of it, when all of a sudden, he wants to stop doing chemotherapy and start doing an alternative medicine in Mexico. The alternative medicine he wants to do requires him to be on a certain diet, and it has been scientifically proven to not work. Whereas the chemotherapy that he doesn't want has been proven to be effective for most people. His parents respect, and are going along with, his decision to stop the chemotherapy and start the alternative medicine. Now, the government is trying to stop him from doing so, claiming that it is illegal for a parent to allow their kid to do something like this.

What do I have to say on the matter, I thought you'd never ask! The kid is still a kid, so it is his parents' responsibility to make big decisions for him. And it's OK for them to make the wrong decision. However, in this case, making the wrong decision is child abuse, and the government should intervene. Now, you might say that child abuse is a POSITIVE action, while denying him proper medical treatment is just a NEGATIVE action, so it shouldn't be illegal (in one case something bad is being done to him, and therefore should be a crime, while in the other case, it's just that something good isn't being done to him, and therefore it shouldn't be a crime).

Allow me to explain why it's like child abuse. Let's say that you have a child that is so severely mentally handicapped that all they can do is stay in bed all day long. So you have to feed him, wash him, etc. Now, let's say that you just stop feeding him, which is taking a NEGATIVE action. That, would certainly, by anyone's definition, be considered child abuse. By skipping chemotherapy, and going ahead with the alternative medicine, the parents are basically doing the same thing as not feeding the mentally handicapped kid.

I know what you're thinking, what about in cases where the parents claim religious belief as the reason why they refuse medical treatment for their kid? Well, I believe that the same thing goes. This does not violate the separation of church and state. Because, religions are just made up shit anyway, so anything can be claimed as a religion. I can say that eating a twinkie everyday is my religion! And anyone can say that killing someone everyday, as a sacrifice to their god, is their religion. That doesn't mean that they should be allowed to do it. And killing someone, through a NEGATIVE action, is exactly what someone who claims religious belief as reason to refuse medical treatment is doing.

Now, if the person who needs medical treatment is an adult, they can do whatever they want; do it, refuse it, alternative medicine, or whatever. For all I care, they can shove a twinkie up their ass, if they think it'll make them feel better! mmmmm, twinkie, mmmmm.

hud

2009-03-01T19:19:00.000-08:00

Ok, so I watched the movie Hud last night with my mom. I enjoyed it a lot. It was the first time I saw it, but my mom had seen it before. Carrying on with the typical Paul Newman style, it had excellent dialogue. However, it did have a disturbing scene in it.

The scene in question was when Hud sexually harassed and molested the live-in-maid. It wasn't the actual scene that was disturbing, but rather the way the scene was talked about in other scenes. The poor woman acted as though it was no big deal. She even admitted later that she found Hud attractive, as if that was supposed to make it all ok.

There was a similar scene in another one of Newman's movies, Hombre. Excluding these scenes, these movies are great. I highly recommend both of them.

Although, from an artistic standpoint, the scenes added to the movies. It's the social implications that I worry about.

i'm just a white guy

2009-02-28T16:36:00.000-08:00

Black history month is ending and so I thought I should try my hand at explaining race in America. You know, because I have great power and credibility on these issues, being a white guy with a blog that no one reads.

I absolutely hate it when I hear white people complain about "reverse racism." It's utterly stupid. And, frankly, the overwhelming majority of the time, they're just victimizing themselves. What little amount of reverse racism there is in the world is entirely understandable given that white people have the overwhelming majority of wealth and power.

Also, I very much dislike most of the supposed leaders of the modern civil rights movement in America. Ok, scratch that. I only dislike Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. They're largely self-promoting and hypocritical. I hate how anytime someone says something, or does something, racist, they have to publicly kiss these two guys' asses, as if they are the kings of all black people!

prejudice = bad

the presidents, part 2

2009-02-27T11:31:00.000-08:00

9) Wilson: Woodrow Wilson is an interesting case study in American history. He is widely remembered for his idealism. They call it "Wilsonian Idealism." All that you ever read about him in school is that he was the creator of the League Of Nations. Well, this is a true misrepresentation of his presidency. First of all, he brought America into that horrific war known as World War 1. In this war there were atrocities on all sides. But, he also invaded Haiti and the Dominican Republic. This is a quote from a Noam Chomsky speech describing how Bruce Calder described what Wilson did in the Dominican Republic:

He says that Wilson intervened in the Dominican Republic in 1916 to block constitutional government and insure complete U.S. economic and military control. The behavior of the Marines, he says, was brutish by Dominican standards. They murdered, destroyed villages, they tortured, they created concentration camps which served as a slave labor supply for the sugar corporations. The end result was that the sugar companies, overwhelmingly American, owned about a quarter of the agricultural land while the population sank into misery and starvation.

And, let's not forget about Wilson's Red Scare, which led to spying on Americans who disagreed with Wilson, and it even led to deportation of a few people. He set up the first draft in America as well. This was his "idealism!"

confessions of a former pro-lifer

2009-02-24T07:28:00.000-08:00

I used to consider myself pro-life when it came to abortion. I thought that the only time an abortion should be allowed was when the woman's, or a twin's, health was at risk. I did not make any exceptions for rape or incest, like some people do. But then I changed my mind and became pro-choice. And, here's why:

I should say that there is another really good reason why abortion should be legal (other than the one that I'm about to talk about). And, that is that abortion decreases crime. It does this, basically, by killing off the potential criminal before they are even born.

Anyway, here is my really good argument for abortion: At the time most abortions in America happen, the fetus can feel no pain. And, certainly, anytime anything is killed, it should be pain-free, or at least no more than a very small amount of pain. Also, fetuses, but especially recently fertilized eggs, are not very sentient, if they're sentient at all. Meaning, they are not self-aware, or more to the point, they do not have consciousness due to the fact that their cognitive capacity is so little.

I think that in order to consider someone/ something a person, they must be a very sentient being. Dogs are sentient, but not enough to be considered a person. And, in my opinion, the same goes for fetuses. They might be human, but they aren't as sentient as a person. And therefore do not necessitate the same rights as a person.

This is where feminists get it wrong. They have the correct conclusion, but they have bad reasoning. Feminists say that it is the woman's right to do what she wants with her own body. This belief is true, and no one argues against it, except when what the woman wants to do with her body harms someone else, in this case, a fetus. Feminists say that the woman's right trumps whatever rights the fetus might have. But, this can only be true if you consider the fetus to not be a person. So, feminists conveniently say that a fetus is not human. To which everyone with any amount of intelligence at all says, "no, it is definitely a human!" Which, it is. But, it just isn't a person.

If all that feminists say is that it is not a human, and therefore the woman's right to her body is the only factor worth considering. Then, they will surely gain a short-term following (which, they have). But, they will never gain any long-term stability. In other words, they are winning a battle, but losing the war. Which is why that so many young people consider themselves pro-life, as I once did.

the presidents

2009-02-23T13:49:00.000-08:00

C-Span, a wonderful resource, asked a bunch of historians to rank the presidents in order from best to worst. Here are the top ten: 1) Lincoln, 2) Washington, 3) FDR, 4) TR, 5) Truman, 6) Kennedy, 7) Jefferson, 8) Eisenhower, 9) Wilson, 10) Reagan.

I take issue with this list. In fact, I take issue with any list that ranks the presidents. It's hero-worshipping at its finest! Not to mention the fact that it totally misses the point, because it should be all about their policies, not them, themselves.

But, putting all that aside for right now, the list is incredibly misleading. Though this might very well be the list of the true best, all of them are far from being great. Because, unfortunately, listing the best presidents is a lot like listing the best serial-killers. Sure, some were better than others, but they're all pretty damn horrible.

I'll start off by talking about the last one listed first and then I'll move on up to the first one listed.

10) Reagan: I'm reading a book on the Reagan legacy. So, this'll give me a chance to talk about it. First of all, he had very little to do with the fall of the USSR, from what I understand. He is known for being a tax-cutting, government-reducing, deregulating guru. This is pretty much a complete myth. After signing in to law his 1981 tax cuts, he raised taxes more than any president in history. Government actually grew under his watch. Now, he did deregulate quite a bit, but this led to a stagnation in the average worker's salary, and a gigantic increase in the salaries of CEOs. And, as for his policy toward Central America, it was simply barbaric. El Salvador and Nicaragua might never recover. Star Wars, Iran-Contra, the list just goes on and on with this guy.

schizo affective disorder

2009-02-22T15:49:00.000-08:00

I have schizo affective disorder. I have never heard voices, or had any other hallucinations. I do, however, have a unique story about some delusions that I was having.

It all started about 3 years ago. I started believing that a group of my friends from high school were out to get me. And, that if they ever caught me, they would torture and, eventually, kill me. I also thought that the only way out of this fate was to kill myself, because they had the government working with them. This caused me to slit my wrist, try to asphyxiate myself, get into a car wreck (luckily, no one else was hurt), and slit my throat all in one day. Needless to say, it was the worst day of my life.

Luckily for me, three men, who witnessed most of this, came to my aid. They literally tackled me to the ground! Then, the ambulance came, and I spent about a week in the hospital. All in all, I needed 11 units of blood. The average human only has about 14 units in their system at any given time. I also spent a few weeks in the psychiatric part of the hospital. Which was where I was diagnosed with schizophrenia for the first time.

I was released from the hospital and was set up with a psychiatrist and therapist. Both of which I am still seeing. Eventually, with good medication, I accepted the fact that my delusions weren't reality. I have never gone off of my medication. And, I never will.

Now, my mental illness has utterly no effect on my life (other than the fact that I have to take pills everyday, and I have a lot of pretty scars). I even have a job now, and am planning on going back to school. I am one of the very few people who can actually pinpoint the exact moment when everything began to get better. That was, of course, when those three men tackled me. Every facet of my life has improved since then.

to blog or not to blog

2009-02-22T14:49:00.000-08:00

Why did I decide to start blogging here? Well, first of all, I should say that I did have a blog up here years ago. But, I grew tired of it. I just now got the motivation to continue it. But, I totally forgot the password and whatnot necessary to continue my old blog. So, I thought the hell with it! I'll just start a new blog.

I have little to no knowledge about a whole variety of issues. So, of course, I will be blogging about all of them. As a disclaimer I should say: do not believe anything I am blogging about. Always check my references. And, if you ever hear yourself saying "homo sapien said that--" you should stop yourself immediately!