Constitution + Marijuana = ?

Something big has just happened in the fight over medical marijuana in California. Supporters of California's right to legalize weed for medical purposes have just advanced a new theory that has started to gain legal ground. This new theory is that the federal government's efforts to undermine California's legalization policies are in violation of the 10th Amendment, which states that rights not given to the federal government are delegated to the states and the people. Since the federal government routinely harasses the physicians who prescribe weed and raid medical marijuana facilities in California, they are potentially undermining California's constitutional right to pass and enforce its own laws. 

The major issue here surrounds California's system of regulation, which relies on doctor's recommendations, identification cards and medicinal providers to distinguish between medical and recreational users. By targeting and intimidating the physicians in this system, the U.S. Government is hindering California in the administration of its state laws, which is at least arguably a violation of the 10th amendment.

There have been a ton of constitutional arguments advanced before against the Controlled Substances Act, which comprehensively criminalized most recreational drugs in the U.S. However, this 10th amendment theory is one of the only theories to survive a motion to dismiss in district court. 

Hopefully this trial is going somewhere!!!!! 

Schools Generally Required to Allow GSA

A federal judge ruled that Okeechobee High School in Florida had to allow the establishment of a Gay-Straight Alliance Club because the Okeechobee County school district was governed by the federal Equal Access Act.

"That law bars federally funded secondary schools from denying equal access to student non-curricular clubs on the basis of religious, political, philosophical, or other content of the club members' speech."

This decision seems like the natural result of social progress. We live in a diverse country whose government and public institutions don't discriminate on the basis of differences that people have a legitimate and inalienable right to hold. To do otherwise would inevitably lead to the promotion of some values, viewpoints, subjective beliefs over others. This is also the basis of oppression at the hands of those temporally in powerful. That's why we have the first amendment in the first place, to ensure that people can live, think, and act in way that they choose for themselves.

What I find interesting about this case is the rational behind denying these students from founding a Gay-Straight Alliance. The school district argued that allowing a GSA to form would be, "contrary to its abstinence-only education program." Here's where the school district started to fuck up. They claimed that allowing a  GSA would under their attempt to "promote monogamous relationships in the context of marriage." It's not every day that conservatives do such a great job making themselves sound retarded that no additional work is required of me.  

Basically, the District refused to allow the GSA's establishment on the grounds that it would promote homosexuality, which in turn would promote homosexual behavior, which would then in turn promote homosexual sex. I must say, these are some impressive logic jumps for people who thought that abstinence-only eduction was a good idea in the first place. I would hope at this point people would be less likely to rely on that backwards type of thinking, but at least the judge, whose authority makes all the difference, had more sense than that.

Judge Moore said the district "has not clarified how dialogue promoting tolerance towards non-homosexual individuals is antithetical to principles of abstinence." He didn't go too far though. "The judge indicated that the school district's concern about the "premature sexualization" of adolescents was legitimate, but he doubted that the GSA was intended to promote that. The district could take steps to ensure that the club avoided sex education topics "reserved for instruction by qualified teachers in a classroom environment."

What is with all this "premature sexualization" stuff? On the one hand, it could be just another piece of conservative rhetoric designed as a powerful and legitimate sounding way of defending subjective, ideology-inspired beliefs, like homophobia. But look closely at this phrase. "Sexualization?" Teaching straight people that gay people exist is presupposed to "sexualize" them somehow? I guess that's true, insofar as this is an issue of sexual orientation. But at its most basic, this term is a coded way of communicating disgust for homosexuality and is part of an attempted pushback against the gradual (and inevitable) purging of these outdated modes of tought from mainstream society. And what is the first part of this phrase intended to convey? That to the creation of a Gay-Straight Alliance would be introducing the majority of high school these students to the idea of homosexuality? Something tells me that these students are more familiar with the idea that not everyone is attracted to the same sex than these administrators are aware. Granted we went against reason and our better judgement and assumed, as these educators do, that their students didn't know what homosexuality was, when would be the appropriate time to make them aware of this?

Quotes from here.

Sneaky Christians with Good Lawyers

I found another case of religious freedom that went down in Williamsburg/James-City County, which is coincidentally where I go to school at William and Mary in Virginia. So here's the rundown.

A Christian prayer club called the Good News Club (GNC) wanted to hold its meetings at the local DJ Montague Elementary School. The school allowed them to use the facility, but as the Good News Club was not a school sponsored club, the school followed their established policy of charging the organization $12.50 per hour to use their facilities.

So from March to June of the 2007-2008 school year, GNC paid about $250.00 dollars for use of classrooms to hold their prayer meetings. When GNC found out that the school exempted some organizations from payment, they freaked out and claimed they too deserved exemption from fees.

The school's policy exempts the following groups from payment: 1) Any James City County Government agency. 2) all school sponsored groups and activities. 3) Organizations deemed "patriotic" under the Code of Virginia and the No Child Left Behind Act. 4) Specific events run by local charitable foundations 5) Activities sponsored by school partners where there is a written partnership agreement.

As you can see, the School covered its bases when it crafted this policy. In fact, it specified religious organizations as "other" groups which are not exempt from fees.

So the Child Evangelism Fellowship of Virginia, on behalf of the GNC, filed for an injunction to force the school to waive the fees. To gain this injunction, the GNC had to prove that paying the $250.00 dollars the school charged in fees caused "irreparable harm." Plaintiffs claimed they suffered irreparable harm of two types, financial and constitutional. Here we go...

This is where the GNC starts to bullshit. First of all, it costs $350.00 just to file the motion, which is 100 dollars MORE than the fee that is supposedly causing them "irreparable harm."

But the court ultimately agreed with the Christians' argument that such fees constituted a violation of their religious freedoms, because the school's decision to charge them was based solely on the fact that they were a religious group, which violates the establishment clause in the 1st amendment.

The Judge reasoned that the school's policy empowered the superintendent to choose which organizations would be exempted without setting forth any concrete standards about how to do so.

In a press release, The Liberty Counsel, the Child Evangelism Fellowship of Virginia's parent organization, said, "after-school Good News Clubs teach children respect, good citizenship, moral values and character development from a biblical perspective." I think that this decision is ok, and actually the sign of a healthy religious environment in this country, so long as this club is not a smokescreen for teaching kids that abortion is wrong, God endorses the Iraq War, and gays shouldn't be allowed to marry. A lot of the Liberty Counsel's work does focus on these perverse objectives, but this seems like a case of genuine freedom to practice religion.

Court decisions should strike a balance between the rights of individuals to express their religion, and the rights of other individuals to be protected from the excesses of these expressions.

As a matter of law, this case seems pretty clear cut. The school's policy is designed to exempt organizations that facilitate the growth of students' character, moral competency, and understanding of the world. In my opinion, religion is not the best way to facilitate that type of growth. However, it's a completely subjective matter of opinion and personal viewpoint what constitutes good morals and an accurate understanding of the world.

Sneaky Christians with Bad Lawyers

Every rationally minded individual should rejoice at the verdict of Association of Christian Schools International vs. University of California. Basically, the court upheld UC's right to refuse classes taught from a religious perspective, such as biology classes that teach intelligent design. As if this wasn't good news enough, wait until you hear one of the reasons why these creationists failed. There were basically two legal issues that the Christian Schools were suing over. The first was whether the text of UC's policies in itself represented a denial of these students' freedom of religious expression. The second issue was whether the application of these policies in practice violated students' religious freedom. Well the Christians were so sure that they would win on the issue of the application of these policies that they focused their entire defense on proving that the text of UC's policies, as written, caused a violation of freedom. This basically destroyed their case, because when the trial came down the second issue, the Christians were completely unprepared and weren't even able to provide sufficient evidence that wrongdoing had even occurred.

Christians, get some better lawyers. Course I think we know which side of the isle most lawyers are on. The Devil's.

Creationist Thinktank Propoganda

"The Institute for Creation Research has a project called RATE, whose intent was to overturn radiometric absolute dating methods as evidence for an old age of the earth. One of the arguments that they made was that diamonds contain significant levels of the radioactive carbon 14 (14C) isotope, indicating that they cannot be older than about 50,000 years old, and thus point to a young age of the earth." -Panda's Thumb

"Scientists associated with the Institute for Creation Research have finished an eight-year research project known as RATE, or Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth" and they claim that "the team of seven creation scientists have discovered incredible physical evidence that supports what the Bible says about the young age of the earth." -ICR's homepage for RATE

So let me get this straight. The Institute for Creation Research, a pro-intelligent design thinktank, has just spent 8 years trying to prove that diamonds have only existed for 50,000 years? I guess there's nothing wrong with that. Then they tried to suggest, provided their research in fact proved that diamonds are only 50,000 years old, that this "incredible physical evidence" constituted proof that God created the earth. Talk about a non sequitur! Even if diamonds did turn out to be only 50,000 years old, why in the name of God would that God created the earth? Here's the "logic." If diamonds are only 50,000 years old, they posit, then the earth is probably around the same age. The earth has existed for thousands, not billions, of years, they assert.

For the love of God.

Great Blog

I found a great new blog today. It's called the Panda's Thumb, and it is basically a better and expanded version of all my posts on science and religion. This blog has detailed information on every development in the debate over evolution/creationism. This blog is so good. I feel like a priest in a playground.

Sneaky Christians

Although the decision was handed down on August 8th, it took me an additional 6 days to find a violin small enough for this one. In Association of Christian Schools International v. Stearns, a California federal district court upheld the University of California's refusal to recognize certain high school courses offered by Christian schools in making admissions decisions. This coalition of Christians challenged the University of California's policy to reject courses that are taught from a religious viewpoint. They claimed that Christian values were being unfairly discriminated against, and they invoked the religious-establishment clause in the constitution.

Thank the black empty sky that the court had enough sense to hand down this decision. Although given the argument in question, it would be hard not to do so. One the dumb hand, religious people should be free to express themselves. On the other hand, California's public universities should be able to make their own decisions about what they will accept and credit in their own institutions.

Let's be real here. These "Christian" courses are just that- they teach religion. They boast titles such as, "Christianity's Influence on American History”, an English course titled “Christianity and Morality in American Literature” and a government course titled “Special Providence: American Government”.When these courses actually do touch upon academic topics, they teach them in the context of religion for the purpose of religious study. If you want to learn in this way, that's fine, but don't expect a public facility of higher education to accept and endorse it.

Electoral Game

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-votemap,0,2338623.htmlstory

2008 electoral vote map
How might the candidates win on Nov. 4? Create and test your electoral vote scenarios here.

Are Monkeys Smarter than Babies?

#13 Strangest Experiment in history from the book Elephants on Acid

The Ape and the Child

"History contains numerous accounts of children raised by animals. The children in such cases often continue to act more animal than human, even when returned to human society. The psychologist Winthrop Kellogg wondered what would happen if the situation were reversed. What if an animal were raised by humans — as a human. Would it eventually act like a human?To answer this question, in 1931 Kellogg brought a seven-month-old female chimpanzee named Gua into his home. He and his wife then proceeded to raise her as if she were human, treating her exactly the same as they treated their ten-month-old son Donald.Donald and Gua played together. They were fed together. And the Kelloggs subjected them both to regular tests to track their development. One such test was the suspended cookie test, in which the Kelloggs timed how long it took their children to reach a cookie suspended by a string in the middle of the room.Gua regularly performed better on such tests than Donald, but in terms of language acquisition she was a disappointment. Despite the Kelloggs's repeated efforts, the ability to speak eluded her. Disturbingly, it also seemed to be eluding Donald. Nine months into the experiment, his language skills weren't much better than Gua's. When he one day indicated he was hungry by imitating Gua's "food bark," the Kelloggs decided the experiment had gone far enough. Donald evidently needed some playmates of his own species. So on March 28, 1932 they shipped Gua back to the primate center. She was never heard from again."

Potential Zombie Attack

As many of you know, I've been warning of an imminent zombie attack for years, but as more of you know, no one listens to me. But we are one step closer to impending zombie disaster. Researchers at the Safar Center for Resuscitation Research at the University of Pittsburgh have successfully brought dead dogs back to life (link contains 5 different articles about it). After these dogs were dead for 3 hours, scientists resuscitated these dogs, who came back to life without any brain damage or trauma. The Safar Center intends to develop similar plans for human rescusitation soon...

FIGHT FO YA RIGHTS MON: Combatting Senior Citizen Oppression

The day has finally arrived people, we have now entered into full blow oppression. In the next step toward establishing a full police state, or county in this case, Westchester County Executive Andy Spano has introduced a new mobile tracking system for missing senior citizens with Alzheimer's' disease. This new program, innocuously titled, "Project Lifesaver," will give transmitter bracelets to 100 local seniors who suffer from Alzheimer’s disease and other forms of dementia and are prone to wandering. Should the person become lost, county police officers can locate them using a radio signal transmitted from the bracelets. The County Government offers this description of the tracking system:

"A police officer walks slowly down the street holding out a rather primitive-looking wire contraption that looks like a large TV antenna. However, the equipment, which communicates using beep tones, actually uses very advanced technology to zero in on a person wearing one of the personalized bracelets. The bracelets can be located within a one-mile radius during a ground search. If the searching device is used in a helicopter, the radius extends up to five to seven miles."

The County already uses these tracking bracelets on kids with autism and Downe Syndrome. Supporters of this program make these tactics seem harmless, and even helpful, and the program is certainly designed to seem that way. But this is just one more step in the county government's effort to gain total control over the population. "The county police will maintain a database of all Project Lifesaver clients, their frequency code and other identifying information, including the photograph."

The government has already tested these tracking devices in 1,000 trials, and can locate their target within an average of 30 minutes. Within 30 minutes, this technology allows police to locate and apprehend anyone in their sights.

Westchester officials have also announced their intentions to expand this tracking program to other sectors of the population in 2009. I see the logic behind gaining this type of control over people, that much I will concede. We need to be able to locate and recover people at risk for going missing. Right now, it's the mentally ill. But don't we have a similarly vested and compelling interest in tracking criminals? How about sex offenders! Why not very young children? Actually, considering sex offenders interest in children, we would realistically need to put trackers on only one of these groups. The point is, Westchester is turning into a police-county.

FIGHT FO YA RIGHTS MON!

The War Against Beer Pong

"Last fall, Georgetown University banned beer pong, specially made beer-pong tables and inordinate numbers of Ping-Pong balls and any other alcohol-related paraphernalia in its on-campus dorms — even in the rooms of students of legal drinking age. The University of Pennsylvania, Yale University, the University of Massachusetts at Amherst and Tufts University have also banned drinking games." -NYT

Kenyon College in Ohio banned all drinking games, but HAD TO REPEAL THE BAN.

"The town of Belmar, N.J., for example, outlawed outdoor beer pong in 2005 after the city council passed an ordinance declaring that it exposed unconsenting neighbors to "foul language, rowdy and disorderly behavior and to examples of the consumption of alcohol under circumstances that are detrimental." Two other Jersey shore towns Manasquan and Sea Girt have followed suit, and state officials in Pennsylvania and Virginia have made bars put away their pong tables."-NYT

Idea to Fight Political Incorrectness

Following up on this last post, I have another idea for the Special Olympics.

The goal: send a punishing message to Dreamworks for producing Tropic Thunder
The objective: decrease attendance at the box office
Current (retarded) approach: raise awareness of how offensive the film is by creating a public controversy over it
Why this is retarded: controversy sells

Here's where the fun begins.

The Special Olympics Committee should undercut Tropic Thunder's ticket sales by pirating copies of the movie and launching a massive campaign to market them. This would accomplish a number of things. First, and least retardedly, this would eat into Dreamwork's profits by decreasing ticket sales and legitimate movie profits. Second, pirating movies will only serve to increase the number of people who actually see the movie. If the movie really is this offensive and not just something that the SOC is exaggerating, increasing its availability will only serve to inform more people about its offensive content and how dispicable Dreamworks must be for producing it.

A Retarded Dialectic

What always happens when you slap the label "controversial" on something? I'll give you a hint, it doesn't make it unpopular. When I saw the "Parental Advisory: Explicit Material" sticker on Eminem's first CD, it was then that I knew I had to have it. Chalk it up to the forbidden fruit theory, or human nature itself, but something draws us to dangerous and disputed things.

Take the Special Olympics effort to discourage viewers from seeing the new movie "Tropic Thunder" because it contains a half hour of footage of Ben Stiller portraying a person who is mentally retarded. In light of our contraversy-seeking impulses, The Special Olympics Committee's media campaign to characterize Tropic Thunder as a film containing "extremely offensive material" will only increase ticket sales and the millions that this film is going to make anyway.

I have a suggestion for the Special Olympics committee- don't rely on this extreme rhetoric and these absolutist, black and white distinctions between things. According to them, content can either be offensive, or tolerant. If a film addresses the topic in anything other than a favorable light, it is insensitive, intolerant, and should be excluded from public discourse.

Wouldn't a more effective, reasonable, and fair solution be to encourage people to see this movie, decide for themselves if it is appropriate, and then have a balanced discussion of it?

The Political Correctness I Approve Of

I was reading something about the outcry over Tropic Thunder, the new Ben Stiller movie that apparently portrays a retarded character, and uses the word retard 17 times, usually in a derogatory way. Now some people are ripping the movie a new one; one member of the board of directors for the Special Olympics just called for protests, boycotts, and for theaters to stop showing the film. This is not the kind of political correctness I approve of.

But I did find one good approach to being more sensitive to people with disabilities.

It's called people first.

-a girl in a wheelchair
-a boy with mental retardation
-a child with ADHD
-a woman with special needs
-a man with Alzheimer's
-a client with learning differences

Makes sense right? It's simple, it's something most intelligent people do anyway, and comes with none of the moralistic nonsense that we hear from these special olympics motherfuckers. By the way, the term "motherfuckers" is being used in a derogatory way here. Boycott my blog!

My Dad's Crazy Theories...

I was arguing with my dad about Israel and Iran yesterday and he swears that Israel is going to wage a preemptive war against Iran in 2008. I totally agreed, but argued against it anyway. He swore that Israel would start the war early enough while Bush was still in office, but late enough that it would help McCain's electoral chances and make Obama look unprepared to handle the enormous international conflict that would ensue. This is definately possible but I don't think it's likely. So I bet my dad 50 dollars Israel wouldn't premptively invade Iran before Bush leaves office. If Israel does I'm gonna be pissed.

An Old Essay on Political Correctness

A SPECTRE IS HAUNTING AMERICA—the spectre of political correctness. All the Powers of the new United States have entered into a holy alliance to nurture this spectre: prominent politicians, community leaders, and socially conscious Americans. This spectre holds an undue influence over the words and actions of the American people, who adopt the practices of political correctness believing that it will increase multicultural sensitivity and tolerance. Two things result from this fact.

I. There is a disparity between the political correctness in theory and its effects in reality.

II. It is high time that those opposed to political correctness should openly, in the face of this systemic juggernaut, denounce political correctness in all its facets.
Political correctness is an approach to increasing sensitivity toward cultural differences in society. The history of American society up until now is the history of cultural struggles. The American Revolution was a cultural conflict between progressive, colonial freedom fighters and dynastic, imperial aristocrats. Since the incident that birthed our nation, the dichotomy resulting from every major event in American history has categorized two opposing groups into two struggling cultures: Colonial American versus British, American versus Native American, Union American versus Confederate American, Allied American versus Axis European, capitalist American versus Russian Communist, and finally American versus Islamic extremist. Although most members of the two opposing cultures were separated, either geographically or otherwise, in the aforementioned instances, the conflict in question brought the two together. Consequently, when tensions relaxed, the two cultures were forced to coexist. For example, during the WWII stage of American history, large factions of German American sympathetic to the Axis war effort struggled with members of the anti-immigrant America-First movement. Once the war ended, the two cultures lost the defining characteristic of their relationship. Hence, they had to inhabit the same country and function in one society as fellow citizens.

Throughout our history, even when the conflicts between opposing cultures ended, cultural differences still existed and continued to plague society. Consequently, political correctness was developed as a method to abolish these differences and end the cultural misunderstanding and awkwardness that they cause. By limiting speech concerning culture, race, gender, and sexual orientation, political correctness attempts to and fails at accomplishing this goal. The logic behind the PC approach is this: if we do not openly acknowledge our differences, they will not exist. Taking stock in this method is tantamount to believing that if we close our eyes to the sun, it will no longer shine. This reasoning is flawed, since it does not account for the reality that cultural differences cannot always be overlooked.

Political correctness's primary goal is to limit expression that acknowledges cultural differences, whether it be written, spoken, or communicated through any medium. Even the purveyors of political correctness realize that we must be able to discuss differences in some capacity. As a result, PC only permits highly sanitized language that contains no trace of generalization. In this spirit of censorship, political correctness has slipped a noose over the head of the American people. Political correctness has actually created an atmosphere of intolerance by preventing people from expressing honest opinions. Ostensibly, decreasing the chance of someone somewhere saying something culturally insensitive is a good thing, right? After all, how could forcing people to assess whether their words are offensive be harmful? The harm is this: by forbidding the communication of honest ideas for the fear that they may be offensive, we lose the opportunity to challenge and change them. Well we can't challenge an opinion until someone expresses it, yet it is exactly this expression which PC seeks to prevent.

Political correctness doesn't make us more sensitive, it coerces us into bottling up thoughts that might be construed as racist, sexist, etc, which will fester and grow into solid, actually harmful opinions. In the interest of making us more culturally sensitive, the norm should be the opposite of what PC mandates: we should be able to express any opinion, so long as it is not intentionally created to hurt or offend, no matter how insensitive it might turn out to be. What are PC supporters so worried about? If racism is truly the subjective, hateful fantasy it is made out to be, surely the majority of rationally minded people won't believe in it; and if cultural sensitivity is the really the moral, beneficial reality we should all embrace, then why do we need to prop it up with such extreme safeguards, i.e. political correctness?

-written by me 5/2/07

The South Fought For Slavery

Since the Southern apologists advanced it during Reconstruction, many Americans endorse the theory that the South did not secede from the Union and fight the American Civil War over the issue of slavery. I just came across some interesting evidence. The logical way to figure out the true motivations of the Southern leaders who seceded is to simply read what they said were their motivations. The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States contains southern leaders officially cited reasons for seceding.

Georgia's reasons for seceding:
"For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property."

"While it attracts to itself by its creed the scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in the administration of Government, anti-slavery is its mission and its purpose."

Essentially, this guy is derisively describing the members of the Republican Party. He means the party is made up of political failures, followers of "condemned" theories, and corrupt individuals who want to protect special interests at the expense of everyone else. However, the thing that brings all these corrupt, evil failures together is their common mission to abolish slavery. This speaker identifies the mission of "anti-slavery" as the ultimate grievance in a long list of grievances.

Here is what Mississippi's leaders had to say about why they seceded.
"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin."

This one speaks for itself.

The leader of secession, South Carolina:
"The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation."

South Carolina presents the most lettered case for secession that is ostensibly least concerned with slavery, but when the speaker finally gets around to specifying the issue that all of these violations of state's rights ideas finally come into practice, it is about slavery!

Finally, this is what Texas had to offer:
"She [Texas] was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy."

Texas just said that the strongest ties between members of the Confederacy are those of slavery. In the first scentence, the speaker remarks that Texas only agreed to join the U.S. if it could maintain and protect "the institution of slavery."

Why Socialism Is Doomed

When asked why socialism has failed as an economic and political system, supporters of socialism will produce a range of answers. No no! "The population was too diverse," socialists will say. No no! "The government was too authoritarian!" they will say. No no! "They faced too much corrosive competition from capitalist sympathizers!" they will say. Well, the example of kibbutz in Israel let us rule out most of these superficial excuses for why socialism hasn't worked and help us get to the real reason why socialism is a doomed system.

Here's a brief description of a kibbutz, or a collective agricultural community in Israel where inhabitants share property, labor together, and the government garauntees equal standards of living for all regardless of how much an individual produces. In essence, this is socialism.

"The kibbutz movement started in the early twentieth century in what was then Palestine by Zionist émigrés from Europe who were idealistic and Utopian. Capitalism, industrialization, and the conventional family repelled these émigrés. Kibbutzniks, as they were called, replaced these fundamental aspects of modern societies with collective agriculture where all property was owned by the kibbutz, where adults were treated equally regardless of productivity, and they were rotated every few months among the various tasks that had to be performed on a farm, such as milking cows, planting crops, serving meals, and so forth. They considered the close-knit family to be a creation of capitalism, and substituted for that family structure communal dining, a fair amount of promiscuity, and separate communal living for all children, who were allowed only brief visits with their parents each day."

While these communities started well and temporarily prospered, by the 1980's the kibbutzim had been abandoned as economic and political systems. The failure of these microcosims for socialism highlights broader problems with implementing socialism on a national scale.

The kibbutzim were the golden opportunity for socialism to prove itself. The inhabitants of these communities were highly motivated, very forward thinking, and united by a common religion. There was arguably more social cohesion in the kibbutzim than in any socialist country on earth, which demolishes the argument that socialism failed because of a lack of social or ethnic unity. The kibbutzim faced no pressure from capitalists or competing economic or political systems, which tosses the claim that capitalist opposition caused the failure of socialism straight out the window. Finally, local government was benign and the kibbutz had no secret police to suppress dissention, which crushes the authoritarian explanation for socialism's demise.

Given ideal conditions of social cohesion, ethnic and religious homogeneity, and benign and efficent government administration, why did the kibbutz fail? Because people weren't happy working and not being appropriately compensated. In order to ensure socio-economic equality, the government taxed and redistributed wealth equally throughout the population. Slackers abounded and leeched off the hardworking members of society. Hardworking members of the kibbutzim stopped working so hard, and the entire system suffered as a result.

There was an alternative to the kibbutzim called moshavim, which enjoyed much greater success than the kibbutz model. "Unlike the original kibbutz, moshav members hold their land as private property and are paid at least in part on the basis of performance; at the same time, moshavim also often have considerably communal property as well, managed by rules that try to curtail free-riding and the "tragedy of the commons."

If this isn't proof, I don't know what is.

Quotes are from here.

Big Government Conservatism

One of the most basic tenets of Conservative ideology is the preference for small government and a limited role of the state. If that is the case, then why has Bush presided over a massive expansion of the state during his presidency? The same was true of Nixon, who upheld a reputation as a conservative yet expanded the size and role of the scope.

Here are three trends in Bush's presidency:
(I stole these from here)

1. Embrace of very broad theories of executive power. It was Nixon who famously said, "when the president does it that means it's not illegal." Bush has not gone quite that far, but he has come very close.
2. Rhetorical criticism of affirmative action coupled with tacit support of racial preferences at the level of actual policy.
3. Support for a massive expansion of the federal role in health care provision (Bush's medicare prescription drug bill; Nixon's proposal to institute national health insurance).

The Cato institute found that George W. Bush outspent liberal presidents Lyndon B. Johnson, Gerald Ford, and Jimmy Carter. The Heritage Foundation, a conservative thinktank, agreed with Cato's assessment.

If you're going to claim that you support genuine Republican values such as limiting the role and size of the state, as well as George W. Bush, you've got some splainin' to do.

A New Explanation of Partisanship.

I just read an essay by Ilya Somin, Assistant Professor of Law at George Mason University.
The essay is called, "Knowledge about Ignorance: New Directions in the Study of Political Information." It's pretty interesting stuff; he assesses the problem of political ignorance in American society and discusses its implications for a wide range of topics.

Somin asserts that the American public is largely ignorant about political issues. Furthermore, he makes a distinction within the portion of the public that is somewhat knowledgable about politics. The majority of Americans who are informed usually possess distorted information from unobjective sources. This is because most of these "informed" individuals do not seek information to cast a more informed vote, but instead to satisfy personal curiosities. Somin thus introduces partisanship in the context of marginal political awareness. Here, he discusses the drive to gather information and the need to reinforce presupposed ideological biases as causes for partisanship.

I think Somin's explanation of why the U.S. political landscape is so marked by partisanship is much better than the others I've heard. He says that partisanship comes naturally to our politically ignorant electorate because it constructs an easy model for understanding political affairs. Framing politics as a simple struggle between two opposing forces presents voters with two packages of opinions to choose from. Liberal or Conservative, Republican or Democrat. By framing political dynamics in this way, voters can more easily comprehend the political process. By packaging opinions as political ideologies in this way, voters can easily reach an established position on a range of complex political issues. Rather than putting in the time to research a candidate's policies or the implications of a given issue, voters can rely instead on ideological labels to make the decision for them. This branding system manifests in a more concrete way in the branding distinction between Democrats and Republicans.

Ascribing the prevalence of partisanship in American politics to the American people's predilection for political ignorance is, in my opinion, a really fucking good idea. It is true that the majority of the American people aren't interested in governmental policies, legislation, etc. But what gets people interested in anything is competition. Humans are naturally drawn to it, and to see this you need look no further than our obession with sports in American society. Given the reasons why Americans love athletic competition, why should we think that the reasons for interest in political competition would be any different? Partisanship, or its current incarnation in political branding, is our way of turning politics into just another sort of sport. The Republicans are the red team, Democrats the blue. This also ties in neatly with the trend that the extreme wings of each party have usurped control of them, since it has blurred the distinction between Democrat and Liberal, and between Republican and Conservative.

The comfort or convenience of relying on partisan labels to determine an individual's political opinions also explains the tendency of marginally informed individuals to have more partisan tendencies. In other words, there is a correlation between political awareness and partisanship. This section of the electorate has a little more information, perhaps reads the paper more often, watches the 24 hour news networks for a few more minutes a day, and engages in the occasional dialogue over controversial political issues. However, most of these individuals rely on what Somin refers to as "shortcuts" for gaining political information. These shortcuts include not only reliance on partisan labels for voting purposes, but also on the so-called "opinion-makers" like pundits and media commentators for determining their own personal opinions. Once again, changes in media over the last decade bear out this theory. In light of easily observable biases in networks like MSNBC, CNN, and last but not least, the ever "objective" Fox News, it's easy to see the reflected effects of growing partisanship in our society. In general, these networks select which stories to report selectively, arrange which pundits to comment on these stories selectively, and display a clear attempt to appeal to ideologically inclined viewers. This tendency manifests much more vividly in "opinion journalism" shows like Countdown with Keith Olbermann and its ideological (and intellectual) opposite, the O'Reilly Factor. Considering media partisanship in the context of political ignorance reminds us that if anyone is to blame for unobjective journalism, it is the viewers of these networks, whose own desire for a shortcut to information demands it.

Somin's essay is here.

Cyclical Discourse

I just read an essay by Bernard Harcourt called, "Embracing Chance: Post-Modern Meditations on Punishment." What the essay is actually about is totally unimportant, because he has a cool idea in the first paragraph.

He describes discourse as a cyclical phenomenon. For example, the discourse on punishment has cycled through 3 sets of questions. The first asks, "On what ground does the sovereign have the right to punish? Nietzsche most forcefully, but others as well, argued that the question itself begged its own answer. The right to punish, they suggested, is what defines sovereignty, and as such, can never serve to limit sovereign power." The first phase of the discourse centers on basic questions about our framework for understanding the issue at hand. Moreover, the information sought in this phase of the discourse serves mostly to reaffirm the fundamental assumptions upon which the question is based.

"With the birth of the social sciences, this skepticism gave rise to a second set of questions: What then is the true function of punishment? What is it that we do when we punish?" These are questions of the second set. The second phase of the discourse on punishment mirrors much broader changes in research and analysis that occurred with modernism. Modernism seeks to understand and analyze things by breaking down them down into a series of distinct yet interrelated parts. The second set of questions pertain to "social organization, economic production, political legitimacy, and the construction of the self." To answer these questions, researchers and analysts "turned punishment practices upside down, dissecting not only their repressive functions but more importantly their role in constructing society and the contemporary subject."

The final set of questions through which the discourse on punishment cycled are postmodernistic challenges. "A series of further critiques - of meta-narratives, of functionalism, of scientific objectivity - softened this second line of inquiry and helped shape a third set of questions: What does punishment tell us about ourselves and our culture? What is the cultural meaning of our punishment practices?" These ideas definitely fall under the rubric of postmodernism, which is concerned with discerning the true meaning of things by cutting away the socially, psychologically, or culturally contrived ideas that are attached to them. 

I find the third set of questions and their underlying logic the most interesting of the three. The territory for analysis pertaining to the first set of questions, and consequently the information gained from asking them, is just too limited. These limitations arise for several reasons. First, the topic, punishment itself, is the context for analysis. The methodology employed to answer these questions involves examining many things in the context of punishment. While this is an adequate approach, regardless of how many aspects of punishment are examined, analysis is still conducted in a one dimensional way that will only produce one type of information. The second set is better in this regard since punishment is instead examined in the context of many different things. The methodology still seeks to explain how these different things affect punishments by identifying cause-effect relationships. This consists of using analytical tools to gain various types of insights and information stretching across different subject areas, disciplines, etc.

Exploring the third set assumes the same fundamental approach as the second, albeit accommodating a slight analytical change. The major difference is that the the third incorporates the tenets of postmodernism, such as the realization that discourse contains socially, psychologically, and culturally constructed information. While contrived, the presence of this additional information has a very real affect on the objects of analysis that it surrounds. For example, punishment cannot be understood in purely material or objective terms; it subject to various interpretations of people. A person's interpretation of a given thing will affect their attitude towards it, and thus their way of practically dealing with it. The third set of postmodernistic questions seeks to identify how our perceptions of punishment, be they cultural or psychological, affect the way we actually punish people. 

Rhode Island Law ALLOWS INCEST

State of Rhode Island General Laws

TITLE 15 Domestic Relations
CHAPTER 15-1 Persons Eligible to Marry
SECTION 15-1-4

§ 15-1-4 Marriages of kindred allowed by Jewish religion. – The provisions of §§ 15-1-1 – 15-1-3 shall not extend to, or in any way affect, any marriage which shall be solemnized among the Jewish people, within the degrees of affinity or consanguinity allowed by their religion.

This section of Rhode Island State law addresses marriage between blood relatives.

Section 15-1-1 states: No man shall marry his mother, grandmother, daughter, son's daughter, daughter's daughter, stepmother, grandfather's wife, son's wife, son's son's wife, daughter's son's wife, wife's mother, wife's grandmother, wife's daughter, wife's son's daughter, wife's daughter's daughter, sister, brother's daughter, sister's daughter, father's sister, or mother's sister.

Section 15-1-2 says the same for women (given the respective gender changes).

This is an interesting religious exception to the law. This law essentially delegates its ordinary authority over marriage to Jewish religious tradition (Leviticus chapter 18 allows incest between uncles and nieces). Rhode Island allows nieces and uncles to marry because they have the religious freedom to practice according to the tenets of their religion. If your religion says that your uncle can bone his niece, what's to stop him? Certainly not the law, and even more certainly not his source of ethics and morals, his religion. Do I need to mention that people generally agree fucking your niece is immoral? Didn't think so.

Rhode Island is not alone. Colorado and Minnesota likewise exempt uncle-niece marriages that are "permitted by the established customs of aboriginal cultures." Oregon, doesn't criminalize uncle-niece sex at all but doesn't recognize such marriages.

Incest: What Does the Bible Say?

Here is a list of the bible's rules on incest in Leviticus chapter 18.

Here's the rundown: the bible forbids sex between parents and their children, grandparents and grandchildren, neighbors, in-laws, humans and animals, members of the same sex. In this chapter, God provides a very thorough and exhaustive list of the relationships that forbid two people from having sex. Actually, the list is almost exhaustive. The relationship it neglects is sex between an uncle and a niece.

Therefore, the bible doesn't forbid incest between individuals and their syblings children. Does this mean it edorses it? The general message of this chapter is that sexual intercourse between family members is, "an abomination." The claim that the uncle/niece relationship was simply overlooked is hollow and unlikely in light of the expansive range of relationships enumerated in the 16 separate mandates in this passage. In this case, the bible implicitly condones sexual relations between uncles and nieces, as well as aunts and nephews. What about aunts and nieces, you ask? Well this passage actually denounces same sex coupling so... at least it offers some moral teaching, right?

Guantanamo, A Fucked Up Concept

So here's what wrong with Guantanamo. The trial of one Guantanamo detainee, Salim Hamdan, a former driver for Osama Bin Laden, just concluded a few days ago. The Pentagon arranged this trial very carefully, because it was to be the first U.S. war crimes trial in over half a century. So the Bush administration brought charges of terrorism against Hamdan and painted him as a hardened terrorist operative throughout the trial.

What did he receive as his actual punishment? He received time-served plus 6 months. The precise prison span is actually 5 1/2 years, but Mr. Hamdan has already been detained for 5 years. This is the first of many reasons why detaining terrorist suspects without due process of law is wrong. Before this man's trial ended, he had already served 5 years in prison. If the trial verdict had been delayed for 6 months longer, he would have served his entire sentence before he was even proven guilty. Every day the verdict was delayed after that would be a day Mr. Hamdan was unjustly imprisoned.

The outcome of this trial is tangible proof of the failure of the Bush Administration's War on Terror. Guantanamo is a bleeding sore on the face of American foreign policy. It is poisoning international public opinion against Us, squandering our time, resources, and manpower, and for what? The trial that Bush attempted to make a test case for his War on Terror has revealed what no one wants to acknowledge- that we have been pursuing failed policies for the past 7 years.

What liberals don't understand is that this is not the Republicans problem, its the problem of every American. These are our nations actions, our leaders decisions, and the policies they pursue ultimately reflect upon us all.

The judge of the 6 person military panel even said to Mr. Hamdan at the trial's conclusion, "I hope the day comes that you return to your wife and daughters and your country, and you're able to be a provider, a father and a husband in the best sense of all those terms."

The prosecution's main pieces of evidence were the two shoulder-launched missiles that Hamdan was carrying when the U.S. apprehended him. Despite this, the 5 man, 1 woman panel found him not guilty of participating in a plot to kill U.S. soldiers.

Every development in this trial has revealed the shortcomings in the Bush Administration's prosecution of the War on Terror. The outcome shows that the Bush Administration trumped up the charges it brought against Hamdan.

Hamdan can still appeal the decision in Washington in the next part of the trial, and it can pursue the case in civilian courts.

There are around 80 prisoners left to be tried. Let's see how they turn out.

Religion is like...

To quote Bill Clinton...

"Religion is like a knife. If you use it to cut bread, it's good. If you use it to cut off your neighbors arm, it's bad."

Cover Ideas

Acoustic covers of very electric songs sound really cool.

It's kind of like taking a digital camera and turning into an analog toaster. Pictures are great, but sometimes you just really need some toast.

Ideas for cover songs

1) Starlight by Muse
2) Mr. Brightside by the Killers
3) Camisado by Panic! At the Disco
4) Somebody Told Me by the Killers
5) When You Were Young by the Killers
6) Nine in the Afternoon by Panic
7) Time is Running Out by Muse
8) The Scientist by Coldplay
9) I Write Sins not Tragedies by Panic!

I can already play a cover of:

Lollipop by Lil Wayne
Time to Dance by Panic! @ etc.
Stronger by Kanye West

Haiku(z)

Haiku is the art
Of choosing things carefully
For one word is one thousand.

-,+

Negativity
Then will replenish itself
both source and symptom.

Positivity
Now breaks this cycle's feedback
A logic undone.

Music Evolves!

If you have ears, then you've probably realized that music changes over time. I think changing trends in music usually have to do with which intruments or aspects of the music artists decide to emphasize. I also think that artists have been emphasizing drums more and more since the 50's.

In the 50's, melodies were the centerpiece of pop music. Beats were limited to simple, quiet configurations that merely provided timing and tempo for the more important vocal and instrumental features.

In the 60's, percussion started to gradually take on a more prominent role. Vocals, melodies, and harmonies remained the centerpiece, but rythem started to become the drummer's responsibility.

In the 70's, percussion finally made some headway, and beats and bass were for the first time on equal footing with vocals and melodic/harmonic instruments.

In the 80's, something strange happened. Namely, the guitar went berserk. I point to the 10 minute guitar solos of hair metal bands, the most vivid harbringers of this change, since they contain some of the most excessively wild and ostentatious demonstrations of the new direction pop music in the 80's. The guitar and vocals tried to reclaim their old dominant position over the drums and bass by overshadowing them.

In the 90's, people got tired of all that showmanship. That's why bands like Nirvana and Ace of Bass became popular, because they represented a simple alternative that simultaneously acknowledged that these changes in music had occurred, but consciously rejected them in favor or simple, moderate instrumental configurations.

What is happening in the millenials? Beats the shit outta me...

Oh yeah! I remember where I was going with this! Nowadays, hip hop is pop. Can't argue with that. That's just a fact, like in the same way chocolate is better than vanilla. Ethical parallel? Not on my watch. For anyone reading this, I smoked a LOT yesterday and my thoughts are kind of migrating around a lot, which is typical of the devil's leaf. Also if your in need of a cheap laugh, which I suspect most of you are, compare the writing in beggining of this article to that in the end. (I started this post yesterday before I started sour diesel). Getting back on track! Pop (hip hop) music today consists almost completely of vocals and beats.

Extraterrestrial Life: What Does the Bible Say?

I was trying to come up with funny, sarcastic title for this post, but the best thing I could choose was the title of the actual article in Good News, A Magazine of Understanding, that I am going to shit all over.

This article, needless to say, makes a mockery of everything I believe about information, science and religion. In turn, I will make a mockey of everything this article pretends to offer about information, science, and religion.

This "article" is broken into sections, which are themselves broken into broken ideas. The first section is called, "Comparing Science and the Bible." How can you compare science and the bible, you ask? Strap yourself in, because this explanation is about to kill you. The argument goes as follows: The bible contains a type of knowledge that science cannot measure or even comprehend. Take the example of Jesus' divinity.

"Understanding Jesus Christ's identity as the Son of God is not scientific; it is not in the flesh-and-blood realm, proven through a microscope or telescope. This kind of knowledge is beyond science. In His conversation with Peter, Jesus affirmed that only God reveals this kind of knowledge. This revealed knowledge is the missing component in man's desire to understand his place in the universe. Without it, man will forever be left with a string of unanswered questions and endless possibilities."

Basically, God's affirmation of the fact that he is the source of truth is proof that he is the source of truth. If the source of truth said something, wouldn't it be true by virtue of the fact that the source of truth affirmed it?

I don't even need to mention that this line of thinking is dogmatic, because that's self evident. I also don't need to mention that this dogmatic line of thinking is not conducive to the pursuit of knowledge. And of all things, I need to mention least that anyone who makes this case for a self-affirming truth stands at the feet of the most gaping tautology known to the human intellect.

But this article is apparently aware of this counter-argument, although that awareness doesn't translate to much. In order to draw a distinction between cults who falsely claim to be the source of truth and God, who "really" is the source of truth, this jackass says, "All groups have fallible human leaders, while the Bible contains the very words of God Himself. As Timothy 3:16 tells us, "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God." Its authority is unassailable, whereas speculation of individuals remains just that-speculation." So how does this article distinguish between false prophets and real prophets? The two divide along the lines of...well they don't really divide at all. I swear there was an argument in there somewhere... Oh well. Oh right! The proof that the bible is the true word of God rests once again upon the mere assertion that it is so!

This is what we call a false dichotomy- a distinction drawn arbitrarily between two things because doing so accomplishes an ulterior motive.

The second subsection, entitled, "The Bible Has Answers," is a pitiful attempt to pass off biblical descriptions of non-human entities as information on aliens, or as the article puts it, "extraterrestrial intelligent life." The article refers to these beings; "They have appeared and spoken directly to humans. The Bible records the existence of many millions of angelic beings who are "ministering spirits" to mankind in fulfillment of God's purpose." Believe it or not, this is the most substantial piece of information that the article offers. The biblical equivalent of aliens is angels.

The last, and I use this word VERY lightly, "important" part of the article is titled, "The Bible vs. Evolution." It actually addresses a point which I wrote about in an earlier post, the concept of Theistic evolution. Theistic evolution is the belief that "God made matter and then allowed evolution to shape life." He, and I use this word VERY lightly as well, "progresses" to say, "Theistic evolution is not the simple bridge between the spiritual and the physical worlds many would like. There are simply too many conflicts. The Bible, for example, reveals that God formed Adam from the dust of the ground (Genesis 2:7), not by evolutionary happenstance."

As if this whole article was not building up to a denunciation of evolution, this writer claims that one cannot hold a "hybrid" position that accepts that the process of evolution controls live, but that God controls the process of evolution. I happen to agree, but most likely for a different reason. David Treybig, the pinhead who wrote this article, has already established his "argument" that the bible proves God exists, God's existence proves the bible is true, and therefore everything in the bible is true. Consider two things. One- the bible's correctness is proof of God's existence as well as the evidence of its own inerrancy. Two- the bible's claims turned out to be incorrect according to proven, documented, scientific evidence. We can thus conclude that the bible is not a source of truth. Since the entire tautology depends on the truth of each segment for the entire thing to be true, disproving one segment causes the entire argument to collapse. The bible is false, therefore God is not the source of truth, therefore the bible is wrong about God existing, therefore the bible is wrong about God existing, and so on into infinity.

The Bad News for the Good News

I'll start nice, simple, and straightforward. This website: "The Good News, A Magazine for Understanding," is quite possibly the dumbest thing I have ever seen. Now, I do not say this lightly. I have seen many dumb things in my time, but I am almost certain that there has been nothing this side of the bible that so irresponsibly combines poor writing with religious ignorance. Take a look at the mission statement:

The goal of The Good News is to provide understanding. Many other magazines report the news, whether current events, social trends or the lighter fare of sports or personalities. They provide information, but not answers. They don't address the really big, really important questions: Why are we here? What is our purpose in life? Where are we going? What lies ahead for our families, loved ones and friends?

Why, in spite of astounding technological progress, can we not solve our long-standing, basic problems? Why is the world tormented with war, crime, violence and misery? Why are so many marriages, families and other relationships-and ultimately even whole societies-breaking down? Why can't the best and brightest find solutions?

What other magazines don't tell you is why these events and trends take place, nor where they are leading us. It's a paradox that in this information age, a time characterized by an explosion of knowledge, data and communication, we are still so lacking in understanding of what it all means. We ache for answers to questions we can't quite put into words.

To bridge the gap in understanding, we seek out the source of information so many ignore-the Bible. Most writers, editors and publishers completely disregard this source of true, lasting knowledge. Although they can report what's happening -the who, what, when, where and how-they cannot explain why.

It's one thing to report the news. It's quite a different matter to dissect and explain world trends and events in light of the Bible and its many prophecies. The Good News fills that crucial gap in understanding.

The Good News is a magazine of understanding only because our primary source is a book of understanding. We encourage you to study its pages, and the pages of The Good News, to gain the insight so sadly lacking in our world.

I'm going to take this point by point.

This statement starts by identifying what these people see as the major problem with mainstream news: it does not tell us why we are here or what the purpose of life is. Of all the problems with mainstream media, the fact that they do not give us their opinions on what has to be the most subjective thing in the universe is almost definately not one of them.

Good News then identifies a stunningly obvious thing called a, "paradox." According to Good News, isn't it ironic that despite all of our progress, that we have yet to solve every problem in the world? Yes, I suppose, it is ironic. But the irony goes further than this.

What does Good News suggest is the solution to this paradox, or the "gap in our understanding"? Why, the bible of course! So there you have it. Good News provides a unique service- it infuses its poor reporting with information from the original source of misinformation, the bible!

The appeal is obviously this: if a bullshit account of everyday events is not enough for you, then come on down to Good News, where current bullshit is put in the context of ancient bullshit. Logically speaking, this actually makes a lot of sense.

At least we've identified an enduring function of the bible; when people are in need of an explanation for how the world works, they will prefer a conspiracy theory to no theory at all.

More on Romans in the New Testament

God's Wrath Against Sinful Humanity

18 For God's wrath is being revealed from heaven against all the ungodliness and wickedness of those who in their wickedness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God himself has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible attributes—his eternal power and divine nature—have been understood and observed by what he made, so that people are without excuse.

This line sticks out to me, because it says that God's power and will are encoded in the natural world. Essentially, if we want to understand God's intentions, we should look to the attributes of the world he created. This problematizes Christian teaching in two ways. First, encouraging us to understand God through natural science will inevitably lead us to conclusions that contradict the teachings of the bible. A major criticism of religion is that it "misrepresents the origins of man and the cosmos (Hitchens)." The bible is full of misinformation on the origins and characteristics of the natural world, and these errors are well known and documented. Maybe at one point, observing the natural world reflected, and even validated, the bible's explanations of the nature of life and the earth. But we have progressed up to and beyond this point. Scientific examination reveals that the bible's teaching are WRONG.

However, this passage, exhorting us to "understand and observe by what he made," appears to endorse science in its pursuit to understand the world that God has supposedly created. Unfortunately for Christian teaching, science has enabled us to compile information on the beginnings of the universe and the evolution of life that are undermining the bible's own account of those very things.

As if that wasn't ironic enough, the bible, as always, still has more to give. In light of the fact the the bible is not a source of truth on biological and physical information, this line seals the bibles fate tightly. "For God's wrath is being revealed from heaven against all the ungodliness and wickedness of those who in their wickedness suppress the truth." Is the bible really referring to suppressing the truth as "wicked"? Let me get this straight, the largest source of falsehood and innaccuracy in Western civilization is claiming that it is wicked to supress the truth. For the love of God!

Policewomen get Bullet-Proof Bras

This article is about women in uniform finally getting what they need- projectile stopping, tit-propping, miracle holders.

Logic vs. Religion

I just had a thought.

Romans 1:27 is a passage in the Bible frequently cited as evidence that homosexuality is a sin. At first glance, this passage appears to call it indecent. It says: the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts.

It seems like the author of this statement is calling the act of men getting with other men "indecent." Here is where those who assume this statement condemns homosexuality go wrong. It's very significant that the author refers to the acts as indecent and not the men themselves. At a second glance, it appears that this passage specifies that the acts are wrong, not the people who engage in them, which diminishes the strength this passage provides to the biblical argument against homosexuality, but doesn't completely destroy it. After all, these people, although not specifically sinful, immoral, etc., are still doing "indecent things." However, a third glance completely skews the meaning of this passage.

What if this passage is not referring specifically to homosexual coupling as indecent, but is generally referring to all sexual activity as indecent. There are numerous possibilities of meaning in this vein of intepretation. For example, the words, "burned in their desire" clearly indicate that the men in this passage felt lust for eachother, so it's possible that the word indecent refers to engaging in sex for the purpose of lust and not love.

Polygamous Swans and Lesbian Sex

Here's a strange statistic: Up to one quarter of black swan families include parents of the same sex. This is because in some bird species, "same-sex unions" serve as a parenting strategy to increase the survival of their young. In fact, pairs of males actually make better parents and provide more territory, food, etc. for their offspring. But aside from the prevalence of gay coupling, the reason why so many black swan families include parents of the same sex is because the number of parents in a family is not limited to two. That's right, swans have threesome parenting practices. Basically, because of intense competition for male mates, some females join into polygamous trios with another female and male to avoid being single. Not all of these unions turn out well. In competitive threesomes, the two females fight over the male and often maintain separate nests. In cooperative threesomes, all three watch over the same nest. What behavior distinguishes competative from cooperative? Why lesbian sex of course! Just like the bonono monkeys I discussed in my last post, the female swans engage in lesbian sex to promote bonding and familial cohesion. Incidentally, these "cooperative" trios produce more offspring than their non-polygamous counterparts.

Why Monkey's Have A Frontal Clitoris

If you didn't know much about monkeys, you probably wouldn't know there is a species of ape called the bonobo, which is a close relative of the chimpanzee. Even if you knew a lot about monkeys, you probably wouldn't know that bonobos are one of the leading species for lesbian animal research.

Recently, researches have added bonobos to the long list of over 1,500 species that exhibit homosexual behavior. "Female bonobos rub one another's genitals so often that some scientists have suggested that their genitalia evolved to facilitate this activity (Scientific American)." So why do these monkeys have frontal clitorises? Because it helps facilitate lesbian sex. Why do these monkeys have lesbian sex? That is another story.

Lesbian sex helps ease social tensions and promote social cohesion within the bonobo species. Bonobos live together in groups of about 60 in a matriarchal system. During adolescence, females leave the group and join other clans of bonobos. In order to gain admission to a new clan, the young monkey bonds with other female through grooming and sexual encounters. This also ensures protection from harm and access to food.

Lesbian sex is also part of a "general pecekeeping strategy" in bonono society. Frans de Waal, a primatologist studying to bononos, observed, "when one female has hit a juvenile and the juvenile's mother has to come its defense, the problem may be resolved by intense GG-rubbing between the two adults."

There is another story of two male penguins in the Central Park Zoo who exhibited gay behavior. These penguins, named Roy and Silo, mated, built a nest, and brought a rock into the nest in an attempt to mimic incubating an egg. One of the zookeepers took an actual egg from a pair of straight penguins who were having trouble hatching it and placed it in Roy and Silo's nest. After 34 days, a female chick was born and raised by these gay penguins. By the way, the chick turned out to be a lesbian.

Origin of Ethics

Similar to religion, ethics' origins also lie in the development of the human species. We are innately ethical beings. We have a natural sense of right and wrong, which is evident in interaction between the youngest children, who have no trouble understanding, and slightly more trouble applying, the Golden Rule. Evolutionarily, ethics make a lot of sense, and they are not limited to humans. All animals have a natural resistance to harming members of their own species, and humans are exceptions only in that we have a heightened version of this sense that extends beyond physical harm and into many areas of human action and existence.

I view morals as specific prescripitions for thought and action, and ethics as the system an individual uses to interpret and apply them. Specifically, ethics functions as a regulator, or tie-breaker, between opposing moral beliefs. For example, one might have a moral belief in justice, and an equally strong moral belief in mercy. Ethics is the system that an individual uses to choose which of these moral beliefs to act upon when making a decision.

Religion's Origins

First, religion needs to be recognized for what it is: a conduit, or expedient for ethics. It is a widely-held misconception that adherence to religious principle is required to possess an ethical worldview. This misconception grows out of the monopoly that religion has retained over morality and ethics throughout most of recorded human history.

Religion's origins lie in the personal and social development of the human species. However, it is most broadly described as a social institution that extends to many areas of human life and that developed due to a complex mix of factors. But in its most benign capacity, excluding the perversions of religion at the hands of power-hungry leaders, the dogmatic ideas decreed to prop up decaying beliefs, and the subversions of genuine morality that have occurred in the process, religion satisfies a primal human urge. That urge, or necessity, is our need to explain and understand the world around us. In the infancy of the human species, these explanations took the form of superstition and lore. This is because we lacked the scientific tools to explain the dynamics of this planet, which- let's face it, appears pretty damn big and scary when we don't understand it. Natural disasters, disease, and death are less frightening with even a poor explanation than with no explanation at all. It is ingrained in our nature to fear the unknown; we have a compulsive need to seek, learn, and illuminate the dark. Religion thus satisfies a need; without it, our species would have had nothing to fill that void.

But religion goes beyond merely filling a void. If our basic human instincts demand an explanation to how the world works, our advanced human minds an explanation of why the world works. Additionally, religion is an outgrowth of our need to seek, contemplate, and understand patterns in space and time. Our minds demand that we see these patterns because they are wired to do so; this pattern seeking behavior is the basis for the broader ability to observe and learn that has contributed to our evolutionary success as a species. This mental capacity caused us to become aware that some things lie beyond our knowledge. Eventually, this same mental capacity caused us to believe that something lies beyond our experience. Therefore, religion underwent a gradual shift in purpose: in the first phase, these human tendencies manifested primarily in superstitious beliefs regarding the dynamics and functions of our environment. After superstition established an understanding of how the world worked, albeit a flawed one, these same human tendencies lead us wonder why the world worked as it did, ushering in the second phase: religion as we know it.

The next change religion underwent was not a shift in focus or emphasis, it was a fundamental change in purpose. Eventually, religion came to occupy a position of morality. What intrigues me is how religion's original purpose, the need to discover and chart the unknown, evolved into the source of morals and ethics.

General Theory of Religious Ethics

At the end of my Religion and Ethics class last semester, we were asked a single question, "Can you have ethics without religion." The answer is obviously, yes, you can; we are innately ethical beings with an inherent sense of morality and the cognitive and behavioral tools to apply it. However, the question actually asks something much deeper. If religion is not a necessary component of ethics, then what purpose does it serve for developing and applying an ethical understanding? Next, how does the fact that religion can be a source of ethics shape our understanding of ethics in general?

I was originally going to write as much as I wanted here, but it makes more sense to do it in separate posts.

One Pimpin Documentary

So I was on google video, and I remembered that two years ago, I produced a documentary called, "P.I.M.P. in the IRV." It was intended as a joke for me and my friends, but someone uploaded it to google:video and my entire town found out about it. I even had random ass middle school kids coming up to me on the street and asking about it because they recognized me from the video.

This documentary is a penetrating glance into the world of pimpin. My crew and I interview a range of personalities, from experts who study pimpin to the lay-people regularly enagaged in it, and even the hoes themselves. Prepare to be taken on a wild ride through the depressing fields and hilarious falls of everyone's favorite pasttime- PIMPIN.

Sneaky Idea

I had a sneaky idea yesterday.

In Irvington, there are two extensions of the Village governments that regulate building issues: the Zoning Board and the Planning Board.

The Zoning Board is the government body that approves alterations to residences that do not adhere to Irvington's building codes. But when you need to get approval on an alteration and it looks like the board is going to vote against you, what do you do? Here's what you do:

First, identify the board members that you think are going to vote against you. Then, rank these individuals in order of how likely they are to vote against you. This ranking is important, because it is also the order in which you will attempt to sway the vote of the individuals. However, the goal is not to actually gain their votes, it's to create enough suspicion that you did attempt to bribe them that they are forced to recuse themselves. It could be as simple as sending them nice gifts, inviting them to nice events, or befriending them before the vote takes place. That way, the only board members left to vote on your alteration are the good ole' folks who were going to approve it in the first place.

Here's some info:

Zoning Board of Appeals

Purpose
This five member board hears zoning and building permit cases on appeal from the Planning Board, Architectural Board of Review or the Building Inspector. They interpret codes and may grant variances where appropriate.

Members
Louis Lustenberger, Chairman
Bruce Clark
Christopher Mitchell
Robert Myers
Arthur Semetis
Joy Goudie, First Alternate

Living Proof of A Hazy Contradiction

This is the testimony of Irv Rosenfeld, a medical marijuana patient who receives 11 oz. of weed each month from the U.S. Government!

A Hazy Contradiction

According to experts at the Marijuana Policy Project:

Every month, four Americans battling serious illnesses receive a metal canister from the U.S. government, containing about 10 ounces of marijuana in pre-rolled cigarettes. The program under which these patients receive government-supplied medical marijuana began on May 10, 1978. Referred to as a Compassionate Investigational New Drug (IND) program, it resulted from a lawsuit filed by glaucoma patient Robert Randall, who successfully showed that his use of marijuana was a medical necessity The program slowly grew, with 34 patients approved to participate by1991 (though less than half actually received federal marijuana). But a flood of new applications from patients battling AIDS -- who found that marijuana boosted their appetite and relieved the nausea often caused by anti-HIV drugs -- threw the administration of George H.W. Bush into a panic. The administration closed the program to new applicants in March 1992, but has continued to supply medical marijuana to the four surviving patients.

This may seem shocking. After all, isn't our government's official position that marijuana is not a medicine but a dangerous, addictive substance that only causes harm?

Exactly. Which means that in the U.S. government's official view, it is poisoning four innocent people -- except, of course, that the patients are doing well and have clearly benefited from marijuana therapy.

Deaths per Year: Zero

A Bright Idea

The best band ever is Bright Eyes. The second best band in the world would be a musical group that covered Bright Eyes exclusively. I want to create that band someday, but finding a violinist, a cellist, another guitarist, and all the other elements that go into creating Bright Eyes' massively harmonic sound is going to be hard. But I just found a video of Conor Oberst performing Four Winds with himself singing and playing rhythm, accompanied only by a drummer, bassist, and a pianist whose part subsumed the melodies and harmonies of the many other stringed instruments, and it sounded great!

JESUS

Stay Warm When the Oil Runs Out

I'm sure plenty of other people wonder about what's going to happen when all the oil runs out, wars erupt, and civilization plummets into oblivion. But this awesome jacket from Merrill will definately come in handy when all of those things happen. This novelty uses a series of inner pockets that wearers can stuff with whatever happens to be lying around, allowing them to increase and decrease its warmth instantly. This will come in handy when the dire state of the earth will only allow you to own one jacket.

Dangers of the Nerf Industry

Although Nerf needs our support in these troubled times, they are not the only solution to the energy crisis. Here is some troubling information about products made by Hasbro, Nerf's parent company.
This is a list of all the product Hasbro has been forced to recall since 1993.

One product, a child's game called Cranium Cadoo, contained excessive levels of lead in the dye used! Fucking lead! Holy Shit!

Nerf, an Alternative Energy Solution

In light of how much water the evil Supersoaker Industry wastes each year, we, as the people of the United States of America, need to find a less energy intensive hobby. That's where Nerf comes in. Yay, Nerf!

Hasbro recently announced that the 2008 line of Nerf guns will be more geared toward adults. This is a great development, because as one critic of the Nerf industry put it, "The current Nerf market is sadly geared toward children." As unintentionally funny as that statement is, it's true!
Nerf is fun for everyone, especially environmentally conscious people who would like to see us decrease our dependence on energy intensive ways of producing fun, such as the Supersoaker industry. Every environmentally conscious person should join in the fight to fights the evils of Supersoakers, and do everything they can to get them off the street. This is a planet is chaos, and we don't need any Supersoaker toting, energy wasting ingrates making it worse!

So let's invest in Nerf, a clean, green nerd sport.

A New Idea for Firefighters

Why don't firefighters invest in some really cutting edge supersoaker technology? Couldn't we make some sort of supersoaker/fire extinguisher hybrid?

Anyway, I found a website devoted to supersoakers. Actually I found A LOT of websites devoted to supersoakers. I thought, wow, supersoakers are pretty fucking cool. Then I realized, wait, holy shit, we are wasting SO MUCH WATER on fucking supersoakers! We're seeing a planetary water crisis emerging, and people are running around launching massive amounts of highly pressurized water at eachother for sport! This is ludicrous.

STOP SUPPORTING THE SUPERSOAKER INDUSTRY

The Waist to Hip Ratio

I KNEW IT! I KNEW IT! I KNEW IT!

Everyone knows that men prefer women with curves. But this is not just some speculation or truism, this is an established fact! What is casually called the Ass to Waist ratio is in the behavioral sciences referred to as the Waist to Hip Ratio. The ideal ratio is 7:10. In other words, the ideal waist is 7/10 the size of the ideal hips. This shows that absolute ass size doesn't matter; relative ass size is what counts.

Here is proof.

Crocodiles, Poofters of the Animal Kingdom

This video says in so many clips and images what I cannot. But I will anyway. It shows crocodiles getting OWNED by tigers, baboons, lions, zebras, bears, and sharks.

This leads me to one conclusion: crocodiles suck at fighting!

Now here's a video that's really worthwhile. A jaguar OWNS an anaconda, and then just leaves it dead on the jungle floor for a bunch of its leopard friends to eat.