Blog For Free!
Archives
Home
2007 April
2005 February
2005 January
2004 November
2004 October
2004 September
2004 August
2004 July
2004 June
2004 May
2004 April
2004 March
2004 February
2004 January
2003 December
2003 November
2003 October
2003 September
My Links
My essay: The Immorality of Marriage
The Onion
SelectSmart
Games to test your logic, faith, morality, and philosophical ideas!
Tom Robbins Quotes
Funny Name Analysis
Bushisms
Letters From the Earth by Mark Twain
Why I Am Not A Christian by Bertrand Russell
Life, Liberty, Logic
Wasting My Time
RedTigress's Blog
Jimmytherighteous's Blog
Octo6er's Blog
Nivek's Blog
Magicjoejoe's Blog
Littlemrmahatma's Blog
Kurtmaddox's Blog
Winstonsmith's Blog
Drforbush's Blog
Juniperflux's Blog
Iron Blog Religion!
tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images
Sponsored
Blog
| Resolutions, schmesolutions |
| 01.01.04 (2:06 am) [edit] |
|
Alright, that was a bit of a stretch. But anyway, as we all prepare to celebrate the new year, many are tempted to make New Year's resolutions. These resolutions are often goals to work towards in the coming year in order to better oneself. Sounds like a good thing, but I disagree with the notion of making a commitment to better oneself solely because it is a new year. New Year's resolutions undermine the objectives they presume to strive towards. To resolve to change in some way solely because it is a new year is not a creditable aspiration. It is only sensible to change these negative things for the sole sake of the actual goal itself- the betterment of oneself- rather than to trick yourself into feeling obligated to force a change because it is a new year. Most resolutions are of a positive nature, but that is only undermined by the fact that it becomes a goal that is not formed in earnest. So if you want to lose 10 pounds, quit smoking, eat healthier, do it because you want to do it- not out of some instilled sense of obligation rooted in the tradition of New Year's resolutions. That being said, I hope everyone has a wonderful New Year's and that we all make the best of 2004. |
| 1 Comments |
| Morning-after pill will cause people to have sex, apparently |
| 12.30.03 (10:55 pm) [edit] |
|
A lovely article by Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council in Washington. [i]The recommendation of Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advisory panels this month to allow the morning-after pill to be sold over the counter is not supported by medical facts and may very well bring about devastating consequences. Granting the morning-after pill over-the-counter status will lead women and young girls to think the drug poses no greater threat than other medicines available without a prescription. But the morning-after pill is not "just another contraceptive," and even a passing glance at the facts is sufficient to prove it does not belong on the same shelf as Tylenol and baby aspirin. Women taking a regular-strength birth control pill generally meet with their physician at least once per year because the drug has been linked to fatal conditions such as heart attack, stroke and breast cancer. The morning-after pill is 40 times stronger than regular birth control, and it therefore poses an even greater risk of causing dangerous side effects in women and girls who take the drug unsupervised. Additionally, rather than prevent pregnancy, this pill may act as a drug-induced abortion, which would kill an already-developing human life. The dangerous impact of the morning-after pill will be felt especially by teen girls, who have little if any grasp of their own medical histories and who will see the drug's easy availability as a license to have promiscuous sex without the chance of getting pregnant. This false sense of security may lead some girls to take the pill frequently, though there have been no clinical studies on its long-term effects. As a culture, we're clearly confused. We go out of our way to keep cigarettes out of the hands of teenagers, but this policy would make the morning-after pill the new Saturday night party favor of choice. Supporters say the FDA's decision will reduce the number of abortions. We say you're giving people another false hope that there are no consequences to one-night stands and promiscuous behavior. There are. The Bush administration must get the FDA back on the track of protecting health rather than pushing the pet projects of Planned Parenthood & Co.[/i] [LINE]Allow me to release my inner feminist for a moment. I love it when men insinuate that women are not capable of making decisions regarding their health, or refraining from promiscuity when given the option of a morning-after pill that requires no prescription. I find it humorous when a man states that making such a pill more easily accessible will result in a false sense of security, as though we understand the fact that it is available without a prescription to mean that there are no side effects. All contraceptives (for women) have side effects and I'm pretty sure just about everyone would recognize that fact. It is also highly offensive to suggest that this pill will lead to greater promiscuity. As the article says, there are consequences of promiscuity. This pill does not eliminate those consequences; it only provides an alternative to unwanted pregnancy (which, I might add, results in a decline in the frequency of abortions). Maybe there will be some people who will see this as an opportunity to disregard the necessity to be responsible, and maybe there will be people who abuse this drug as well. But we can't prevent that (unless we enforce a ton (more) of ridiculous laws entirely limiting the individual liberties we all desire and deserve); all we can do is provide information on the product, which I'm sure the FDA will do. As a female (who typically is not at all a feminist, by the way), I resent the assertion made by Mr. Perkins and many others who seem to think that the availability of the morning-after pill will lead people to have sex, misuse the pill, and "bring about devastating consequences." |
| 7 Comments |
| Is Howard Dean a hypocrite? |
| 12.28.03 (7:46 pm) [edit] |
|
Well, he is a politician, isn't he (if we were to play a word association game using the word 'politician,' how much do you want to bet the most common response would be 'corrupt?')? Well, cynicism aside (maybe), it seems that Democratic front-runner Howard Dean is now being [url=http://story.news.yahoo.com/n...]criticized for his criticism[/url] of Cheney's secretive energy task force. As governor of Vermont, Dean had an energy task force that met in private, much to the dismay of the state lawmakers. To defend this action back in 1999, Dean made the same argument as Cheney has- that there are certain situations in which a private discussion yields better results than one involving the public. Now that Dean has criticized Vice President Cheney's similar implementation of a secret energy task force, Dean is saying that the two events are not comparable. "Dean said his group developed better policy, was bipartisan and sought advice not just from energy executives but environmentalists and low-income advocates. He said his task force was more open because it held one public hearing and divulged afterward the names of people it consulted even though the content of discussions with them was kept secret." While it is certainly a good thing to develop a good policy, be bipartisan, and seek advice from more than one source, does this really justify keeping the meetings secret? And if so, does it further justify a criticism of Cheney for doing the same thing, solely because Dean's results were better? Then there's this: "Another secrecy issue has surfaced during Dean's campaign over his decision, before leaving office as governor in January, to seal for 10 years about 145 boxes of his official papers." Hmm, seems to me that whether or not this is really that big a deal, Dean would have been much better off if he had avoided attacking Cheney's policies of secrecy. This, to me, takes away some of Dean's credibility and I really have my doubts as to whether Dean is the person to beat Bush- there's got to be someone better. |
| 2 Comments |
| Condoms as a stocking stuffer? ... and, I told you marriage was a bad idea |
| 12.25.03 (1:12 pm) [edit] |
|
This just in from Yahoo!'s Oddly Enough news, oddly enough: SINGAPORE - Young women dressed in skimpy Santa outfits have distributed 50,000 free safe-sex stocking stuffers — condoms — to holiday shoppers in the city-state's glitzy tourism and shopping district. The sexy Santas from Takaso Marketing, which makes Playsafe condoms, handed out the prophylactics along busy Orchard Road over the pre-Christmas weekend, said the company's general manager, Tonya Tan. "Our main objective is to educate the public on AIDS (news - web sites) prevention and provide support on practicing safe sex," said Tan. She wouldn't say how much the company spent on the campaign. Chocolates and candies were handed out to children, she added. [LINE]Naturally, these blasphemous Singapore Santa's should be sent directly to jail. Disguising a filthy attempt at [b]forcing[/b] people to have sex, as distributing condoms obviously does, in the name of AIDS prevention is misleading and disturbing. I just hope that no one falls into their trap and actually uses the condoms that were handed out. That would be horrible. AIDS, along with everything else, can be prevented much better by simply not having sex, as we all know how horrible sex is. Unless you're married, of course. And, speaking of marriage, I present to you more evidence as to why marriage is bad: [LINE]DAR ES SALAAM, Tanzania (Reuters) - A Tanzanian man killed himself by drinking a chemical used in cattle dips, leaving a suicide note saying it was to escape a nagging wife, police said on Wednesday. The body of the 32-year-old was found in the commercial capital Dar es Salaam on Sunday with the suicide note and a glass containing traces of the chemical, used for killing insects on livestock, regional police commissioner Alfred Tibaigana told Reuters. "I've decided to end my life," Tibaigana quoted the suicide note as saying. "I am fed up with the constant nagging of my first wife." Police did not have any further details about the man's death in the east African country, where polygamy is common. |
| 0 Comments |
| Proof of my debauchery |
| 12.23.03 (7:26 pm) [edit] |
|
Well, I'm finally starting to feel un-hungover enough to post some pictures from last night (my 21st birthday). WARNING: These are pretty bad, but keep in mind, it was my 21st birthday! First off, some pre-drinking at home: [image]DragonBait22_80701 6369.jpg[/image] Next, we have a lovely shot of empty glasses (pretty early in the night still): [image]DragonBait22_21333 9141.jpg[/image] And here's me concentrating way too hard on walking back to the table: [image]DragonBait22_70216 5267.jpg[/image] And finally, after being cut off at one bar and kicked out of another (okay, so it was closing time), the night had to come to an end: [image]DragonBait22_16238 0599.jpg[/image] Good times, despite the hangover and despite the fact that I didn't come anywhere near reaching the goal of 21 drinks. But, after returning from the bathroom (okay, throwing up), I did manage to make the winning shot in our game of pool. Of course they didn't get a picture of that. :wink: |
| 7 Comments |
| Walk out to winter |
| 12.22.03 (12:06 pm) [edit] |
|
[i]Taken from my room on campus last year at the University of Pittsburgh-Bradford[/i] [i]"Walk out to winter, Swear I'll be there. Chill will wake you, High and dry, you'll wonder why..."[/i] -"Walk Out To Winter" by Aztec Camera Today officially marks the beginning of winter. More importantly, today makes it official that I can become a legal alcoholic. That's right, it's my 21st birthday. Everyone please go out and have a drink in my name to help celebrate! ;) Hmm... today is the shortest day of the year, meaning the longest night. How appropriate. :wink: |
| 2 Comments |
| World record-breaking alcohol intake |
| 12.19.03 (2:27 pm) [edit] |
|
RIGA, Latvia (Reuters) - Latvian police said a drunk picked up with around twice the blood-alcohol level considered deadly had probably set a world record but would wake with a hangover to match. The unidentified middle-aged man was unconscious but stable after a blood test showed 7.22 parts per million of alcohol, police spokeswoman Ieva Zvidre said. An average person would vomit at around 1.2, lose consciousness at 3.0 and stop breathing at a level of about 4.0 parts per million, Zvidre said, adding: "This is one for the Guinness Book of Records." The hospital's emergency ward head Martins Sics told reporters there was no record of anybody having survived such a dose, even in neighboring Russia which takes pride in its vodka-guzzling traditions. "He won't remember a thing when he comes to," Sics said. [LINE]I hope to break this new record on Monday. :wink: |
| 9 Comments |
| Gender gap in politics |
| 12.18.03 (9:42 pm) [edit] |
|
I just read a [url=http://story.news.yahoo.com/n...]very interesting article[/url] on the exploding gender gap in political affiliation. Basically, there is an ever-increasing tendency for women to vote Democratic and men to vote Republican. According to the article (and common sense), education is also a major factor in poltiical association. From the article: [b]As education increases, the gender gap grows. An analysis of more than 40,000 interviews for the USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll from January through November this year shows the trend. Among those with a high school diploma or less, men were inclined by a single percentage point, 45% to 44%, to vote Democratic. Women leaned toward the Democrats by 11 percentage points, 50% to 39%. That's a partisan gap between the sexes of 10 percentage points. For those who had taken some college courses but not graduated, that gender gap grew to 15 percentage points. Among those with a college degree, it rose to 20. And for voters who had taken postgraduate courses, it reached 28 percentage points - almost triple the gender difference among the least-educated voters. Men tend to become much more Republican as education and income rise; women move slightly toward the GOP. But there is a twist at the top, among those who have taken postgraduate courses: The number who lean toward the Democrats increases significantly within both groups, although men are still predominantly Republican[/b] So, in terms of education alone, it seems that the Democratic Party is favored among those less educated, with more education people lean towards the Republican Party, and with even more education there is a tendency to prefer the Democratic Party as well. This holds true for both genders at each level of education; however, there is still a majority of men who support Republicans at all levels, and women supporting Democrats. Explanations for why there is such a vast gender gap (in the past two elections, according to this article, women and men would have elected different presidents) include the fact that there are simply biological, sociological, and neurological (I guess that could classify as biological, but I wanted three factors) differences between men and women. Women tend to focus on protecting society, hence their favor for government social safety nets. Men have a tendency to focus more on their personal economic situation, while women concentrate more on the nation's economy. I'm not really sure what to make of the differences between male and female voters, but it is an interesting topic, I thought. It would be interesting to research this. Hmm, I wonder if there is a gender gap in political affiliation among tbloggers. I'll do an informal poll- comment and let me know your gender and political stance. :wink: |
| 1 Comments |
| Secretary of Transportation wants tougher seat-belt laws |
| 12.18.03 (12:01 pm) [edit] |
|
[i]Transportation Secretary Norman Y. Mineta yesterday called on states to pass "primary" seat-belt laws, which allow police to stop and cite motorists solely for failing to wear a seat belt. Twenty states, including Maryland, and the District of Columbia have primary seat-belt laws. Twenty-nine other states, including Virginia, allow officers to write a citation for not wearing a seat belt only if the motorist is stopped and cited for another infraction. Only New Hampshire has no seat-belt law. Primary seat-belt laws have been a hot-button issue for years in Virginia, where all efforts to enact a primary law have been beaten back.[/i] Yes! Another area in my life in which the government wishes to step in and dictate for me what I can do. I'm so excited. As the article states, there have been many many failed attempts here in Virginia to enact a law in which a person could be pulled over and given a citation for not wearing a seat-belt. The police must pull you over for some other reason and then, if you are not wearing a seat-belt, they can give a citation (which, by the way, basically means that if you aren't wearing a seat-belt, be prepared to be pulled over- once they find some reason to do so). There are people such as my dad who refuse to wear a seat-belt becuase they think the seat-belt is deadly- he was in an accident years ago and claims that had he been wearing one he most likely would have been killed. Naturally, the people are not capable of making their own decisions in matters such as this, so we need the government's intervention. No, I don't think so- I think the government should stay out. By not wearing a seat-belt, I am not harming anyone else, so why should I be cited for this? The biggest reason for this push by Mineta to "encourage" states to enact primary seat-belt laws is the cost of accidents. I'm not so sure of this logic; if everyone was forced to wear a seat-belt, there would be fewer accidents? Maybe that's not the point, but that if seat-belts were required, there would be fewer deaths resulting from accidents. "A total of 1,400 lives could be saved each year if all remaining states enacted primary laws, he said" So all it takes is a [b]law[/b] to save lives, how 'bout that. The problem is, obviously, not all people obey all laws. Not all people are saved by seat-belts. And not all of us want to be forced by the government to live safe, healthy lives (according to the government's standards). Seat-belt violations do not result in violence against others, why should those who choose not to wear one be punished by law? |
| 2 Comments |
| Twenty-one of life's most important lessons |
| 12.16.03 (5:51 pm) [edit] |
|
Copying [url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]Gabe's blog[/url] from when he was nearing his 21st birthday, I'd like to submit to you my 21 lessons. 1. There is no such thing as common sense. 2. The most important thing in life is that you live it for yourself, according to your standards and no one else's. 3. Life is not a game- there are no winners or losers- it is only what you make of it. 4. Stereotypes and first impressions are generally accurate, but you should always look for the exception to the rule. 5. All guys are assholes and all girls bitches. The only exception to this rule is that some guys are bitches and some girls are assholes. 6. It is much easier to give advice than it is to follow it. 7. It is pointless to dwell on the things in life that are beyond our control. Pointless and dangerous. 8. Though we all want to be rescued from time to time, no one can save you- you have to rescue yourself. 9. You can't force someone to understand something; they have to be willing. 10. I, apparently, cannot catch a football (my broken finger still hasn't fully healed), but I can throw a damn nice spiral. :wink: 11. I am quite possibly the only person in the world who doesn't like chicken. 12. In college, "watch a movie" really means "have sex." 13. As an American visiting Quebec, it is impossible to speak French- they won't let you. 14. The most nauseating texture to feel is the lung of a long-time smoker (dead, of course). 15. Good things do not necessarily come to those who wait. 16. Breyer's mint chocolate chip ice cream is orgasmic. 17. When life hands you lemons, make hard lemonade. 18. Never drink warm, cheap vodka. Ever. 19. Hooter's actually does have really good food. 20. When playing Asshole, it is never a good idea to voluntarily be the asshole. 21. Somehow, waking up in another person's bed is more comforting than waking up in your own and not remembering how you got there. |
| 2 Comments |
| My take on Saddam's capture |
| 12.14.03 (7:35 pm) [edit] |
|
Few would argue that Saddam Hussein did not harm the Iraqi people, hinder liberty, or pose a threat to the world. Few still would argue that the capture of Hussein is not a victory. But is it a virtuous victory or shallow? President Bush deserves some credit for the capture of the former dictator. Note I said some. While it is a victory for the U.S., for the Iraqi citizens, for the global community, it is still not the end result of the war on terrorism. This war was based on unfounded circumstances and should not have happened. Capturing Saddam is a good thing and increases Bush's credibility. But I think that it would be an error to rely on this outcome as being evidence of the necessity of this war. I still criticize the Bush Administration for its policies regarding Iraq, despite the fact that Hussein has finally been captured. However, I am not going to deny Bush any credit for such a feat. Getting rid of Saddam does the world a favor- it just wasn't an action that should have been taken by the U.S. It was a mistake to attack Iraq, even though the outcome, as of now, is good. So, kudos to the soldiers who were instrumental in the capture of Saddam Hussein. We should not deny the Administration the credit deserved for putting an end to Hussein's reign, but let's not forget the true intentions of the war and let's not lose sight of the innapropriate policies of the Bush Administration. |
| 9 Comments |
| Neither Republicans nor Democrats are the answer |
| 12.12.03 (10:27 pm) [edit] |
|
Most citizens of America identify with one of the two major parties and defend that party vigorously. But consider for a moment a more simplistic form of government than either of these parties produces. Over the years, our government has grown and grown and asserted itself in issues that the government should not be concerned with. Why do we need politicians telling us how to live our lives, in every aspect of our lives and business? As the [url=http://www.lp.org/issues/cut-...]Libertarian Party[/url] asserts, we only need the government for the purpose of defending our rights. The role of the government should be limited to simply protecting the rights of the citizens and defending the nation from foreign attacks. The government is not needed in the area of business- let the private owners control the market. If we could simply privatize business (get the bureaucrats out of it), if charity organizations were privatized, we could drastically cut taxes. Republicans and Democrats alike have only furthered the size and cost of government. And what are the benefits we receive from this? As the government expands, our individual rights and freedoms run the risk of being violated. Apparently, SamAdams feels that since some Americans are uneducated and run the risk of being taken advantage of, the government should enact a socialist-like state and provide for everyone by forcing unnecessary taxes. I disagree. I think the average citizen should be granted the right to his own money. If the individual's rights are guaranteed and protected by the government (not by enforcing rigid taxes or moral guidelines, but by prohibiting others from encroaching on your individual rights), then the individual will not be taken advantage of. Our individual rights could be protected much better if that, along with defending the nation, was made the prime function of the government. |
| 11 Comments |
| Why Social Security is bad |
| 12.12.03 (9:00 pm) [edit] |
|
Clearly, I didn't do a very good job of explaining myself on the issue of Social Security in that last post. I have a tendency to take myself less seriously than others do and forget that others probably don't know what I mean. Sorry. Social Security was designed to provide for the economic security of the citizens of the United States. Sounds good. It is only bad in that there is no compliance among the workers whose wages are taxed for the purpose of Social Security. There should at least be the choice to participate in Social Security or not to take part. Taken from the Libertarian Party website: [i]Politicians in Washington are stealing your future. Every year, they take 12.4% of your income to prop up their failed Social Security system - a system that is heading toward bankruptcy. If you are an American earning the median income of $31,695 per year, and were given the option of investing that same amount of money in a stock mutual fund, you would retire a millionaire - without winning the lottery or a TV game show. That million dollars would provide you with a retirement income of over $100,000 per year - about five times what you could expect from Social Security. Even a very conservative investment strategy would yield three times the benefits promised by Social Security. Libertarians believe you should be able to opt out of Social Security and invest your money in your own personal retirement account. An account that you own and control - one that politicians can't get their hands on. Republicans and Democrats say it can't be done - that your Social Security taxes are needed to pay benefits to today's retirees. Instead of letting you invest in your own future, they want you to have faith that someone else will pay your benefits when it comes time for you to retire. Although most won't admit it publicly, their "solutions" to the Social Security crises all come down to some combination of tax increases and benefit cuts. Libertarians know that there's a better way. Countries like Chile, Mexico, Britain, and Australia have successfully made the transition from their failed Social Security systems to healthy systems based on individual retirement accounts. In Chile, over 90% of workers have opted out of the government-run system. It's time America did as well. The federal government owns assets worth trillions of dollars - assets that it simply doesn't need to perform its Constitutional functions. By selling those assets over time, we can keep the promises that were made to today's retirees, and to those nearing retirement, while freeing the rest of America from a failed Social Security system.[/i] |
| 2 Comments |
| Solutions to all the world's problems |
| 12.12.03 (5:22 pm) [edit] |
|
Now, before we begin, brace yourself- this is going to be some mind-blowing stuff. I have figured out how to solve all the problems of the world and, as it turns out, it is not through mindless rhetoric or politically motivated efforts. All it takes is a little understanding of the philosophy of Terraism (be careful of the pronunciation- be sure to separate the Terra from the ism, especially if speaking to or like George W. Bush). :wink: Alright, here are the tenets of Terraism and explanations of how the Terraist philosophy can save the world. - Individual rights are not to be infringed upon. - Self-defense is necessary to ensure personal freedoms are not negated. - Each individual must take responsibility for his own actions; accountability is next to godliness. - Freedom is the most basic right given to the individual and must never be curtailed. - Tolerance, acceptance, and open-mindedness are what guide us to establishing true freedom. - Religion is a personal matter, and all personal matters must stay just as that- attempts to make personal matters public domain should be punished by law. Real life application of the Terraist doctrine: [b]Foreign policy[/b]- Each nation-state is similar to an individual and has its own rights. Thus, those individual rights should not be infringed on by another nation. Self-defense may be exercised in order to maintain the freedoms of any nation under attack, but all attacks based in self-defense must be warranted. It is up to the individual nation-state to decide when defense measures are necessary, but the repercussions must be acknowledged as the nation will be held accountable for its actions. *This holds true for any personal matter as well.* [b]Discrimination[/b]- According to Terraism, each individual is guaranteed certain inalienable rights (whoa, that sounds familiar) which, by definition, can not be taken away from them. This includes any form of exclusion or favoritism among individuals. [b]Morality and government[/b]- Morality is defined as distinguishing between right and wrong. Government is established to enact laws, keeping the people in line. The morals established by the Terraist code emphasize allowing and promoting the individual's rights (by not infringing on the rights of others). If the individual's rights are protected, the laws enstated to govern the people do not require dictating morality- the individual must be moral on his own. If the individual dismisses the rights of others, he is in violation of the law and should be punished. Public dissent over laws set forth by the government should be welcomed, as deciding what is right and wrong is not something to be done arbitrarily and the standards by which morality is judged should constantly be questioned. [b]Social security[/b]- As each individual is responsible for himself, and only himself, it does not fall within the domain of the government to establish any sort of national social security initiative or any form of charity given to specific groups in need. If the individual fails to take care of himself, or is incapable of doing such, private groups may intervene in his life on his behalf, but the government would be overstepping its boundaries to do such. It is the individual's decision whether to be aided or not, not the government's, and the government should not be given so much power as to be able to force an individual to comply to any matter regarding personal affairs. [b]Abortion and homosexuality[/b]- The government shall in no way force the decision regarding health matters or personal decisions, nor shall the government dictate standards of lifestyle. As you can see, Terraism provides for the protection of basic individual rights and, once this is done, there are no problems, unless there is violation of the Terraist doctrine. Only matters which affect an individual should be of concern to that individual, and this includes individual nations. If this is done, harmony will ensue. If you are interested in joining the Terraist movement or would like more information, please feel free to contact me. ;) |
| 6 Comments |
| Stereotypes of the "Bible Belt" |
| 12.11.03 (9:42 pm) [edit] |
|
I was watching Hardball today and they were discussing ways in which the Democrats can win the vote in the Bible Belt, if they can. Admittedly, I didn't watch all of the show (had to switch over to Jeopardy! halfway through), but what I did watch was really entertaining, if a bit offensive. As a southerner, born and raised in Virginia, I find it really amusing to see politicians discuss ways to win the vote in the South, considering they typically dwell on such stereotypes as the gun-toting Bible reading uneducated hillbilly redneck, etc. While there are certainly plenty of simple folk in the South, that's not nearly an adequate description of the entire population. As I said, I grew up in Virginia, and I will admit that most of my family are rather redneck-ish :wink:. But I don't even speak with a southern accent (unless I'm really tired, then it will occasionally slip out). I also don't know anyone who owns a gun, although a guy who owns a gun shop did flag me down a few weeks ago offering to buy my car (for racing purposes, even). The South is certainly an area in which religion is very prominent, I couldn't possibly count all the churches in the tiny city I live in. But that's not all there is here. Not everyone in the South fits neatly into the stereotype. But that's only natural, stereotypes are only a broad classification and there are always exceptions. What I think is odd is how politicians tend to promote these stereotypes thinking that they are reaching out to the voters in that area. Personally, I found it a bit offensive when two Democratic strategists vocal in the effort to get Mark Warner elected Governor of Virginia relied on the stereotypes to dictate how it is to appeal to Southerners. In certain ways, it is important to address the issues important to the community you are reaching out to, but to rely on stereotypes is only going to make the candidate seem arrogant or out of touch with the people, as stereotypes often do not hold true. Dean was criticized for his comment about wanting to get the vote of pick-up truck drivers with confederate flags, or something along those lines (sorry, I'm too lazy to look it up). Statements like that are offensive to the people trying to be reached. I may not know all that much about campaigning or political strategy, but I would think that the best technique would be to treat all people everywhere basically in the same manner and address all the same issues throughout the nation. Granted, different issues are more important in different areas. But attempting to assume which issues are most important in a particular area can be dangerous and can alienate the potential voters. I wrote an essay a few years ago about how intelligence is judged by accent, but I can't seem to find it. Basically, I pointed out that a southern accent makes a person seem less intelligent. Newscasters are trained to speak in a manner deemed proper, but who decides which accent is proper? As I said, I speak with no accent, but it is definitely a bias that tends to be overlooked. Sorry if this post was a bit incoherent and rambled, but I'm too tired to attempt to make sense. |
| 6 Comments |
| Religion Part III- Justifying religious belief |
| 12.11.03 (9:05 pm) [edit] |
|
As I have stated in previous posts, we, as mere humans, do not have the ability to prove that God exists, nor do we likely have the ability to prove that there is no God. So then, how does one justify a belief in something that cannot be proven? Again we come to the absurd wager proposed by Blaise Pascal. Among the most common justifications for religious belief is this wager, which is based on assumption. If we assume that we cannot know for certain whether God does or does not exist, and assume that if God does exist and we believe in Him and live our life in accordance to our religious faith, we will receive eternal rewards. By the same token, if we do not believe in God and it turns out He does exist, we will be condemned to eternal damnation. Therefore, based on these assumptions, it would be foolish not to believe in God, as there is more at risk if we do not believe in Him. That's Pascal's wager in a nutshell. Now, I say this is ridiculous because, for starters, it is based solely on assumption (and you know what happens when you assume :wink: ). Moreover, it is silly to base your life on the possibility that there may be a God, rather than living your life on your own accord. I'd like to propose my own wager, the opposite of Pascal's. If we assume that we cannot know for certain whether or not God exists, and we further assume that God [b]doesn't[/b] exist, and if we do not maintain a belief in this nonexistent God we will enjoy a life of rewards based on taking individual responsibility and accountability for our own actions. Our life will be more meaningful if it is lived for our own reasons; we will not base our moral standards on some arbitrary guide, but will exercise true morality; and we will be complete as individuals on our own. However, if we choose to believe in this nonexistent God we will not gain any rewards in this life or in eternity, but will have lost any meaning in our own life and live a life of falsity. Which seems more dangerous to you? Granted, eternal damnation is not all that appealing, but there is less evidence to show that there is a God than there is to reason that there exists no such supreme being. Therefore, I'd make the wager that the risk of believing in God, based solely on a leap of faith, is more harmful than living your life for yourself. In these past three posts, I have addressed the most important issues within the subject of religion (according to me :wink: ). If there are any more issues needing explanation, please feel free to ask. I will end this with an excerpt from a philosophy text explaining how religious belief is unjustified and can be dangerous: "A further philosophical position is that religious beliefs are intellectually irresponsible because they are based not on any factual evidence, but only on [i]wishes[/i]. It would be very consoling and wonderful if there were a personal God who made us, who cares for us, and who wants us to enter an afterlife of eternal happiness. Moreover, belief in God can give our life- and even the sufferings it inevitably includes- a profound meaning. But for me to believe in God simply because it makes me feel good seems comparable to my believing that someone just deposited a million dollars in my bank account because this belief makes me feel good. Although a belief that comforts me might be true, it would be unreasonable, and possibly dangerous, to [i]act[/i] as if it were true. If I go on a spending spree because I have an unfounded belief that my bank account is bulging, I will find myself in trouble if it turns out there was no anonymous benefactor. The argument here is that it is unreasonable for us to accept religious beliefs simply because we find it comforting to think that they are true." |
| 8 Comments |
| Religion Part II- The problem of evil |
| 12.10.03 (4:37 pm) [edit] |
|
One of the most fundamental issues surrounding Christian dogma and religious ideas is the question of evil, which is this: If there is an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent, infallible God, why is there evil in the world? Following logic, which I know is contrary to religious faith, we can see that there are two possile explanations for evil. The first is that God is not all-powerful, the second is that God is not all-good. Let's use a very simple syllogism to demonstrate this: 1. Assume God is all-powerful: If God is God He is not good God is God (all-powerful) Therefore He is not good. 2. Assume God is all-good: If God is God He is not all-powerful God is God (all-good) Therefore He is not all-powerful. Either way, the initial description of God as this omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, infallible God is questioned. There is, however, a third claim a theist attempting to account for evil can embrace, and that is to state that there is no evil in the universe. One way of arguing this is that in order for there to be good, there must be evil. However, this would mean that God is not all-powerful; He could create good without creating evil if he was omnipotent. Another argument is that evil is not the creation of God, but is due to the misuse of free will by human beings. But this too counters any possibility of God's omnipotence or absolute benevolence. If evil is solely a result of the misuse of free will, given to humans by God, why then wouldn't God have made humans in such a way that they always choose good, freely? Now, to play the, ahem, devil's advocate, let me defend some arguments claiming evil is not evidence of a discrepancy in the definition of God. Evil only poses a threat of discrediting religious belief if one maintains that God is both omnipotent and all-good. If God is omnipotent, but not entirely good, the question of evil is easily answered. If God is not completely powerful, but is entirely good, the problem also has an easy solution. But you can't have it all. There cannot be an omnipotent, wholly benevolent, infallible God who would still allow evil to exist in the world. According to Augustine, God is all-good and therefore everything created by God is good. Evil is only a privation of being, rather than a positive being. Evil is a product of the misuse of free will and "all evil is either sin or the punishment for sin." So then, why would an omnipotent, benevolent God not create a flawless creation, in which free will would not be abused, would not allow for defects? Irenaean theodicy presents the concept that God did not choose to create a perfect species, but rather a species in which humans could grow morally and siritually. Through our exercise of free will, we are capable of growing more mature, and then we can be transformed into the likeness of God. Again, if God is all-good, why would he wish that we go through such a painful process of soul making? Ultimately, one cannot logically assert that God is all-powerful and completely benevolent while stll allowing evil in the world. And there are no reasons adequately explaining why evil is present with such a God. If God was perfect, why would He create a species that has so many faults? He must truly be cruel to do such a thing, or He must not be all-powerful. Most likely, He just doesn't exist. |
| 4 Comments |
| Religion Part I- Is there a God? |
| 12.09.03 (8:28 pm) [edit] |
|
My simple answer to this question would be no, there isn't a God. But let me first provide an introduction for what this discussion will entail, and a bit of a disclaimer. I am no expert on religion and, while I think that all religions are debatable, I am mostly referring to Christianity in this discussion. If anyone would like to add input regarding any other religion, please feel free to do so, but, as I said, I am not an expert and it would be a much more daunting task for me to attempt to dispell all religions through facts and ideas than it is to simply argue against one religion. Alright, let's begin. First, we must start by acknowledging the most common source for Christian beliefs- the Bible. The Bible was written by so-called chosen prophets whom God spoke to. Therefore, passages in the Bible are often referred to as the word of God. The main problem with this is that there is no evidence demonstrating that those who wrote the Bible were actually a reliable source for basing all your religious beliefs on. Supposedly, God spoke to average, ordinary people- hey, He even gave Noah, a noted drunk, the task of saving all the creatures. Ordinary people are flawed. The Bible, written by ordinary people, is flawed. I will perhaps discuss in more detail discrepancies in the Bible in another post in this series. But for now, let's just leave it at this- the Bible is not evidence of the reality of God, nor does it serve as a literal, historical account of... well, anything. On to the arguments for God's existence. There are several popular arguments given by Christians to "prove" that their God does in fact exist. I am not going to enumerate them in this post because I have done so before. Curious readers who missed it can [url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]check it out here[/url]. Suffice it to say the arguments for God's existence are not in any way palpable or valid as evidence. What I've realized is that most atheists/non-believers tend to simply focus on disproving the arguments given FOR God, without explaining reasons for not believing in God. This is perfectly reasonable though, I mean why give reasons for not believing in something? It only makes sense to just disprove and dismiss the flawed arguments for that which you do not believe in. But anyway... The most basic reason for a disbelief in God is that there is no proof of God's existence. All the arguments given are just arguments and hold no real evidence. What a belief in God boils down to, ultimately, is faith. There is no amount of logic to make it a legitimate, proven fact that God exists. Does that mean that I can prove God doesn't exist, in purely factual, legitimate measures that do not involve taking anything on faith? Most likely not, unfortunately. There have been countless skeptics before me who have attempted to explain the improbability of God's existence, but what it all comes down to is faith. It is not an easy task to try and dissuade someone so fully committed to something they have faith in. And I wouldn't really want to take away anyone's faith, even if I thought I actually could. Faith in God, faith in Heaven, faith in some destined plan in which good things come to those who wait, is a comforting thing. Or so you would think. Just as a side thought, why is it that many (if not most) religious people would state that their number one fear is death? The primary function of religion is to explain how and why we are here and what happens once we die. Now, according to the descriptions of Heaven, I would be a little frightened of spending all eternity there, and the same goes for Hell. But, according to the Christian faith, Heaven is a good place to be, a place that we should all desire to be after death. If Christians are so certain of their faith and their God and their Heaven, why is death such a common fear among believers? Anyway, I'm afraid I'm getting a bit off topic. I don't think I can realistically attempt to disprove God's existence, just the same as I don't think anyone can realistically [b]prove[/b] His existence. But, logic allows us to understand the issue of religion on various levels. Religion is one of the prime social institutions of most societies. It serves to provide a sense of commonality and belonging amont the community, it serves to unite the community towards a common goal. It also serves to keep the people in line by enforcing a (generally) strict moral code. But what is really interesting is the number of different religions throughout the world and throughout the history of mankind. At first, the fact that there has been a historical commonality among almost all cultures of some sort of religious belief would seem to be an indicator that maybe religion is the right way to go. I mean, why would almost all people worship some sort of god or gods or what have you? Well, I don't know for certain why religion is such a common human instinct. But I would think that it has something to do with a need to belong to some sort of group, a desire for easy answers to difficult questions, and cultural teachings. The fact that there have and always will be such a vast quantity of different religious philosophies, with different ideas of God, points to an unrealistic claim of God's existence. How could any one religion possibly claim to be, or actually be, the one true religion? How is having faith in one God any better or worse than believing and worshipping a different God? Christians are very intolerant of other religions. In Christian doctrine, any non-believer- that is, anyone who chooses not to believe in the Christian God and Jesus Christ as savior- is banished to Hell for eternal damnation. How cruel is this God that he would give all humans free will, free will which will undoubtedly result in choosing not to believe in this God, and then punish any who do not believe in Him, when he gives no proof of his existence, aside from occasionally speaking through some nutjob? Jesus taught us to love our neighbors, while God teaches that only those who believe in Him are virtuous, therefore He will punish all who do not worship him. I think Christianity is sickening. I think religious doctrines only enslave believers and prevent them from living their lives for themselves. Don't get me wrong, some of the messages of Christ and the teaching of the Bible are meritorious. But religion's attempt at conveying these messages to society is rather misguided. It is not necessary that you live in fear of some vengeful God in order to act in ways that are helpful to you or your society. Pascal's wager is a common argument for encouraging a belief in God. The idea that you have nothing to lose by believing in God just in case He does exist was a pretty good argument to me when I was about 8. I think that's also around the time I liked the New Kids on the Block. Go figure. Anyway, my point is that the faith necessary for a belief in God counters any claims of a logical basis for a belief or facts proving God's existence. Now, as I said, I can't disprove God's existence. But I can explain why I don't believe in God. I don't believe any of the arguments used to "prove" God's existence are any good. But more importantly, I don't believe that devoting my life to a religious belief is the right way to live my life. Basing my life on attaining some spiritual reward after death is not a very idealistic way to live my life. I act on my own accord, reason for myself, distinguish between right and wrong not on the principal that some supreme being has deemed such acts right or wrong, but because [i]I[/i] recognize them as such. My life has real meaning, not some notion of meaning bestowed on it from some supreme being in the sky, when I die. So, what if I am wrong and God does exist? According to Christian theology, I will burn in Hell. But that's okay with me; I'm not afraid of God. If I am wrong and am sent to Hell then I will still have lived my life according to my own standards and, to be completely honest, I'd think my moral standards are a bit higher than any God's who would punish someone for all eternity simply because they did not believe in Him. But what if you're wrong? What if God doesn't exist and this life is all there is? Why should you waste your entire life attempting to appease some imaginary being when you can live your life for yourself. You should be self-reliant and hold yourself accountable for your own actions. God may or may not be responsible for you- but you certainly can, and should, define your own life. |
| 10 Comments |
| Beliefs |
| 12.08.03 (11:14 pm) [edit] |
|
Or perhaps "Lack of beliefs" would be a more fitting title... [b]Religion:[/b] I don't believe in God. I don't believe we as a species, or any species on earth, or the mountains, lakes, rocks, and seashells were created by any sort of supreme being. I don't believe God decided one day to create a universe of creatures giving humans (made in His image) free will, yet, being that He is omniscient, knowing the outcome of the course of all humanity. I don't believe there is any true religion, as there are too many that claim that their's is just that. I don't believe any religion is realistic. I believe religion functions as a social tool. I believe religion was created to provide answers to difficult questions- the questions of how and why we are here and what happens when we die. I believe that spirituality serves to help us cope with difficult situations, but does not provide any real answers. I believe that we, as a society, as a group, may never be able to definitively answer such questions as the nature of existence, the function of life, and the outcome of death. [b]Morality:[/b] I don't believe that humans are inclined to sin, and only sin, unless there is an active belief in God and a strict moral code enforced and followed. I don't believe an absolute moral code can exist, and I certainly don't believe God can impose an absolute moral code. I believe that we have free will and have the ability to make our own decisions. I believe we have the ability to distinguish between right and wrong without the direction of an absolute moral code, or ethical standards dictated by God. I believe that humanity is not savage or barbaric by nature. I believe in humanity's ability to act morally regardless of a belief in religion. [b]Love:[/b] I don't believe in committing to love, in the romantic sense, another person forever. I don't believe in marriage. I don't believe that commitment, as forced by marriage, fosters true love, but instead has the potential to invalidate love. I believe in true love. I believe in loving out of love's sake and not out of some sense of duty, obligation, or false sense of love. I believe that one can commit to care about someone forever, but cannot realistically commit to [b]be in love[/b] with another person forever. I believe that it is more important to focus on love being true than it is to simply seek comfort in a union with another person. [b]Miscellaneous:[/b] I don't believe in destiny. I don't believe things happen for a reason beyond our control. I don't believe in fate. I don't believe our future is dictated by any force- other than our own actions. I don't believe in astrology, psychics, tarot, karma, or anything else that emphasizes a lack of human control. I believe that each individual creates his or her own future. I believe in individual accountability. I believe we all decide what meaning our life has. I believe that we must all take responsibility for our own lives and not place blame on others, and not place the responsibility on anyone else- including God. I believe I am idealistic, but not unrealistic. |
| 4 Comments |
| I'll drink to that |
| 12.05.03 (4:20 pm) [edit] |
|
Today is the 70th anniversary of the repeal of Prohibition. The national movement towards legal prohition of alcohol sale in the 1920s resulted in a dramatic increase of violence and an increasing corruption among those attempting to enforce prohibition. New York mayor Fiorello La Guardia said that it would take 250,000 policemen to enforce Prohibition and 250,000 more to police the police. ([url=http://www.mapinc.org/drugnew...]from here[/url]) Alcohol consumption did not disappear during prohibition, but went underground. Not only was there a rise in crime due to the criminalization of alcohol, but there was also a risk of contaminated alcohol since there were no longer any regulations on alcohol. The effort to control human behavior, to force individuals to live a healthy life free of alcohol, certainly illustrated the fact that human behavior cannot be controlled, cannot be dictated by the government. Many people disagree with alcohol consumption, but still realize that it is illogical to attempt to control human behavior through legislation. There is a general agreement that the 18th amendment was a mistake. Yet we still seem to think it's a good idea to keep drugs illegal. Did we, as a nation, really learn anything from Prohibition? Anyway, let's celebrate today- eat, drink, and be merry. Oh, but only if you're 21. ;) |
| 0 Comments |
| Sex toys deemed unsuitable for tv |
| 12.04.03 (10:49 pm) [edit] |
|
"LONDON (Reuters) - A British breakfast television show was rapped by standards watchdogs Thursday for a feature on sex toys. GMTV argued that its piece was a serious examination of sexual problems for its housewife audience and had taken place after 9 a.m. when most children would have left for school, the Broadcasting Standards Commission (BSC) said. But the BSC said it "took the view that the content was unsuitably explicit and had exceeded acceptable boundaries for the time of broadcast." It dismissed another complaint about TV illusionist Derren Brown's Russian roulette stunt on Channel 4 in October. "The Committee noted the significant level of warnings that had been given, the careful treatment of the issues of potential glamorization or copycat incidents, and considered that the program did not promote gun culture, nor make light of suicide," it said." Why is sex so bad? If you don't want to watch it, don't. If you don't want your kids to watch it, don't let them. All this controversy over sex completely diminishes the value in it. Sex is a natural thing, I don't see what's so offensive about it. There are commercials about diarrhea, constipation, yeast infection, etc.- all things common but personal. How is sex any different? Why is talking about sex so stigmatized? I'm not advocating any sort of casual uniformity directed at sex. Though sex is a very natural thing, it shouldn't be made completely casual. Constant commonplace discussion of sex would take away from the romance, just as condoms and contraceptive pills and other devices aimed at controlling sex take away from the passion (I'm not saying these things are bad, just that they lessen the romance of sex). [i]"This constant battle with the reproductive process, a war in which her only allies were pharmaceutical robots, alien agents whose artificial assistance seemed more treacherous than trustworthy, was gnawing with plastic teeth at her very concepts of love. Was it entirely paranoid to suspect that all those stoppers, thingamajigs, and substances devised to prevent conception were intended not to liberate womankind from the biological and social penalties imposed on her natural passions but, rather, at the insidious design of capitalistic puritans, were supposed to technologize sex, to dilute its dark juices, to contain its wilder fires, to censor its sweet nastiness, to scrub it clean (clean as a laboratory autoclave, clean as a hospital bed), to order it uniform, to render it safe; to eliminate the risk of uncontrollable feelings, illogical commitments, and deep involvements (substituting for those risks the less mysterious, tamer risks of infection, hemorrhage, cancer, and hormone imbalance); yes, to make sexual love so secure and same and sanitary, so slick and frolicsome, so[/i] casual [i]that it is not a manifestation of love at all, but a near anonymous, near autonomous, hedonistic scratching of a bunny itch, an itch far removed from any direct relation to the feverish enigmas of Life and Death, and a scratching programmed so that it would in no way interfere with the real purpose of human beings in a capitalistic, puritanical society, which is to produce goods and consume them?"[/i] -from [u]Still Life With Woodpecker[/u] |
| 3 Comments |
| Statue with stigmata |
| 12.04.03 (7:14 pm) [edit] |
|
That's right, a statue in the southern Italy town of Brancaleone has reportedly had a red liquid coming out of the eyes. The statue is of Padre Pio, a mystic monk who was made a saint last year. Padre Pio had the stigmata when he was alive. Therefore, the statue must also have the stigmata. The faithful are calling it a miracle, naturally. And some people are calling this a hoax! What's wrong with them? Deviants! What more evidence of a miracle could one possibly need? Red liquid (tests are underway to determine whether the traces of blood found in the liquid is human or animal blood) seeping out of the eyelids of a statue, and not just any statue, mind you- a statue of a saintly stigmatic mystic. It's clear that this must be a miracle of a divine nature. No way could it be a hoax. I mean, how else could you explain red liquid coming out of the eyes of a bronze statue? |
| 8 Comments |
| Who needs the fourth amendment anyway? |
| 12.02.03 (7:37 pm) [edit] |
|
The Supreme Court has ruled that police only have to wait between [url=http://story.news.yahoo.com/n...]15 and 20 seconds[/url] before breaking into the home of a suspected drug dealer. First off, I'm all for the legalization, or at least decriminalization, of drugs. Thus, I don't think that a suspected drug dealer is a serious enough threat to society that the police must break into their home, after any amount of time. Secondly, though the Court's decision states that the officers don't have to wait longer than 20 seconds, what does that really mean? An officer coulde easily knock, announce himself, then enter using force and be justified in doing so. I don't think that's really fair. The justification for this, according to the Supreme Court, is that a drug dealer can flush the drugs in the time the officers must wait, if they wait longer than 15-20 seconds. Well, so what? They lose the drugs. They will possibly be deterred from the police investigation as it is and cease dealing drugs. And if not, there will surely be more opportunities to catch the drug dealer. Perhaps it would be more fair if the officers were allowed to enter after only 15-20 seconds in a second attempt, but not the first. But, like I said, I don't think drugs are harmful to anyone other than the person who abuses them. Therefore, there should be no criminal penalities for drug use or selling drugs. |
| 21 Comments |
| Baby born with a birthmark- a miracle! |
| 12.02.03 (6:40 pm) [edit] |
|
"Palestinians in the West Bank town revered by Christians as Jesus' birthplace have been thronging to the adjacent Aida refugee camp for a glimpse of the 11-day-old infant many are calling a "miracle baby." The boy has gained attention for being born with a large birthmark across his cheek that roughly forms in Arabic letters the name of his uncle, Ala, a Hamas militant killed by Israeli troops after he was suspected of having planned a suicide bombing." ([url=http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD...]Read more[/url] ) I couldn't help but laugh as I read this. I wonder if the thousands of people who have flocked to witness this so-called miracle baby actually take this seriously. Well, I guess they do, otherwise they wouldn't bother travelling to Bethlehem to see it. I kind of wish the baby was born on Christmas day, just to add to the hype. But, as it is, the child is still being heralded as some sort of miracle, and the birthmark has been viewed as "a divine message of support for the Palestinians against Israel." Wow. Maybe it's just me, but it seems as though they might be reading just a little bit too much into this. I have a diamond-shaped birthmark on the bottom of my foot, I wonder what that means. I feel really sorry for this baby. He will be used to encourage war and propagate religious falsity. Claiming divine action, the family of this child, as well as those who support the claim, will likely commercialize on the child's birthmark in an effort to encourage the Palestinian cause. I wish I could convince the whole world of the absurdity of this and any other claim of divine intervention, but people will choose to believe whatever they find comfort in. Obviously, seeing the birthmark that vaguely resembles the name of the baby's uncle, and the subsequent claim of divine support for their cause as seen through this birthmark, is comforting to the family and to the thousands of Palestinians who have visited the child. Perhaps this [i]is[/i] some sort of message from God in the form of a birthmark on the face of a newborn baby, but I see little good that can come of it. Poor baby, what a world to be born into. |
| 2 Comments |
