I just listened to the new Muse release "United States of Eurasia." The concept- political. Interesting. New. The United States must conquer all the territory from the west coast of Europe to east coast of Korea in order to secure its access to natural resources.
The sound- imagine Queen harmonies over technical beats and paranoid violins. The resulting mix pulls together so many different sounds that even Girltalk would have nothing to add to it. The letdown- for a year, Matt Belamy has been talking about how he has been listening to middle eastern and Mediterranean music for the entire year leading up to this album, and this track is a pretty obvious reflection of that.
The problem? The lead line in the song that is supposed to showcase this new set of influences is the most clichéd representation of middle eastern music that has ever existed in western pop culture. If Bellamy had not actually adopted music from the middle east as an artist influenc and just watched the movie Lawrence of Arabia before he recorded this track, I would not be able to tell the difference. I almost had to laugh when I heard this string arrangement, since even without Bellamy's hyping up that he was going to mix Middle Eastern tunes into the new song, the result stands on its own as a dissapointing attempt to sound exotic. It would be like if Muse told their fans they had been "getting really heavy into Native American music" only to materialize in Bellamy yelling WOO WOO WOO WOO HEY O WATA over the track.
The highpoint of this song- the vocal harmonies. Now here is an influence that they really follow through on- Queen. Multilayered, all three singing several parts- this is the way to harmonize. Very similar to the vocals on the track Assassin on Black Holes and Revelations. My issue with Assassin was always that the vocals were drowned out by an overbearing guitar riff, but this track suffers from no such defect. The harmonies are front and center- they are by far the best part of the song. I can only hope more tracks on The Resistance take Muse's experimentation with Queen-esque melodies even further.
It's a good thing that this is not the single. Although this is the first song to debut off the new album, the first single will be a track called "Uprising." I have no idea what Uprising sounds like, but it has to be better. Just has to.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Halloween + Pedophiles = ?
Missouri just passed a new state law requiring convicted sex offenders to remain in their homes on Halloween to avoid potentially dangerous interaction with children. The law prohibits “all Halloween-related contact with children” and allows sexual offenders to leave their homes from 5 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. only if they have “just cause.”
But the Judge allowed two provisions to stand, requiring sexual offenders to post a sign stating “no candy or treats at this residence” and to turn off any porch lights.
The state of Maryland recently sent the same signs to 1,200 convicted sex offenders and mandated that they be placed outside to discourage pedophile-children contact.
I just have to ask one thing. Seriously? First of all, these signs are some serious low hanging fruit. If state governments are really going to do the trick, shouldn't they be stationing police officers outside the homes of these supposedly dangerous individuals? These efforts are obviously the states' attempt to circumvent this problem, by creating public suspicion of these individuals. This is a case of state-sponsored ostricization. But I guess it makes sense; you wouldn't dangle a piece of meat in front of a starving dog, nor would you dangle a piece of meat in front of a pedophile, especially if that piece of meat was a small child looking to score some candy at any cost.
But the Judge allowed two provisions to stand, requiring sexual offenders to post a sign stating “no candy or treats at this residence” and to turn off any porch lights.
The state of Maryland recently sent the same signs to 1,200 convicted sex offenders and mandated that they be placed outside to discourage pedophile-children contact.
I just have to ask one thing. Seriously? First of all, these signs are some serious low hanging fruit. If state governments are really going to do the trick, shouldn't they be stationing police officers outside the homes of these supposedly dangerous individuals? These efforts are obviously the states' attempt to circumvent this problem, by creating public suspicion of these individuals. This is a case of state-sponsored ostricization. But I guess it makes sense; you wouldn't dangle a piece of meat in front of a starving dog, nor would you dangle a piece of meat in front of a pedophile, especially if that piece of meat was a small child looking to score some candy at any cost.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Dynamite
Dynamite is dangerous. It is much more dangerous however, when tied to an arrow and shot from a bow. This is the best way to use dynamite. Suck it Alfred Nobel. Sweet name though.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Barack Obama's Evil Plan
As everyone knows, Barack Obama is a smart guy. However, he also appears to be nice guy. Let's give the people health care! Let's stop those greedy corporate whores from sucking our economy dry! These benign intentions have always made me suspicious. But now the genius inside Barack is finally doing what Sarah Palin would describe as "rearing its head."
Tonight, Barack Obama suggested a great new way to force Iran to halt its uranium enrichment program and dismantle its nuclear facilities. He suggested that the United States and its allies should prevent Iran from importing gasoline. While Iran has vast reserves of oil and a national infrastructure that practically revolves around petroleum extraction, its refinery capabilities have diminished severely in recent decades. Therefore, Iran requires massive imports of foreign-refined gasoline for its national economy to function. Here's where the genius comes in.
Theoretically, the U.S. and its allies could organize a ban among gasoline exporting nations to block Iranian access to fuel. If organized effectively, this would bring the production of crude oil to a halt; but more importantly, it would cripple the national economy and send shockwaves through ruling circles in Iran. Key Iranian politicians might finally reconsider the benefits of pursuing nuclear development policies, and a great threat to civilization might be averted.
If any version of this blockade is going to work, it will require Russia's participation. And just in case you've been living under the ground for the past 7 years, Russia is unlikely to fall in line with any initiative aimed at augmenting the influence of the West, especially if that influence is directed at a state with which Russia shares arms contracts, energy infrastructure, and a burning hatred for the United States.
There is also a possibility that support from other middle eastern nations would undercut the effectiveness of a blockade against Iran. Saudi Arabia, the nation in possession of the world's largest oil reserves as well as a relationship with the West that is parasitic and temporary at best, is also unlikely to sacrifice petro-dollars to make a statement against Iran's nuclear aspirations. The one dynamic that does increase the West's chances of success is wide-spread fear that a nuclear Iran would pose to other middle eastern nations. Saudi Arabia's goal is to protect itself, and if that means collaborating with the U.S. to prevent Iran from gaining regional hegemony, then it probably will. However, something as drastic as Barack Obama's plan to cripple the national economy has the ulterior possibility of estranging these very nations whose support is most crucial to making sanctions work effectively.
The most drastic outcome of this proposed blockade would be a contestation of Ayatollah Khomeini's government through a popular uprising, but that would require such complete devastation of the Iranian economy that living conditions would be dangerously degraded. But this is exactly the kind of structural change in Iran that American leaders desire most. Barack Obama's intention to affect such a change is the logical, and probable conclusion of the West's efforts to mitigate Iran's belligerent actions on the international stage.
Barack has the right idea. Why spend billions of American dollars or waste any more American lives intervening in the middle east's regional affairs? John McCain wants to continue Bush's idiotic attempt to perform a democratic makeover on the middle east. But the slumber party's over girls; it's time to get serious. Just cut Iran's access to fuel, and see what happens. A little energy shortage, a little industrial standstill and economic collapse, and boom! An imploded Iran. This is why Obama has my vote, so he can set that evil genius to work for the good of the American people.
Tonight, Barack Obama suggested a great new way to force Iran to halt its uranium enrichment program and dismantle its nuclear facilities. He suggested that the United States and its allies should prevent Iran from importing gasoline. While Iran has vast reserves of oil and a national infrastructure that practically revolves around petroleum extraction, its refinery capabilities have diminished severely in recent decades. Therefore, Iran requires massive imports of foreign-refined gasoline for its national economy to function. Here's where the genius comes in.
Theoretically, the U.S. and its allies could organize a ban among gasoline exporting nations to block Iranian access to fuel. If organized effectively, this would bring the production of crude oil to a halt; but more importantly, it would cripple the national economy and send shockwaves through ruling circles in Iran. Key Iranian politicians might finally reconsider the benefits of pursuing nuclear development policies, and a great threat to civilization might be averted.
If any version of this blockade is going to work, it will require Russia's participation. And just in case you've been living under the ground for the past 7 years, Russia is unlikely to fall in line with any initiative aimed at augmenting the influence of the West, especially if that influence is directed at a state with which Russia shares arms contracts, energy infrastructure, and a burning hatred for the United States.
There is also a possibility that support from other middle eastern nations would undercut the effectiveness of a blockade against Iran. Saudi Arabia, the nation in possession of the world's largest oil reserves as well as a relationship with the West that is parasitic and temporary at best, is also unlikely to sacrifice petro-dollars to make a statement against Iran's nuclear aspirations. The one dynamic that does increase the West's chances of success is wide-spread fear that a nuclear Iran would pose to other middle eastern nations. Saudi Arabia's goal is to protect itself, and if that means collaborating with the U.S. to prevent Iran from gaining regional hegemony, then it probably will. However, something as drastic as Barack Obama's plan to cripple the national economy has the ulterior possibility of estranging these very nations whose support is most crucial to making sanctions work effectively.
The most drastic outcome of this proposed blockade would be a contestation of Ayatollah Khomeini's government through a popular uprising, but that would require such complete devastation of the Iranian economy that living conditions would be dangerously degraded. But this is exactly the kind of structural change in Iran that American leaders desire most. Barack Obama's intention to affect such a change is the logical, and probable conclusion of the West's efforts to mitigate Iran's belligerent actions on the international stage.
Barack has the right idea. Why spend billions of American dollars or waste any more American lives intervening in the middle east's regional affairs? John McCain wants to continue Bush's idiotic attempt to perform a democratic makeover on the middle east. But the slumber party's over girls; it's time to get serious. Just cut Iran's access to fuel, and see what happens. A little energy shortage, a little industrial standstill and economic collapse, and boom! An imploded Iran. This is why Obama has my vote, so he can set that evil genius to work for the good of the American people.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
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!!!!!
Friday, August 15, 2008
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.
"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.
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.
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.
"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.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
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.
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.
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!
"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
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
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
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.
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?
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!
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)