The Sometimes Quite Lengthy Wonderings of Beth

Mufasa Knows More About Physics Than My High School Bible Teacher

2012-02-07T13:20:00.001-05:00

For the first two years of high school, I had a fantastic Bible teacher. I really enjoyed his teaching, if not his subject, because he was obviously intelligent and had a vast knowledge outside of the class he was teaching. I still can't figure out why he was teaching Bible at all. In any case, he and the principal did not agree on what he should be teaching, or how he should be teaching, or something, because she fired him after my Sophomore year. The person she replaced him with, was probably the worst teacher I've ever had. I've had better gym teachers.

He spent a lot of class time complaining about his childhood, and telling us stories about how he'd overcome temptation in college, or why he felt guilty for succumbing to temptation in college. If he wasn't talking about how he thought his father could have done a better job raising him, he was talking about college. He was young, and I think the only pair of shoes he owned were a pair of brown Birkenstocks. But probably not the real ones, those are expensive. He's probably in some other Bible classroom right now, boring another group of students, and wearing Crocks.

Oh, and when he prayed, he would contort himself into these strange looking double-jointed positions. It looked like he wasn't getting a good heavenly signal, so he was trying to adjust his antenna. Hopefully that's not what he was trying to do, but who knows?

Anyway. Among the many vapid assignments he had dreamed up for us, one in particular has stuck with me. Not because I learned anything from it (at least, not the lesson he intended) but because it made me so angry I have never been able to let it go.

He sat us down and said we were going to watch a movie. It sounded awesome. Then he amended his statement and said we were only watching two clips from the Lion King. I don't want to embed them in here, because they slow everything down. The first one is here, and the second one is here.

The important part from the first one, is Mufasa's story at the end of the clip:

Simba, let me tell you something that my father told me. Look at the stars. The great kings of the past, look down on us from those stars. So whenever you feel alone, just remember that those kings will always be there to guide you. And so will I.

The important part from the second one, is that Mufasa is speaking to Simba from beyond the grave.

Then he told us his opinion. Roughly, that we should not ever let our children watch this movie because it is wrong to teach children that they can communicate with the dead. Further, when a person dies, their body goes into the ground and that's the end of it. We come from god and go back to god, the stars are not involved at all. He had several Bible verses to go along with this opinion.

Then he told us to "formulate our own opinions" and write a short explanation, with Bible verses to back up our position, in our journals. I wish I still had that journal.

So I wrote a lovely little essay about the harm of sheltering and indoctrinating children, and said that the Lion King was a harmless movie that taught nothing but morality and good family values, good prevailing over evil, that it could even be taken as an allegorical account of God triumphing over Satan, etcetera etcetera. I believe I even said something about the writings of C.S. Lewis initially having been condemned by our particular denomination, whereas now our youth pastors include them in Sabbath School lessons.

Every person who wrote down that they agreed with his opinion, got five points out of five points. Every person who had an alternate opinion, got zero out of five points. Those of us with heathen beliefs were given an opportunity to redo the assignment. If we could write an essay explaining why his opinion was right and our was wrong, we would get full credit for the assignment.

I just want to take this opportunity to prove him wrong once and for all. Lawrence M. Krauss:

Every atom in your body came from a star that exploded. And, the atoms in your left hand probably came from a different star than your right hand. It really is the most poetic thing I know about physics: You are all stardust. You couldn't be here if stars hadn't exploded, because the elements - the carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, iron, all things that matter for evolution and for life - weren't created at the beginning of time. They were created in the nuclear furnaces of stars, and the only way for them to get into your body is if those stars were kind enough to explode. So, forget Jesus. The stars died so that you could be here today.

I feel vindicated.

Shit Christians Say to Atheists

2012-02-06T17:20:00.000-05:00

I've heard so many of these questions and statements before. It's ridiculous. It's time to address them.

You're an atheist? But you're so nice? This is insulting because it insinuates that you think only a Christian can be a nice person. That your Christianity is what makes you a nice person. On a more grand scale, it tells me that without your religion, you would't necessarily be a nice person at all. An archaic myth is the only thing keeping you from being the next Son of Sam, except that he was under the misapprehension that god was telling him to kill people.

So why do you hate god? You obviously haven't bothered to find out what an atheist is, and have instead skipped right to the part where you turn into a judgmental bigot. Typical. Atheists don't hate god; not yours, not your neighbors, not anybody's. We just don't believe they exist. Because we don't believe any gods exist, we can't very well hate them, now, can we? It would be like hating Santa Claus. It would be dumb.

So, you worship the devil, then? You don't...? But you believe in Satan? No...? Really. Satan falls into the same category as all the rest of the mythical beings. Satan isn't any more real than god is. And in fact, when talking about gods, you have to include Satan. He is a god just as much as all the rest of them. It even says so in your Bible:

Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present

themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them.

There are other gods. They come to talk to the god of the Bible. And Satan is one of them. I don't understand how it is possible to deny this, or to believe in this book while also remaining monotheistic. Never mind the message we get from the book of Job, that god will use his most faithful creations as pawns to win a bet with an "inferior" god that, in his omniscience, he should already know he will beat.

I understand that you're just going through a phase, and that deep down you really do believe. This is also seriously insulting. It tells me that you are not even going to bother to hide your belief that your beliefs are superior to mine, nor are you going to bother to hide your condescension.

But, you still believe in Jesus, right? Well. This one is tricky. I do agree that there was a person, or maybe multiple persons, at around the approximate time you believe him to have existed, who did travel around preaching a certain message, to certain people who were also in that same approximate area. Ever watched Monty Python's Life of Brian? Hilarious though it is, it is also a very accurate representation of how easily rumor spreads, and how quickly words are twisted when passed orally.

In light of that, I don't think Jesus was divine. And I'm not certain he was just one person. He certainly wasn't the son of a god. And he wasn't of the line of David (another questionable existence, attributed with historically questionable events and actions) because his genealogy is traced from Abraham to David, to Joseph. And as we all know, Joseph isn't the real father of Jesus. Mary is the only person who could be said to be of blood relation to Jesus, and she was a virgin, right? And thanks to the misogyny of the men who dreamed up the Bible and Christianity, there is no record of Mary's genealogy. So it looks like Jesus is not of the line of David, after all, and therefore not of the line of kings. Nor was he divine.

Come on, you were never really a true believer. People have said this to me as well. It is also insulting because it implies that the only reason I am no longer a believer, is because I just didn't study hard enough. Or I'm just not smart enough. On the contrary, some of the most well-studied and well-versed people are atheists, and it is because of their intelligence and knowledge. In fact, there seems to be a direct correlation between a persons lack of religion and their wealth, IQ level and their lack of religion, especially among academics and scientists. There's even a Wikipedia page about it. So, your posturing is really funny.

Look, I know you think you've been saved (or something, I can't quite catch what she says) but you really just need to go to a saved church. Come on. Telling me that you know what I think, and then proceeding to tell me that I'm wrong, is condescending and childish. You may have all the answers you need, and that's fine. But you shouldn't go around telling other people that they're wrong to look for answers besides the ones you've found. The church you attend might be good enough for you, but your assumption that it should be good enough for everyone else (and that we're silly for not finding it so) is ignorant and insulting.

But how can you even love, if you don't believe in a god? I never hear you pose the same question to someone of another faith, which I find strange. You wouldn't say that their god is real, you would probably say that they are operating under the misapprehension that their god is real, but yours is the real one. But by not posing this question to them, you are essentially admitting that you think their god could be just as real as yours. But, I'm off topic.

An atheist is just as capable as you are, of loving, if not more so. I love someone because I can't help it. I stay with the same person because I want to. Not because my parents chose someone for me, or because the sexual temptation was too much for me, or to coverup something inside myself I think it sinful, or for fear that I will be cursed by an invisible flying sky-daddy. If you love because you feel obligated to, it undermines the entire meaning of the word.

Wow. Your life must be bleak and meaningless. This one just makes me sad for you. Do you really have nothing else to live for and to give your life meaning, than your religion and your Bible? Does your family mean nothing? Your friends? Your education and career? Can you find no beauty at all on this Earth? That is pathetic.

What exactly do you believe in, then? Finally! A good question. I believe in myself, my family, and my friends. I believe that it is possible to be a good person without the threat of eternal damnation hanging over my head. I believe that I have one life to live, so I better make the most of it. I want to make this planet a better place for my children and grandchildren. I donate to various charities because donating to charity is a good thing to do. In fact, atheists in general are more generous than their religious counterparts, despite the Bible clearly telling believers to be generous with their riches. I do good because it's good to do good. Doing good because you fear retribution, is not doing good. It's trying to save your own skin.

No but see this is exactly what you don't understand! It take more faith to not believe in god... This one is just an outright lie. It doesn't take more faith not to believe in something you can't see and for which there is no evidence. It doesn't take faith to watch the scientific method work. It doesn't take faith to realize that the things humanity used to attribute to god, are being explained scientifically in demonstrable ways that everyone could understand if only they would try. What really takes faith, is to see all of this and still refuse to accept any of it, choosing ignorance over knowledge.

So why do you even bother to live? Insulting. Stupid. Ignorant. Evidence of a seriously sheltered childhood of indoctrination. Refer to the what do you believe in, then? paragraph.

Eternity is a very long time, and hell is hot. Trying to warn or threaten me with something I don't believe in, is silly. It's the same as trying to convince me that your religion is true, by using your holy book. Irrelevant. It would be like me trying to use science to convince you that evolution is true - has that ever worked before?

No, no, no. Just stop. It's [the Bible] not meant to be taken literally. Have you even read the Bible? Here's the thing about that. You might not take it literally now, but 2,000 years ago people took it very literally. During the Dark Ages, you would have been burned at the stake had you said that the Bible was simply allegorical. I'm glad that you've evolved this far, that you realize it's not actually true. It shows that religion is influenced by social trends, and likely was manmade. And it shows that one day people won't think the Bible is the unaltered and infallible word of god. In short, it shows that whether you choose to believe in it or not, evolution is happening - it's happening to you and your religion, and there really isn't anything you can do to stop it.

But how can you be a moral person? This one is particularly frightening. It says that without the threat of retribution from an invisibly sky-daddy, you would not feel any obligation to be moral at all. That this mythical being is the only thing stopping you from going crazy and killing everyone. A religious person doesn't rob a bank, because they are afraid of punishment. An atheist doesn't rob a bank, because it's a dick thing to do.

Further on that note, and sort of a backtrack to the beginning, there are hundreds of people (like the Son of Sam) who did seriously immoral things because they thought god was talking to them. Meaning, anything is moral as long as god tells you to do it, including murdering innocent people. I, and probably all other atheists, agree that murdering a person is always wrong, no matter who you think told you to do it. If I heard voices in my head, telling me to go on a killing spree, I would voluntarily check myself in to an mental hospital and trust science to fix me.

Besides that aspect, you assume that morality comes straight from the Bible. Every person who is not a Christian, would probably beg to differ, although they probably think morality comes straight from their own holy book. However, morality obviously doesn't come from the Bible, if for no other reason than that the god of the Old Testament is probably the most a-moral character in the whole book. If you want a longer explanation of this, you should read Sam Harris' The Moral Landscape.

I'm not even going to go through the rest of the video, because the rest of the statements are essentially restatements of what I've already addressed. I wish the religious, in general, would make an effort to be more knowledgable and informed. But I guess if they did that, they'd probably all turn into atheists.

Greg Quinlan is an Idiot

2012-02-04T13:57:00.000-05:00

For those of you who many not know who this man is, he is the President of Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (PFOX for short). He used to be a gay activist, back when he was gay, but he has since seen the light and prayed away the gay. Or so I'm assuming.

Recently, this man gave a speech for the New Jersey marriage hearings. This was his opening statement:

I want to talk first of all about something I heard from the very beginning by people of this Legislature that we are bigots as people of faith, because we do not hold that homosexual marriage should be codified. That somehow we are bigots and we are ideologues because we are people of faith. I want to address that hate. Everyone in this room who is a person of faith deserves an apology from one of the sponsors of this bill for calling us bigots.

Well. Alrighty-roo! Since you asked so nicely, I guess the rest of us will just forget that you are a lying, bigoted ass-hole, with a very twisted grip on reality, and rain down our sincerest apologies upon you. Or not. As I am so fond of doing on this blog, let's just go through that paragraph sentence by sentence.

Skipping over the first bits of drivel, let's go straight to we are bigots as people of faith, because we do not hold that homosexual marriage should be codified. Let's try to get some clarification here. I don't think anyone thinks you are a bigot for thinking that gay marriage is wrong. Or for thinking that gay marriage should not be legal. Or for not wanting to be made to hold gay marriages in your church. People think you are a bigot because you get up in public and tell large groups of people that gay marriage is wrong, according to your personal faith, and therefor everyone else, regardless of what faith or non-faith they hold, should be held to your personal standards. Having personal thoughts, is one thing. Getting up and preaching that people who don't agree with you are going to go to hell and burn forever in a fiery pit of anguish, is another.

That somehow we are bigots and we are ideologues because we are people of faith. You are not a bigot because you are a person of faith. Nobody is a bigot because they are a person of faith, or non-faith. I'm treading a thin line here, but I would say that the difference between being a bigot and not being a bigot, is that the non-bigot keeps his thoughts to himself. Nobody will call you a bigot for ideas that you never express. An ideologue you may be, I would say that all people of faith are such, but it isn't necessarily a bad thing. That word only has a negative connotation if you choose to take it that way.

I want to address that hate. Everyone in this room who is a person of faith deserves an apology from one of the sponsors of this bill for calling us bigots. And this is where the typical conservative right-wing speaker does a complete one hundred and eighty degree about face, takes what he has been doing for some time, and accuses his accusers of doing it. He, and his counterparts, have been giving speeches filled with made-up 'facts' about homosexuality being a choice, preaching that gay marriage is harmful to children, and giving us other pearls of wisdom such as 'god hates fags' and 'it would be better for a child to have a father in prison than two dads at home'. A very loving message, wouldn't you say? But as soon as someone points out their bigotry, suddenly they are the ones being attacked and harassed. Suddenly they are the victim. Suddenly they deserve an apology from the people who were brave enough to call out them out on their bigotry.

I think not. It will be a cold day in hell when I ever apologize to a 'person of faith' who was offended by the truthiness of what I say, or what I believe in. And I seriously hope this idiot, Greg Quinlan, doesn't get a single apology. No, I will amend that statement. As soon as Mr. Quinlan gets up in front of the media, and apologizes for his made-up facts and hate-mongering, I will apologize ... no, I will never apologize for calling him an idiot. Because he is an idiot.

But he should still apologize. Asking for an apology from a group of people you are actively trying to repress and make lawfully unequal, is like stealing an old lady's purse, beating her with it, then accusing her of causing you emotional damage, and telling her she has to pay for your therapy.

I hope that mental image is stuck in your head for a long time, because that type of behavior is reprehensible and it shouldn't be forgotten.

Atheists Don't Believe In Anything

2012-02-03T17:31:00.000-05:00

This video made me laugh. But then I realized it wasn't a joke, and then it wasn't funny anymore.

I guess this guy is serious. The opening sentence of the article on Wikipedia dedicated to him, should really tell you all you need to know about him, why people take him seriously, and how he is allowed to get away with saying such stupid things out loud:

"Marion Gordon "Pat" Robertson (born March 22, 1930)^[1] is a media mogul, television evangelist, ex-Baptist minister and businessman who is politically aligned with the Christian Right in the United States."

Let's just go through this video, short clip by short clip, until we just can't take the stupidity any longer.

The first 5 words: Atheists don't believe in anything. Right there he is already lying to you. I am an atheist, I believe in many things. I just don't believe in gods or religions. I believe in myself and in other people, and I believe that more good can be done when people get together for the sole purpose of doing good, than when people get together to do good to glorify god. I do good because it's good. I donate because I believe in certain causes. Doing good because you think someone in the sky watching and judging you, isn't good. It's saving your own ass.

Next: I mean, a-thea, means no gods. They've got no gods, that's what they...they don't have anything. So they don't believe in anything. If you haven't caught on yet, he's still lying to you. I am amazed at how easy it is for him to make the jump from they've got no gods to they don't have anything to they don't believe in anything. It all happened so quickly, I had to watch those first 9 seconds at least four times. He's just reiterating what he said in his opening statement. According to Pat Robertson, a god...no, more likely only the Christian god...is the only thing a person can have, or believe in, or want, in their life.

But they can protest somebody who believes in something. Isn't it a strange thing that we would allow somebody who doesn't believe in anything, to restrict the freedoms of those that do? I mean, it makes no sense. Sooner or later we're going to wake up, and I think maybe we are, but....

There are so many things wrong with that. Again, he is operating under the misapprehension that only people who believe in the Christian god, have anything to believe in or live for. His next leap of logic is to say that because atheists don't fit that description, we shouldn't allow them to protest. I don't even want to think about who his chosen privileged few we are, but I'm sure they would be handpicked with the greatest care.

He thinks it is a strange thing that we would allow somebody who doesn't believe in anything, to restrict the freedoms of those that do. Well you know what I think? I think it's a strange thing that we would allow somebody who believes in something, to restrict the freedoms of those that don't.

More broadly, I think it's unfortunate that we let any group dictate what any other group is allowed to do. I think it's strange that we even talk about it at all. Where did people start to get this idea that because they personally have a problem with something, everyone else must walk on eggshells so as not to offend them? That's the most ridiculous idea that has ever been introduced.

People have started to take the idea of freedom, to mean entitlement. It isn't I want to believe this and you're free to believe that anymore. Now it's I want to believe this, and if if you don't believe it too then I'm going to attack you through the right-wing media until you are so sick of it you retaliate through the left-wing media, and then I'm going to call foul and tell everyone that I'm an oppressed minority and you're suppressing my right to freedom. It's disgusting.

And it's really only religion that's getting this kind of special treatment. For instance, many parents tell their children about Santa Clause, and insinuate that he is real. One day, kids find out that he isn't real, and life goes on. Same with the Tooth Fairy, and all other fairy-tale nonsense. At some point, most children stop talking to their imaginary friends. What makes the different religious myths immune to this same kind of logic?

Mr. Robertsons enlightened side-kick has some input as well. Just a thought! she says in a semi-condescending I'm-smarter-than-you kind of way. You know you've got different, I don't know, call them religions. There's one called Wicca. And they're all about the environment, right? So if their religion, that believes in the environment, and they believe that trees are their god, why are these atheists not saying that we should cut down every tree, because it's offensive? Do you know what I mean? It's the same mentality, right?

Let me just stop you right there. No it is not the same mentality. First of all, atheists are not trying destroy anybody's god. We really don't care what you personally believe. We just don't want you trying to influence the government with your personal beliefs. You are free to believe in whatever you want to, in the comfort of your own home or the privacy of your own mind. Have you ever opened your door early on a Saturday morning to an atheist preaching the non-word of the non-god they don't believe in? No. Because we don't do any of that.

Secondly, you can't just off-the-cuff say I don't know, call them religions like you're being nice by letting them have that title for half a second. All belief systems are religions. Christianity is not the only belief system that gets to call itself a religion. And while we're at it, all religions are equal. Christianity is not the best, brightest, or more intelligent religion. It's not even the loudest. It's not the number one anything. It's just a religion, like all the others.

And no, atheism is not a religion. It is not a belief. It is a non-religion, non-belief. Saying atheism is a religion or a belief is the same as saying that off is a television channel. It's stupid.

Thirdly, if you don't know what a religion actually believes, don't talk about it. I myself do not know that much about Wicca, but I know enough to know that they don't worship trees. Wiccan's don't believe in the environment nor do they believe that trees are their god. They believe in a god and a goddess. Some believe that these gods manifest themselves into every living thing, including trees, so in that aspect, yes, they would worship a tree. But also every other living thing. Not exclusively the tree. Wicca is not the tree religion.

So, this brilliant intellectual thinks that because Wiccan's worship trees (which isn't true anyway) and atheists don't believe in gods, all the atheists should band together and form some sort of medieval witch-hunt (except in this case, a tree-hunt) and murder all the trees. What part of that seems logical to you?

As I said before, atheists don't hate religion. We hate the amount of respect that religions (mostly Christianity) abstain from showing towards atheism. We hate that it seems impossible for religious people to keep their religion to themselves, out of politics and government. We are not offended by your belief. The only thing that offends us is your assumption that without your belief, we can't be good and happy people. It's condescending, it's childish, and it's stupid.

Straight People Don't Get AIDS

2012-02-03T12:36:00.001-05:00

I went to school in Tennessee. I am ashamed.

A Republican State Senator by the name of Stacey Campfield, someone who must have campaigned for election and won by a popular vote of the people living in Tennessee, has apparently never had a class on sex education. This is not surprising, but it's still unfortunate, and if it weren't so sad it would almost be funny.

This is what he says, about AIDS: My understanding is that it is virtually -- not completely, but virtually -- impossible to contract AIDS through heterosexual sex...vary rarely [transmitted].

I guess the first thing to note is that he must be aware of how ridiculous he was about to sound, because he doesn't say factually or according to (insert citation from scientific or otherwise credible book), he says my understanding. This is oddly reminiscent of Jon Kyl's remarks about Planned Parenthood (...If you want an abortion, you go to Planned Parenthood, and that's well over 90% of what Planned Parenthood does...) which later turned out to be more of a metaphor or an allegory, I'm assuming, as we learned that his remark was not intended to be a factual statement, but rather to illustrate that Planned Parenthood, a organization that receives millions of dollars in taxpayer funding, does subsidize abortions.

So, his understanding is basically that straight people don't get AIDS. That is very interesting. Obviously, it is impossible to know either the exact number of gay people in the world or the exact number of people in the world suffering from AIDS, but, let us see what we can find through the magic of the internet.

First off, approximate number of people with AIDS. According to the Catholic Relief Service website (see what I did there):

"In 25 years, HIV has infected more than 65 million people. The majority of those suffering live in Africa, but the pandemic is quickly spreading in many countries throughout Eastern Europe, Latin America and Asia. By 2010, it is estimated that 80 million people will be infected and 25 million children will have been orphaned. HIV and AIDS disproportionately affect the poor and vulnerable, and limited resources often prevent poor communities from supporting the millions who suffer."

Alright. So 80 million infected people, and 25 million orphaned children. Most of these are in Africa. Side note: imagine the backlash if he had said something like only poor people can contract AIDS. It isn't any nicer of a statement, but it is unfortunately more closer to the truth. The poor and uneducated are more likely to get AIDS, through no fault of their own. But it doesn't mean that they are the only ones who can. Word choice is very important.

Now, the approximate number of people who are gay. According to avert.org (there I go again, citing my sources) it has been very hard to get an accurate number on the number of gays because of the stigma historically associated with homosexuality, especially in African countries. However, there is some reliable census data, at least from Britain and the United States. I don't want to take the time here to interpret their data, because it is really irrelevant to my point in light of the following quote from the site:

"State-led homophobia continues to be a serious issue in many African countries, and around the world.¹² Reliable data on numbers of gay people cannot be gathered until such policies are reformed, and social attitudes begin to change."

The point is, it is impossible to have a completely accurate number of either demographic. So, it is impossible to have any real facts to back up any sort of outlandish statement regarding an exclusive relationship between the two groups.

Besides this, is the issue of common sense. As Mr. Campfield is fond of pointing out, gay people cannot reproduce. Why, then, are there so many children orphaned because their parents died of AIDS? Why does AIDS get passed down from mothers to children? If it were only the gays, or even just mostly the gays, who contracted AIDS, one might expect that eventually the disease would just kill every gay person and then cease to exist.

Perhaps that wouldn't happen, I'm not a scientist and I fully admit that I am not an authority on the subject. But hey, at least I admit it, which is more than Mr. Campfield is prepared to do. It seems to me that he must know he is wrong. Either he really is that stupid, or he's an evil genius who knows that by scaring his voters (many of whom won't bother to look up the facts for themselves) he is almost 99% guaranteed to have their support. They are convinced that he is the only answer to a problem that (they don't realize) he made up. It's brilliant.

Gay Marriage is Pagan

2012-01-29T23:17:00.000-05:00

Recently, one of my favorite politicians had something very insightful to say about gay marriage. I am, of course, talking about Newt Gingrich. Excuse me, I meant to say Mr. Newt - changes religions whenever it is convenient for the acquisition of voters or, say, a new wife - Gingrich.

This is a transcript of his latest pearl of wisdom:

It's pretty simple: marriage is between a man and a woman. This is a historic doctrine driven deep into the Bible, both in the Old Testament and in the New Testament, and it's a perfect example of what I mean by the rise of paganism. The effort to create alternatives to marriage between a man and a woman are perfectly natural pagan behaviors, but they are a fundamental violation of our civilization.

Well. It's good to know that he thinks alternatives to what I'm sure he considers to be a 'real' marriage, are perfectly natural. And I guess I'm not really insulted at all that he thinks they're pagan. Merriam-Webster defines pagan as being "a follower of a polytheistic religion", and (what I suspect is the more current definition) "one who has little or no religion and who delights in sensual pleasures and material goods : an irreligious or hedonistic person."

I'm perfectly happy to be labeled a pagan, by that second definition. Also, I hope Mr. Gingrich will stick to his guns when it comes to his apparent disrespect for and avoidance of things pagan, and refrain from celebrating Christmas next year. He has an entire 11-months to decide. Who knows, maybe by then he'll be attending services in a synagogue, you know, so he can get more of the Jewish vote.

Mr. Gentile Doesn't Want to Pay His Taxes

2012-01-28T14:54:00.000-05:00

This guy thinks that by stating he "lives in the Kingdom of Heaven" he is not subject to the tax laws the rest of us must follow. Of course, if he really did live there, and not in Melbourne, Florida, then I suppose he would be correct. Mark 12:17 comes to mind "Then Jesus said to them, Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's. And they were amazed at him." But I think my personal pasquinade will do better than that.

He claims to be a American National. From what I can sort out in a few minutes of reading what the government has to say on the subject, I can tell you that it's complicated. It seems that in order to be a National, you have to have been born in a place that is an "outlying possession" of the United States, and there are also some parental requirements:

"...in addition to those mentioned above, are those individuals born abroad to two American non-citizen national parents, or those born abroad to one alien parent and one non-citizen national parent." Italics my own, for joke emphasis.

Am I to infer from this that Mr. Russell Gentile (a cognomen of severe irony) not only was born in the Kingdom of Heaven, but that said Kingdom of Heaven is also an outlying possession of the United States?

As much as the current Republican candidates would really, really, like that, I am relieved to tell you that it is not true! The United States does not own, or have any bases on or investment in, the so-called Kingdom of Heaven. In fact, no person has actually been able to definitively prove that such a place even exists.

I do have one disclosure. Nowhere in any article I have read about this, does it say that Mr. Gentile is a religious person. I have assumed that on my own, since I can't think of any non-believer who believes in or would want to live in the Kingdom of Heaven.

Mr. Gentile has been indicted for tax fraud. Apparently he has been lying about his income and has refused to pay taxes. He could get a $200,000 fine and 6-years in prison. I sure hope he does, otherwise we'll have a bunch of delusional people claiming they don't have to pay taxes because truly, they are members of a kingdom not of this world. It's bad enough that religious organizations don't have to pay taxes, we can't have all their members not paying taxes too.

Rick Santorum, Liberal Indoctrination

2012-01-26T16:12:00.000-05:00

It is a widely known fact that I am not an Obama supporter. I did not vote for him and I have been loudly critical of him for a long time. However, I must admit that when compared to his Republican opposition, he quickly looks better and better. I believe in the facts, and conclusions that can safely be drawn from those facts. I don't like it when people play dirty, or stupid, or ignorant, especially if they do it on purpose.

For instance, Rick Santorum has resorted to name-calling as a way to salvage whatever is left of his campaign (which is hopefully not very much at all). He is apparently outraged that the President of the United States would stand up and say every child in America needs to go to college. That is almost a direct quote from this video. Apparently, Obama is a snob for thinking that children who go to college have a statistically demonstrable higher chance of getting a job, which will be a better paying job than their counterparts who did not get a degree.

I appreciate that people have differing political opinions. I even respect your point of view. But when you say something like that, that a person is a snob for holding a non-negotiable factually based opinion that has the potential to vastly improve society, then I reserve the right to call you an idiot. And then you call him a Socialist? I think we need to have a talk about what true Socialism is, because it isn't wanting every child to have the opportunity to go to college. But that is a post for another day.

Later in the video he insinuates that because Obama wants all kids to go to college, it must mean that Obama thinks he knows what is best for everyone. I will concede that such an attitude would indeed be very nervy, it would take lots of gaul. But, my understanding of it, at least, is not that Obama is going to sign a law requiring all children to go to college. That would be too much. He's just saying that kids who go to college do better in life, make more money, are more educated and have a chance to pass that on to their own kids. I have to agree with him.

Oh. And it gets better. Not in this video, but while in Florida and talking on the same subject, Santorum apparently said:

The indoctrination that occurs in American universities is one of the keys to the left holding and maintaining power in America. And it is indoctrination. If it was the other way around, the ACLU would be out there making sure there wasn't one penny of government dollars going to colleges and universities, right?

Right off the bat, I should admit that I am not entirely sure what he is getting at here. It seems to me that he is, probably unintentionally, admitting that kids who go to college do actually become more educated and better able to think for themselves. To someone like Santorum, who campaigns on what are essentially a bunch of made up facts and lies about his competition (which I might even label as indoctrination, if only I were so bold) I suppose the idea of free-thinking voters is a scary one. But the idea that he has actually succeeded in obtaining a following, I think, is even scarier.

I find it insulting when the religious right talks about liberal indoctrination. I am genuinely offended. The whole idea behind being a member of the religious right, please correct me if I'm wrong, is trying to mix faith into politics. Putting aside petty theological differences in order to have a strong voting block that benefits radical Christianity. Electing officials who will do everything they can to make sure that not only do you as Christian have religious freedom, but you have more religious freedom than any other group. It's only fair that as a majority you should also benefit the most, am I right?

And, really, where do they start with the indoctrination process? With children. Brain wash them while they're young, baptize them at birth! That way they can never leave. Teach them that social ideas about sexuality and women's rights and a society free from racism, are really just liberal propaganda from the far left, spread about for the sole purpose of dragging the young and impressionable children away from the morally straight path of their church.

I went to college. I can tell you that the only time I was ever instructed not to think something through for myself and come to my own conclusion or opinion about a set of facts or theories, was when I attended religion classes. No teacher of any other subject ever told me that an opinion I had was wrong. No other teacher ever condescendingly told me that my opinion might seem valid now, but just wait until I was older and could truly understand what I was talking about. No other group of students openly ridiculed those who did not share their beliefs.

The whole point of going to college, unless you go for religion, is to learn how to think for yourself and write down what you've thought into a coherent paper that will make sense to a particular audience. I image that is why college students are required to take classes outside of their chosen major, including English and History courses. Because thinking for yourself and widening your perspective is an important thing.

So I guess his comment about it being the other way around, must mean that if it were not the liberals (in this case he must be referring to secular, neutral, and widely educated people) indoctrinating the children, but instead the conservatives (in this case he must be referring to religious, biased, and narrowly educated people) indoctrinating the children, then I would have to agree. The ACLU would be all over it. No such school would get a penny of federal money.

I must sonclude that I am eternally grateful for that.

PALS

2012-01-17T22:31:00.000-05:00

PALS is a group of people of whom I cannot even begin to give an unbiased or fair description. Just click on that link and then come back here.

Their mission, in their own words:

To motivate and equip citizens with current and accurate information about issues that impact the family and could undermine the fundamental right of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their own children. Minnesota Statute 120A.22 states, “The parent of a child is primarily responsible for assuring that the child acquires knowledge and skills that are essential for effective citizenship.”

And:

The District 11 Sexual Orientation Curriculum Policy which states in part, "Teaching about sexual orientation is not a part of the District adopted curriculum; rather, such matters are best addressed within individual family homes, churches, or community organizations."

Let's talk about the first half of that first sentence in that first paragraph: To motivate and equip citizens with current and accurate information about issues that impact that family...I mean, right there they've already undermined their own purpose. Current and accurate information. That's the purpose of school, right?

Have I mentioned that these concerned parents repeatedly refer to AIDS as GRIDS? Does anybody even know what that is anymore? It's the name originally given to the AIDS virus, and it stands for Gay-Related Immunity Deficiency Syndrome, with the obvious implication that only gay people can catch it because only gay people are promiscuous, or are not careful about their choice of sexual partner, or engage in unprotected sex, or have more than one sexual partner in their lifetime. That term hasn't been used since 1986.

The concerned parents also repeatedly refer to ex-homosexuals and ex-transgenders (both terms made up by right-wing nut-job evangelicals with an anti-gay agenda), medical consequences of homosexual acts (which, I assume, are different than the consequences of any other sexual acts), and any other sexuality or gender identity (different from their own, presumably) as a sexual disorder that needs to be overcome with the help of ex-gay therapy (provided by them, for a small fee).

Back to that first sentence. They are concerned that their children are not being taught up to date and accurate information at school, but they refer to AIDS by it's nearly 30-years outdated name? And people wonder why some kids bully other kids for being different. If that's the kind of environment in which a child is raised, of course he is going to turn into a bigoted intolerant asshole.

If I go through this first paragraph sentence by sentence, it will take all day. The rest of that paragraph simply states that it isn't right for the school to have control over the moral upbringing of a child, because that should be up to the parent. All I have to say about that is this: if you don't like the progressive direction this country is taking, do us all a favor and move out on a farm somewhere and brainwash your kids into thinking things like only gay people contract AIDS and equality for gays is the same as back-yard bullying. At least that way it wont affect the rest of us.

All I have to say about the second quoted paragraph is this: that kind of attitude, the kind the rejects new ideas and positive changes for the betterment of everyone, is the same kind of attitude that brought us into the dark ages, started the Inquisition, was responsible for the deaths of great minds like Socrates, did not resist the Holocaust, and will likely spark some kind of nuclear war that will end the human race. Thanks.

Now that PALS has been adequately introduced, on to what they're trying to do. This is a copy of the resolution and list of demands (ah, such Christlike behavior) that was presented to the school board of Anoka-Hennepin school district:

Whereas Anoka Hennepin District 11 has devoted a special section on their website to GLBT issues, training and awareness.

And whereas the theme of school safety is being used as a pretext to advance a much broader agenda, the legitimization of homosexuality and related conduct to impressionable school children

And whereas the Anoka Hennepin school board is considering removing the protective sexual orientation curriculum policy, an action that undermines the academic focus of this district and open the door to pro-homosexual and related conduct materials in the school curriculum thereby exposing students to concepts hostile to there religious faith and/or moral conviction

And whereas school officials would be liable for violating parental rights by subjecting a child to homosexual and related conduct indoctrination

And whereas the Supreme Court in Meyer v Nebraska has held that parents’ right to direct the moral upbringing and education of their children is one of the most fundamental of all rights and a failure to abide by parental rights can result in liability for damages both the the school district

Whereas schools may face liability for intentional and negligent instruction of students who rely upon false and misleading information about sexual conduct and are subsequently harmed.

Whereas as superintendent Dennis Carlson and prevention coordinator Barry Scanlon went on a listening tour visiting the nine GSA clubs in the district January thru May of 2011 and have not conducted a listening tour with students of faith, moral conviction, ex-homosexuals and ex-transgenders

And whereas district 11 has ordered copies of pro-homosexual video “It Gets Better: Coming Out, Overcoming Bullying and Living a Life Worth Living,” edited by Dan Savage for secondary media centers

And whereas legal liability exists for the tort of negligence if it is proved that homosexual activists and organizations were granted access to students under responsibility and that students suffered physical or mental harm.

Therefore be it resolved the Parents Action League in Anoka Hennepin School District 11 demands the following ten actions be taken by our school board.

1. A new division within the student support services and a special section on the District 11 website devoted to student of fiath, moral conviction, ex-homosexuals and ex-transgenders.

2. A listening tour by Superintendent Denny Carlson and district prevention coordinator Barry Scanlon with students of faith, moral conviction, ex-homosexuals, and ex-transgenders.

3. That District 11 administrators and staff work closely with pro-family and ex-homosexual and ex-transgender organizations to provide ongoing training to school counselors, school nurses, social workers, school psychologists, prevention specialists, student learning advocates and a number of secondary principals and principals.

4. Provide professional development opportunities in which philosophical, pedogogical, and political assumptions of GLBT advocacy are critically examined.

5. Provide webinars, seminars for all staff on over-coming sexual disorders

6. Provide training on bullying and suicide that protects all students.

7. Provide the history of gay-related immune deficiencies and acquired immune deficiencies and the medical consequences of homosexual acts.

8. That all health classes that address homosexuality be required to provide up-to-date information from the CDC on sexually transmitted diseases and HIV among the groups the CDC designates as men who have sex with men.

9. Provide the following pro-family, ex-homosexual, ex-transgender information and websites to all counselors, school psychologists

classroom teachers [the list was submitted to the board and not spoken at the meeting]

10. Provide pro-family, ex-homosexual and ex-transgender videos to secondary media centers.

I honestly don't even know where or how to start responding to this. It infuriates me that such a level of ignorance and thinly-veiled sectarian religious dogma can still exist. And in the name of protecting the children? As, presumably, educated and sentient adults, the members of PALS should be ashamed of their behavior. They should be ashamed of their ideas. They should be ashamed that they've had the audacity to speak their views in public. They should be ashamed of expecting to be taken seriously.

But most of all, they should be ashamed to have involved their children. The innocence of a child is something that should not be tainted. It is something that a parent should strive to preserve. And here they are, using their children as scapegoats to hide behind, in order that their ideas have some merit. Oh, it isn't that we're backwards assholes, it's that we're trying to protect our children! We're not bigots, we just care about our kids! We don't really hate the gays, we just don't want our children to have to learn about them because heavens...what if they caught "the gay"?

District 11 wants nothing more than to create a safe environment for all the children at the school. Not just the little white kids. Not just the little rich kids. Not just the little boys. All of the children. Because all children should be able to attend school without being harassed or bullied everyday about their skin color, or their gender, or their accent, or their clothes, or their voice, or their perceived sexual orientation.

But that's not good enough for PALS. They only want equality and a good education for their own children. Fuck the other kids, who cares if some 11-year old hangs himself in his closet because my kid called him gay? Gays will burn in hell anyways, right? One less fag who might hit on him later.

Fifty years ago, the members of PALS would likely have been standing outside of the Little Rock Central High-School screaming and holding up signs and spitting and throwing things at those nine black kids who enrolled in their precious white-only school. Those people likely said the same kinds of bigoted and intolerant statements to the press, and they likely thought that by yelling loud enough they could change the direction of that movement. Well thank Jesus (even though, at that time he was being used as a justification for segregation, and before that slavery, and before that....you get the idea) they were wrong. And so are the members of PALS.

In the words of John Stewart:

"I have to say, as someone who is not Christian, it’s hard for me to believe Christians are a persecuted people in America. God-willing, maybe one of you one day will even rise up and get to be president of this country - or maybe forty-four in a row. But, that’s my point, is they’ve taken this idea of no establishment as persecution, because they feel entitled, not to equal status, but to greater status."

How much more hypocritical can a person get?

In God's Hands

2012-01-09T10:54:00.000-05:00

It pains me to see how some parents treat their children. Please pray for someone with whom I study."When my father and my mother forsake me, Then the LORD will take care of me." Shared this verse twice today.

Saw this on Google+ or Facebook today, and it completely rubbed me the wrong way. I just can't wrap my head around this sort of logic. It is the ultimate form of irresponsibility to see a problem and say it's in god's hands, therefore I am not personally responsible for this.

Those of you who are aware of all the drama associated with AUC over the past 10 or so years, know what I'm talking about. I have never witnessed such an extreme level of irresponsibility, ineptitude, and pure idiocy in my entire life. And all because nobody in a management position wanted to take seriously a leadership role or actually do something positive to help the condition of the school. Instead, we had prayer meetings and calls for fasting. Why? So that god would take care of it.

Well. It appears that god didn't give a damn about AUC, after all. After losing accreditation a number of times, the board of accreditation had enough and stopped giving them chances to appeal decisions and fix problems. This did not happen because it was gods will that AUC be closed. This happened because someone thought it would be a good idea to try to run a school like mission venture to a third-world country, not like a business.

Don't bother firing the people who messed it up in the first place, they are clearly an asset to your program. Instead of fundraising or an advertising campaign, just pray that the message will get out. Don't actually start charging tuition from the majority of the students, give them a free ride and trust that god will provide money for you.

"When my father and my mother forsake me, Then the LORD will take care of me." Clearly not.

Secular Segment

2012-01-08T14:30:00.000-05:00

I know how much you, my faithful readers, enjoy my writing. I am therefore sure you will be happy to know that there is now another platform where you can read my articles. As of today, I am officially a contributor to Secular Segment, a website with the admirable goal:

The Secular Segment strives to promote "Support, Education, Unity” in a virtual setting across the world to bridge gaps between religious and secular traditions and instill secular traditions into interfaith movements. Through various methods (i.e. educational information, multimedia databases, cooperation among other secular groups, etc) we strive to create a unity and respect for the secular community globally.

So, go visit the site and read my posts! Visit their Facebook page too. Oh, and don't forget to donate!

Jerry Bergevin Is An Idiot

2012-01-03T18:31:00.000-05:00

Republican StateRepresentative Jerry Bergevin:

"Iwant the full portrait of evolution and the people who came up with the ideasto be presented. It's a worldview and it's godless. Atheism has been tried invarious societies, and they've been pretty criminal domestically andinternationally. The Soviet Union, Cuba, the Nazis, China today: they don'trespect human rights," he said.

"As a generalcourt we should be concerned with criminal ideas like this and how we areteaching it... Columbine, remember that? They were believers in evolution.That's evidence right there," he said.

I originally startedout this post with It is so sad that aperson can get so far in life while still being so terribly ignorant of simplehistorical truths. But I think that doesn’t really set the mood as stronglyas it needs to be set. Indeed, it is sad that one can be a staterepresentative, an elected official, and still openly harbor such fallacies.But the real problem, beyond just being sad and comical, is that it is dangerous.

This is a person whorepresents the state of New Hampshire. He does not try to hide his view. Infact, he seems to really enjoy telling anyone who will listen. He iselected…people actually voted him into office. This is a person who helps craftthe laws of this country – the whole country, not just his home state.

I would like to saythat I am amazed he is still in office, but unfortunately it has become quitecommonplace to turn on the news and hear such beyond-stupid statements likethis coming out of the mouths of politicians and other people in positions ofpower. Too much power, in my opinion.

Let’s just dissecthis statement, sentence by sentence.

Iwant the full portrait of evolution and the people who came up with the ideasto be presented. Ok. Charles Darwin came up withthe theory of evolution, and you can read all about it by simply cracking opena high-school biology textbook. The full portrait of it is described, inprobably more detail than you can handle, in every non-religiously biased realscience book out there.

It’sa worldview and it’s godless. Ok, so it’s aworldview. Every view a person has about their origins or purpose is aworldview. There are no exceptions to this, including the religion you ascribetoo. Christianity is a worldview. Buddhism is a worldview. Intelligent designis a worldview. That having been said, I don’t think you can say that becauseevolution is a worldview, it is therefore irrelevant.

Now, about this godless part. Obviously, the theory ofevolution is a godless theory. It provides scientific answers to questions thehuman race has historically been forced to attribute to a god or a designer. Anexplanation from ignorance is not the best explanation, and when a betterexplanation is given, it should obviously be given more credit. Especially whenthat explanation can be backed up by real facts and real evidence.

Religiousschools used to teach something called ‘the god of the gaps theory’ whichessentially is a theory that accepts regular science as far as it goes, andthen posits god for everything that doesn’t have a scientific explanation. Thistheory isn’t really taught in religious schools anymore for the obvious reasonthat as science keeps progressing, god is ‘needed’ less and less to fill in thegaps. There are fewer and fewer gaps to fill. The ‘need for god’ grows smallerand smaller. How many different ways can I say that? You get the point.

What I am trying tosay is this: the fact that something is considered godless does not make it non-viable or unfit to teach inschool…public schools, paid for with taxpayer money in a country where we have the separation of church and state written into our Constitution. In fact, god should noteven be a part of the debate about what should be taught in public schools. The thought or idea or supposition of a godhas nothing to do with it.

Atheism has been tried invarious societies, and they've been pretty criminal domestically andinternationally. Well. I guess all I have to say to that is can you please provide mewith some documentation of that? Because I have no idea what you’re talkingabout, and I don’t think you do either.

The Soviet Union, Cuba, theNazis, China today: they don't respect human rights. Alright, finally somethingI can work with. It is true that communism is by definition without religion,so I won’t argue that the Soviet Union was an atheist regime. However, anon-biased person would realize that the form of atheism practiced by theSoviet Union, and Communism wherever it has or is being practiced, wasn’t and isn't true atheism. In fact, all the Soviets did was to removegod-worship and replace it with leader-worship and state-worship. If you canaccept that a pair of glasses are real glasses, until the traditional lensesare taken out and replaced with bifocal lenses, at which point they are nolonger real glasses, then you will accept the Soviet Union and other Communist regimes as atheist. I hopeyou don’t.

How about the Nazis? One of the main reasons that the Naziregime was so successful is that it was endorsed and sanctioned by the CatholicChurch. If that great institution had demonstrated the slightest interest inprotecting human rights the Nazi’swould not have been as successful, or even successful at all. The CatholicChurch was, and possibly still is, one of the largest anti-Semiticorganizations in the world. It should not come as a surprise to anyone that theCatholic Church did not have a problem with a government bent on exterminatinga culture of people whom they believed to be responsible for the death ofChrist, an unpardonable sin in their eyes. Far from being an atheistgovernment, the Nazi government was one sanctioned and helped by one of theworld’s largest religions.

Now. They don’trespect human rights. The only people I see not respecting human rights,both historically and in the present day, are religious peoples. The religiousare the only group who across the board, regardless of their denomination, usetheir beliefs as a way to promote themselves and demote others. RichardDawkins:

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

His people today are no different. Who opposesabortion, even in case of incest, abuse, and in cases where the health of themother is in critical danger? Conversely, who supports the death penalty? Whatgroup is so hysterically against making same-sex marriages legal? Who believesthat groups providing reproductive care services and counseling, should beexempt from providing birth control options including condoms and plan Bpills and abortions, because those issues contradict their personal religiousviews, yet still should receive federal funding? What group feels that it isproper to have a Nativity scene set up on a courthouse lawn withoutaccompanying displays showing important scenes from other religions?

The answer to every single one of thosequestions is, primarily, right-wing Christian fundamentalists. The religiousare the biggest group of human rights violators. There is no argument againstthat fact.

Asa general court we should be concerned with criminal ideas like this and how weare teaching it... Columbine, remember that? They were believers in evolution.That's evidence right there…

And now evolution hasgone from a simple theory with no evidence to support it, to being a criminaltheory that causes kids to shoot up their schools. That huge leap occurred injust a few sentences, with no evidence to back it up, whatsoever. It is thiskind of radical and ignorant thinking that creates fear mongering and leads tosenseless warring. It is stupid and it is dangerous.

RepublicanState Representative Jerry Bergevin should be removed from office.

Road Trip

2011-12-29T13:55:00.000-05:00

We left O'Fallon, MO, at a little before 4 AM. We didn't reach the border of Ohio until almost 2 PM. For those of you who are geographically challenged, as I am, that is just over 350 miles. This means, if my math is correct, that we drove for 10 hours at an average speed of 35 miles per hour. For those of you who are wondering, yes that is an infuriating speed to be driving on a freeway.

See the full gallery on Posterous.

Trip to the Zoo

2011-12-29T12:13:00.000-05:00

The big cats are my favorite, except for the polar bears, but unfortunately there weren't any of those.

See the full gallery on Posterous.

The Singular Prime Mover

2011-12-16T13:46:00.000-05:00

This will be short. Look at this argument:

Nature is so beautiful and complex; the planets in our solar system, and our solar system in our galaxy, and our galaxy in the universe all fit and work together so well that it cannot possibly have happened by chance - there must have been a creator.

I want to know why Christians, or any other monotheistic group, think this is a good argument in favor of their position. Obviously, because they've used the singular form of the word creator but they've obviously done that on purpose to support their particular theology.

Why does the complexity of nature point only to a single god? I want a monotheist to explain to me how they manage to sidestep the possibility of many gods being responsible for the creation of everything. How do they justify their atheism towards every other god but their own?

I bring this up because it is just another example of how the religious take what they believe and try to find compelling evidence for it, instead of what they should be doing which is observing evidence and drawing beliefs from that.

Rick Perry's Stupid Video

2011-12-09T16:46:00.001-05:00

I've seen many stupid things today, but the one that disgusted me the most was Rick Perry's new add: Strong. I didn't even want to put a link through to it, because I don't want to be responsible for further spreading his narrow-minded, chauvinistic, bigoted homophobia and ignorance. I watched it, disliked it, and flagged it as inappropriate, citing hateful and/or abusive content which promotes hatred and/or violence and bullying. You should too.

I'm not ashamed to admit that I'm a Christian... Oh, really? In a nation where almost 80% of people identify as members of one religion, you are not afraid to admit that you are part of that religion? How badass of you, Mr. Perry.

...but you don't need to be in the pew every Sunday to know there's something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military but our kids can't openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school... Alright, and you know what else? You don't have to avoid the pew every Sunday to realize that there's something wrong in this country when a bigoted asshat like Rick Perry can campaign on religious fanaticism and homophobia, and actually have a fan base. That is something that should cross all boundaries.

Unfortunately, for all people who have a brain and are even slightly acquainted with how government in this country actually works, Rick Perry here continues with the recent Republican tradition of taking a thing which does not exist, like our kids can't openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school, and saying it repeatedly to the media until enough people have heard it on the news and are convinced that such a thing actually exists. As I said yesterday, there is not actually a 'war on Christmas'. That is something that people like Rick Perry have made up, in order to capitalize on fear and ignorance.

...As President, I'll end Obama's war on religion...This was already stated, but it seriously bears repeating: There is no war on religion. THERE IS NO WAR ON RELIGION.

...And I'll fight against liberal attacks on our religious heritage...The only religious heritage we really have, fortunately, is the fact that some Puritans migrated here to escape stuff going on in England. By the time our Founding Fathers came around and started creating this nation, believe it or not, the nation was NOT overrun by Puritans, and they really didn't have any say in drafting of any of our government documents, nor any of the lawmaking or......anything. This is not a Christian nation. The fact that Fox News thinks it is, really doesn't matter.

...Faith made America strong. It can make her strong again... Have we addressed this enough, or do I need to go over it again? Faith did not make, shape or strengthen this country. At least, not the kind of faith to which Mr. Perry refers. This is what made our nation: faith in ourselves, Enlightenment and Humanist ideals.

...I'm Rick Perry, and I approve this message. Suck it, Rick Perry

Cape Cod in the Fall

2011-12-09T14:16:00.001-05:00

This is a famous bridge behind us but we're blocking it and I don't know it's name. Sorry!

See the full gallery on Posterous

Christmas Pops

2011-12-09T14:03:00.001-05:00

See the full gallery on Posterous

War on Christmas

2011-12-08T14:11:00.001-05:00

I'm pretty sick of hearing Christians in this country bitch about this supposed "war on Christmas". The phrase "Christianity is under attack" is probably the most stupid thing I have ever heard. Almost 80% of people in the United States identify as Christian. 80% is not a small number. That is an overwhelming majority. 15% identify as atheist or agnostic, while a mere 5% say they either non-Christian religious or are unsure.

I just get so angry when I hear about Christians getting their panties in a bunch over a nativity scene being barred from the front lawn of a government building funded by taxpayers dollars. Really? Can you imagine the hoopla we'd have to put up with if, instead of the 10 Commandments on the wall of the courthouse, we had the Five Pillars of Islam? Can you even being to imagine?

But, you say, that's not fair! America wasn't founded on Islamic values! You're cheating!

America wasn't founded on Christian values either, you stupid ignorant fundamentalist theocratic bigoted asshole.

Here, have some proof:

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

-Treaty of Tripoli, signed by John Adams, 1797

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes."

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to von Humboldt, 1813

"An alliance or coalition between Government and religion cannot be too carefully guarded against."

-James Madison, 1822

"Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory to itself than this thing called Christianity."

-Thomas Paine

What is the Christmas season supposed to be all about? It is supposed to be a time of joy, giving, spending time with family members and loved ones that you maybe don't see very often. Religiously speaking, it is the celebration of Jesus' birth (even though if he were born at all it would have been in March or April, but we'll let that slide).

Now. Back to that "war on Christmas" bit. There is no "war on Christmas". Nobody is preventing you from wishing a Merry Christmas to anybody and everybody you meet. Nobody is saying that a nativity scene can't be on the lawn of a government building because we hate Christmas and we want to secularize it. What is being said is that you cannot have a massive celebration, paid for with tax dollars, that only recognizes one of the many religious holidays that are happening at this time of the year. The government cannot show favoritism towards Christian traditions while refusing to recognize Kwanza, Diwali, Ashura, Al Hijra, Hanukkah, or the birthday of Baha'u'llah; all religious celebrations which also occur this time of the year.

The fact that Christians take a phrase like happy holidays to mean that we're secularizing Christmas, instead of that we are actively trying to include all religions (including Christianity) represented by the citizens of America, is disgusting. It is just one more example of Christians trying to take "religious equality" and turn it into "religious superiority".

"Now the birth of Jesus Christ was in this wise. When his mother, Mary, was espoused to Joseph, before they came together she was found with child of the Holy Ghost." Yes, and the Greek demigod Perseus was born when the god Jupiter visited the virgin Danaë as a shower of gold and got her with child. The god Buddha was born through an opening in his mother's flank. Catlicus the serpent-skirted caught a little ball of feathers from the sky and hid it in her bosom, and the Aztec god Huitzilopochtli was thus conceived. The virgin Nana took a pomegranate from the tree watered by the blood of the slain Agdestris, and laid it in her bosom, and gave birth to the god Attis. The virgin daughter of a Mongol king awoke one night and found herself bathed in a great light, which caused her to give birth to Genghis Khan. Krishna was born of the virgin Devaka. Horus was born of the virgin Isis. Mercury was born of the virgin Maia. Romulus was born of the virgin Rhea Sylvia. For some reason, many religions force themselves to think of the birth canal as a one-way street, and even the Koran treats the Virgin Mary with reverence.
-Christopher Hitchens' On Intelligent Design

Christianity is not unique, in any sense of the word, and we should stop treating it as such.

Scientific Morality

2011-12-01T12:54:00.001-05:00

This thought was inspired by this debate, between Dr. Sam Harris and William Lane Craig, and this debate, between a lot of different people. I freely admit that I probably watch too many debates. Deal with it.

To say that the explanation of morality in scientific terms instead of mysterious god terms, detracts from the beauty and significance of it, is the same as saying that the explanation in scientific terms of the human sex drive, detracts from its beauty and significance. The fact that we now understand the chemistry and physiology of the human sex drive, does not make it any less powerful, or sexual acts any less meaningful to us. The same can be said of our morality.

Angry Atheists

2011-11-30T17:07:00.001-05:00

"Atheists are not angry because we're selfish. We aren't angry because we're whiny. We're not angry because we have no joy or meaning in our lives. We're not angry because we have a god-shaped hole in our hearts. Atheists are angry because we have compassion. We're angry because we have a sense of justice. We're angry because we see harm being done to people; terrible, horrible harm, that's being done to people, and our hearts go out to them. Atheists are angry because we want to see this stop. Atheists are not angry because there's something wrong with us. Atheists are angry because there's something right with us."

I've just joined the National Atheist Part of Massachusetts facebook page. I say joined because it's a closed group and you have to request to join. But they let me in, so yay! This is my plug for them, to get the rest of you to join - it's time for all the atheists to come out of the closet!

Thanksgiving

2011-11-25T11:41:00.001-05:00

We spent the night, so these first pictures were taken in the morning while we were "cleaning" haha

Faaaaaaaaaabuloooooouusss:

See the full gallery on Posterous

Boston and Tree-Lighting

2011-11-21T11:24:00.001-05:00

These were taken around Faneuil Hall in Boston. Shamefully, I don't know the names of the different buildings. But, I do know that the last one is the Christmas Tree, and that it is bigger than the one at the Rockerfeller Center.

See the full gallery on Posterous

Slow: Turtle X-ing

2011-11-15T18:51:00.001-05:00

See the full gallery on Posterous

The "Abortion Agenda"

2011-11-14T10:30:00.001-05:00

I need to talk about something. Read this article from the Washington Post, or this one from Philanthropy, and then come back here.

You know, I fell like recently all I've been doing is ranting about how stupid Republicans are and how they are messing everything up. I would like to apologize, but I sincerely feel that they deserve it. And this is just another shitty example of how they really don't understand how the government works, and what the separation of church and state really means.

The following is a quote from Rep. Smith of New Jersey: "We're talking about a Catholic group with a superior track record that was pushed aside to promote the abortion agenda."

I'd say that the abortion agenda is an evil partisan agenda in much the same way that teaching evolution in public schools, is an evil partisan agenda. Or in the same way that equal protection under the law for gays, is an evil partisan agenda. Or, for that matter, in the same way that the anti-slavery and desegregation movements, were an evil partisan agenda.

None of those things are evil. They may be partisan, but they are also based on many years of social development and good science. Denying an anti-human trafficking grant, meant to help with the education and rehabilitation of these victims, to an organization which refuses to teach about various forms of birth controls because it is a church organization that feels this type of education is evil, is not religious discrimination.

And it certainly isn't "...unfair to the Catholic group and might violate federal laws banning discrimination based on religion." In fact, if it were the other way around I might argue that it is unlawful government funding of a religious organization which does not meet the required criteria for such. Federal laws banning discrimination based on religion are meant to protect people from workplace discrimination, or from different treatment at banks or mortgage companies or car dealerships. It doesn't protect them from needing to meet certain requirements when applying for federal money.

In reality, this is the government finally taking a stand on a very important issue, and refusing to give money to an organization still stuck in the dark ages where science and medicine mean nothing compared with the power of prayer. Thankfully, most people now accept that modern science and medicine can do more for the health of its patients, than the church can ever hope to do.

Growing Pet Peeve

2011-11-11T14:34:00.001-05:00

As an atheist, I don't believe in any sort of supreme, all-knowing, benevolent, god-like being. I'm sure you all knew that already, but it's good to clarify.

Over the past few months I have developed a bit of a pet peeve.

When I stub my toe and say something like oh my god that hurt so badly, or goddamn it, I'm obviously not saying that in a literal sense of the word. But some people, especially anonymous people online, like to point out what they believe to be a really hypocritical use of a common figure of speech. Apparently, it's hypocritical for an atheist to use the word 'god' in any context, except anything scholarly, I assume.

Today we're going to talk about why that's not true, and how these people are actually being more hypocritical than they think I am being.

Let's look at the dictionary definition of god: the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe; a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality; etc.

I don't know if you noticed this, but there is no mention of any specific god. Some ultra-religious fanatics may be under the delusional impression that there is only one god (which ironically happens to be the one in which they believe) but unfortunately for them, that is not the case.

A quick Google search will tell you that there are so many available gods, any of whom we could choose to worship if we felt so inclined, that we cannot actually count them all and come to a unanimous consensus. For a Christian (these are the people most likely to tell me I'm being hypocritical) to say that by my utterance of oh my god or goddamn it! I have just taken their gods name in vain and I should apologize for being offensive, is probably the ultimate level of blind, brainless, idiotic and condescending narcissism. Ever.

Who's to say that I didn't mean Jupiter in my head? He was a god. Or Thor. Or, more appropriately, Narcissus; he would probably be my god of choice, if only he were a god. I mean, there are an unfathomable number of gods, all accepted at one time or another throughout human history. Who are you to tell me that if I used the word 'god' I decisively meant your god.

I often want to ask these people if they even know the real name of the god they worship, because it isn't god. It's Yahweh. And you know what? The word Yahweh doesn't even mean god, it means 'to be' or 'to become'. Also, I know that Christians are theists, but have you ever stopped to consider the number of different names given to god in the Old Testament? There are almost 20. That makes me wonder a lot of different things, but I'll save that for another post.

My point, made as short and simple as I possibly can make it, is that when I use the phrase oh my god or goddamn it! I'm not trying to offend you. I'm using a figure of speech, and I'm doing so in a facetious way. If I wanted to offend you, I would actually use the appropriate name of your god. One of them, anyway.

SNOW in October

2011-10-30T14:11:00.001-04:00

This was probably the best day ever, so far. I've never before Trick-or-Treated in the snow before, so that will be awesome too. These photos were taken right around my house, yesterday afternoon.

See the full gallery on Posterous

Fox News Gets Sarcastic Over Importance of Separation of Church and State

2011-10-27T18:10:00.000-04:00

First, read this article.

Apparently, Christianity is under attack in this country. I would have to argue the contrary, that Christianity is actually massively overstepping its bounds as one available choice of religion and instead trying to market itself as the sole moral authority and means by which this country can be dragged out of its socialist depravity. But, let's not pick at semantics.

I don't understand what about this situation is so difficult to understand. No federal money for religious institutions. No mixing of religion with programs funded by the state or federal government. Is this a public school? Yes. So no, you can't have denominational prayer on school grounds, sanctioned (or not) by those in charge of or employed by the school. End of story.

And what is this "prayer from another religion would not receive this kind of negativity" bullshit? Let's take a second to look objectively at what the majority of loud, obnoxious entitlement Christians would do if a public school brazenly allowed there to be an Islamic prayer to Allah before a football game. It doesn't take any stretch of the imagination at all to realize how little time it would take Fox News to be all over that, with Bill O'Reilly on the television getting red in the face from all the yelling about "no state-sponsored churches" and "separation of church and state" and "terrorists taking over our public schools".

It's just another beautiful example of Christians in America thinking they're exempt from the rules everyone else must follow, and that because they have christened us a Christian Nation it must really mean that we actually are one. I guess it makes sense from a group who thinks that simply believing really really hard in something will make it true, despite, you know, science and all that other nonsense.

And this: "He said the complain has generated lots of telephone calls - mostly in support of keeping the prayers." I really, honestly, truly, don't give a fuck how many calls you get in support of keeping the prayers. It's still wrong. It is legally, morally and ethically wrong. To have any kind of public-school sponsored denominational-specific service before a public-school sponsored event, is a breach of the separation of church and state that is one of the cornerstones of our government. If you want prayer before your game, go to a church school.

Apple Picking and Apple Pies

2011-10-27T09:36:00.001-04:00

Apples!!

Landscapes.

See the full gallery on Posterous

Warm Fuzzy Feelings

2011-10-25T17:24:00.003-04:00

I should start out by saying that I have respect for people who have a strong faith in something, for a well thought-out and logical reason. I don't subscribe to it myself, but I can respect it. What I can't respect is complete nonsense like this next paragraph.

I just heard this, in response to a question on why a certain person is religious: Religion gives me hope. It gives humanity a reason to live. It makes me feel loved. It gives people a purpose to keep going. It gives us that warm fuzzy feeling inside that we all want.

That argument is probably the worst, and most widespread, justification for religion that I have ever heard in my entire life. Saying that you believe in something because it gives you a warm fuzzy feeling inside is just stupid. Of course we all want to feel good. But that doesn't mean that you can create an alternate reality for yourself and then force the rest of us to subscribe to it.

Do you know why some people molest children? Or why some people are serial killers? I image it's for that same reason. It fills some void that they have within them, it makes them feel good, it gives them a warm fuzzy feeling. That is a bad argument when given to justify child rape and mass murder, and it's a bad argument when given to justify a belief in an imaginary friend.

What if I said that in order to give myself hope, I needed to believe that the sky was a strange shade of magenta and Vampires really were creatures that sparkled in the sunlight and everyone in the world needed to give me a certain percentage of their income? You would probably call me crazy. Do you know why? Because living in some alternate reality isn't normal. It's Psychosis. It's a real, treatable, medical condition.

It makes me feel loved, is also a completely terrible reason to believe in something. The pathological need for attention and love in order to feel like you are worth something, is also not normal. It's called Narcissistic Personality Disorder. It's a real, treatable, medical condition.

The same part of the brain that is affected by drugs, sex, alcohol and other addictive things, is the same part of the brain affected by religious experiences. It is no coincidence that many people have religious experiences while high on shrooms or pot, or while they are completely stone drunk.

While the treatment for a mental disorder like Psychosis or Narcissistic Personality Disorder is treatable with medications, the treatment for religion is a lot more simple. It is also an addictive drug, and it's commonly referred to as knowledge.

Not A Christian Nation

2011-10-15T16:36:00.002-04:00

I found these letters on this website. It is so vastly important for people to realize that the only reason god and/or religion is mentioned in the US Constitution is in order to limit it, to control it, to mandate that it be kept out of the political sphere. These letters are the most basic evidence of that fact that you will ever be able to find.

------

The address of the Danbury Baptists Association in the state of
Connecticut, assembled October 7, 1801. To Thomas Jefferson,
Esq., President of the United States of America.

Sir,

Among the many million in America and Europe who rejoice in your election to office; we embrace the first opportunity which we have enjoyed in our collective capacity, since your inauguration, to express our great satisfaction, in your appointment to the chief magistracy in the United States: And though our mode of expression may be less courtly and pompous than what many others clothe their addresses with, we beg you, sir, to believe that none are more sincere.

Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty--that religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals--that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions--that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbors; But, sir, our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter; together with the law made coincident therewith, were adopted as the basis of our government, at the time of our revolution; and such had been our laws and usages, and such still are; that religion is considered as the first object of legislation; and ;therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the state) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights; and these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgements as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore; if those who seek after power and gain under the pretense of government and religion should reproach their fellow men--should reproach their order magistrate, as a enemy of religion, law, and good order, because he will not, dare not, assume the prerogatives of Jehovah and make laws to govern the kingdom of Christ.

Sir, we are sensible that the president of the United States is not the national legislator, and also sensible that the national government cannot destroy the laws of each state; but our hopes are strong that the sentiments of our beloved president, which have had such genial effect already, like the radiant beams of the sun, will shine and prevail through all these states and all the world, till hierarchy and tyranny be destroyed from the earth.

Sir, when we reflect on your past services, and see a glow of philanthropy and good will shining forth in a course of more than thirty years we have reason to believe that America's God has raised you up to fill the chair of state out of that goodwill which he bears to the millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for your arduous task which providence and the voice of the people have called you to sustain and support you enjoy administration against all the predetermined opposition of those who wish to raise to wealth and importance on the poverty and subjection of the people.

And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his heavenly kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator.

Signed in behalf of the association,
Nehemiah Dodge
Ephraim Robbins
Stephen S. Nelson

------

And this is Jefferson's response:

------

Mr. President

To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves your religious association assurances of my high respect esteem.

(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802

And maybe I'll just end with this lovely quote, also from Thomas Jefferson:

Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned: yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth. Let us reflect that it is inhabited by a thousand millions of people. That these profess probably a thousand different systems of religion. That ours is but one of that thousand. That if there be but one right, and ours that one, we should wish to see the 999 wandering sects gathered into the fold of truth. But against such a majority we cannot effect this by force. Reason and persuasion are the only practicable instruments. To make way for these, free inquiry must be indulged; and how can we wish others to indulge it while we refuse it ourselves. But every state, says an inquisitor, has established some religion. "No two, say I, have established the same". Is this a proof of the infallibility of establishments? Our sister states of Pennsylvania and New York, however, have long subsisted without any establishment at all.

10 Commandments According to Christopher Hitchens

2011-10-15T11:09:00.004-04:00

#1 Do not condemn people on the basis of their ethnicity or their color;

#2 Do not ever even think of using people as private property, or as owned, or as slaves;

#3 Despise those who use violence, or the threat of it, in sexual relations;

#4 Hide your face and weep if you dare to harm a child

#5 Do not condemn people for their inborn nature. Why would god create so many homosexuals only in order to torture and destroy them?

#6 Be aware that you too are an animal, and dependent on the web of nature. Try to think and act accordingly;

#7 Do not think that you can escape judgement if you rob people with a false prospectus rather than with a knife;

#8 Turn off that fucking cellphone. You can have no idea how unimportant your call is to us;

#9 Denounce all Jihadists and Crusaders for what they are: Psychopathic criminals with ugly delusions, and terrible sexual repression;

#10 Be willing to renounce any god or any faith if any of the holy commandments should contradict any of the above.

In short, don't swallow your moral code in tablet form.

Yes, You Do Have To Accept My Choices

2011-10-14T14:45:00.001-04:00

I just picked up this quote from an article in the Advocate online magazine, and I feel like I really need to say a couple of things. But first, here's the quote:

"Why parade your unnatural immoral behaviors before the rest of us? I/we do not have to accept anything, anyone, any behavior or any choices! I do not have to tolerate anything others wish to do."

I supposed that this could really spark within me the need to go on at length about the need for the religious to separate their faith from their politics, but I feel like I've already beaten that to death on my Tumblr. I'll simply say this: We have written into our Constitution the separation of church and state, not because our founding fathers were so religious, but because they were so not religious. A common misconception among the American religious population, is that we live in a Christian nation because it's written into our Constitution. But unfortunately, for them at least, our founding fathers were more Humanistic sons of the Enlightenment than anything else. In fact, several of them wrote at length about the plurality of worlds and gods, extra terrestrial life, and a philosophical denial of any sort of prime deity who cares about the emotions or situations or lives of human beings.

Now, back to that quote. Unfortunately for this person, they are exactly wrong. Disregarding completely, for the moment, their accusation that these acts are unnatural and immoral, this person goes on to state that she does "not have to tolerate anything others wish to do". Here's the thing, and I'm afraid that I can't say this strongly enough: Yes, yes you do have to tolerate the way in which others behave. Yes, yes you do have to tolerate what others wish to do. And yes, yes you do have accept the behavioral choices of others.

I wish I could end there but if I don't add this last part I'll probably get lots of angry comments. You do have to do all those things unless they infringe upon your person, personal effects, personal property or things like that. But I'll tell you what doesn't fit into the "things like that" category - your personal beliefs. Whatever beliefs you wish to have, are fine. No one is going to stop you from thinking or believing anything you want to. But when you take what you personally believe, pass judgement on others based on that, and then try to make that the law of the land, that is too far. You have overstepped a really big boundary.

I don't go around telling people that I believe in Luke Skywalker as my personal savior, and everyone who does not share my belief must be killed by a Storm Trooper shooting a laser gun. I think we can all agree, that would be ridiculous. Similarly, I don't go around saying that because Luke Skywalker is my personal savior, regardless of whether or you accept this to be true, you must refrain from using a pen with red ink, as the color red signifies the Dark Side and is therefor distressing to my Lord Skywalker. Also ridiculous.

I don't go around shoving my beliefs down the throats of other people. I don't go onto a persons FB status and argue with them because I don't agree with what they said. And I don't post irrational hate speech online about everyone who does not share my beliefs. All I want is for people to show me the same courtesy.

Squirrel

2011-10-14T13:02:00.001-04:00

Ya - that's a really close-from-far-away close-up of a squirrel. Because I love them.

Sunset

2011-10-13T15:15:00.001-04:00

I took this while driving out of Boston the other night.

O'Reilly "Interviews" Dawkins

2011-10-05T16:59:00.002-04:00

I need to talk about this video for a minute. I just can't help myself. But first, watch this video.

At around 1:30 Dawkins makes the point that "the onus is on you" to prove that there is a god, or to provide reasoning for why you believe in a god. He says, and I just find this amazingly funny, that there are an almost infinite number of gods in which a person can believe. Yet a Christian believes in Jesus - why?

And what does Mr. O'Reilly say in response to this very valid question? He says "See, Jesus was a real guy. I could see him, you know. And I know what he did. And so, I'm not positive that Jesus is god, but I'm throwing in with Jesus rather than throwing in with you guys, because you guys can't tell me how it all got here."

First of all, how did you see Jesus? I mean, yes it is generally accepted that Jesus as a person was real and did exist, and even that he may in fact have had this grand ministry that is referred to in the Bible. However, you yourself could not possibly have seen him. And I suspect that if Mr. O'Reilly had actually had a one-on-one encounter with Jesus, we would have heard about that by now.

Second, following the same logic as the above paragraph, how does Mr. O'Reilly know what Jesus did? How does anyone know what he did? No Christian, no matter how vehemently they may say so, knows anything about the life of Jesus, as fact. Nothing. And this is not an arguable point - this is one of the main tenets of any religion - that is is not provable, not subject to fact, and completely faith-based.

The only thing I will concede is - at least he had the balls to admit that he's throwing in his lot with something he can't prove. And really, nobody can tell you, factually, how anything got here. So if that is what defines your quest for meaning, you are going to fail.

So why do you, as a Christian, believe in Jesus and not any of the other gods?

I close with these words, from Stephen F. Roberts:

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

Stalker Photo's

2011-10-01T13:19:00.001-04:00

I know. It's creepy. But aside from that, aren't they good photograph's?

See the full gallery on Posterous

Now I Get It

2011-09-22T14:39:00.000-04:00

I just read this article. And suddenly, everything makes so much more sense.

~evil laughter~

I love it!

Neglect

2011-08-24T13:06:00.000-04:00

I've neglected this blog recently. I'm sorry. But, I'm happy to say that I know why I've been neglecting it.

The other night I went over to my Amma's house, and she told me that I'm getting chubby. Thanks. And then she said "It's probably because someone is finally feeding you!" This is true. And I agreed. And then she said "I've never seen you look so happy. It's hard to keep yourself skinny as a rail when you're so happy."

And that's why I've been neglecting this blog. Because I'm finally happy and I don't need to rant about things on the internet to get rid of my anger at the world. It feels great.

Go Find Yourself

2011-07-12T10:38:00.000-04:00

This photo (originally found here) inspired me to write what you are about to read:

There is no such thing as finding yourself. You already know who you are. How could you not know who you are?

When a person says I need to find myself or I need some time to figure myself out what they really mean is I need to find the courage to tell other people who I really am.

How Harry Potter Saved My Marriage

2011-07-11T15:09:00.000-04:00

Obviously, not my own marriage. This is the story that one of my co-workers shared with me this morning - and it is 100% true. Since we're three days away from the premier of the final movie, I thought this was an appropriate time to pass on this touching tale.

For a more accurate countdown to showtime, click here.

As the story goes, he and his wife were not doing so hot. She was convinced that they did not have enough in common anymore, and was starting to float around the idea of a separation. Although I am not completely sure, they may have been living in separate locations already because she was in school and he was working.

He knew that she was a big Harry Potter (and John Grisham, but we'll leave that out of this story) fan, and though he had repeatedly teased her about her affinity for those books, he decided that they really needed to have a common subject to discuss, if he was going to be able to salvage the marriage.

So he went out and bought the books (although, I don't know exactly when this happened so I don't know which ones he bought and for which ones he had to wait) and read them all. He would read as much as he could during the day and write down all the questions he had about the plot or anything he thought would be a good discussion topic. Then every night when he would call her he would have a conversational starting point and plenty to say.

Over time they talked more and more, their conversation would branch out to other things, and eventually he didn't need to start every conversation with a question about Harry Potter (as fun as that is). She finished school and moved back here, and yes - they're still married.

Wasn't that beautiful?

Communication

2011-07-07T10:35:00.000-04:00

I would like to submit to all my faithful readers that far from being more connected in this age of newfangled technology, we are actually far less connected.

True, I have almost 400 Facebook friends, 50 or so followers on Twitter, and the Stats feature for this blog tells me that I've got a couple readers on every continent (information I'm not exactly sure is accurate) - but does that really count as staying in touch with people?

Of those 400 Facebook friends, I probably regularly communicate with 20 of them. Maybe 30, but that's a very generous estimate. I really only accepted all those friend requests so that I could stalk those people - and don't call me creepy, I know the rest of you do it too!

Of those 50 Twitter followers, I probably regularly communicate with 8 of them. I don't even know who the rest of them are (a lot of them are probably companies trying to sell me something). I mostly use Twitter as a place to get news updates.

So all social media has done for me is given me the ability to keep track of people with whom I was never really friends in the beginning. I regularly call and txt and meet up with my real friends - I find time for the people I truly value. The rest of it is a really flimsy facade.

But back in the day (the day I don't actually remember because I wasn't born yet) if you wanted to communicate with someone, you would write them a letter. A long letter. Have you ever read any Jane Austen? The characters in her books write letters to each other, never ending letters. It used to be hard for me to understand how those people could possibly have so much to say to one another.

My grandparents in Arizona email me pretty frequently. They really like to hear from us, but it seems that I am the only one out here (besides my Amma) who ever bothers to email them or call them - so I try to remember to do it whenever I can. But a lot of the time I sit in front of my computer for long periods of time just staring at the blank screen because I can't think of anything to say that I haven't already said.

My life is pretty boring. And I can't tell them about everything I'm doing. So, I can only write "I got up at 6:30 and went to work, then came home, ate dinner and went to bed" so many times before it becomes totally redundant. But if I had to wait a whole week, or even 2 weeks, between my letters to them then I'd have a lot more to say. A whole lot more.

Do you even remember ever having gotten a letter in the mail? Yes, you get bills. But I'm referring to an actual real letter, hand-written by someone who actually cared enough to sit down and make it legible, pay $0.42 for a stamp and figure out your street address before taking it to the post office and dropping it in the box. In a world where they could have typed you an email real quick, hit send and then gone back to watching television, the act of sending a real letter means a lot.

I am forever grateful to whomever invented the internet, and email, and all that other good stuff. But I wish I could separate that part of my life from the part of my life that I care about. I have a friend who lives on the West Coast now - she used to be my best friend in high-school - and we really never ever talk anymore because it's so convenient to do it that we just forget.

Think about it. At any time of the day I could send her a text message, and maybe she'd text me back and we'd have an intermittent conversation throughout the morning, but afterwords I probably wouldn't have learned anything new about her or her plan, I won't have heard her voice and unfortunately about 45% of that conversation was probably lol's or hahaha's or stupid emoticons. It was likely a meaningless conversation.

At any point during my work-day, I could sit down and send her a quick email. But what would that accomplish? Maybe she'd get back to me eventually, but it'd be a rushed reply and I would probably not reply right as soon as I got it ... and it would probably rot in my inbox for the next couple of weeks until I remembered to reply. Convenience, and a sense of being able to accomplish something at any time, breeds procrastination.

And yes, I could call her. I'd have about a 10% chance of catching her when she was not doing anything at all and could actually have a good conversation with me. But that means I also have a 90% chance of catching her when she's out with her friends, doing homework, at a sports practice, eating dinner with her family...who knows what else. And you know how playing phone-tag usually ends - it's very rare that the conversation is ever had at all.

But think about what would happen if I sent her a letter. I'd think to myself "Hey, I haven't heard from her in a while, I'm going to write" and I'd sit down for an hour or so and write out a nice long informative personal letter, and I'd mail it. Then I'd wait 3 or 4 days for it to get to her. She'd read it and then put it down on her desk or someplace where she's likely to see it and remember to respond. Then in another couple of days she'd sit down and take the time to send me a nice letter back. This could go on forever.

It's a form of communication that is supposedly archaic and supposedly a waste of time, and which has been thrown aside for the convenience of all forms of electronic communication; but, I think the time it takes is far outweighed by the quality of the conversation.

Quality verses quantity. Quality always wins.

Brainwashing

2011-06-19T13:55:00.001-04:00

You know how some extremely religious church groups want to send homosexuals to camp to cure them of their sickness? I want to send religious people to camp to cure them of their sickness. I know, it sounds vindictive and retaliatory, and it is. But how long am I going to have to listen to these people tell me that it is a sickness, or a disease, or a mental problem that can be fixed with therapy?

Did you know that the part of the brain which controls (or is controlled by) addictive drugs like cigarettes, sex, heroine ... etc. is the same part of the brain that controls (or is affected by) religion? A certain part of the brain lights up during a brain scan when under the influence of addictive drugs, and also when that person is thinking about religious things - gods, holy books, prayer.

Ironically enough, that part of the brain is not what affects a persons decision to be gay. Mostly because it's not a decision that people make, but also because being gay cannot be equated with an addiction.

I had to go to church yesterday, because I'm on a tour right now and we played for the service. The point of the sermon was that Christians are being brainwashed by the culture of today, and instead of letting the culture affect our lives we need to have our lives affect the culture.

It amuses me that the subject was brainwashing. I think the biggest brainwashing offender, as long as we're going to point fingers, is the Christian Church. What other organization inducts it's members at birth and feeds them a steady stream of doctrine until the day they die - influencing all its members major life decisions (education, career, marriage, politics), and throwing out all who question or do not agree?

(Yes, I know the Christian Church is not itself one organization. But I didn't want to single out one denomination, and this is a characteristic that most of them share.)

How long is it going to take for the religious of the world to realize that they themselves emulate everything about which they preach is wrong with the world? Sending homosexuals to camps with counselors trained to "cure them of their gayness" is right on the same level as Hitler sending Jews to concentration camps.

Why do people never learn from history? This is just the latest issue that religious people are using their Bible to justify. "God says that gay is wrong therefore all gay people are going to burn in hell for eternity." Just off the top of my head, here are some other things that the Bible has been used to justify in the past, that have since turned out to be wrong:

The Crusades - slaughtering of millions of innocent Muslims to reclaim a city that never actually belonged to any of the people going there to reclaim it.

The Inquisition - putting to death thousands of innocent people because they openly did not agree with Catholic doctrine, they weren't on the good side of the priests, or they thought something silly like ... the Earth is not the center of the Universe.

Every single Holy War, ever.

Slavery - people in the Bible conquer foreign lands and take the people as slaves, therefore it is ok for us to steal people from Africa and enslave them. Even though it's not the same situation at all, and contextually backwards.

Segregation - same thing.

Banning of Interracial marriages - I'm not even sure what the exact justification of this one was, but I know that it was wrong because it's allowed now ...

Banning of women from being priests/pastors - No idea what the Biblical justification of this was either because there clearly are priestesses in the Bible.

I could go on, but I will refrain. Before I'm finished though, let's look at some things which clearly should be religiously outlawed, but somehow are ok:

Divorce, remarriage - that would be too difficult of a law for the attention span of our generation, I guess.

Swearing - God used to care what we said but he doesn't any more, apparently.

Adultery, Sex outside of Marriage - Do I really have to go into this one?

Astrology, Numerology - I guess all you people who follow your daily horoscope are doomed forever to a pit of fire and brimstone. Too bad.

Magic - Well, I guess all of us Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Narnia and Eragon fans are out of luck. All books and movies in fact, which are not based exclusively on the truth, are forbidden.

The combination of two kinds of material, for instance 3% Cotton and 97% Polyester. So unless you own sheep and make your own clothing from 100% Cotton, you're going straight to hell.

I really want to keep going, but I'm getting bored. My point is this: As seriously as some of you may take it, the Bible is an outdated book the only significance of which is it's historical accuracy, which is questionable at best. Even if we had it in the most original form, it would not be a flawless document dictated from the mouth of god himself. It was pieced together over a very long span of time, and many of the books that were originally intended to be included, were somehow left out (including all those written by women). It is full of contradictions.

That being said, you need to choose if you are going to follow it to the letter or if you are going to follow the spirit of it. I would recommend that you just follow the spirit of it, because if you start shunning women on their periods and stoning children who talk back to their parents, you will end up in prison.

The Bible does not exist so that each generation of fundamentalists can choose one specific archaic law and follow it, only to have the next generation say that the beliefs of their parents were silly and the new rule is some other archaic law. The purpose of the Bible is not to be a tool of bigotry and hatred, picking and choosing verses at random that out of context seem to support your own prejudices. The purpose of the Bible is not to allow you to discount modern science based on a 6,000-year old "unique" creation story which just happens to be shared by nearly every other religious group, even those that came before Christianity.

Stop using the Bible as justification for your evil. I'm sick of it.

More About Work

2011-05-25T14:55:00.001-04:00

There are a couple of people with whom I work, who like to spend most of their time here doing as little as possible. One of them is supposed to be working on a big project, with a deadline that has passed multiple times, yet she spends most of her time just complaining about how it’s a stupid project. The other is supposed to be down at the front desk answering phones and doing paperwork, but she spends most of her time on Facebook playing Tetris and staring off into space.

I’m not going to say what they should be doing with their time. And I’m not going to admonish them or talk to their boss or do anything about it, really. But that’s only if they keep being shitty employees on their own. When they try to drag me into it, that’s where I draw the line.

Don’t get me wrong. I understand the need to leave your desk to use the restroom a few times a day. And I also understand that if you’re a smoker you’re probably going to have urges and need to light up once in a while. But if you’re going to be a worthwhile employee who accomplishes goals and really strikes the boss as being someone he shouldn’t fire, then don’t waste time.

Wasting time comes in a variety of different formats. For instance, playing Tetris when you should be organizing files or making deal folders; wandering around aimlessly on your hour-long lunch break, distracting other employees and blatantly not doing anything useful with your break, whatsoever, and then after your break is over calling me or my friend (who is finishing your massive project for you) to come down and watch your desk so you can go have a smoke.

And then to actually have the gall to say “Oh, and if our boss calls to see where we are, just tell her we’re in the bathroom or something…” like it’s no big deal to lie to your boss. It just amazes me. I maybe could have just turned a blind eye if I could convince myself that maybe they just didn’t realize they weren’t supposed to be taking 5 smoke breaks a day. But clearly they are totally aware and they just don’t give a shit.

I mean...what do you even say to people who do this all the time? And by all the time, I mean every single day without fail for the last 4 months.

I am trying to be a valuable employee, accomplish my goals, and have quality work to show for it. I'm trying to do this, along with a million other stressful things happening in my life, and not whine or complain or ask others for help. My friend is trying to do the same thing. She's trying to get your massive project finished for you so that she can move on to other things - and all you can do to help is complain about how much you hate being here, text and talk on your phone, and have so much drama that you need to go on a smoke break every couple of hours.

I certainly don't want to toot my own horn here, but here's the thing: I work 6 hours a day because I work 7 days a week; I go home in the evenings and I'm still on my computer, working; I get sick and stay home, but I still write articles or post links on our site; I go on vacation but I take my computer with me and work from wherever I am - beach, tent, car, airport, foreign country. I get $11 an hour, and most of my work is done from outside this office, so I don't get paid for it. But I do it anyway. Why? Because I'm working on something that everyone can see, and I want my work to look good. I'm more concerned with creating something of quality, than I am with how much I like or value my employment or the job I've been given or how much I'm getting paid.

Because when you work for someone that's fucking what you do. If all you're going to do is bitch about how much you hate your job, and how life isn't fair because you have so much more potential for your life than to be stuck in a filing room all day, and how you don't get paid enough to deal with all this shit - then fucking quit. Stop expecting other people to pick up your slack. Stop complaining and making us as miserable as you are. Stop bringing all your social-life drama to work with you. Stop expecting the world to just drop favors onto your lap because you don't feel like working for anything.

And ya, I’m wasting time right now by blogging about this from work. But honestly, this took me less than 5 minutes to write, and I get a hell of a lot more done with the 6 hours a day that I’m here, than they do in the 40+ hours they somehow manage to get every single week.

I'm going insane.

Work

2011-05-23T11:08:00.001-04:00

Unfortunately, and due to circumstances apparently far beyond my control, I'm down at Audi today. From 9am to 1pm, I'll be here answering the phone and being overly nice to customers who are being overly rude and condescending to me. At 1pm, I'll have the pleasure of moving about 25 feet behind me into a small office crammed with other people who don't really want to be there, all of us trying hard not to either breath-in too deeply the body odor of our neighbor, or fall asleep and make asses of ourselves by snoring.

It's like I’m back in college, sitting in an 8am class. I dreaded classes before 10am, because I could never manage to stay awake through them.

I'm not saying that I dread coming to work, or that I hate working here, or even that I hate picking up the phone and saying: Bernardi for now, Bernardi for life. This is Beth, how may I help you? because really, I don't hate it that much. What I hate is when the person on the other end of the phone is too busy to wait for me to finish my little greeting, so they just cut me off in the middle of it and shout some salespersons name at me.

In fact, there are many things that the person on the other end of the line can do that really irritate me. I don't have to go into all of them right now, it would probably take too much time. And the purpose of this post is not to describe to everyone how much I dislike certain things about my job (even though this isn't even supposed to be my job at all).

The purpose of this post is to convince myself that throwing the phone across the room the very next time someone is rude to me, shouting fuck everyone, I hope you all rot in hell! and making my grand exit - really isn't the way to go. (How awesome would that be though?) As much as I'd really like to emulate Steven Slater, I'd also not like to be on the evening news, arrested, or fired.

As of yet, I have not successfully convinced myself of this.

My ego is just too big. I can't even think about having to be a receptionist for my whole life. Or even just work here doing other things, for my whole life. I feel like I'm wasting so much by sitting here answering phones. Anybody can sit at a desk and answer phones. Anybody can call customers after a service appointment and ask how it went. Anybody can call a bank and try to find missing titles. Anybody can screw around with Facebook and make their company look good. Not everybody can write intelligently, but a lot of people can - so that's not very unique either.

I just stared out of the window and watched cars driving by for at least 5 minutes. My mind is so blank right now.

This is going to sound stupid, but by working here makes me feel like a whore. There are so many other things I could be doing (like going to school or getting a job that has something to do with my college major) but instead I choose to do something that takes absolutely no thought and hardly any effort on my part. I work a fairly regular schedule, but I have a lot of room to deviate from it, and sometimes I work from home (or the airport, or a camping trip, or a hotel on the other side of the country).

It beats some of the things I used to do for money. One summer I painted faces at an apple orchard. I don't even know what gave me the idea that I was qualified to paint faces, and I don't remember what they paid me either. But that's how it was. I spent a lot of summers working at my dad's office. That wasn't too bad, but it was so cold all the time and we ate out a lot so I got kind of fat.

One summer I worked at Dunkin' Donuts. That was fun, and I got all the free coffee/donuts that I could consume, but about 6 weeks into it I went to Greece for a month. I don't know why I was in the least bit surprised when they didn't want me to come back and work for the last two weeks before I had to go back down to school.

While at school, a couple of my friends actually convinced me to donate plasma for money. If anything makes you feel like a whore, it's selling your bodily fluids twice a week for $50 a pint. On the bright side of things, I think I only did that for one or two semesters. I doubt I'll ever do it again.

As long as we're trying to look on the bright side of things, I guess it's nice that I don't have to rake leaves or manage a lemonade stand. And I'm not driving a truck around the country making WalMart deliveries. And I'm not doing anything that requires me to get wet or muddy or dirty.

I have a nice comfortable desk job in my own little cubicle (which even boasts a semi-green plant) and my own little computer that works most of the time, and even a phone. I even have a snack drawer - and you must admit that's pretty cool.

So even though I don't have the greatest job in the world, and I can imagine 100 things I'd rather be doing with my time, at least I have a job I can tolerate. And you know what else? At least I don't live with my parents.

End of the World

2011-05-19T19:22:00.000-04:00

I really don’t understand why people spend so much time speculating on when the end of the Earth will be. I enjoy watching both the History Channel and the Discovery Channel, and I also enjoy leaning about conspiracy theories – and sometimes I even think about how true they could be.

But then I ask myself why I should bother to care…because really, if the Earth is going to end then the Earth is going to end. There isn’t going to be a way for me to prevent it, or to prepare for it and survive. And even if there were some way to survive, I don’t think I’d have very much fun as the last human alive on Earth.

Sir Isaac Newton has predicted that the world will end in 2060. We’ll see about that. But by then I’ll be 72 so if the world ends then, at least I’ll have had a nice long life.

Before we get there though, we’ve got to live past December 21, 2012. Personally, I think the Mayans just decided it was silly to do their calendar out so far into the future. Either that, or they thought that it would be a really great practical joke to play on the people who came after them. Take your pick.

The most recent doomsday prediction is May 21^st of this year. This pastor, Harold Camping, thinks that the faithful will be raptured away, leaving the rest of us to our unpleasant fate of … something … which will occur on October 21^st.

As the end of 1999 approached, people realized that the next year to come would be 2000. I know, big deal, right? Well, there were a lot of people who were convinced life as we knew it would end because the computers wouldn't be smart enough to handle that massive change and therefor everything would crash - leaving us all to live like our prehistoric nomadic ancestors. Thank goodness that didn't happen, I only like camping on weekends.

In 1999, people thought the world would be eaten up by a black whole created by the first ever firing-up of the Hadron Collider. Obviously that didn’t happen. Also, Nostradamus thought that something, although not necessarily the end of the world, was going to happen in 1999. So that part might have come true, but it obviously didn’t affect us that much.

In 1997, 39 people from the cult Heaven’s Gate committed suicide in order to board the alien spaceship they believed to be following the Comet Hale-Bopp. They needed to board the craft because they thought the world was ending soon. So they chose to kill themselves early, to avoid the off-chance of being killed later. Not something I would bet on, but to each their own I suppose.

Pastor Harold Camping (yes, the same one from four paragraphs ago) predicted the world was to end in 1994. He had followers then, and he has followers now. I guess when he predicts the world to end in 2024, he'll have followers then too.

Edgar Whisenant, who worked for NASA, believed that the world was going to end in 1988. He published a book giving all this reasons for this belief, but 1988 came and went with nothing more exciting and doom-ish happening than my birth. Take that as you will.

William Miller thought the Second Coming (and subsequent purifying or destroying of Earth) would happen sometime between March 21, 1843 and March 21, 1844. When that ended up not happening after all, it was decided that there had been a calendar issue (Karaite Jewish verses Rabbinic), and it was decided that April 18, 1844 was the real date. That date also came and went without incident, and a final date of October 22, 1844 was decided. Well, that didn't happen either. And as far as I know the Adventists haven't made any more exact date end of times prophecies - but I don't really keep track of all that silliness anyway.

Joseph Smith predicted that the world would end sometime between 1835 and 1891. Today, Mormon's will tell you that non-believers twisted his sermon to a meaning he did not intend. If you read that last line in the voice of the narrator from the opening of the first LOTR, it's a really cool sentence.

There are so many more of these, I cannot even begin to start describing and/or making fun of them. There are predictions like this in both testaments of the Bible, and in all the other holy books. There are scientists who think there is a rogue planet - Planet X - that is going to come out of nowhere and cause the molten iron in the center of our planet to stop spinning, turning the entire planet into a huge volcanic lake. There are other people who think we're just going to keep abusing our planet until we've created such a terrible environment for ourselves that we cannot even continue to live in it. There are still others who think that at any second an asteroid of the same magnitude that hypothetically killed the dinosaurs and sent us into an ice age, will hit us and send us into another ice age.

But here's the thing: every single one of those scenarios pretty much ends with the complete destruction of everything. So why bother thinking about it at all? Death is inevitable, there is no cure for it. Everyone is going to die. There are no real people who have ever managed to escape death. So just accept it and move on. Live while you can. Do awesome things. Have epic adventures. Spend less time thinking about what you wish you could do, and just get up off your ass and do it.

I can't imagine anything worse than living for the next 50 years and not accomplishing anything worth talking about. If I get to retirement age and I don't have any good stories to tell the rest of the old people in the nursing home, I'm going to feel like I've completely wasted my entire life.

So - my message to all you people preaching about the rapture and all you other people trying to convince me that the end of the world is coming - Yes, I know it's coming. Everyone knows it's coming. Please stop interrupting my day, and go do something useful with your life. I mean really, if you want to make a difference, why don't you send some food over to those starving kids in Africa and India that we're always hearing about? Or why don't you donate 1,000,000 bottles of water to the people in Haiti who don't have access to clean drinking water? Or even just pick up some trash off of the street where you usually picket and terrify the passers-by....anything but what you're doing right now would be just great.

Oops

2011-05-09T12:13:00.000-04:00

Wow. I haven't blogged in an entire month. I'm so sorry. I truly apologize from the bottom of my heart.

I guess I just over-blogged before and wore myself out. I've recharged my batteries. I feel I have a few topics coming up that are going to be ... ranted about.

I know. I've been trying to relax and not get so uptight about things. But I feel some of this just needs to be said.

Vice Versa

2011-04-04T13:16:00.002-04:00

A couple of weeks ago I was given a lot of flack for my pronunciation of the phrase vice versa. I want you all to know that I haven't forgotten about that, and now that I've done my research I am prepared to make my case.

The first thing I did was to consult a dictionary. This definition comes from dictionary.com:

vi·ce ver·sa

[vahy-suh vur-suh, vahys, vahy-see] Show IPA–noun in reverse order from that stated; conversely: She dislikes me, and vice versa.

And just like any other self-respecting college graduate, the next thing I did was to ask Wikipedia:

"Thus, "the other way around", "conversely", etc. Historically, vice is properly pronounced as two syllables, but the one-syllable pronunciation is extremely common. Classical Latin pronunciation dictates that the letter C can only make a hard sound, like K and a v is pronounced like a w; thus wee-keh wehr-sah.^[2]"

On a side note - I feel that I must give credit to Kevin for mentioning the correct Latin pronunciation. But since we weren't arguing about that, the only conclusion that we can all come to (and still be right with our consciences) is that both Kevin and I are right.

I know that my ego wasn't enough to convince you people. But maybe the internet is.

Kindle: A Mathematical Justification

2011-02-22T16:07:00.002-05:00

Here is today’s agenda: I am trying to mathematically justify the purchasing of a Kindle for myself. Mostly because I want one, but also because I’m going on vacation to Key West with a group of my friends and I don’t want to bring a bunch of book with me.

I’m usually pretty good a justifying things, which shouldn’t come as a surprise to any of my readers, but I want to really be thorough with this one. Here is my process:

First, I took the a favorite book of mine from each of the five major literary categories from which I normally read, and then compared the hard copy price with the ebook price. Here is my table:

Biography $16.20 $9.99

Classic $11.80 $0.00

Fiction $5.99 $5.00

History $9.66 $8.48

Literature $8.22 $5.00

Second, I took the average of both columns. The average price for a paperback book I might read is $8.48; the average price for the same book but on a Kindle is $5.55. So I save $2.93 a book.

The Kindle I want is $139. So if I take that number, and divide it by the amount of money I save per book by purchasing the Kindle electronic copy, I get 47.78. I would need to purchase 48 books in order to save as much money buying electronic copies as I spent buying the Kindle.

I read an average of 2 books a month, sometimes it's a lot more than that but I tend to read pretty long books. If we got with that average, it would take 1.999 years for me to read enough books for me to have paid for the Kindle by saving money on electronic books.

Math has never been my strong point, academically, so if my math is wrong please tell me. Unfortunately, I've checked with several people and everyone seems to think I did those equations just fine.

If we look at this proposal from a purely mathematical standpoint, it seems like one does not save that much money per book, and the money down to buy the Kindle is fairly significant. However, a well-rounded justification process includes not only math but also other forms of logic: so here we go.

The Kindle stores thousands of books on it. If one were to be traveling (like I will be in about 5 days) it is a lot more convenient to bring just one small device than it is to bring even just one heavy book. Holding up a small and light Kindle for a long period of time is much easier on the arms/hands than holding up a 6-pound book for the same amount of time.. Also, it takes up less space in a bag than would a normal sized book.

But wait, there's more.

On average, I read about 2 books a month. That's when I'm working every day and not having time to really sit down, relax and just focus on what I'm reading. Vacations are a different story. On my last vacation I brought two books with me, and then ended up going to the bookstore twice more for two more books, and then bought another in the airport for the plane ride home. That's a total of 5 books in 8 days.

Further, the math I did above was a little screwy - not because I did it wrong, but because of how I plan to use my Kindle (should I end up buying one). I really like the feel of a real book. I like how the paper smells and how sometimes the ink rubs off on your fingers. I like being able to see how many pages I have left. I like being able to write my name inside the cover. And I like how my house looks with filled bookshelves.

So I don't plan on exclusively buying electronic books until I die. I plan on buying certain kinds of books on the Kindle and certain kids of books in the actual paper version. For instance, I really like reading about American History - I'll probably buy those in the actual paper version because I like to underline things and write in the margins. The same goes for Biographies. However, I also like ready trashy crime novels. They don't need any markings at all and after I read them once I'm done with them forever. Those I would probably buy on the Kindle.

Romance novels are very cheap and sometimes free on the Kindle. I don't read those, but I'm just throwing the information out there for anyone else who might be using this little essay as a reason for buying their own Kindle.

Also, the vast majority of classics are free when you get the electronic copies. I read a lot of classics. I have a lot of them already, but there are so many out there...there are still so many I could buy. And if I bought a Kindle, I wouldn't have to buy them at all because they'd be free.

The end result of this post is that I've convinced myself that not only do I need a Kindle, but that I am economically justified in buying one for my trip to Florida. Hopefully my bank account agrees with me. But who cares, right? After all, I'm saving trees!

Let's Talk About What A Fantastic Day I'm Having

2011-02-05T15:33:00.001-05:00

This morning, Leslie poured the last bowl of Fruit Loops, I had the second-to-last bowl, and then discovered that the regular milk was sour. After she'd already poured it in the bowl. I use soymilk, so my Fruit Loops were fine. She ended up eating gross fiber cereal.

We left the house at 9 so that I would be early for my rehearsal, and decided to take my car because it had more gas in it. We didn't actually have enough space between our two cars for my car to be able to pull out, so then she had to run back inside and get the keys for her car and move it out of the way. So we ended up being late - but at least this time I didn't forget my violin (I did that last Monday on the way to orchestra).

Five minutes into our drive, my gas light came on. So I didn't have gas after all and we might as well have just taken her car. Ridiculous. And, I've always been terrified of running out of gas, so I couldn't bring myself to go all the way to the funeral and get gas after - even though I probably had enough to do that. So we stopped for gas and made ourselves even later.

In the end, I was literally only 4 minutes late, so I freaked out for nothing.

While I played for the funeral, Leslie waited in the car and read Harry Potter. She thought she was being economical by turning off the car while she read, but she didn't realize that her phone was plugged in and charging. So what she really did was drain my battery while blissfully reading Harry Potter and imagining the world to be a perfect place where something like this wouldn't happen.

So then when I asked her to go get lunch before I was finished, she went to start the car and it wouldn't. Eventually she tried to start it so many times that it stopped even making that clicking noise. Great. Krisjan was going to give us a jump-start, but then he didn't end up having the jumper cables. (I really need to get some of those.) I thought perhaps if we put it in neutral and pushed it down a hill, it might start. I think I read about that in a book once, but I've since been told it doesn't work that way.

Krisjan gave us a ride home where we dropped off my violin and picked up Leslie's car. Then we had to get Taco Bell, because we were starving and late for work, and then we had to get gas again because hers was out of gas too. The people at Taco Bell forgot to give us a spork, and they also did not give us straws. So we had to take off the lids and drink directly from the cups. I actually like doing that, but then Leslie found a bug stuck to the inside wall of hers, and we were grossed out. Oh, and our cinnamon twists tasted gross because they didn't actually have any cinnamon on them. Go figure.

I can't wait to see what the evening will bring.

Can't Take This Story Again

2011-01-29T14:10:00.004-05:00

One of my well-meaning coworkers just came up to me and started telling me this story about one of his distant relatives who plays the fiddle. This is the third or fourth time he's told me about her. Here is the story:

She's from somewhere in Canada and apparently she's famous among the Canadians. She plays the fiddle. She's done recordings with a couple of famous ensambles - so famous I've never heard of them. Maybe it's because they're Canadian, I don't know.

Her father is even more famous than she is. He has apparently done recordings with Yo-Yo Ma. My coworker doesn't know what pieces they recorded, but that doesn't matter. He also doesn't seem to realize that a fiddler and a violinist are different and play drastically different music.

Here's the thing. I don't really care. That's my main issue with this story - I can only pretend to be interested in the distant relative for so long. I've had enough.

I recognize the fact that some people really don't see a difference between a violinist and a fiddler. I get it. But really - I was a music major in college and I happen to play the violin. Those things don't make me interested in every other person who also happens to own a violin. It doesn't mean that I want to hear stories about other people you know who also play an instrument. I know you probably think they're famous, but chances are they probably aren't.

Here's why: My grandparents are constantly taking out home videos, and recital videos and concert videos of me and and my siblings, and showing their friends. This is their main weekend activity - show off our grandchildren to our friends and neighbors and random people who we drag off the street. They think that we are the shit.

Your relatives thinking you are the shiznit is great. But unfortunately, their faith in you probably isn't universal through the rest of the world. I used to think I was awesome because all my family did (sans my mother) was tell me how awesome and talented and fantastic I was. But really, I'm not that great. Compared to the rest of the violinists in my age group throughout the rest of the world, I'm average.

And I'm ok with that. I really am. But what I'm not ok with is listening to other people's relatives tell me stories about how great their grandchildren are. Because I know that in reality they are just like me, and if they were here they'd probably be embarrassed and ask their relative to stop.

So please. Stop.

Fresh-Scent Dispensers

2011-01-26T12:02:00.001-05:00

I know that between this blog and my Tumblr, I spend a fairly decent amount of time talking about bathrooms. I'm sorry. I have a small bladder and spend a fairly decent amount of time in various bathrooms. It's funny in a sick and twisted sort of way.

But here's the thing: Since I spend so much time in there, I am constantly thinking about ways to improve public restrooms. Here is my latest improvement idea.

In Bernardi's upstairs women's restroom there is a large sink area which includes a wall-sized mirror, two sinks, two paper towel dispensers and a trash can; one regular-sized stall and one handicapped stall; and one little fresh-scent dispenser on the wall at a 90* angle from the big mirror and slightly to the left of the paper towel dispenser.

When I was thinking was this: Why is the fresh-scent dispenser over near the sinks? People aren't leaving smelly things in the sinks, they're leaving smelly things in the stalls. So instead of spraying fresh-scent over where it smells fine, why don't you put a fresh-scent dispenser in each stall, and have it set to squirt a mini-cloud of fresh-scent every time the automatic toilet flushes?

That makes a lot more sense to me. And there is another positive side to this new arrangement. Instead of having to dodge the fresh-scent machine spray so that it won't get in your hair and leave you smelling like slightly stale mixed-berry-blossom all day, the fresh-scent will be dispensed after you've already left the stall. You can smell like really expensive Burberry perfume all day like you had planned, and not some awkward mix of that and stale Fabreeze.

It's a win-win situation.

People On FB Suck At Spelling

2011-01-25T15:57:00.001-05:00

I realize that I posted literally about 45 minutes ago, and that before that I hadn't posted in over two weeks, but I'm sorry - I have a lot to say today. It just cannot be helped.

When a person is speaking, with their voice, to other persons and they want to emphasize for one reason or another the length of a word that has the oo sound in it, like the word mood, they say something like:

I'm in such a great moooooooooooooood today!

Now. If you were in the presence of someone who made that statement, your act of having heard the statement would enable you to write down on a piece of paper how you thought the word mood, in that context, should be spelled.

But what if you wanted to do it backwards. Seriously - if you are saying mooooood in your head and you want to write it down, what would you write?

Personally, I'd write moooood because I would think to myself that it is logical to repeat the letter or sound on paper which is being repeated or emphasized in the word when spoken. Right? Maybe that's just me.

So when I'm on Facebook and I see someone say:

I'm in such a good mooddddddddddd!

I think to myself ... what is a m-oo-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d? Because if one were to be so stupid as to spell it mooddddddd then another person reading it would have to pronounce it mooduhduhduhduhduhduhduh.

And that would just be retarded. Really. What is a mooduhduhduhduhduhduh???

Things I Heard At Work Today That Didn't Make Any Sense

2011-01-25T15:01:00.000-05:00

These overheard sentence fragments have made me feel a resolute and unyielding need to get my ass back to school where it belongs.

Alls I know.
I'm in agreeance with you.
The meeting what I went to.
What do I gotta do that for, am I the mailman?

I wish I had a 5th one, because I like things in groups of fives, but I'm honestly not making these up and there were really only four. Oh well.

Summer Reading Update 7

2011-01-10T15:33:00.000-05:00

The last time I did a Summer Reading Update was sometime in 2009, so it's been about 14 months. In all that time I have not actually read any other books from that list. I have also failed, for the 7th time, to have completed either Uncle Tom's Cabin or Les Miserables. I'm sorry. I just can't do it.

The only reason I even remembered about this Summer Reading Project, was because I read an article in the New York Times about a bunch of different book clubs in the United States. Some of them were really neat and only a few were really pretentious. Then I thought to myself that I might like a book club of my own. And then I thought - well, you haven't even managed to read yourself through your own list of books yet, so how do you expect to read through someone else's?

Good question.

So instead of blogging about how I'm going to be proactive and start a book club, I'm blogging about how I haven't read any books on my list of books, since May of 2009. I fully admit that this is pathetic.

However, I have read other books. I am not proud of all of them.

The Tailor King, by Anthony Arthur; The Moon Is Down, by John Steinbeck; Night, Elie Wiesel; Girl With The Pearl Earring, by Tracy Chevalier; Twilight, New Moon, Eclipse and Breaking Dawn, by Stephanie Meyer; First To Die, Second Chance, and Third Degree, by James Paterson; Finger Lickin' Fifteen, by Janet Evanovich; Carrie, by Stephen King; The Year Of Wonders, by Geraldine Brooks; The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, The Girl Who Played With Fire, and The Girl Who Kicked The Hornets Nest, by Stieg Larsson; A People's History of the United States, by Howard Zinn.

Some of those were fantastic. Some of them were truly shameful. And some of them I read because I was either on vacation or stuck in an airport. You can try to decided which you think are which.

Oh. And I'm truly sorry about the Evanovich selection. I have no excuse.

Apparently, A Coworker Sent Our Boss Through A Fax Machine

2010-12-29T10:55:00.002-05:00

I'm sorry. But when I'm at work I'm just constantly bombarded from all sides by people speaking really badly. And most of the time I just concentrate on something else, or daydream, or play music really loudly in my head; but once in a while something seriously terrible breaks through all my bad-grammar-firewalls, and I just have to talk about it.

This is an actual conversation which I just heard, and which I am not embellishing in any way (except that the last two words are substitutes for what was really said, because I'm probably not supposed to be spilling company business all over the internet).

Did you get my fax yesterday?

No. What was it of?

I faxed you over a copy of the list.

First of all, the person in question doesn't have a fax machine, as the really loud person a couple cubicles down from me was very quick to point out. But, the fax was sent to his office and had his name written in big letters on the top of the page in question so it should have gotten to him, as the original storyteller was quick to rebut.

Let's just disregard the fact that he ended his sentence with a preposition, and focus on the last sentence. I faxed you over a copy of the list. You know what that sounds like to me? It sounds like she took him, stuck him to a copy of the list, and then faxed them both to the other office.

Now. As much as you might think I am a grammar guru, I'm really not. I don't know exactly what the names of all the parts of that sentence are, or if they really are in the wrong order - but I can use my brain and realize that it sounds stupid. It should have been:

I faxed over to you a copy of the list.

I faxed a copy of the list over to you.

Sometimes I really truly believe that people don't actually hear what is coming out of their own mouths. It makes me think that going to college doesn't really mean anything anymore. But basic grammar like that isn't even taught in college. It's taught in grade school. How can you possibly make it through college and not know how to properly construct a sentence?

Anyways...

2010-12-23T15:47:00.007-05:00

I was just reading through some comments on a photography site, and I repeatedly saw an extremely irritating word-usage-mix-up.

Basically, people, there is a difference between anyway, and any way. Technically this isn't a grammar blog, but sometimes I just can't help myself. Don't pretend like you were unaware of this.

Any way - Means that there are a variety of different ways to accomplish something, and that any of them are acceptable. You can go any way you want.

Anyway - Seriously uncreative way to change the subject, or a not-so-subtle way to let a person with whom you are conversing know that you are trying leave and do something interesting. Ya, so, anyways....it was great to talk to you but ya, I have to go now - my, uh, lawn is growing awfully fast this week and I need to keep an eye on it.

The phrase I wasn't trying to insult you in anyway...Should never be used, but if it is, your rebuttal should be ...except by insulting my intelligence by using such terrible grammar.

Gay Rights Are Civil Rights

2010-12-20T14:26:00.002-05:00

Before you read this post, you should probably go read this article because what I am about to write is a direct response to what I read.

Now - I don't know if the premise of an article can be a question, but I'm going to assume that it can be. That having been said, the premise of this article is basically are gay rights civil rights? The author explores both sides of the argument and then lets the reader draw their own conclusion.

My conclusion, even before I read this article, is obviously yes - gay rights are civil rights. I really can't comprehend how a person could have a sound understanding of our government and not come to the same conclusion. Also, I cannot understand how a non-religious person can have a valid argument against equality. However...

The biggest organized group against gay rights and against calling gay rights civil rights, is obviously the church. I realize that there are many churches, denominations, religions etc and that lumping them altogether into the one category church is misleading. But I don't want to spend the time detailing which religions, factions, specific leaders etc are responsible for this. Also, I do realize that there are some congregations who are very welcoming to everyone, and who do not discriminate against same-sex couples. But these are the exception to the rule.

I understand that there are several arguments against gay marriage made from a religious standpoint which do make sense. However, I do feel that a lot of these arguments stem from verses taken out of context, from mistranslated words, and even from mistakes that absolutely have to be in the Bible simply based on its authorship and compilation process.

Let's start with this:

"The rhetoric has inspired gays and lesbians. But it has also galvanized their opponents, who say homosexuals are fighting for “special rights,” not civil rights. Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage says of same-sex matrimony: “It’s not a civil right, it’s a civil wrong”—one that will diminish the religious freedom of those who consider homosexuality sinful."

First of all, semi-clever wordplay does not constitute a valid argument. As I have said many times, the act of claiming something to be fact or truth, does not make it so. Even if you do it with semi-clever wordplay and a look on your face that you think makes you look intelligent.

Second, the freedom of a person can only be diminished by an act that actually changes or takes away from a freedom that person already has. I would be profoundly grateful to the person who can point out to me which of the religious persons freedoms are changed or taken away by the homosexuals right to marriage.

It seems to me that many (straight?) religious persons are making the mistake of assuming that because a gay couple can marry, now a straight couple cannot. Or perhaps even that because a gay couple can marry, now someone who wants to be straight will be forced to be gay?

This is as absurd as thinking that you can "catch the gay virus" by being too close to a gay person, or that your children can "catch the gay virus" from a gay teacher or babysitter.

Third, the right to marriage is granted by the state, not the church. Marriage in this country has always been a state institution, and it always will be. To be legally married in the United States, a couple must obtain a marriage license, and sign a marriage certificate. A church and/or pastor are not required steps to the marriage process. Religious people do not seem to be aware of that.

Because marriage is a state institution, those who are currently allowed to marry are technically being given a special status, above those are are currently not allowed to marry. It doesn't seem to bother the religious folk that they have a special status, but it does seem to bother them that others might join them in having this special status. Ironically, their own ability to marry is not considered by them to be a special status until another group also wants that same privilege - and then only that group are considered to be seeking special status.

Basically, it doesn't matter on what religious grounds a person rejects the validity of gay marriage. Freedom of religion itself is a guaranteed right by the 1st Amendment to the Constitution. ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.").

It's a right granted them by the state. It isn't a law administered by the state. Religion is an option.

The right of all people to be treated equally is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment ("No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.")

All persons are to receive equal protection of the laws. This isn't a suggestion or an option or a guideline. This is a legal guarantee that all people are to be treated equally when it comes to being constitutionally protected.

Marriage is a state institution. The state therefor controls the right to marriage. Further, the state is subject to the authority of our Constitution. The only logical conclusion to be drawn from this is that the state cannot legally deny the right of certain people to marry certain other people, yet grant that right to certain others. It's discriminatory and it's prohibited by the 14th Amendment.

And again:

"The “special rights” argument was reflected in the Pentagon’s report this month on “don’t ask, don’t tell.” “Throughout the force, rightly or wrongly, we heard both subtle and overt resentment towards ‘protected groups’ of people and the possibility that gay men and lesbians could, with repeal, suddenly be elevated to a special status,” the report found."

Let me clarify - equality is not the same as protected. Actually - equality is the same as being protected only in that those who currently share equality are all protected under the constitution and those who are not currently considered equal are not protected. The only "special status" that gay men and women service members want, is the same "special status" that everyone else already has.

To quote further from the article "...it is not a ‘special right’ to be free of discrimination..."

Basically, the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950's (and 60's and 70's and even 80's) was a movement to end discrimination. Yes, it was predominately a black movement aimed at getting equality for blacks in America, but there were also other groups at that time who were fighting for their own equality. The history books tend to spend an overt amount of space discussing the black aspect, and basically no time on any of the other groups (kind of how they tend to only focus on the Jews of the Holocaust, and not any of the other groups targeted for extermination).

In my opinion, for the black community to be offended that the gay movement is claiming to be the new Civil Rights Movement, is kind of silly. Gays have, in reality, been part of the Civil Rights Movement since it started for blacks in the 50's. The only difference is that they are still fighting for their equality.

In fact, I am actually agreeing with someone with whom I don't think I've ever agreed before. The Rev. Jesse Jackson: “To those that believe in and fought for civil rights, that marched to end discrimination and win equality, you must not become that which you hated...”

Discrimination is discrimination, no matter who is doing it or who is the victim. No matter what. It is illegal and furthermore, it's wrong. Anybody with a conscience should know that to treat someone differently because of their uniqueness and individuality is not only wrong, but also stupid, pigheaded and shortsighted.

In conclusion, I have for my religious readers, two selections. They're from your Bible:

Romans 12:10 - Be devoted to one another in love. Honor one another above yourselves.

John 13:34 & 35 - A new command I give to you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.

Moving

2010-12-19T11:19:00.001-05:00

I'm moving out. Here's why:

I love my family. But I can't live here anymore because my mother is crazy. I'm sorry that I'm not living my life the way she wants me to but I'm an adult now and I can make my own decisions about everything. The fact that I am choosing different things to focus on than the ones she imagined I might, does not make my choices any less valid or important - and it makes her a selfish bitch for being angry at my happiness.

One of my friends recently became engaged. I'm happy for them. I think it's great that they are both happy and are going to get married and have kids and all that jazz. And all my mom could say was " Well, she's 21 now so she can decide what she wants to do regardless of how much it hurts her family. Right? I mean, that's what you think, isn't it?" in this horrendously accusatory tone - like I'm doing that to my entire family every single day.

And I guess I should say - ya. That is what I think. I'm proud of this person for doing what they want with their life instead of letting their terribly judgmental family have any say in it at all. And I do think that there is a time when your parents need to back off and stop controlling your life. But parents are unlikely to ever come to that conclusion, so if you have to stand up to them and say enough is enough, then do it. Because it's your life.

This woman just can't be happy for anybody. She doesn't recognize that there is a line between her life and the lives of every other person on the planet. It's fine to have expectations. It's fine to have a pretty little picture of what you want your children to grow up to be. But to try to run somebody elses life the way you wanted to run yours but couldn't because of a variety of different possible reasons - is not ok. And I'm not putting up with it anymore.

There is a difference between being selfish - and just being yourself. And when someone who is angry with me for being me and tells me that I'm being selfish for being me...actually, I just don't say anything because I don't want to be rude.

But I'm through with that.

So, no. You're the selfish one. You can't even see past your own nose and think about other people, because you're so caught up in your own little fantasy land of living vicariously through everyone else. Stop being such a selfish bitch. Stop making the rest of us do something just because you think it would be neat to have a child who does that particular thing. Stop telling me how to live my life. Stop calling me selfish because I don't live my life for you, exactly how you want me to - you aren't Jesus.

Delta Survey

2010-12-18T14:26:00.002-05:00

Delta actually sent me a survey about my travel experience on the 13th. I am super surprised, but am not one to squander such an opportunity. I know you are all dying to read the next installment of my travel fiasco, so here is what I put in their Additional Comments Box:

"I was allowed with my luggage through both the check-in process at the front desk and the security check point. When I tried to board the aircraft one of the personell checking our boarding passes told me that I was not going to be allowed to board the plane with my piece of oversized luggage and demanded that I pay the $25 baggage fee to check my bag. Although there were several other bags equal to and larger in size than my own, I was the only individual forced to pay this fee. In addition to that, the other flight personnel were going through line and gate-checking many other bags for free because the overhead bin space was full. The lady in front of me in line was allowed to board the aircraft with two medium-sized suitcases and also a very large purse that was overflowing because it had so much stuffed into it.

"Obviously I am very upset and find the treatment I recieved to be extremely unfair. Why was I singled out and forced to pay a baggage fee when others were allowed to procede with more and bigger baggage than I, and still others were given free gate-checking for their luggage?

"I should also mention that the employee, whos name is Josephene C, was very rude and very pushy. She was not professional by any stretch of the definition. In fact, at more than one time she actually physically grabbed my bag from me and slammed it around. She was lucky I didn't have anything of a fragile nature inside of it.

"Besides being treated horribly and being robbed of $25 for a bag that was not over-size, my treatment was pretty good. I have no complaints of anyone besides Josephine C - and I won't be a satisfied customer until she is fired."

I hope that's not too harsh. Now I'm going to go on to their site and see if there are other surveys I can fill out as well.

Delta Sucks and Here's Why

2010-12-13T09:55:00.001-05:00

Thank you, Google Chrome, for giving me free in-flight wi-fi so that I could write about this while I'm still nice and angry.

I woke up this morning at 5:00 and was out of the door at 5:25 with my Uncle Andy. We stopped at Dunkin' and then drove to Logan Airport in Boston. He dropped me off and I went to check in.

I had packed all my things in a bright orange suitcase which is admittedly a little big but which I know fits in the overhead compartments because I've traveled with it many times before. I have not checked a bag since airlines started charging for them - because I believe that to be highway robbery and I refuse to pay for something that should be free.

So I went through security and then down an escalator, under the runway, and up another escalator to my terminal. I sat down at my gate, A18, and waited for my flight, DL 1901, to board. Someone kept coming on the loudspeaker to announce different things about our flight, one of which was that the flight was overbooked (of course, anything to make sure the airlines make as much money as possible) and that people needed to make sure to put whatever baggage under the seat that could fit there, so that there would be room for the rest of us with normal sized luggage to put it in the overheads.

All I had was this suitcase and my backpack. Obviously my backpack fits under the seat.

So the boarding process begins. I'm in Zone 4. The lady in front of me in line had two roller-suitcases and an enormous purse. I'm not sure which of those was her personal item, but she had so much stuff she could barely maneuver it all. She gives the ticket-lady her ticket and is allowed to go down the gangway. I step up and give my ticket to the ticket-lady and I am also allowed to go through.

Then, after I've taken 2 steps, some other lady comes up to me (her name is Josephine C) and asks me what I think I'm doing with such a big bag? And I really don't know what to say so I just look at her. She tells me to step to the side and try to fit my bag in this box (which is supposed to be a model of the overheads, and is supposed to dictate the size of bag which is allowed to be carried on) and of course my bag doesn't fit.

I want to ask her if the lady in front of me would be able to fit two suitcases and an enormous purse in this tiny box (which is unrealistically small - they really do think that we're stupid), but I refrain because I really don't want to get arrested.

So then she tells me I'm going to have to check it. So I say "that's fine, you can gate-check it" and she says "no, this is a suitcase, you're going to have to pay for it". And I say "Well, you're the first person to give me any trouble for this bag, and I've flown with it on several different trips. I know it fits in the overheads. The people at the ticket counter didn't say anything and neither did the people in security. You can gate check it."

So she says "No. This is a regular sized suitcase. Did you really think you could get away with this? It's huge! How would you like to pay for it?"

So now I'm pissed because she's bitching me out in front of an entire line of people and she's treating me like I'm 12-years old and trying to take advantage of the system (which to be fair, I am because the system is unfair and should be illegal).

So I tell her to bill me. Which of course she can't do. Or won't do. I'm not sure which. I'm not sure of anything anymore.

So she grabs my bag and takes it back over to the counter and slams it down on the ground and asks me again how I'm going to pay for it.

At this point, several unpleasant things are going through my head. But I want you all to know that I acted on none of them and you should all be very proud of me for not being in jail right now.

So I'm standing there thinking about how I want to pay for this ridiculous $25 bag fee, and another attendant is going through line taking other suitcases and gate-checking them for free because they're out of space. I mention this to Josephine, very politely, and she ignores me.

The scary thing about traveling now is that one doesn't really understand where a line is drawn between arguing with airline personnel and doing something illegal. And in fact, there probably isn't an actual line. It's probably up to the discretion of the employee - and there are a lot of angry, short tempered airline personnel.

Josephine C, forced me to pay $25 to check my bag, but then went through line and checked other bags for free. Why? Obviously that isn't fair, but for how long can I stand there pointing it out before they call security on me, or just take-off and leave me standing there?

I've already paid for my plane ticket and I'm obviously not going to jeopardize my trip over $25, unfair as it may be. And they know that! Which is why they can take advantage of us and nothing is ever done about it.

I've been sitting here brooding about how to get back at Josephine C, or how to get back at Delta (this is not the first time Delta has done something to completely screw me over) and I honestly can't think of anything. Anything legal anyways.

I could file a complaint - somebody might look at it for a second, but that would be it. I could call in and complain - even if I provided them with her name and description, nothing would happen to her.

They just don't care.

And since they're such a huge corporation and they have so many thousands of employees, they can just hide behind their hugeness and "lose" all my official comments, complains, letters etc in their massive tangled web of a bureaucracy.

It's disgusting. And even though my official complaints aren't going to actually accomplish anything, I'm still going to file them. And I'm still never going to fly with Delta again unless I absolutely have to - by which I mean if someone dies and the very last flight to the funeral is a Delta flight. Anything else is just not enough of an emergency to make me fly this airline.

So thank you Delta for not caring about the people traveling with you, for taking unfair advantage of us, for offering terrible customer service, and employing bitches like Josephine C who care about your travelers even less than you do. I hope nobody ever flies with you again and you go out of business. I'd rather walk to my destination.

Of

2010-12-03T12:05:00.003-05:00

In some cases, learning the English language is either an oral thing or an aural thing. Ideally, it should be both.

You're supposed to learn the basics by listening to the people around you, and then as you grow older you're supposed to read and expand your vocabulary through literature.

Unfortunately, a lot of people don't read as much as they probably should. These people tend to hear a word and then assume a spelling for it, without consulting a dictionary. There is nothing wrong with that, as long as you have heard the word correctly.

Which leads me to the point of this post - people using the word "of" wrong.

Nothing with an 've suffix involves the word "of". Examples: would've and could've. The phrase isn't I could of or I would of. It's I could have or I would have.

You would only make that mistake if you had only ever heard people say the contracted version of that phrase. I feel like I should turn this post into a speech about how reading is good for you, but I don't have the energy today. I'm sure I'll manage it soon though, don't worry.

In conclusion, here's a funny video my brother showed me over Thanksgiving break. It's not meant to be offensive, although it probably will be, but it seriously ties in with what I'm trying to say.

I Used To Like This Song

2010-11-29T13:17:00.002-05:00

I was listening to a song on the radio yesterday afternoon. Not on purpose, but just because it happened to come on. I am the type of person who can't just zone out to music that has words, so if I'm listening to pop music or rock or rap, then I am actively listening to what the person is saying.

Sometimes that's cool and sometimes it sucks. In this particular instance, it sucks.

The song to which I was listening was Just A Dream by Nelly. (I don't know why he doesn't have a last name.) I actually kind of like this song, or, I used to. Now it just bothers me. Let me tell you why.

I was going to put in all the lyrics, but I just googled them and they are quite extensive. So I'm just going to include the ones in question (and I apologize that I've included them without editing them):

When I be ridin man I swear I see her face at every turn.

Tryin to get my usher over, I can let it burn.
And I just hope she notice she the only one I yearn for.
Oh I miss her when will I learn?

Does anybody else notice anything unsettling about those 4 lines? I do. And now I'm going to tell you what it is.

Obviously, it's supposed to be a poem. Most not-classical songs on the radio are supposed to rhyme, I guess it makes them cool or something. That is not the issue. The issue is that lines 1, 2 and 4 all rhyme, but line 3 doesn't.

But in the song, he tries to make it sound like it is rhyming. He holds out the word yearn for way longer than he's supposed to and then says for kind of quietly and on a lower note, so you almost don't hear it. So, not only does he screw up the meter, he doesn't actually end up making it rhyme at all. Whenever I hear it I feel like for should be put in parentheses, because it's said as an afterthought.

But here's what really gets me. Not being able to find an appropriate rhyme is one thing. Not quite getting a consistent meter in every verse is one thing. But in this case, it is so completely possible for him to fix it. In fact, the only reason that he had that problem in the first place is because he isn't using proper sentence structure.

If you were saying that line correctly, with proper grammar, you would say:

"....she's the only one for whom I yearn"

I know, I know. It's highly unlikely that you will ever actually hear a sentence like that in a rap song. It's even unlikely that you will hear normal people in a normal conversations speaking like that. But the point is - that's how you're supposed to speak.

If only he had used proper sentence structure and not ended his sentence with a preposition, then he wouldn't have messed up his meter or rhyme-scheme, and I would still like his song.

Harry Potter

2010-11-17T14:38:00.001-05:00

In light of the imminent release of Part 1 of the final cinematic chapter of the Harry Potter series, I think it's important to say something.

Let me start by saying that I don't think Harry Potter is evil, of the devil, or bad in any way, so if you are not prepared for a positive review of this series, or you are going to become belligerent and argumentative, then you should probably leave.

I have had a number of arguments with a number of people over the nature of this series. Some of you will not believe me when I say this, but, most of the Christians who vehemently insist to me that this series is evil, have not even read it.

(This post is not meant to insult Christians as a whole, in any way. The plain and simple fact of the matter is, that most people who are afraid of the Harry Potter series, are Christians.)

Don't judge a book by it's cover, or by what other people have told you about it. To have an intelligent and informed opinion, you must be both intelligent (which in some cases I understand is difficult) and informed. You cannot change how smart you are, but you can change how informed you are.

If you're going to tell me that the sky is orange and not blue, and that I'm stupid for thinking the sky is blue and not orange, you better have some pretty convincing evidence for me. I would expect you to have, at some point in your life, looked at the sky. If you've never seen it, how do expect to be an authority on it's color?

Likewise, if you have never read a book, how do you expect to speak with authority about its contents?

The very simple answer to that highly rhetorical question is: you can't. You cannot possibly be taken seriously when you have never bothered to research your subject.

I know that most of us, myself included, were not around when the Narnia series first came out. C.S. Lewis died in 1963, which is probably around the time when most of our parents were born. The point is, my mother has told me stories of how she had to sneak The Chronicles of Narnia series, because her parents (being the good conservative Adventists that they were) would have had a fit if they knew she had been reading such an "evil" series.

Today, C.S. Lewis is known as one of the foremost Christian writers of the century.

The same things of which the Harry Potter series is now accused, have been said about The Chronicles of Narnia (Lewis), The Lord of the Rings (Tolkein), A Wrinkle in Time and it's sequels (L'Engle), and if we must include movies then titles such as Star Wars, and The Matrix.

Each of those books and movies was at one point absolutely hated by Christians, but yet are now either acceptable or known to be Biblical allegories.

And - whether you like it or not, the entire Harry Potter series is a Biblical allegory. And sure, if you choose not to read it that way, the story will still be epic. The quality of the story is not made or broken by its religiosity, or otherwise. But the fact remains that J.K. Rowling is a Christian. And the Christian overtones, undertones, whatever you want to call them, are not there by accident.

If there weren't people who were willing to make their own decisions about what to read and what to watch, we would all still think C.S. Lewis was evil, and praise music never would have been invented. (One of those things I would be ok with.)

The point is, taking the word of someone else as fact instead of an opinion, and not being willing to assume the risk of coming up with your own opinion, will eventually lead to an inability in yourself to form a personal opinion of anything. You will turn into one of those people who says "Well, they said..." and when questioned as to who they are, you will say "Well, you know, them." And the sad part about all of this is, that you will think that is a perfectly acceptable answer.

So. If you don't want to read the Harry Potter series, that's fine. If you don't want to watch The Matrix, that's fine too. But don't take it upon yourself to lecture me, or anyone else, about how evil they are, when you can't possibly have any idea what you're talking about. Save it for people who actually know.

2010-11-08T10:48:00.002-05:00

I know people say that as they get older they start turning into their parents, but I just want you all to know that it is never going to happen. I will never be like my mother. Ever. The end.

2010-10-28T14:47:00.003-04:00

I feel like I need to say something. Technically, I don't believe in any of this. But I know a lot of people who do, and I'm going to argue this using their beliefs and their religion.

First, let's review a little. Although you may have forgotten some of them, these are the 10 Commandments:

You shall have no other gods before me.
You shall not make for yourself any carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.
You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.
Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your manservant, nor your maidservant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.
Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you.
You shall not murder.
You shall not commit adultery.
You shall not steal.
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.”

Just so we're clear: No other gods, no idols, no swearing, no cheating on your spouse, no stealing, no lying, no jealousy, and also honor both your parents and the Sabbath. Those are the rules.

Now. I don't know where it says anything about hell, what kind of hell really exists, or who is going to be going there. But I'm assuming that, if hell exists, it will be the people who didn't follow these commandments and the other rules we're given in the New Testament.

Here are some verses to consider from the New Testament:

Matthew 6:14-15
For if you forgive men for their transgressions, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions.

Matthew 7:1
Judge not, that you be not judged.

Matthew 7:12
So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

John 13:34-35
A New command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.

James 2:10
10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.

Allow me to paraphrase:

Don't hold grudges. Forgive your friends. Don't take it upon yourself to judge people. Treat other people the way you want to be treated. Love everyone. And finally, every sin is equal - if you do one bad thing, you are just as bad as someone who did 10 bad things. Gossiping about someone is just as bad as murdering them.

Yes. You read that correctly. Gossiping about someone is just as bad a sin as murdering someone. Chew on that.

GoGo Halla

2010-09-25T13:30:00.000-04:00

This is the last 30 seconds or so of "Go Go Joseph" from Joseph and the Technicolor Dreamcoat which was put on by a local community theater and in which my sister took part. She is the second from the left, front row, wearing bright pink and enormous white boots. I think it's pretty funny. Turn the volume up so you can hear the song, it makes more sense that way.

A Pen Thing

2010-09-16T12:03:00.000-04:00

I have a pen thing.

It's not something that holds pens or ... well any sort of pen apparatus whatsoever. It's more of a mentality. I guess that's a better way to put it - I have a pen mentality. That doesn't sound quite right either, but we'll leave it.

What is this pen mentality, you ask? Allow me tell you.

I hate it when people touch my pens. I hate it more when people use my pens and then keep them - that's called stealing! Besides being morally wrong, it's just plain rude to borrow someones pen and then pocket it.

Salesmen are the absolute worst offenders. They run around acting very important and most of them think they are the most important thing ever. In the history of the universe. In his head, if he wanted to screw in a light-bulb, all a salesman would do is hold his hand up and stand still. The world revolving around him would do the work.

In the real world, he would come to my desk and say "hey, do you have any..um..." then leave in a hurry, dropping some papers behind him which I would rescue and keep safe for him until he noticed and returned for them.

The second attempt would be better. He would actually remember what he is asking for, and complete the sentence "Hey...so...right, do you know where the light-bulbs are? I kinda need one...for..um..." before running off again.

I would wait for a few minutes, but he is scurrying around trying to accomplish things, so I would get up and find a light bulb. I would bring it to my desk and keep it safe for when he returns, but since it's been more than 10 minutes since he first thought about it, his return is now highly unlikely.

I realize this and being the wonderful person that I am, I climb up a ladder and screw it in myself. Just as I'm finishing he will walk by and probably bump into my ladder, because he wasn't watching where he was going. I will nearly die, but due to my superior intellect and above average reflexes, I will catch myself and be saved. He will mumble something caught half-way between being an apology and an admonition, then hurry on.

Twenty feet later he will notice what I was doing when he nearly killed me, turn around and do some silly gun reenactment with his hands "bang! bang!" (trying to communicate how young, hip and cool he is) and say "thanks for finding that light-bulb for me....I'm just so busy today..." then rush off again.

I know that little hypothetical story did not have much to do with pens at all, but I think it helps to illustrate how haphazard, disorganized and egotistical these people are. That having been communicated, I think it's easier to understand how a person like this would use one's pen and then just keep it "because...I'm important and I, you know, need it."

The Sin of Made-Up Words

2010-09-15T12:16:00.001-04:00

It has come to my attention (not recently, by any stretch) that people frequently find themselves stranded mid-conversation in search of a word. After a few seconds of terrifying silence on their part, they swallow and squeak out a word they hope exists, but which probably does not.

Usually what they have done is taken a word that does exist (like judge) and used it as a root word, then added on a random suffix to, hypothetically, get their idea out into the open air and move on.

The sad thing about this is that not many people notice! I am flabbergasted at some of the strange words people come up with and are not embarrassed to use in conversation.

Here are a few of my favorites:

Disrevrent
Farity
Irreguardless
Irrespectful
Nother
Unimply

Now. I feel that I should make something clear: I am fully aware that the only reason we have any language whatsoever, is due to the fact that people did make up words. And then an awesome guy named Webster took all the words and put them in a big definition book which we now refer to as the dictionary. I am also aware that this dictionary is constantly changing. You can write in to the committee and request that a word be added. They also periodically take out words which we now deem archaic.

However, I don't think that the practice of making words up in mid-conversation to save face, and the practice of writing-in to the dictionary committee to have a word added to the book, are equatable at all. One is an act of illiterate desperation and the other is an work of literary art.

Another thing that bothers me is when people use a word in a way that it is not supposed to be used. For instance, someone wishes to communicate that a situation is a hypothetical one and they are speaking hypothetically. So instead of saying "Of course, I'm speaking hypothetically" they say:

"Well, it's a hypothetical." (This is usually accompanied by half-closed eyes, a knowing nod and a smile which attempts to communicate "I'm smarter than you because I used that word".)

It leads me to question what exactly is hypothetical. You can't have a hypothetical. You can have a hypothetical situation or a hypothetical scenario or a hypothetical being but you can't just have a hypothetical by itself. It's incomplete.

This is what exclusively reading comic books, fashion magazines and trashy sci-fi novels, with some television mixed in for good measure, does to a person. It makes them completely illiterate and completely ignorant of their illiteracy. Honestly.

I've heard students complaining about having to take Comp I and II in college. I heard, honest to god himself, one of my classmates say this: "I shouldn't got to take this class. I know how to speak and write and read. You just put in some commas into your essay and it's great. This class be a huge waste of my valuable time and it's bullshit." (Said with a southern accent, of course.)

If you talk that way, and you go to a job interview, I hope they slap you in the face and tell you to speak like an adult.

Some people get irritated that there are immigrants in this country who don't know English (although technically we don't have any specific declared national language). Yes, that is irritating. But what irritates me more is when someone who has grown up here their entire life, gone to school since kindergarten and doesn't even know a second language - still can't speak English properly.

It's disgraceful. And if you aren't bilingual then you really have no excuse except for your stupidity. Where did you grow up? And, it pains me to do this but I quote my mother here: "Were you raised by a pack of wolves?"

The Spider Strikes Back

2010-09-13T15:21:00.000-04:00

Yesterday I had a terrible experience. Actually, it was a string of terrifying surprises that coalesced into one very bad morning.

You know how a shark can sense fear? If you don't know that, now you do. One of the reasons sharks attack people is because they can sense that the person is terrified. Another reason is that when someone falls into the water, their thrashing about makes the same pattern that an injured fish might make. The shark senses easy prey and then bites their leg off, or something. Also, one of the reasons that sharks are attracted to boats and sometimes bump up against them is not because they're trying to knock the people off into the water and devour them, it's because they are attracted to the electricity and the sound of the motor.

Enough useless trivia. The reason I bring this up is because I believe that bugs have this same talent. I strongly suspect that spiders, especially, can sense how terrified I am of them, and go out of their way to torment me. Spiders definitely do this, but I think that other bugs can too.

Further. I believe that spiders, and bugs in general, communicate with each other to plan attacks on the innocent. Like me.

Yesterday, no fewer than five bugs attacked me.

Five.

Every morning before my shower, I make a point of moving the curtain and looking inside to make sure that there are no bugs in there. I moved the curtain to the left, and stuck my head in. There were no bugs. I sighed with relief as a feeling of security washed over me. I let down my guard and turned on the faucet. I turned to the sink to brush my hair. As I tuned back around, what was hanging in front of my face?

Yes, a spider. It had let itself down from the ceiling on some silk, and then just hovered exactly at my eye level, behind my head, waiting for me to turn around and scream. Its ambush tactics worked. I screamed and flailed my arms and ran out of the bathroom hyperventilating. When I dared to come back in, it was nowhere to be found.

I mustered up the courage to take my shower anyways. Having gotten a clean towel, I just put it on my sink instead of bothering to hang it up. My shower itself was mostly uneventful, except for a few hallucinations on my part: shadows and pieces of hair turning into bugs, etc. I turned off the faucet, opened my curtain and reached for my towel.

Thankfully, I looked at the towel before picking it up. A different spider was crawling across it. Not a tiny one of mostly legs like the first one. No. This one was black and fuzzy, and had a huge rear end. It gave me the shivers.

As I watched, it got to the edge of my towel, made a little silk string and lowered itself to the floor where it started running towards the shower. I jumped out and, after a momentary freakout period, grabbed a bottle (my sisters) of Visene and trapped the ugly black hairy spider underneath of it. I haven't told her yet.

A few minutes later I was dressed and ready to do my hair. Granted, this is not a very elaborate affair, but it still happens every single day. I brushed it out and reached for my bottle of ... hair stuff. I'm not sure what it is, Leslie gave it to me. I squeezed some of it out into my palm, and what is there?

You guess it - there was a dead bugging floating in the hair stuff. I don't know how it got in there, since the cap was snapped shut. But that isn't the point. The point is that a bug invaded my bottle of hair stuff.

About 15 minutes later I was all ready for the day but I needed to eat breakfast. I got a bowl, spoon, the milk and my favorite cereal, and sat down at the table. I poured out the cereal into the bowl and poured milk over it. I took a bite. It was good. Barry was there and I looked up to say something to him. When I looked back down, there was a bug floating in my milk.

I don't know what kind of bug it was. It probably wasn't a spider, but still. It was a bug, and it was swimming around in my cereal!

I threw the bowl into the sink, and decided to forgo breakfast. Back in my room, where I went to get my bag, there was a spider on my wall. I have the sneaking suspicion that it was the same one that hung down in front of my face in the bathroom earlier. I just pretended not to see it. I don't want to give it the satisfaction of knowing that it scared me twice.

Movies

2010-09-10T20:18:00.000-04:00

I am horrible at trying to describe a movie. This stems mostly from my inability to place an actors name with his face. I can see perfectly, in my head, who this person is - but when it comes time to actually say who they are, I have no idea.

I have the tendency to mix-up movie titles. Earlier this afternoon I mixed up The The Breakfast Club with Breakfast at Tiffany's. (I haven't actually seen either of these movies, but they both have the word 'breakfast' in their title.) I tend to latch onto key words and forget the other, lesser words that don't seem so necessary. The stupid part about this story is that the scene I was describing was not actually from either of those movies - it was from When Harry Met Sally.

For almost the entirety of last semester I continually confused Killers and The Bounty Hunter. This is probably due to the fact that, as couples, Gerard Butler & Jennifer Aniston, and Ashton Kutcher & Katherine Heigl look strikingly similar. At least to me. Well, let's analyze this. Both Butler and Kutcher are big built guys. They both did manly action things, shot at people, drove fancy cars and were pursuing blond women. Both Ashton and Heigl ..... were hot blond women. So I think you can understand the mix-up on my part.

I'm ashamed to have to admit this, but, I can't keep the Star Wars movies straight either. It really throws me off that IV, V, and VI were made twenty years before I, II, and III. I don't understand why and it drives me nuts. I don't think it's fair to make a series out of order.

Also. I tend to morph the entire Indiana Jones series into one long movie, incorporating all the best and most memorable parts into a collage of non-stop action. I think it's better to get it all over at once that way, than to have to sit through the same thing three times.

Actually, I use this 'abridgment trick' with every series I encounter that has more than two movies in it: Star Wars, Spider Man, Rocky, Jaws, Star Trek, Back to the Future, Toy Story, Rambo, James Bond, Matrix, Bourne, Pirates of the Caribbean, X-Men, Jurassic Park...etc. The Godfather movies are definitely subject to this abridgment.

The only two exceptions to this abridgment trick are the Harry Potter movies and The Lord of the Rings movies.

I would write more, but I can't remember the names of the actors I want to talk about, or the movies they were in. I think I'll just go watch NCIS.

Dear Mr. President

2010-09-07T18:20:00.000-04:00

I guess that the presidents approval ratings are in the low 40's now, and obviously this isn't good. I guess he's also pretty angry that people are criticizing him. That's understandable, kind of, under the right circumstances. I don't really think these qualify as the right circumstances, but hey, that's just my opinion.

This is what I heard him say on TV, and what sparked this little rant:

Well I personally think that ''yes we can'' is more inspiring than ''no we can't.''

Yes, Mr. President. You are correct. I think, however, the real question is not "which is more inspirational?" but "which gets more accomplished?". Inspiration doesn't always lead to results. And when your tidal wave of excitement over the idea of positive change crashes onto the beach of absolutely no change whatsoever, and people realize that not only have you failed to boost the economy or create any jobs, and in fact there is a higher percentage of unemployment than when you took office - that is when people will start to criticize you.

And in that case - no, I really don't think you can really complain that people are unhappy. I think you deserve it.

And what's more, I think you should stop feigning astonishment and hurt, and instead just apologize. Apologize for having done absolutely nothing.

Thanks.

Wheels in Motion to Cure Cystic Fibrosis

2010-09-07T14:10:00.001-04:00

This is more of a somber post than a humerus one, although I'm sure I'll still be able to make it a little funny. For instance, the prospect of me riding a bicycle for 30 miles is a bit laughable. And if you can picture in you head what I might look like after I have completed the 30 miles, that too is probably really funny.

So here is what's going on. My place of employment is one of many sponsors for The Eurand CF Cycle For Life: Wheels in Motion to Cure Cystic Fibrosis event. It's an annual bike tour through scenic Massachusetts, in early October - so the leaves will be all pretty and the weather will be nice. By nice, (hopefully) I mean cold.

I found out about this event because I'm supposed to advertise it on Facebook. If you'd like to see that article, click here. I thought it might be fun to actually participate, take some picture, etc...

I know for sure that Barry is going to do this with me. Perhaps one or two of his friends and maybe my dad, also. Hypothetically, we're each supposed to raise $200, although I called to check up on that and there won't be a problem if we don't quite reach that. I think we might make that as a team....maybe....

So. If you would like to ride with us, or make a donation for my team (you know you want to) then click here. I know most of my readership are college students, so even if you just donate $1 then it will still start to add up, and that can be your good deed of the week! Also, it's probably tax deductible. What more could you possibly be waiting for?!

Mountain Climbing and Running Shoes

2010-09-05T18:44:00.002-04:00

Yesterday I was talked into climbing up a mountain. The only reason I went was because Barry really wanted me too. And since Quinn is away at college, it would have been only my parents, sister and boyfriend, and Barry - and I was too nice of a sister to desert him to that grim fate.

And also, when I say "mountain" I really mean small hill that takes about half an hour to climb if you are in decent shape.

Unfortunately, I guess I'm no longer in decent shape. This picture above was taken on one of our "rest periods". It still only took about 45 minutes to climb, and in my defense Barry did choose the longest trail. But still. I am ashamed.

Oh. And. After braving many perils (fire-breathing dragons, deathly venomous spiders and a werewolf or two) we reached the summit to be greeted with this:

Barry and I did not linger long. After about 10 minutes we decided to ditch the rest of the group, not that we'd spent much time with them until then, and beat a hasty retreat back to the car. By hasty I mean we only stopped 4 or 5 times to sit down and stare into the woods.

So today at the mall, I made an impulse purchase of some running shoes. In fact, two pairs of running shoes, because Barry claimed that he'd set his one and only pair of shoes on fire and therefor needed new ones. So he has running shoes now too - on the condition that he runs with me.

Here he is with all our purchases. I don't know why he wanted to carry them all, but he did:

I didn't really think that through, or rather, I subconsciously thought it through very well. We've been home for long enough to watch our newly purchased Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince DVD, and now Barry is fully dressed in his running clothes (with his brand new shoes) insisting that we go for a run.

Generally, I prefer to run in the after-daylight hours, so that people can't see me. I like to exercise in disguise. Barry doesn't want to do that because "people won't be able to see us". Exactly. He doesn't get it.

Oh. And we're taking Ursula. I guess she is considered an older dog now, so she needs exercise. Barry says that in dog years she is 95. I'm not entirely sure that's entirely accurate but oh well.

At least it's on the chilly side today. Here we go!

Hooligan Child At Work

2010-09-03T18:02:00.000-04:00

I'm at work. There is a little boy actively trying to destroy one of the cars, and his parents are not doing anything to stop him. It's not like they are just unaware of his activities either - people on Mars would be able to hear him. He's actually telling them what he is doing, and they are ignoring him.

"Mommy! Daddy! I'm kicking the car! Mommy! Daddy!"

Let me describe for you, as best as I can, what he is doing.

At the moment he has half crawled out onto the roof of a Q7, through the sunroof, and is bending some sort of apparatus that's attached to the top of the car. He's bending it and I can hear it snapping from 30 feet away. He just keeps snapping it and saying "Pick me up! Pick me up!!!"

His father turns around half-heartedly every couple of minutes and mutters something without really paying attention, and then turns back to the salesperson.

Now he has lost his grip and fallen into the car. I think he hurt himself because he's screaming something and kicking the seats. All I can see are his legs. His parents are still ignoring him.

Now, finally, his father has gone over to the car and pulled him through the window. Five seconds ago, the little boy was yelling (his face buried somewhere below the seat) "Pick me up! Pick me up!" and now that someone has rescued him he is yelling "Put me down! Put me down!"

His dad has now put him on the showroom floor, and gone back to the salesperson. I wish I knew this kids name, but I guess I couldn't publish it here even if I did. He has now started running in circles around the showroom, shouting unintelligible things. I honestly just listened to him for about thirty seconds, and I cannot decipher one single word.

In his defense, he is probably about 4 or 5 years old. And, he is very cute. His cuteness factor, however, does not reduce his noise factor.

Now he is running around making airplane noises, and running directly into the sides of the cars. He's probably too small to dent them, but still. His parents should really stop him. I mean, really.

His mother has intervened! But no! What is she doing?

That's right. She brought him over to our "small child play area" which just happens to be directly behind my desk. And now he has the Bumblebee action figure (about 1.5 feet tall) from Transformers, complete with loud and very real sounding laser gun. And guess who he is shooting? Yes, he's shooting at me. He has camped out behind my chair and is ambushing me.

Now he has moved on. But he's locked himself inside our newest car. This car costs over $100,000 and he's just going nuts inside of it; jumping over seats, yanking on the steering wheel, touching all the glass, honking the horn and flashing the headlights - which are, you guessed it, pointed directly at me.

His mother has extracted him from the vehicle and now he's running around shouting numbers at the top of his lungs and laughing. He is really cute, it's just that he is also very loud.

Oh. And now they've left. I guess they're going to come back later.

Chris Hansen Arrested for Child Molestation - And My Run-ins With the Police

2010-09-03T13:27:00.001-04:00

As some of you may know, I am a popular target with the police. Not because I have a huge criminal record or I look illegal or I look famous, but because I have a bright yellow car and I don't tend to remember to obey the speed limits. It's not like I speed on purpose, I just kind of forget that I'm not supposed to.

Since I got my license in 2006, I've been pulled over somewhere between 11 and 14 times. I've seriously just lost track. And I meant to keep all my written warnings and tickets, but I forgot.

The most awesome part about this is that, unlike Brian (who gets a ticket every time he drives by a police officer), I hardly ever get ticketed. In fact, I got my first EVER ticket earlier this summer. On my very last road trip home from Southern, I got caught going 85 just over the border into West Virginia. The cop gave me a long lecture about how he could arrest me if he chose, but instead was just going to ticket me for not wearing a seat belt and not obeying a traffic sign.

The processing fee was more than the actual fine.

That incident apparently heralded the end to my awesome police luck, which totally sucks.

While Kevin was here I got pulled over twice. The first time was at 1:30 in the morning, going through Berlin after the movies. One of my headlights was out. The irony of this incident is that my headlight had been out for six whole weeks and earlier that day I finally decided to go buy a new bulb - I just hadn't had time to put it in yet. I showed him the bulb, but of course he didn't give a shit. Then he walked back to his car before I had a chance to find my registration - he seriously gave me less than 15 seconds to find it. When he came back he discovered that my license was expired so he too gave me a long lecture about how he could arrest me and have my car towed if only he wanted to. But since he was such a nice officer he would just let Kevin drive home.

Except that my car is registered to my dad, so neither Kevin nor I were technically allowed to be driving it. So I had to call my dad at 1:45 in the morning and let him talk to the officer and give verbal permission for Kevin to drive my car. It was ridiculous. He gave me a ticket for driving without a license and not having a registration for my vehicle. Even though I had it. Fortunately, it wasn't a citation that came with a fine. I just have to go to court and show them my new license and registration.

The next time I got pulled over with Kevin was a couple days later on our way to Kimball's. It's an awesome ice cream place. I merged onto the freeway in front of a cop, who pulled me over because he was irritated that I cut him off. I was excited to be able to present him with my brand new license, but then completely chagrined to discover that now my registration had expired - the day before.

Like most cops, he was a complete asshole, and gave me a ticket for driving an unregistered vehicle. And, to my complete and utter surprise, he gave me another lecture about how he could arrest me, but since he was a nice guy he would let me off this time.

I wanted to ask him why, if he was such a nice guy, he pulled me over in the first place. But I held my tongue. My readers should be proud.

My next driving offense was a parking ticket in Boston. Can you guess for what? Right. For not having an up to date sticker on my license plate signifying that my car is registered.

My parents lost my registration. It came in the mail, and they lost it. I feel that this is not my fault.

Two weeks ago, on my way to work, I tried to avoid the police (I don't recommend this) by going around a curve in the road and making a sudden turn into a slightly hidden road. He drove right by about 5 seconds later and I got all excited because I thought I had successfully avoided him. Not so. As I was on my way out he turned in and pulled me over there instead. At least I wasn't on a busy road anymore.

He wanted to know why I turned down this road and explained how he hoped it wasn't to avoid him. I said of course not, why would I ever want to avoid you? I didn't even see you back there! He grunted and pretended to believe me, and then gave me a lecture about having an up to date registration.

I can't get my car inspected because I don't have my current proof of registration. I don't have that because the registry hasn't felt like mailing it out to me yet. I fixed my left headlight, and now my right headlight is out. It's like god wants me to be arrested.

So now I am actively trying to avoid all encounters with the police. If I see one coming towards me from the other direction, I turn down the closest road on my side. If I see one behind me, I go into the other lane and try to look innocent until they pass. If someone flashes their lights that there is a speed trap ahead, I use a back road to get around it - even if it adds 15 minutes to my commute.

I'm so sick of dealing with the police! I guess if the majority of them were more intelligent then it wouldn't be so bad. But unfortunately they are kind of like the deans at Southern - they don't use intelligence or logic, and they're on a big power trip. Hypothetically they are there to help you and keep you safe, but in reality they make up rules and try to make your life as miserable and difficult as possible.

TI Explosion PBS Sizzerup Marlins Oil 90210

2010-09-02T14:22:00.002-04:00

If you're squeamish or sensitive, you might not want to read this. You have been warned.

For a long while I've been having some problems with my digestive system. I won't go into more detail than that. Basically, I usually have a lot of stomach pain and sometimes it gets worse if I eat certain foods.

Thinking that they would be able to help me, I went to the doctor. I saw my regular doctor in May, just after getting back from school. He told me to take some sort of antibiotics, and when I went to get them at the pharmacy I discovered they were $120 a bottle.

Ok. I'll buy that once if it will fix me. But no. Unsurprisingly, it did not fix me. So I called and got that changed, after a month, to something new and different. After another month, that also was a fail. So I went back to my regular doctor and had a few different things done. When all my tests came back normal, he sent me to a specialist.

I've been to a few different specialists before. I'm not bragging, it's not really something to brag about. I'm just saying that I've been to them and I already know what they are like. Basically, they ask you one question and assume the rest of your answers based on your first answer. They just assume they know what's wrong with you, after you've only been in there for 2 minutes. It is very irritating. Also, they tend to cut you off in mid-sentence, which I really really hate. Often, the most important part of my story is at the end, and if you cut me off then I don't get to say the most important part!

Anyways, so I visited this specialist in Worcester. He poked my tummy in lots of different places and made "mmhmm" murmuring noises when I told him which places hurt. Then he asked me a bunch of questions. Some of them were about my body and the rest of them were about my family history. Of course, I really don't know my family medical history that well - my family is huge and most of them have some weird problem.

His body language told me that he didn't think what I said made any sense. Verbally, he just told me to take Prilosec twice a day instead of once. (If he hadn't cut me off earlier, he would have known that I've already done that.)

So I told him I tried that and it didn't work. So he scheduled me for an upper GI endoscopy and a colonoscopy. That was not the most exciting moment in my entire life. I scheduled it as soon as possible, to get it over with.

Monday morning I woke up without the painful jarring noise of my alarm. It was close to noon when I finally awoke, so I didn't get to eat anything. I went to the pharmacy and got a big jug (and when I say big I mean that this jug was at least a whole gallon) of something that I had to drink, which tasted terrible, to “clean out my system” for Tuesday.

And when I say that it tasted terrible - I mean it tasted like a stale mix of salt water and chlorine, and maybe some other nasty things. It was disgusting.

Before each attempt to drink any of it, Barry went to the freezer and got a popsicle, unwrapped it, and had it ready for consumption as soon as I put the glass down. In order to actually get it down I had to pour out a glass, hold my breath, count to three and drink it all at once. The popsicle afterwords helped, but it didn't mask the taste entirely. In fact, even yesterday I still had a little of the aftertaste left in my mouth.

Tuesday I had to wake up really early and go to Worcester for a colonoscopy and an upper GI endoscopy. It was not fun, although I really don’t remember anything. I guess the most not fun part was the day before. But anyway, I went in and changed into the funny little outfit, got an iv in my hand and climbed onto a rolly-bed. I remember apologizing to all the nurses for “having to do this to me”. Then I heard “…just a little Benadryl…” and the next thing I remember I was in a recovery room listening to a lot of people farting.

The doctor came in and told me that they didn’t find any tumors, or polyps, or growths, and that we’d talk later if I kept having the same problems. Then he told me to take more Prilosec than I’m already taking, and he left.

I was too sleepy and out of it to remind him that I've already done that, and I already told him so.

The rest of my day was basically spent sleeping/watching tv/being hungry. All I managed to get my hands on to eat the entire day was half a coffee coolatta at 10:30, some jello in the afternoon, and some squash around 8pm. I had some popsicles throughout the day, but I really don't think they count as food.

Wednesday I tried to go to work, but my system was still screwed up from the food confusion, that I came home after 2.5 hours. I spent the rest of the afternoon watching NCIS (which happened to be on the whole afternoon...) and eating popsicles. Eventually I went to my room and fell asleep.

For dinner everyone had tacos, again

Friends

2010-08-29T01:14:00.000-04:00

All my friends are back at school except for me. Don't misunderstand me, I hate Southern. But I really miss my friends, and I wish I were there at least to hang out with them on the weekends. This is stupid.

I'm on the phone with them right now. Yes, them. I'm on speakerphone and I'm talking to all of them. Well, not all of them, but my best ones. They're at my friends house playing on a hammock and talking about weed. I wish I were part of that conversation.

Also, someone just threw up. I'm pretty sure. But maybe not. I'm definitely hearing a conversation about hot leg muscles, and now I definitely wish I were part of that conversation. Jarod has a love/hate relationship with something, but I didn't hear exactly what. And Anna thinks something is stupid, but I didn't hear that part either.

I tried to get a plane ticket to go down and visit everyone over Labor Day weekend, but by a few days ago the tickets were already mostly over $400. It would be cheaper to drive, and if I thought my car could actually make that trip I would just go right now. But unfortunately, I think my car (as much as I love it) gets less than 20 miles to the gallon. That would make the trip only about $100 less expensive, and take me almost 30 extra hours.

My parents won't help me get a plane ticket to go down there, because it's not something that I actually have to do and apparently I'm a squatter and failure of a college graduate who still lives at home leeching off her parents. But they will pay for me to see a therapist - which would probably be a lot more expensive. I don't think they realize that if I could go down there and see my friends every once in a while, I wouldn't need to see a therapist.

So basically, I'm just stuck here. Maybe I'll go down in a couple more weeks. I hate it that Tennessee is so far away - or rather, that all my friends are at a place so far away. I'm actually glad that Tennessee is so far away, because a lot of the people there are really scary and I can't understand any of them when they talk.

Now they're talking about farts. And babies. And giving birth. And relationships. This is such a strange conversational train. But it's so funny. And I wish I were there.

Bad Day At Work

2010-08-28T18:13:00.000-04:00

Below is a detailed inventory of everything that has gone wrong for me at work today. Well, I guess I should restate that. Not things that have gone wrong - I didn't screw up anything. People were just stupid.

1. Someone called in. This was the conversation (oh, and you have to read this in Penelope's voice, from SNL):

"I got a missed call from this number?"
"Do you know who called you?"
"No....." as if I were supposed to magically know and volunteer that information.
"Did they happen leave a message?"
"Yes. But I didn't check it. I just called back."
Well. What the hell? Who gets a message from a number they don't recognize, and then doesn't check the message? Who do you think is on the other line, Jesus? "Ok. Well is your car in for service? Or have you been talking to a salesperson?"
"No."
To both? Can you give me more than that? Nobody from here would have called you out of the blue, just for fun. Work with me!! "Ok. Well, can I have your name? I'll try to look you up in the system."
"No."
..........I'm going to reach through the phone and kill you......... "Ok....well would you like to check the message and then give me a call back?"
"No. I think I'll just figure this out later. I'm kind of busy at the moment." CLICK
Are you fucking serious? You just wasted 5 minutes of my life. I will find you. And kill you.

2. I walked over to cash out a man at the cash desk. I came up to the counter and asked him how he was doing.

-----silence-----

So I told myself maybe he hadn't heard me. I started stamping up his paperwork, and glanced up to see scowling at his cell phone.

I gave him the total, and waited for him to present some form of payment.

He continued to scowl at his phone. So I cleared my throat and said it a little louder.
He glared up at me, clearly angry with me for interrupting whatever earth-shattering thing he was attempting to do on his phone, and then slid a car halfway across the counter towards me.

I have short arms. I had to stand up on tip-toe to reach his card. He did not care. Just glanced up and seemed displeased that I had dared to have taken such a long time to retrieve his card.

I did up his paperwork, and gave him a receipt to sign. He took almost an entire 60 seconds to see it, and then another 15 seconds before he would stoop to sign it. Then he was clearly angry when it took me 3 seconds to staple his customer copy receipt onto his paperwork and slide it across the counter to him.

I told him to have a wonderful day, and he just glared disdainfully at me and left.

He walked in the wrong direction, but I didn't correct him. I hope a tree falls on his car.

3. I am usually kind of irritated with the salesmen, simply because they are salesmen. They really don't act responsibly at all, and they expect everybody to do everything for them. They are like children.

One in particular, who's name I won't disclose but he's an odler gentleman, is especially irritating. He walks funny. But besides that, he orders me around. Oh, and he has the loudest voice you've ever heard.

He comes to my desk and says he has a deposit for me to run. So I say "OK" and try to finish what I'm doing really quick.
"I'll meet you over there then?"
Obviously. "Yes, I'll be there in a second." Duh.
"I won't tell anyone."
Ok. Why would you say that. It's kind of awkward. "mmmhmmm"

So I go over and slide his card, even though I think it's ridiculous that the salesmen need me to do this for them. It's a credit card machine, not a space ship. It is not difficult to use.

After I slide the card, I notice that he's been talking to me and I've just been blocking it out automatically. He is laughing...I have no idea why. I try to laugh a little, but it is obviously fake. I don't thikn he even notices that I don't think he's funny, so I just walk away.

4. A couple of Asians walked in. I greeted them and asked what they needed. They wanted somone in sales. They had called ahead to let us know they were coming.

People think this changes things, but it does not.

So I tell them politely that I will pages someone, and they should be helped in a few minutes. They look at me like I should have prepared more extensively for their coming and had someone ready to fan them with palm fronds upon their entrance. I just ignore them and go back to blogging.

They meander through the showroom, clearly agitated that no one is helping them yet. I continue to ignore them, but I do page available sales like I promised I would. I look around the dealership and can see that everyone is already busy with customers. The Asians do not seem to notice.

They come back to my desk after about 5 minutes of hard waiting time. They ask if someone is available yet. I pointedly look around the room at all the busy salesmen and say no, someone is not available yet but as soon as someone becomes available they will (rush to your side, bow down before you and kiss your feet before offering you a free car to compensate you for your long 5 minutes of waiting) assist you.

They continue to wait. Instead of walking around and browsing through our large selection of vehicles, they choose to stand about 25 feet away and just stare at me. I pointedly look around the room again at all the salesmen who are busy with other people, and go back to my computer.

About 5 minutes later they comes to my desk, speaking to each other in some Asian language I don't recognize, and say:

"We'll just have to come back then?"

I want to tell them that they are acting childishly. That they aren't the most important people in the universe. That perhaps if they had made an appointment someone would have been available to assist them. And, do they understand the concept of a line?

Instead I say "I'm sorry. We're having a very busy day. If you don't want to wait, you can certainly call to make an appointment or just drop in again some other time."

I give them an obviously very fake smile that really says "kiss my ass you stupid dick" and then they leave, still muttering to each other in Asian.

Southwest Airlines

2010-08-25T14:10:00.000-04:00

I would just like to say that Southwest Airlines is not actually any cheaper than it's competitors, they just make it look like they are by advertising one-way ticket prices. If you go to their website and try to plan a trip, you'll have to choose both a ticket to your destination and a ticket returning home. Obviously. But, on most travel-booking websites, you pay the higher of the two prices. On Southwest you combine the two prices.

So even though they ask you if you would like your trip to be round-trip, and you click "yes, book round-trip" you are not in fact booking a round-trip ticket. You are actually booking two one-way tickets. And yes, there is a very big difference.

I don't think that's fair advertising.

And also, despite the commercials I have seen that advertise $59 and $79 (one-way), daily, non-stop flights, I have yet to actually find one of these flights. I guess they don't actually sell those going to and from places one would actually want to visit. They probably run from Boston to Manchester, NH.

For those of you who don't live here - that would be a completely useless flight and nobody would ever want to take it.

Thank you Southwest, for giving me false hope and ruining the rest of my day. I hope you're proud of yourself.

Annoying Coworker

2010-08-24T13:09:00.000-04:00

I just posted a story (within 24 hours) to http://annoyingcoworker.tumblr.com/

You should all go read it, because it's funny. And also, because it's an awesome site - and the rest of you (who are employed) should also post a story there.

Just saying.

Levi Runs For Mayor?

2010-08-23T13:08:00.001-04:00

Oh god. Here we go again.

Just read this article on CNN Politics. Seriously. In the Politics section. It's called Levi Johnston files letter of intent to run for office in Wasilla.

Honestly.

I have two favorite parts to this story. The first is this quote:

"'Loving Levi: The Road to the Mayor's Office,'" will feature the trials and tribulations of America's most famous teen dad as he enters the world of politics while continuing to dabble in Hollywood...."

Since when is it good to be a famous teen dad? If the media would stop focusing on him and all his self-made drama, he really wouldn't be anybody at all. He isn't actually famous for anything except getting Sarah Palin's daughter pregnant and then leaving. All he's doing is prolonging the Palin drama and making money of it. He is the complete opposite of what a role-model should be. And they're giving him a tv show!

And also, do you really think he seriously believes he could be mayor?
Here's my second favorite part. This is the statement that the current mayor made upon hearing of Mr. Johnston's intent.

"'Well, it is a little early to declare. Usually most wait until the year the seat is up," current Wasilla Mayor Verne Rupright said in a statement. "But since I am nearly old enough to be Levi's grandfather I think it would be wise for him to get a high school diploma and keep his clothes on. The voters like that!'"

Good advice, Mr. Rupright. Somebody should sit Levi down and do what his mother probably never did - give him a good spanking.

Flip-Flop

2010-08-14T20:57:00.002-04:00

Here's the video of Obama throwing his support behind the controversial New York Islamic Center. Thank you, Mr. President, now at least we know what side you're really on.

But wait....here's a link to an article in which Obama clarifies what he really meant. I guess he wasn't standing behind the project, per se, he was just saying that we should allow it to be built.

I guess there's a difference in there...somewhere...

Oh, and just to make sure that nobody is offended, here is an article stating that the remarks Obama made were not an endorsement.

You know what's worse than taking an in-the-middle stand on something controversial? Taking a very firm stand on something controversial, and then taking it back when you get a little pressure. Anybody remember John Kerry?

So, if he was trying to be politically correct by standing behind the construction of the Islamic Center, that's great. Normally, the reason people choose to be politically correct is in order to avoid a big mess-up like this. It's in order to avoid a lot of people being upset with you. So...in this case, that didn't really work.

I know this post is sounding a little cyclical. So I'll get to my point.

If you're going to take a stand on something this controversial - good for you. If your opinion isn't something people necessarily want to hear, but you say it anyway - good for you. That's what people should be doing all the time. Standing up for what you believe in, is good.

But don't do it if 24 hours later you're going to flip-flop around and change your mind because of what the media has to say or because of what public opinion is. If the opinion of the public was so important to you, then you should have thought of that before you took the stand you did.

Or - just take a poll of what the public wants to hear, and then get up and make a speech about how that is, in fact, your opinion. That would at least be honest.

So, despite the fact that I disagree with his opinion, for a second I was at least proud of him for getting up and telling people. But now that he's recanting, I have an even worse opinion of him than I did before.

Some Quotes on Religion

2010-08-14T17:58:00.002-04:00

"Men use religion just as they use buoys and life-preservers; they do not intend to navigate the vessel with them, but they keep just enough of them on hand to float into a safe harbor when a storm comes up and the vessel is shipwrecked; and it is only then that they intend to use them. I tell you, you will find air holes in all such life-preservers as that."
-Henry Ward Beecher

"The religious persecution of the ages has been done under what was claimed to be the command of God. I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do to their fellows, because it always coincides with their own desires."
-Susan B. Anthony

"A little is fine, but the minute you start believing that you’ve picked the only right one out of the 4,200 or so on offer, you need to get a grip on yourself. Once you start thinking that it’s okay to hate someone that chose one of the 4,199 others... snap out of it."
-Arthur M. Jolly

"All religions are the same: religion is basically guilt, with different holidays."
-Cathy Ladman

"Religion to be permanently influential must be intelligent."
-Elias Lyman Magoon

"I do not think that the real reason why people accept religion is anything to do with argumentation. They accept religion on emotional grounds. One is often told that it is a very wrong thing to attack religion, because religion makes men virtuous. So I am told; I have not noticed it. "
-Bertrand Russell

"Religion is the masterpiece of the art of animal training, for it trains people as to how they shall think."
-Arthur Schopenhauer

"Government oppressed the body of the wage-slave, but Religion oppressed his mind, and poisoned the stream of progress at its source. "
-Upton Sinclair

"We have enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. "
-Jonathan Swift

Sickle Cell Anemia and Racism

2010-08-06T13:52:00.000-04:00

Sickle Cell Anemia is a disease (genetically transmitted) which causes the red blood cells to become crescent shaped instead of disc shaped like they normally are. Here is a picture:

The problem with the cells being abnormally shaped is that they are unable to carry as much oxygen and they tend to get jammed up inside the blood vessels instead of flowing freely like they should. There is probably a lot more to be said about that, but I'm not going to continue.

Unfortunately, as I mentioned, it is usually a genetic abnormality, and is passed down through families. Also unfortunately, it happens to be mostly found in people with darker skin (Africans and some Europeans). About 1 in every 12 African-Americans has it.

Now we get to the point of this post. The NCAA (National Collegiate Athletic Association) has a new rule, which just went into effect this month. Basically, they are requiring all Division 1 athletes to be tested for Sickle Cell Anemia.

Some people are calling this racist, and are actually saying that this should not be allowed because it will lead to discrimination on the team - especially since most of the people who carry this trait are black.

I'm just dumbfounded. I really am.

Requiring people to be tested for an illness that could kill them, should they be on a sports team, is not racism. It's a safety issue. It's a liability issue. The information is not going to be used against them, it's going to be used to keep them alive.

I really, truly, honestly, don't see the big deal. I really don't.

Here is the full article.