These Twisted Times

When stupid calls a radio show

2006-05-22T15:40:00.001-05:00

While listening to my favorite crackpot radio show, Coast to Coast AM, early this morning, someone called in to voice his opinions about two topics which he declared were unrelated. The first concern of his was the President's administration using an imperialistic, interventionist and preemptive foreign policy. So distrought was this caller that his voice began to squeak with a whimpering helplessness. Apparently, the U.S. Military is killing people somewhere. Shocking, I know.

After gargling out a few more sentences in support of his first reason for calling, he got on to the second one. The caller reminded us that Iran is a serious threat to Israel and Jews everywhere. So, what does he ask the show's guest (a retired Army Colonel) 30 seconds after ending his rant about the U.S. spreading it's empire? "What is the President going to do about Iran?!?" He went on and on about nuclear technology, terrorist financing, Israel being blown up, etc. The bottom line is that he was adamant about the U.S. attacking Iran before something happened, as though Israel were a de facto 52nd state (see: 51 - Puerto Rico).

Callers like him are why I listen to this show. It's a gold mine for illogical thought processes. The caller has no clue that he just contradicted himself with the two parts of his call. Of coure, the host and guest don't either but they're both certifiably insane - a fair excuse, i'd say.

I wonder if this sort of reasoning is prevalent within the majority of individuals. It's clear that much of the U.S. citizenry hold to a view that peoples of certain countries have more value than others. I'd imagine, though I could be wrong, that people have a fairer opinion of the Japanese than they do of the Chinese (due to that whole Communism thing). While this speaks to those of the ruling class and not the subservient individual, it's still a common mistake made in forming an opinion of this sort. So, would Americans be as outraged if China were threatening to sink the isles of Japan every other week? Probably not, but that has more to do with Christianity's religious interests in the Middle East than anything else.

Pat Robertson sees wet people

2006-05-19T11:07:00.000-05:00

Everyone's favorite loathesome old codger is at it again. Apparently God has told Pat Robertson yet another secret, and this is one of those times that he's sharing it with everyone!

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. -- Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson says God told him storms and possibly a tsunami will hit America's coastline this year.

Robertson has made the predictions at least four times in the past two weeks on his news-and-talk television show "The 700 Club" on the Christian Broadcasting Network, which he founded. Robertson said the revelations about this year's weather came to him during his annual personal prayer retreat in January.

"If I heard the Lord right about 2006, the coasts of America will be lashed by storms," Robertson said May 8. Wednesday, he added, "there well may be something as bad as a tsunami in the Pacific Northwest."

While it's obvious that these are the ramblings of a would-be mental patient, I thought that i'd look into this whole hurricane prediction thing a bit more. AccuWeather.com's annual hurricane season forecast has been fairly, uhh. . . 'accurate' - over the years. The 2006 forecast predicts that "six tropical cyclones will make landfall in the U.S. Five of these landfalling storms are likely to be hurricanes, with three being major hurricanes of Category 3 or greater."

Now, i've read up on AccuWeather.com's, and other meteorological forecasters', methods used to compile the data for these predictions and I failed to see "God's supa-dupa poW3rZ" mentioned anywhere. It's probably a safe bet that Pat is in the same boat as Joe Morgan when it comes to the value of computers, and technology in general.

The timing of Robertson's babbling is rather humorous as well. Most initial hurricane predictions are made right after the season officially ends (end of Novermber) and tend to change little as further data is examined. So, when it's factored in that Pat Robertson is a professional liar, the likelihood that he was fully aware of these forecasts before making his divine inside scoop known.

Even More Bird Flu Stupidity

2006-05-08T21:54:00.000-05:00

Apparently instilling terror in the public is only acceptable if the professionals are the ones administering the terror. A new bird flu movie, which is going to hit the airwaves soon, has some statist pigs all hot and bothered.

"Experts fear bird flu movie may spur panic."

"I am not happy," said Mike Osterholm, a University of Minnesota public health expert who has been warning about and consulting on the threat of an influenza pandemic.

"I worry that this could very well be portrayed by many as ultimate example of sensationalism," Osterholm told reporters in a telephone briefing on Monday.

This idiot is worried about sensationalism? There's no way a movie like this is stopped from being released. The movie makers have essentially done the government officials' jobs for them. What need is there for back-alley deals, to try and pump up the scare factor of bird flu, by drug companies and anyone else who might stand to profit from the panicking masses. If anything, they'll probably donate money for the advertising of the movie.

Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt has been holding meetings in the 50 states and territories to convince businesses, educators and individuals to prepare for a pandemic that could throw 40 percent of the workforce out of action for weeks on end.

"While the movie does serve to raise awareness about avian and pandemic flu, we hope it will inspire preparation -- not panic," the HHS talking points read.

Loosely translated: We want your money. All of it.

The Flying Elbow of Morality

2006-05-08T00:09:00.000-05:00

Argh! I'm fed up with trying to show people that their definitions and general understanding of concepts like God and government are dead wrong. Pointing out that the evidence for Jesus' existence is so flimsy that there is no good reason to think such a person ever lived is getting me no where. The contradictions in the gospels don't seem to even put a hitch in people's undying faith. Democracy is still regarded as the best way for a society to function, no matter what contrary facts I offer. And don't even get me started on what happens when you tell someone why it's immoral to support the troops.

So, what am I to do? Since all of these other tactics are having little-to-no affect, I think it's wise to just completely change the plan of attack. I've been slowly moving towards using the argument from morality in more and more of the discussions I have with people. Perhaps it's time for The Flying Elbow of Morality to be deployed full time! Uhh. . . Well, most of the time, anyway.

Think about it for a second - religionists and statists thrive off of the argument from morality. These two groups twist, distort and fabricate facts of the natural world in order to dictate what is moral. Theists have you in fear of burning in fiery cauldron of orca fat for eternity. Meanwhile, statists have you convinced that if there were no government you'd grind up eldery people for food (SOYLENT GREEN!), marry farm animals and watch corpses pile up on every street corner. It really makes my skin crawl to think what will happen when the government here turns into a full blown theocracy.

Regardless, violence and fear mongering not are acceptable moral standards, but what kills me inside is that no one seems to realize that that is exactly what they've become. So, from now on, it's morality or bust for me. Stefan Molyneux was right about it being the most powerful argument. The rest is becoming mere filler while the AFM proves to be the thriller.

Aha! So that's why Benny Hinn is insane.

2006-05-02T18:44:00.000-05:00

I Hate You

2006-04-11T09:25:00.000-05:00

Yes, you. Based on polls and surveys taken across the globe, there's an extremely good chance that I don't like anything you stand for. You're most likely holding yourself to some sort of statism or nationalism. And, of course, there is that whole religion thing which instantly turns you into a big bucket of stupid in my eyes. So, yeah, I hate you.

When it comes to sponsoring politics and emitting national "pride", all you're saying is that you enjoy having other people tell you what is right and wrong for yourself. When you go to vote, you're forking over your values to someone else who does not share them. No one else holds your exact set of values but you can't seem to understand that fact. You agree, maybe, with someone on a few issues and then come to the conclusion that this someone should have the power to set the guidelines and boundaries for my way of life. For this, I hate you.

Sending those who volunteer to kill innocent people and destroy private property in an alleged defense of the false-concept that is a nation is right up your alley. To you: "Wars have to be fought, otherwise, who would fight them?". For this, I hate you.

As the numbers would dictate, you're most likely a fan of the supernatural. You enjoy living this life in some downtrodden, miserable fashion in hopes that when you die, you'll be granted entrance into a floating Candyland where everything is made of peppermint and you get to sit in a circle as you stare at a chocolatey throne for eternity. Once there, you think that you'll be meeting a giant first cause inducing, finger-shaking fairy. To help you get there, you resort to a poorly written clusterfuck of stories which you believe holds the answer to any question that may arise during your travails in life. And everytime you turn a papyrus page in one of these tales, you interpret it in a completely different way than the last person did. Then, on the all-too-common occasion when this book makes you look like a moron, you say that you have faith in this dellusion of yours and that justifies everything. For this, I hate you.

But why? Why won't I just be tolerant of your dumbfuckery? Because if I do that, then it means your morally bankrupt world view is as deserving as mine of being heard, spread, taught, etc. Alas, it is not, and you can't come anywhere close to proving that it is. Yet, for some reason, you try to get me to go along with this whole tolerance thing anyway. For this, I hate you.

Save the cries of equal time for someone who is, at best, your equal in stupidity.

-Will

Property Rights = Terrorism

2006-04-01T15:28:00.000-05:00

Do you live in Virginia? If so, you're probably a terrorist; accoring to the state anyway. Some manual to help state employees point out possible terrorists was leaked a few days ago and, well, here's what's in it:

Ok, I can understand the Animal Rights Activists and other Green Party psychos but people in favor of private property? What's next? A watch list for people who don't want to be raped or murdered?

Prayers can't heal people? Duh.

2006-03-31T07:47:00.000-05:00

Apparently the scale of this study on intercessory prayer was the largest of it's kind. Basically, people in certain churches or monastaries around the country prayed for 1,800 individuals right before they went into heart surgery. Curiously, the study showed that people who knew they were being prayed for had more complications resulting from the surgery. Other than that, there were no discernable healing abilities shown from the praying.

That didn't stop religious quacks from trying to rescue the power of prayer. Nope, here's what they said:

"Our study was never intended to address the existence of God or the presence or absence of intelligent design in the universe or to compare the efficacy of one prayer form over another," said the Rev. Dean Marek, director of chaplain services at the Mayo Clinic, one of the authors. "The patients in the study had similar religious profiles with most believing in spiritual healing and almost all also thinking that friends or relatives would be praying for them as well," he said.

And then:

"One caveat is that with so many individuals receiving prayer from friends and family, as well as personal prayer, it may be impossible to disentangle the effects of study prayer from background prayer," Manoj Jain of Baptist Memorial Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee, another author of the report.

The authors said one possible limitation to their study was that those doing the special praying had no connection or acquaintance with the subjects of their prayer, which would not usually be the norm.

"Private or family prayer is widely believed to influence recovery from illness, and the results of this study do not challenge this belief," the report concluded.

If only they had used the family members of each of these 1,800 patients to conduct this study, then the power of prayer would be known to all! What a joke...

State of War

2006-03-30T10:47:00.000-05:00

Why is the State allowed to consistently justify war on moral grounds and how does it happen? Aside from the simple "Because it can" answer, perhaps we can clear some of that up with the following:

First we must ask the obvious, "what is a state?" A state is nothing more than a monopoly of force over a territory by a very small portion of the inhabitants of that territory. Ensuring it maintains a monopoly of force is it's primary function. The second aspect of a State is it's ability to tax those within it's territory for it's services - health care, protection, social sercurity, parks and roads, whatever.

There is a key point to be remembered in regard to the State and these "services": the State does not produce anything. Instead of producing something on its own in order to generate the money it needs, the State acts like a parasite on newly generated and existing wealth. The rate at which a State draws from the wealth within it's territory is a factor in how well the State can expand (i.e. taking over states or territories which tend to have high taxation and few foreign policy entanglements). The liberal super state has a low tax rate, comparatively, allowing it to naturally grow faster than lesser states.

A note should be made that the State is not a natural form of societal structure, rather, it is a highly lucrative opportunity for a very tiny segment of a peoples within a territory to gain everything they desire and provide nothing in return. States do not produce anything. What they offer are services which can be gotten elsewhere at a much better value, except that it is not the State's best interest to allow competition. It thrives on the monopoly it holds over the territory. The services it provides are offered at gun point. "Pay taxes or we'll shoot you", is the State's way of dealing with those in its territory. Just extrapolate it to the end. If you refuse to pay taxes, lose every appeal you file in a court of law, and resist the police to the fullest when they attempt to arrest you, you'll be shot. Thus, there is no incentive for the State to provide the best possible services. Why should it? It takes the money it requires, and then some, by the way of a gun in your face. There is no threat of the State losing business.

It is in the State's best interest to have as many monetary hosts to draw from as possible, which allows it to achieve massive resource advantages over the high tax rate, isolationist states (for example, Iraq). Therefore, the lower the tax rate, the larger the State can become. This is key in how states like the U.S. can invade Iraq so easily in terms of having an abundance of resources available.

How, then, does a State legitimize war, and other such actions, amongst it's own people and peoples of other states/semi-states? By creating circumstances which make a stateless society appear wholly untenable - inciting riots and looting; a chaotic scene in general. This gives the individuals of a territory the impression that without a State private property is up for grabs to anyone willing and able to take hold of it. And then the vast majority of those with property side with the State because the State promises that it can protect them from such a thing happening. This is the building block for all states either starting anew or simply expanding a territory. (The U.S. currently has around 1,000 military bases in over 50 countries around the globe - proof of its efficiency at expansion.)

The type of State mentioned above necessarily has to grow. It needs an ever increasing amount of money to keep those who provide nothing with pockets lined in gold. And, as we know all too well, war is the one way that a State can be allowed to spend stolen dollars as irrationaly, and immorally, as possible. The cycle never ends. There will always be another war because an unworthy someone has pockets that perpetually lack that golden hue.

We should be aware of the fact that the well will eventually dry up for the State. As history attests, no empire or State functions infinitely. This tangled web of coercion will eventually fade out on its own after its looted and plundered all that it possibly can. In today's geopolitical climate, however, there always exists a possibility of that process being expedited. The only way to ensure a free market society when the State finally succumbs to its on violent ways, is to make sure people are educated to the immoral ways of the State. Nothing else will give us the freedom we deserve.

Those aren't anarchists

2006-03-23T18:29:00.000-05:00

Just checked the Drudge Report for late breaking lies and what d'ya know? I found one!

He has the following picture and link/caption:

French Anarchists Riot Again for Job Security...

Typical Sludge, I mean Drudge. The imagery and captioned link are completely opposite of what I know entails being anarchist. Violence is what an anarchy is trying to escape; coercion first and foremost. Destruction of private property and blood in the streets isn't the anarchist's goal or even first response to problems of this nature - job laws being changed in this case - and anyone who tells you it is justified is a socialist/syndicalist quack. You'll note that the story, to which the link takes you, does not even mention the word anarchist once. Why? Because they're not anarchists. They're simply accustomed to the old state-enforced employment laws and airtight unions. The French are having that taken away and now they cry afoul by tipping over cars and lighting things on fire. See what statism does to people?

So, here we have Drudge using yet another underhanded way to paint anarchism as the 'chaotic party' which wants corspes to pile up in the streets in order to accomplish it's goal. The masses in the U.S. bite on this sort of tripe hook, line, and sinker too (especially, especially in this country). It does make our job more difficult in educating people when major media outlets attempt to blur reality in this way, but we can take solace in the notion that they're doing it because they see moral truths in a free-market society and it scares the hell out of them.

It's a war! No, it's a picnic!

2006-03-18T23:17:00.000-05:00

Out of boredom, I found myself rereading 1984 over the past couple of days.

When comparing the reporting of happenings in the War on Terror with the Ministry of Truth's dealings in the coverage of Oceania's foreign relations, the two strike each other as eerily similiar. Headlines and huge announcements made one day only for them to be something different, if not completely unrecognizable a few days later.

Granted, the actual ruling class doesn't have as much authority over the press as Orwell's fictional one but there isn't all that much of a difference. For instance, the supposed "largest air assault on Iraq since the begining of the war", Operation Swarmer, is today found out to be anything but what it was originally billed as. 1500 troops, transported by 50 helicopters, managed to capture a whopping 48 people (17 of which were released shortly after). There's efficient use of taxpayer money, for you. And when does it get reported as to how many innocents were killed and how much of their property was destroyed?

Nothing groundbreaking here, merely a subject that has been refreshed in my mind.

Love me not

2006-03-18T21:18:00.000-05:00

I've been thinking about love lately; the concept as I understand it now and how i've misused it in the past. Love, as I view it, is a value judgement between yourself and whomever(be it family or friends). The values I see in someone else must mirror my own in a number of ways - obviously there isn't anyone else on the planet who holds my exact set of values - in order for that person to garner my love. Why would a person love another person whom shared hardly any of the same values? Would that be love? I don't think so.

Admiration is a large part of love for me as well. Seeing something in someone else that you wish to strive for while that person sees the same in you is one of the deepest connections two people can make, I think.

And then there is this notion of unconditional love. I now see this aspect of normal familial relations as comical. Why should one hold a family member in some special regard over someone who is unrelated to you? If a family member holds none of your values or moral convictions, why is there this general rule of sticking by your family before all others, even if you despise them? Solely because parts of their genetic makeup mirror my own? Pfft, that doesn't void a person's immorality.

I hear "I love you" plenty of times from people i've considered my family for as long as I can remember. Some of them I know to be completely immoral and insane, others I am not so sure about, but why should I hold onto this notion of them as "always on my side of the fence" when they hold none of the same values, or show no curiousity towards mine for that matter, and lack the slightest grasp of an objective moral standard. I don't think anyone deserves anything unconditionally, especially love. Though, i'm just now learning what it is to not expect any when ties are severed, and to deny it when it's offered still.

Intellectual Cowardice

2006-03-15T18:09:00.000-05:00

The following has been stuck in my craw all day.

Last night on The Daily Show, the guest was Bart Ehrman, author of Mistquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. During the course of the interview, the author correctly pointed out several instances where things in the Bible had been altered, added in at a later date, and just flat out didn't corroborate themselves. Of note, Mr. Ehrman pointed to the story of Jesus and the prostitute in the square, where Jesus supposedly said "let he who is without sin cast the first stone". Pretty notable biblical tale, right? Well, Mr. Ehrman shows where the inconsistencies lie and comes to the conclusion that the story was most likely added a few centeries after the first cannonization of the New Testament.

As the guest proceeded to make his case and state the evidence in his book, both he and John Stewart just flat out left me stupified. After all of these affirmations of what any ardent atheist already knows to be the case, the two of them conclude each mini-discussion, and ultimately the interview, with statements such as: "It's as though the bible really is a living document!", "Yes, yes, it is ever changing!", and "To me, this makes the bible seem more godly".

How is it that seemingly educated, intelligent, learned individuals can so completely miss the obvious in what they had just discussed? All of these discrepancies don't discredit the Bible in their eyes. Oh, no. It somehow becomes a quaint little document of truth when all of these things are pointed out. I mean, come on! The author even started off the interview by saying that he was led down the path of writing this book by his questioning of the Gospels and their contradictions. It's as though theists come so close to forming a coherent thought and then smash it with a sledge hammer because going down that avenue is unfamiliar and scary.

John Stewart is the main reason why I got ticked off last night though. Here is a satirist who is paid to be skeptical on national television and has pointed out a plethora of inconsistencies in government and religion prior to last night's show. But when it came to the Bible and a man openly admitting that their were serious flaws in people's understanding of biblical writings, what did Stewart do? He cowered in a corner, shrugged aside any intellectual honesty he had left, and called the book magical and "more godly".

Or, maybe he just doesn't have the mental capacity to recognize such a glaring opportunity to nail someone to the wall. It really makes you miss those giants of men like Harry Browne.

The Bird Flu Cometh

2006-03-01T00:03:00.000-05:00

I hope people realize that this designer virus will be striking the U.S. rather soon.

I hope people realize that there is a reason for the spreading of this virus.

I hope people realize that it seems to be the same reason that Haliburton received all of these wartime contracts.

I hope people realize that Donald Rumsfeld used to be the chairman of the board at Gilead Sciences which manufactures the most widely recommended medication(Tamiflu) specifically for severe flu strains.

I hope people realize that this is all a money grab. Cheney and his Haliburton crew got theirs, now it's Rumsfeld's turn. If you don't think they get kickbacks in some shape or form then I should tell you that i'm selling some swamp land in Florida and you're more than likely in the market.

I hope people realize that the poultry industry will take a huge hit when this goes down.

Finally, I hope people don't listen to anything PETA has to say when the bird flu hits the U.S. because they are a clan of terrorists whose sole purpose is to impede human beings' livelihood by means of force.

Jesus was mentally ill (assuming he ever existed)

2006-02-25T23:24:00.000-05:00

So, i've been reading up on the Two Minds Theory. It states that Jesus had two minds: one divine/supernatural mind, which contained infinite knowledge (omniscience) and one earthly mind which experienced things as human's do ( or mere humans as Morris puts it). The earthly mind had no knowledge of the divine mind's omniscience but did have some small amount of restricted access to the divine mind in some unspecified way from what I understand. Thus, TMT somehow explains away conflicts between Jesus' omniscience and being perfectly moral, which, in the Bible, he clearly wasn't but should have been given his being the son of God and all. Unfortunately, for apologists, this still leaves a few contradictions with the Gospels' account of what Jesus did in life and it also doesn't explain the problem of Jesus' omnipotence, as Michael Martin has pointed out in The Case Against Christianity.

After reading a good chunk of Thomas Morris' The Logic of God Incarnate, I can conclude only the following from the thrust of his argument: Apologists are attempting to prescribe Jesus with a mental illness/disorder in order to SAVE his credibility. Good job, fruitcakes. I feel as though i'm the one developing the mental illness due to trying to understand what these people are attempting to say. Make sense, damnit!

I know, I know, someone is going to tell me that I have incorrectly interpretted Morris here. Guess what though? Up to this point, I haven't. And until, or if, I do, how about offering some idea, or evidence, that doesn't create a contradiction to support Morris before attacking me!

Idiot: Attorney General Alberto Gonzales

2006-02-07T05:24:00.000-05:00

A couple of days ago, I was watching Attorney 'Genius' Gonzales show exactly why he is a shining example of the ruling class and their efforts to collectively pull the wool over people's eyes. He was at his little Senate hearing defending the actions of the Executive Branch of our government for unilaterally undermining domestic spying laws. Here is one of the ways he defended these actions:

(He gets asked a softball question which should've been easy enough to give a fuzzy answer to but...)

Senator Grassely: I think that as the American public hears examples of how Democrat presidents and Republican presidents alike have done similar things, they may begin to see this program in a different light, particularly in regard to the president's over 225 years' use of the exercise of the power of commander in chief.

Gonzales: I gave in my opening statement, Senator, examples where President Washington, President Lincoln, President Wilson, President Roosevelt have all authorized electronic[emphasis mine] surveillance of the enemy on a far broader scale -- far broader -- without any kind of probable cause standard, all communications in and out of the country.

Really, dipshit? President Washington ordered wiretaps? Lincoln demanded that our great, great, grandfathers' email be viewed by government agencies? Come to think of it, I vividly remember hearing stories from a friend's grandfather about how presidents Wilson and Roosevelt thought it necessary to dig through all his electronic purchases and library records.

I D I O T. At least try to make sense when you lie to people.

God ©

2006-02-05T14:17:00.000-05:00

Due to the genocidal rage coming out of Islamic countries these past few weeks over a series of cartoons, i've been pondering the hypocrisy of this whole "graven image" rule. The vast majority of Christians, from my experience at least, should just forfit their mystical afterlives over to the devil right now, seeing as how graven imagery is needed in order to keep them focused. (The Passion of the Christ, public displays of the Ten Commandments, etc). Anyway, here is some scriptural mumbo jumbo:

Christianity: Exodus 20: 3,4,5 - "Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness [of any thing] that [is] in heaven above, or that [is] in the earth beneath, or that [is] in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God [am] a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth [generation] of them that hate me..."

Islamic law: forbids any graven images of it's Prophet(s) or god. There is also this bit from the Islamic Decalogues - "The charge to avoid dancing, song, playing music, and seeing shows." Miserable bastards.

Now, if we are to take religious scripture literally, as fundamentalists most often do, how is it possible for any piece of art to be made which describes, or shows, a living organism on this planet? (that is, without violating some sacred rule) All things are created by a god in both of these religions. Christianithy asserts that man is made in it's gods' image and the rest of the stuff just poofed into existence too. Islam doesn't put the "in Allah's image" line in it's text but it's god is claiming responsibility for life on this planet as well. So, if extremists are to follow their religion as ardently as they proclaim, it wouldn't be a quantum leap to assume that the only artistic depictions allowed would be of something, if anything at all, artificial. All things, to the theist, are contingent on God, so, life would be part of god's kingdom on Earth as said in the Bible. Now, i'm reaching a bit here but if one wanted to be a real nuisance to a Christian, or Muslim, this would be a way.

Atheologically, this makes theists - specifically the sort whom adhere to the nonsense mentioned above - look even more foolish; chasing their tails on some demented Möbius strip of indignation whenever one of these graven images pops up. My advice to these crackpots? Put down the flaming Allah swords, holster the Jesus cannons, and have a Coke and a smile.

[swear]Insert ubiquitous post-ending expletive here.[/swear]

Hating the state

2006-02-02T06:18:00.000-05:00

"The State of the Union address was given Tuesday night by President George W. Bush."

That's the kindest thing I can say about the annual promotion of violence which just took place. It's taken me a day to gather my thoughts, and emotions, after those hate-speeches were delivered in succession (the response from the left included) Tuesday evening. Needless to say, i'm left, as I always am after these speeches, disgusted and with rhetorical questions.

There really is nothing like watching almost all of the ruling class stuffed into a room, wildly applauding declarations which further the theft-at-gun-point taxations of an unsuspecting populace. New programs are announced with little care of whom flips the bill. Have you seen the tax breaks politicians and the ultra-wealthy corporatists receive? Government does not thrive off of delivering good on their promises. They thrive off of lying to you, obfuscating the fact that they're robbing you blind in order to stuff their own pockets; acquiring the means to expand the 'Empire'.

How about listening to some smirking first-term governor follow up the SotU address by telling me that I an included in a group that "prays for the troops" in Middle East? Or that there is "another way" to approach the all important issues? What way is that? By stealing more of my money to deepen the papercut your statist brother-in-arms inflicted on the system?

And then there is the reninvigorated beating of the war drums. The stern look of our leader into a camera, addressing a foreign region, and professing the 'joy' it would bring to all Americans if we could plant our democracy seed in their back yard and laugh about it over a nice cup of coffee. Fucking brilliant sentiment, isn't it?

Watching a tiny minority (the ruling class) unilaterally superimpose their values over mine in public is not my idea of a fun evening. Why do I watch it then? Because it is morally reprehensible to ignore the coercion which looms over our society.

We used to burn witches too

2006-01-26T17:47:00.000-05:00

L.A. Times columnist Joel Stein is in the unfortunate position of having two very powerful things in this day and age: a brain and a soap box. Joel wrote an op-ed piece in which he stated that he does not support the troops because he does not the support the war. On this issue, I happen to feel exactly the same way as Joel does, though, perhaps he wouldn't take his disdain of statist concepts as far I do. Supporting the troops while being against the war is a chicken-shit, contradictory position which should be ridiculed at any chance. This is the same sort of rationale, and I use that term loosely here, that allows moderate Christianity to exist(hedonistic, pick and choose types). Don't get me wrong, fundies and moderates are both equally devoid of morality.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand...

Which segement of the population do all of the people who are against the war, but support the troops, think is pulling the triggers in Iraq, Afghanistan, and pretty soon Iran or Syria? Politians aren't. You and I aren't. Granted, politians send the soldiers on their way, but those same soldiers volunteered to be in the state sponsored murder business. Their morals are just as corrupt as those politians. Support is the last thing they would receive from me.

And what sort of treatment do those who dissent receive? Well, Joel is presently being bombarded with hate mail, threatened with physical violence by e-thugs, and having his name sullied by statist pigs; all because he shared a coherent opinion.

These days truths are no longer backed by free speech and not supporting the troops is the new witchcraft.

Iran's pseudoscience to the rescue!

2006-01-25T01:29:00.000-05:00

Guess what? Iran is going to have a conference to closely examine the Holocaust on their terms. Even going so far as to examine the "scientific evidence" of the Holocaust. Those dutiful bastards. How nice of them to leave no stone unturned so they can reaffirm our undestanding that neo-Nazism is despicable.

What's that you say?

That's not why they're holding this conference?

Iran is fucking insane and I should read this article to further understand why they're complete asshats?

I swear the news gets funnier, and scarier, everyday regarding Iran and Israel. There's three or four stories crossing the wire daily that defy any and all forms of sanity and morality. The only thing that can come of the attitudes that the peoples of these two nations currently hold is murder. And you know Christians, and the U.S., never pass on a chance to get their hands bloodied when there is even a hint of religious overtones present. Well, that's not entirely true seeing as the ruling class of this country seems to effectively skirt around getting themsevles physically involved when situations like these arise.

Anyway, blah.

I don't get Protestants.

2006-01-23T14:57:00.000-05:00

To be more specific, I don't understand why any people are religious other than hedonistic impulses and a lack of objective philosophical education. Okay, maybe I do understand but a lack of education may have more to do with early religious indoctrination these days. Either way, I guess it's a lack of 'edumacation', as Stephen Colbert would put it.

Anyway, one of the tenets of Protestantism is Solus Christus , or Christ alone, which states that Jesus Christ is the only person who could be a mediator between God and man. In other words, they disregard any and all papal works(i.e. the Pope has no authority).

Buuuuuuut, they also adhere to the New Testament. What is conveniently forgotten by Protestants, and their many reformed fragments, is that the New Testament's books were chosen by a Pope. That's right, Pope Saint Damasus I had the Greek/Latin translations altered, as well as omitting some books in this new version of God's word, during the first formal canonization process(around 350 to 400ish A.D.) of the New Testament.

I'm sure I could post a giant list of contradictions about Protestantism specifically, but I really don't want to waste any more of my time today pondering why people imagine things exist outside of material reality and how said morons irrationalize it all.

The Godless Splinter

2006-01-20T16:06:00.000-05:00

One of the least known things about Ted Williams is that he was atheist through and through. Regardless, Ted wasn't anywhere near perfect in his assessments of the world. The downside of his views was a devotion to the state. He fought in wars, and is widely recognized for his 'bravery' in combat. It's that same devotion which also drove him to become the greatest hitter baseball has ever known.

If only i'd had been able to meet someone of his stature when I was younger, and know that he held no beleif in the undefined. Sure, he was a human being just like you or I, but he'd been so distinguished by baseball - which all but encapsulated much of my childhood and teenage years, that i'd have simply stood there in awe and absorbed whatever he had to say. After all, there was .406, the walk-off home run in the 1941 All-Star game, the home run he hit in the final at bat of his career, and so much more. We depend on our elders to guide us with truth as children and even though I could not have been sure that what he believed was true at the time, due to my undeveloped mind, I would have been the better for it.

Only after he died did I learn of Ted's non-belief. Perhaps, the same desire to beat the game of baseball into submission also carried over into his views about god(s). Nothing could be Ted's master, I suspect. Alas, the irony of him being 'the great American hero' and a non-believer shouldn't go unnoticed.

Sound the amoral Xtian alarm!

2006-01-19T21:43:00.000-05:00

Judges rule state has power to remove 11 year old girl from life support.

Shiavo had a throng wackos trying to make a positive claim on her life. Where are those of that ilk now? Is this little girl not worthy of their Christian dogmas? What about the 'stepfather'? Or the state? Quick, find as many carefully plucked bible passages to reaffirm whatever stance you take on this one, Christians!

Fucking psychos.

I guess this case isn't dignified enough for them to get all riled up.
______________________________________________________________________

Upon further review:

I cannot see how Christians could pass this one up. It involves two of their favorite things to rally for and against in one fell swoop. Putting people to death for crimes and saving those in vegetative states.

Then again, this might cause the Christian's pea-brain to overheat and stop rattling around in their hollowed skulls.
______________________________________________________________________
Update:

In a strange twist, according to her doctors at least, the little girl is apparently breathing on her own after being taken off life support. Hopefully she has enough faculties left to resume a normal life.

Hasidic Homeboy dot dot dot WTF

2006-01-19T05:52:00.000-05:00

I've seen and heard it all now (figuratively of course). Twenty minutes later I still sit in bewilderment.

About this time every morning I turn on the TV, switch to one of a plethora of music stations - usually which ever station has something that least offends my senses at the time - and do some chores around the house. Well, I was about to put down the remote after hearing what I thought to be a catchy reggae song. After listening to what I determed were religion inspired lyrics for a few seconds, I was drawn back to the TV. What did I see? Well it took me a few seconds to process it but it turned out be a rapping Jew in full orthodox garb: beard, hat, and all. This threw me for an even further loop as he sounded as though he were one of Bob Marley's 38 sons.

All i'm saying is WTF.

Anyway, I finally pieced that together and have now concluded that atheists could use a good dose of poetic representation. Maybe we can get a chuckle out of folks if we send an uncaring, emotionless, monotone robot onto a stage to rap about non-belief, quantum theory, and the anti-virtues of Christian dogma. But seriously, Dawkins said it is scientists whom must point out the wonders that science can inspire to poets for them to reach their full potential. Perhaps atheism could use more of poets touch as well. After all, atheism appreciates the value of life far more than any theistic faith does.

It's conspiracy time!

2006-01-18T10:55:00.000-05:00

Something seemed a bit too coincidental over the last two days and I got to thinking about it well into the early morning hours.

Following Al Gore's speech he gave on Monday, you'd expect there to be some harsh words thrown back at Democrats from the right. Well, there is the best they could muster up: Al Gore is a hypocrite. Seems to me it's as though Republicans aren't able to attack his message so they make a weak attempt on his character. Quite unlike their usual party tact or isn't it?

The last time a voice this loud spoke against the current administration, it was around or just after the last election. And what started popping up on television as major news? What was the big thing that caused outrage, anger, fear, and disgust in Americans? Televised beheadings. Remember Nicholas Berg? There are two excellent threads on that incident here and here.

So, we have this scathing, clear cut speech lobbed at one side, which really has no answer because they've brazenly admitted to it in front of the American people. There's a minor attack on the speech giver's character and no real addressing of the message he delivered. Mind you, this speech was BARELY picked up by the major news agencies. No CNN, Fox, NBC, CBS, or ABC. So, what's the breaking news the following day?

Iraqi Captors Threaten Life of Reporter!
Al Jazeera airs video of kidnapped journalist!
Captors threaten to kill U.S. journalist!

That's right. A female journalist is to be executed if the captures demands are not met within 3 days.

Now either I read too much into things or it's the same old fear mongering tactic being used over and over and over again. Who wants to see a woman beheaded on television? I most certainly do not. So that means we must somehow give away even more of our dwindling liberties in order to ensure that this won't happen? Look, i'm sure there are some extremely evil people in the Mid-East, but when you look at the Nick Berg beheading, there are too much questions that arise.

These people - the government - will seemingly stop at nothing to keep their religious strangle-hold over this country. Liberty, free-thought, and personal values are all being choked out of the West. More and more Christian sponsored schools are popping up in place of public schools. And public schools are being invaded by religious dogmatics. It's as though a Christian manifest destiny is under way; spreading from the West, accross the Atlantic, into the Middle East.

Again, maybe I read too much into things, but does this sound all that impossible? Moreover, if this is the case, why don't people care enough to do anything about it?