The Angry Atheist

Thank you, Barack Obama!

2009-01-20T10:14:00.000-08:00

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and non-believers." - Barack Obama, inaugural speech, January 20, 2009

The inclusion of "nonbelievers" in Obama's inaugural speech this morning truly is a momentous occasion. I don't believe the tens of millions of us here in the U.S. have ever been acknowledged by a president in such a high profile manner. I'm grateful for this; it's a step in the right direction and exactly what I've come to expect from Obama. I'm optimistic about this administration.

I did cringe several times while watching the live broadcast of gay-basher Pastor Rick Warren's narrowly focused invocation, but then Rev. Joseph Lowery gave a benediction that was more inclusive, with more peace and love and less Jesus.

I watched the inauguration in an auditorium full of students and faculty at my university, and the crowd stood up whenever the crowd in D.C. was asked to stand. There weren't even any 9/11 Truthers yelling nonsense at the screen or harassing people outside the building. It was like the Libertarians hadn't rolled out of bed yet.

I was moved by Obama's speech in that he addressed the nation's weaknesses and didn't candy-coat anything:

"That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood. Our nation is at war against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age. Homes have been lost, jobs shed, businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly, our schools fail too many, and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet."

Here's another highlight (reminds me of Benjamin Franklin's "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety"):

"As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals."

And some more highlights:

"To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history, but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist."

"Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with the sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use. Our security emanates from the justness of our cause; the force of our example; the tempering qualities of humility and restraint." (some not so veiled jabs at Bush?)

You can find a full transcript of the speech here.

The Beer Goggles Come Off

2008-09-07T16:57:00.000-07:00

I wonder how Republicans are feeling right now about that super-hot earmarks reformer they fell in love with at the convention on Wednesday, now that the beer goggles have come off. As they nurse their hangovers, are they looking at her record of requesting more earmarks per person than any other state in the union, and feeling like they need a long shower and a trip to the clinic for some VD tests?

Of course, one could say something similar about my support of John Edwards in the primaries, but Edwards' main appeal did not involve making speeches about ending the practice of adultery in America.

Are bears really the #1 threat to America?

2008-09-05T14:59:00.000-07:00

Sorry, Stephen T. Colbert. I think the real threat in the photograph below is the one in the skirt.

Sarah Palin, John McCain's so-called "hockey mom" pick for running mate, makes Hillary Clinton look like an altruistic saint. Nicknamed "The Killa from Wasilla" by environmental groups for her ties to big oil and her philosophy of "cut, kill, dig and drill," she is also an enormous threat to the separation of church and state and the integrity of science. She is a return to the intellectual Dark Age of the farthest right, which is exactly where McCain is steering himself in this campaign. Whatever "maverick" spirit he had left in him is dead. Here are a few things that anyone who calls this country home should be aware of (and unlike Palin's barbs slung at Obama on Wednesday, I am not pulling these out of my ass -- links have been provided so that you can check these out for yourself):

Sarah Palin has stated in a speech to her Pentecostal church that the Iraq War is "a task from God." She stated in the same speech that it is "God's will" to build a $30 billion natural gas pipeline in the wilderness of Alaska.

Sarah Palin believes in stunting the intellectual development of American children by teaching Creationism (the belief that god created the Earth in 6 days, less than 10,000 years ago) in schools. This is a teaching that is completely antithetical to everything we know about the world today. The U.S. is already woefully behind when it comes to preparing students to enter careers in the sciences. This will put an enormous roadblock in the way of rational scientific inquiry.

Sarah Palin does not believe in stem cell research or a woman's right to choose an abortion, even in the case of rape or incest. She backs abstinence-only education, which has been shown to be a completely failed approach to reducing teen pregnancies (it is so hard to refrain from mentioning a certain pregnant teenage member of Palin's family here - it's just the irony...). Palin is also against "explicit sex-ed programs."

Palin attempted to fire the city librarian when she became mayor of Wasilla, because the librarian said she would not remove "objectionable books" from the library if asked to do so by Palin. The reason given for firing the librarian was that she "did not fully support" Palin. Fahrenheit 451, anyone?

Palin is presently under investigation in Alaska for another abuse of power. Just what we need more of after W and Cheney get the boot...

Sarah Palin is a member of the now small fringe of people who deny climate change (aka global warming). Why should she believe thousands of credible scientists and peer-reviewed research studies? She has God personally telling her to build pipelines in the wilderness. Kassie Siegel, of the Centre for Biological Diversity, had this to say about Palin's views: “Even the Bush Administration cannot deny the reality of global warming. The Governor is aligning herself and the state of Alaska with the most discredited, fringe, extreme viewpoints by denying this. She is either grossly misinformed or intentionally misleading, and both are unbecoming. ”

Palin supports drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which would be environmentally disastrous for the area.

Sarah Palin supports aerial shooting of bears and wolves from helicopters, and used $400,000 of state money to fund a media campaign in support of it, EVEN THOUGH ALASKANS VOTED TWICE TO BAN THE PRACTICE. (Shooting bears and wolves from helicopters is inhumane, grievously injuring them more often than it kills them, and subjecting them to needless suffering. They are shot in large numbers and left to die). The reasons given for this practice are to protect caribou herds for human hunters, but it has been proven that wolves and bears make very little impact on caribou numbers, surviving mostly on smaller prey. Yet another example of unsound science. Palin also tried to get the state to give a $150 bounty to hunters for each wolf killed.

Hell, I would rather have a grizzly bear in office than Sarah Palin a breath away from it. The grizzly would probably demonstrate a much better aptitude for rational thinking and common sense. And Palin would make for a better rug.

2008 Presidential Endorsement REDUX!

2008-02-01T23:36:00.000-08:00

Yes, my choice of Presidents for the atheist vote has "suspended" his campaign. What to do, what to do... After a brief period of WHAT THE @#%!, with a little bit of WHYYYYYYYYYYYYY thrown in for good measure, I decided to make my decision rationally. And no, it is not Ron "the separation of church and state is a myth" Paul.

My next endorsement may come as a surprise to some.

But at this stage, the most important thing, thinking rationally, is this: we can not have a President who will trample all over our civil liberties, get us into another endless war, and increase anti-American sentiment to the point that one of the rogue states we've sold nuclear secrets to drops the bomb on us. This translates to: the Republican candidate, be he Romney, Fuckabee, or McCain, MUST BE DEFEATED.

So I'm casting my vote for the lesser of all of the evils, who also happens to be the most electable Democrat after John Edwards, at this point, having actually inspired hordes of young voters and Independents to quit feeling disenfranchised and get out to the primaries. Perhaps this inadvertently had something to do with the writer's strike and the fact that the Democratic debates are the most exciting thing on television right now, but people are watching the debates in record numbers, and new voters are overwhelmingly casting their vote for one person.

Here are some quotes on the subject of religion, to introduce my second choice candidate:

"I was not raised in a religious household. For my mother, organized religion too often dressed up closed-mindedness in the garb of piety, cruelty and oppression in the cloak of righteousness. However, in her mind, a working knowledge of the world's great religions was a necessary part of any well-rounded education. In our household the Bible, the Koran, and the Bhagavad Gita sat on the shelf alongside books of Greek and Norse and African mythology. On Easter or Christmas Day my mother might drag me to church, just as she dragged me to the Buddhist temple, the Chinese New Year celebration, the Shinto shrine, and ancient Hawaiian burial sites. In sum, my mother viewed religion through the eyes of the anthropologist; it was a phenomenon to be treated with a suitable respect, but with a suitable detachment as well."

"My faith is complicated by the fact that I didn't grow up in a particular religious tradition. When you come at it as an adult, your brain mediates a lot, and you ask a lot of questions."

"I went to a Catholic school in a Muslim country, so I was studying the Bible and catechisms by day, and, at night, you'd hear the [Muslim] prayer call. My mother was a deeply spiritual person. Her view always was that underlying these religions was a common set of beliefs about how you treat other people and how you aspire to act, not just for yourself, but also for the greater good. I am a follower, as well, of our civic religion. I'm a big believer in the separation of church and state. I am a big believer in our constitutional structure. I'm a law professor at the University of Chicago teaching constitutional law."

Okay, if you haven't figured it out already, these are all quotes by Barack Obama. Who is not a Muslim, as some would have you believe.

Obama has consistently voted in favor of the separation of church and state, he is pro-choice, he supports stem cell research, and unlike Hillary Clinton, he has taken Edwards's challenge not to accept money from special interest lobbyists (very important, this). He has also opposed the war in Iraq from the start. Hillary Clinton has never apologized for her vote to use force in Iraq, unlike my first presidential choice John Edwards.

It is with a heavy heart that I turn away from the more populist Edwards, but rationally, I have no choice but to "Barack the Vote."

Stop revisionist "Christian Nation" House Resolution 888!

2008-01-20T13:34:00.000-08:00

From an important action alert by Secular Coalition for America:

Those who would have the United States be governed as a Christian theocracy are pushing H.Res. 888, another resolution which promotes a false and distorted Christian nation reinterpretation of our history. Teaching an unbiased account of our nation's founding and its governance will be curtailed; in its place supporters of this resolution clearly call for a revised history of the United States as a Christian nation.

Additionally, the resolution rejects constitutional requirements that government not establish religion. It calls on "our Nation's public buildings and educational resources" to be permitted to spread its specific revisionist history. We have seen the religious right attack science education in order to impose their theological beliefs on public school science curriculum. This is the first official attempt to encourage theological beliefs to interfere with accurate education about our nation's history.

The proposed resolution "recognizes that the religious foundations of faith on which America was built are critical underpinnings of our Nation's most valuable institutions and form the inseparable foundation for America's representative processes, legal systems, and societal structures"

The belief that "religious foundations of faith" are necessary for civil government was rejected by the founders when they produced a Constitution free of the mention of any god or gods. In the First Amendment to the Constitution, these founders further protected Americans from government establishment of religion and government interference with their private free exercise of religion and beliefs of conscience.

When those who don't hold religious foundations of faith serve on juries, provide witness testimonies in court, or are sworn into elected offices, our U.S. Constitution protects their rights by prohibiting religious tests. Our nation has recognized that those of us without "religious foundations of faith" are capable of supporting America's representative processes, legal systems, and societal structures -- based not on a god-belief, but on reason.

If you don't believe that history books should be revised to exclude the contributions of non-theists and other non-Christians, and that it is important to distinguish the vast difference between the freethinking Deism of the nation's Founders with the Christianity of today, please go here, fill in your name & location, and hit submit (it's as easy as that!):

Vote No on H.Res 888

To receive action alerts from The Secular Coalition for America, sign up here.

BILL CLINTON gets HIGH in MY TOWN!

2008-01-17T13:52:00.000-08:00

On incredibly short notice, it was announced Tuesday that Bill Clinton would visit my rural, Nascar-loving Northern California town the next day. Now, it must be mentioned that no sitting or ex-President has visited Humboldt County since 1969, when Lyndon B. Johnson came to dedicate a redwood grove in his wife's name. So there was sure to be some serious swarms of aspiring Monica Lewinksys flashing their tits, as well as the inevitable Ron Paul zombies peeing their pants at the thought of asking Bill about this week's fashionable conspiracy theories.

In a shortsighted move, Bill Clinton's campaign appearance was booked in a venue that seats only 400 people. The event was scheduled to begin at 6:30 PM, with the local media suggesting that people show up at 5:30. I decided to go at 4:00, at which point thousands of people had already lined up. So I gave up and decided to listen live on local radio. (I later found out that people had started showing up at 11 AM -- it was like the opening of a Star Wars film...)

Clinton spoke for about an hour without notes, after which it was advertised that there would be a Question & Answer session. The Q & A was what I was really interested in, but the speech proved to be more entertaining than I had hoped.

At one point, the usually suave Ex-President made a bizarre Freudian slip in which he referred to the current President George W. Bush as "Bill Cinton." It was in reference to us borrowing money from other countries that do not have our best interests at heart. One of the statements he made was "Every day, we borrow money to cover Bill Clinton's tax cut!" I did not hear this wrong. The two other people listening in the room with me confirmed this "what the @%#&!?" moment (which you will not hear on the radio station's podcast, by the way, as it conveniently cuts the speech off before anything strange begins to happen).

At another point I took a bathroom break and returned to hear Bill making some sort of convoluted analogy about a "donut hole," saying "In college we used to use 'donut hole' as a euphemism." I listened for uncomfortable giggles in the live audience, but they seemed to be holding back more effectively than I was. It turned out that, rather than anything dirty, he was talking about health care and people slipping through the cracks - the "donut hole," if you will. Why he chose this particular analogy is beyond me. It eventually began to dawn on me that perhaps Bill had been partaking of some of the most profitable local export...

When the speech was over, the radio commentators began a play-by-play of Bill Clinton making his way into the crowd to pose for pictures, wondering when the advertised Q & A session would begin. One of the two radio commentators admitted that he had not been listening to the speech, and that he was "working on his own project" while Clinton spoke. The other commented on the fact that there was "a lot less security than expected, but it must have been enough, because nothing happened." At which point the second DJ said, "Nothing has happened yet." This was followed by an awkward, anticipatory silence that made me wonder exactly what sort of "project" this DJ had been busy working on during the speech, and whether it involved enriched uranium.

The Question and Answer session I had tuned in for never did materialize. No one was given the opportunity to publicly ask Bill Clinton what his favorite 4/20 activities include, whether he knew about the government's complicity in 9/11, what his wife will do about the Reptilian race that lives inside the Earth's crust, or whether he prefers Petrolia Headstash or Californian Skunk (which would have been our equivalent to the girl who asked Hillary "diamonds or pearls" at a recent debate).

I've Been Converted!

2008-01-16T11:18:00.000-08:00

I know that just a couple posts ago, I implied that the "Nielsen Families" who decide which television shows the American public is "watching" do not really exist. And that if they do, they must either be evil androids or evil clones. I mean, who knows a Nielsen family? And look at the drivel these "people" are watching...

Well, I have to be an adult and admit that I was wrong.

I just received a postcard in the mail from Nielsen Media Research that reads:

"It is our pleasure to tell you that your household has been chosen to be a 'Nielsen Family'...for a one week TV survey!"...And it goes on to tell me that they will telephone me soon, which they did (but my roommate told them truthfully that we do not watch television). I was a little irked at him for ruining my chances of skewing their survey.

So...I must grudgingly admit that I now believe in Nielsen families.

...But does anyone else think their timing is a little suspicious? I mean, I accuse them of being a shady organization that manipulates what we continue to see on TV, and suddenly I get a postcard from them, inviting me to be part of a survey... Hmmmmm....

Democrats' N.H. Bloodbath...of DEATH (w/ Special FX)!!!

2008-01-08T17:01:00.000-08:00

Very "special" effects. There was a reason ABC put those Blue Screens behind Hillary and Edwards...

2008 Presidential Endorsement

2008-01-04T20:25:00.000-08:00

It's 2008 already, which means it's getting to be time for The Angry Atheist to endorse a presidential candidate. And that candidate is John Edwards. You may be asking yourself, why would an avowed atheist vote for a Southern Methodist for President?

I could play identity politics here, but the fact of the matter is that Edwards, despite our differences, is the only major candidate I trust to protect my civil liberties and my own personal "pursuit of happiness," as opposed to selling me out to corporate interests. And speaking of identity politics, a poor person is not necessarily going to look out for the interests of other poor people (we see this every time poor White Southerners vote Republican despite the fact that they are economically shooting themselves in the foot). And Danny Glover put it well on Democracy Now! earlier today while campaigning for Edwards, when he pointed out that Black members of government do not necessarily look out for the interests of the Black community at large, who are still struggling for equality in the real world despite gains in elected office. I bring this up because I would not vote for an atheist simply because he or she is an atheist, nor will I refuse to vote for someone based on their religious beliefs, as long as they respect my right not to share them.

I am casting my vote for John Edwards for reasons that are more important than my religious identity, but he is a candidate who has actively courted the atheist vote and made it clear that our opinion matters. And there are millions of us who have never been treated before as if we were a force to be reckoned with. Early on in his campaign, he put well-known feminist atheist bloggers in charge of his own campaign blog (a major position in this tech-savvy day and age), with the full knowledge that there would be a backlash from the Religious Right. And he has been very vocal about his support for the separation of church and state.

Before I go on to the real reasons I'm voting for Edwards, here are a few quotes from him on the subject of religion:

"We have seen a president in the last six-plus years who tries to impose his faith on the American people. And I think it is a mistake and I will not impose my faith belief on the American people. I don't believe any president should do that. I believe in the separation of church and state."

"I've been in courthouses where I've seen the Ten Commandments. I've never had a strong reaction to it. But how would Muslims or Hindus feel if they went into that courthouse? So I'm sensitive to that. You know, of course it wouldn't offend me because I'm Christian. And I'm certainly not offended by the idea of expressing faith in that circumstance. But probably it causes more trouble than good."

And I admire his honesty here, on the subject of gay marriage, as well as the statement that he is aware of why he believes what he believes (an important first step in becoming a skeptic, by the way...hmmm...):

"I struggle myself with imposing my faith belief. The question is whether I, as president, should impose my views on gay marriage because I know where it comes from. I'm aware of why I believe what I believe. And I think there is consensus around this idea of no discrimination, partnership benefits, civil unions."

"I don't want to impose my view. Nobody made me God. But what I will do as president is I will lead an effort to make sure that the same benefits that are available to heterosexual couples--1,100, roughly, benefits in the federal government--are available to same-sex couples; that we get rid of DOMA; that we get rid of 'don't ask, don't tell.'"

On another note, he is rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record, and he has consistently shown support for stem-cell research, despite his religious background.

Now...Why am I a Democrat, you ask? As an atheist, why am I moved by Edwards' talk of children going to bed without food, veterans forgotten by the system, workers whose jobs have moved overseas thanks to tax loopholes that give U.S. companies incentives to outsource? Why do I care about global warming and not leaving the next generation to deal with the burden of our current greed?

Well, let me explain. As a Secular Humanist, I have more in common with Jesus than any Republican can claim. Tolerance, empathy, and the desire to help those who are less fortunate than we are come to mind. As an atheist and a Humanist, I don't see greed as a virtue.

Not to mention the fact that I was not born with a silver spoon in my mouth. I am not in a high tax bracket. Like most people, I have no inheritance or trust fund to ride on. What little I have, I had to work for. My mother did not have money to put me through college. I would not be able to attend at all were it not for the help of federal financial aid, something that the Republican party has been chipping away at for years. The economy does not "trickle down" by catering to the wallets of robber barons rather than ordinary working people. The same families stay in power generation after generation in a corporate-run political system. As Edwards has said, the political system is now rigged to help the rich, which makes a journey like his, from modest beginnings to the middle class and far beyond it, "much harder than it was."

So, for everyone who believes that there is no difference between the Republicans and Democrats, take a closer look at John Edwards. Edwards has pledged not to take a dime from corporate lobbyists and PACs (unlike Clinton and Obama), to renew the Democratic party as the true "party of the people," and despite being outspent 6 to 1 and being skillfully ignored by the corporate-run media, he managed to beat Hilary in the Iowa caucuses. Quite a feat for "the most populist candidate in half a century"! But you won't hear this spoken of as a victory in the press.

"I think the people who are powerful in Washington--big insurance companies, big drug companies, big oil companies--they are not going to negotiate. They are not going to give away their power. The only way that they are going to give away their power is if we take it away from them. And I have been standing up to these people my entire life. I have been fighting them my entire life in court rooms--and beating them. If you want real change, you need somebody who's taking these people on and beating them over and over and over." - John Edwards, in a recent debate

It is this issue, corporate greed, that is at the heart of every other issue on the table: outsourced jobs, global warming, pollution, the ridiculous costs of health care, even the war in Iraq... The candidate who cuts through the bullshit and points his finger at the real problem is the candidate who will make a difference. This is why John Edwards is getting my vote in the primaries.

Today's Headlines

2007-12-15T12:56:00.000-08:00

Is anyone else irritated by the headlines that pop up when you sign in to your Yahoo account (if you have one)? I use their DSL service out here in the middle of nowhere, and today's "featured" stories (in a typical fashion) are:

Winner Claims 'Price is Right' Prize is Junk
Man Receives $85,000 Cell Phone Bill
Learn How to Throw a Football Like a Pro
Best U.S. Cities for Educating Your Child

The featured video story is BeeGee Admits He Never Watched All of 'Saturday Night Fever'.

Is this the sort of thing that the typical American is really interested in? You would think there was nothing wrong in the world at all; perhaps that's the point. I would rather that people get their news from The Daily Show if necessary, than not get it at all.

I decided to look up the "most emailed" stories and was somewhat relieved to see that the top stories, starting with #2, are:

Israel: US report on Iran may spark war
Justice Dept.: Back off on CIA tapes
W.Va. town remembers 1967 bridge failure
Bali climate talks reach agreement

The #1 most popular story, though, was the one about the Canadian with the $85,000 cell phone bill. What's so surprising or interesting about an $85,000 cell phone bill? Everyone knows those companies are ruthless; it's only a matter of time before that's the norm, people.

My roundabout point is that most Americans really are (if perhaps vaguely) interested in what's going on in the world (especially what was going on in West Virginia in 1967, apparently). I feel that the media treats us like mindless, exceedingly vain, celebrity-obsessed, bourgeois toddlers. Okay, so the most-watched TV show last night according to the Nielsen ratings was Survivor (and be prepared for hordes of new reality shows in 2008 due to the writer's strike), but still...

Hey, has anyone considered that the mysterious Nielsen families may have been genetically engineered to be especially stupid? Or perhaps they have some sort of computer chip implanted in their brains that makes them irresistibly drawn to reality TV shows? Perhaps they are not entirely human.

Nielsen families = Stepford Wives crossed with Boys from Brazil?

Am I being overly optimistic?

If there are any Nielsen family members reading this (assuming that they actually exist and are literate), I apologize for comparing you to clones of Hitler. It was just the second sci-fi movie title that popped into my head (both based on books by Ira Levin, the writer of Rosemary's Baby, check them out)...

That's my popular media rant for the day. I need to go learn how to throw a football like a pro.

Showing My Patriotism

2007-07-04T15:24:00.000-07:00

For Independence Day, here are some freethinking, godless quotes from the Founding Fathers of the United States:

George Washington, 1st U.S. President:

“Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause. I had hoped that liberal and enlightened thought would have reconciled the Christians so that their religious fights would not endanger the peace of Society.” [Notice use of the word their, rather than our, when referring to Christians.]

"There is nothing which can better deserve our patronage than the promotion of science and literature. Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness."

John Adams, 2nd U.S. President:

"This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it."

"The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity."

Thomas Jefferson, 3rd U.S. President:

"Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one-half the world fools and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth."

"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

James Madison, 4th U.S. President:

"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprize, every expanded prospect."

"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not."

Benjamin Franklin, U.S. public official, writer, scientist, printer, and Founding Father:

"In the affairs of the world, men are saved, not by faith, but by the want of it."

"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason."

"Lighthouses are more helpful than churches."

The Reverend Doctor Bird Wilson, an Episcopal minister in Albany, New York, in a sermon preached in October, 1831:

"The founders of our nation were nearly all Infidels, and that of the presidents who had thus far been elected [Washington; Adams; Jefferson; Madison; Monroe; Adams; Jackson] not a one had professed a belief in Christianity.... Among all our presidents from Washington downward, not one was a professor of religion, at least not of more than Unitarianism."

Of course, some of the quotes above were from private letters written to each other and to other confidantes. Judging by other quotes from the early presidents, there seems to be some difference between their public personas and their private convictions. But the U.S. was never meant to be a Christian nation, contrary to popular belief...

God Throws a Wobbly at England

2007-07-01T16:54:00.000-07:00

Not surprisingly, it has been revealed today that the disastrous floods in Britain this weekend are just another one of God's temper tantrums...

From today's Telegraph:

"The floods that have devastated swathes of the country are God's judgment on the immorality and greed of modern society, according to senior Church of England bishops.

"One diocesan bishop has even claimed that laws that have undermined marriage, including the introduction of pro-gay legislation, have provoked God to act by sending the storms that have left thousands of people homeless."

Even if there was a God up there hating gay people, am I to believe that only gay and other so-called 'immoral' people were affected by the flooding?

"While those who have been affected by the storms are innocent victims, the bishops argue controversially that the flooding is a result of Western civilisation's decision to ignore biblical teaching....[The Rt Rev Graham Dow] expressed his sympathy for those who have been hit by the weather, but said that the problem with 'environmental judgment is that it is indiscriminate.'"

So even if a person faithfully follows the teachings of the Catholic church and leads what is supposedly a moral life in the eyes of God, this is still no insurance against God's wrath. No matter how much you oppresses yourself to get through the pearly gates of the next life, God will still torment you in this one. "Why, God, why?" is a question that any person of faith must surely find themselves asking at some point, and in this case Rev. Dow implies that it has nothing to do with them, nor with the huge low pressure zone hovering over the region; no, they can blame all of their losses on homosexuals invoking God's wrath. It's much more reassuring to have someone to blame, than to accept the fact that nature doesn't really give a crap about you or your gay neighbor.

Here are some priceless quotes from the Rt. Rev. Dow:

"In the Bible, institutional power is referred to as 'the beast', which sets itself up to control people and their morals."

Gee, that 'beast' sounds awfully familiar...Could it be genetically similar to the Catholic Church and other organized religions? Here's another:

"Our government has been playing the role of God in saying that people are free to act as they want."

Wha-huh? Absurd as these statements are by themselves, let's put them into their original context:

"In the Bible, institutional power is referred to as 'the beast', which sets itself up to control people and their morals. Our government has been playing the role of God in saying that people are free to act as they want."

I don't know where to begin with the contradictions here. The government is not controlling people's morals if it's letting people act as they want. And it seems that playing the role of God would entail the exact opposite - that is, petty and pointless rules and regulations about every aspect of life, right down to what we are allowed to think about. Look at any sacred text and you'll see that God is a ridiculously micro-managing despot.

Support independent publishers!

2007-06-16T20:44:00.000-07:00

Speaking of people not reading enough anymore, I just found out that beloved independent publisher McSweeney's is having a huge sale and celebrity ebay auction right now to pay off their $130,000 debt after their distributor's bankruptcy. This includes issues of their must-see film magazine Wholphin (a quarterly collection of short films on dvd, with interviews of the filmmakers -- past contributors have included Miranda July, Spike Jonze, Bob Odenkirk, and Steven Soderbergh). Another highlight of Wholphin is the inclusion of The Power of Nightmares, a three-part BBC documentary on the history of radical Islamic Fundamentalism, Neoconservativism, the Religious Right, and the international media propaganda machine (this is otherwise unavailable in the U.S.). See my previous post for more on this. The fact that they distributed this controversial film is reason enough for you to support the folks at McSweeneys. Plus, The Believer is quite possibly one of the geekiest, most entertaining magazines I have ever come across. Examples of recent articles include "Nine Inch Nails and 19th century British Romanticism", "Generic Names from Around the World," and "If Sammy Davis Jr. had Written Moby-Dick."

Highlights of the celebrity auction include:

This painting of Dubya by author Dave Eggers (A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius):

Issues of Wholphin signed and doodled on by filmmaker Spike Jonze (Being John Malkovich):

I've got my eye on a book called Speak, Commentary by Tom Bissell and Jeff Alexander, which is described as: "THE BIG LITTLE BOOK OF FAKE DVD COMMENTARIES, WHEREIN WELL-KNOWN PUNDITS MAKE IMPASSIONED REMARKS ABOUT CLASSIC SCIENCE-FICTION FILMS." This includes Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson musing on the hidden meaning of Planet of the Apes! What more need I say?

Radical Islamist and Neoconservative Myths

2007-06-14T22:20:00.000-07:00

"This story began over 30 years ago, as the dream that politics could create a better world began to fall apart. Out of that collapse came two groups: the Islamists and the Neoconservatives...Together they have created today's strange fantasy of fear, which politicians have seized on." - from the BBC documentary series "The Power of Nightmares"

[Go here if this video does not load.]

If you haven't watched this yet, I believe it should be required viewing in every high school world history class. I have always believed that pattern recognition is one of the most underrated skills that can be nurtured in young people. It helps us to navigate through the lies that are constantly being thrown in our paths, and to search for the truth beyond them. Without a highly developed sense of it, we will be duped into believing absurdities and letting history repeat itself over and over again. The BBC documentary "The Power of Nightmares," which was banned by all the U.S. networks for reasons which will become obvious when you read further, is a shining example of what I'm referring to here as pattern recognition. It is also a must-see for its impeccable research and A-list interviewees! I'll post links at the bottom of this blog for you to view the whole series on Google video for free.

If the clip below - about the origins of and motivations behind the Neoconservative and Religious Right movements in the U.S. - does not convince you to watch the rest of this series, you must be in a media-induced coma.

[Go to this link to view the video that used to be here, if it does not show up.]

Key Points:

There is no such thing as an organized network of international terrorists called Al Qaeda. Even Bin Laden never used the term until after he'd heard it in the American media.

Yes, there are radical Islamist organizations that carry out acts of terror and share certain ideologies, but they are by no means organized in the way that the media portrays them to be. At the time that we started our "war on terror," these groups were beginning to die down and lose followers in their countries because of their extremist tactics.

This is another Straussian Neoconservative rallying gimmick, just like the myth that the Soviet Union had somehow coordinated every terrorist act carried out during the Cold War, in an effort to "take over the world", whether the act of violence was commited by the Baader-Meinhof Gang, the Irish Republican Army, or any other radical group. Despite the fact that there was no evidence to suggest this, and a surplus of evidence from the CIA to debunk it, we proceeded with the Cold War as if our way of life depended on it. In reality, the Soviet Union was crumbling from within and did not pose the threat that we were made to live in constant fear of.

I worry that young people today won't make this connection of history repeating itself, because they did not live through the Cold War. We had to perform school drills for what to do in the event of a nuclear attack, as if to "duck and cover" would somehow protect us from nuclear annihilation. Like the gas masks and duct tape recommended just a few years ago as security measures. We had to "bring democracy" to the people of the Soviet Union and other communist countries. Look at what our free market "democracy" has done for the Soviet Union. It's essentially a country run by organized crime.

Here are links to this highly recommended series on Google video (if they stay up):

Part 1: Baby, It's Cold Outside
Part 2: The Phantom Victory
Part 3: The Shadows in the Cave

Hate Mail Replies - Part I

2007-06-10T20:16:00.000-07:00

Now to respond to some of the comments from my angry religious readers...These are all in reply to my post THANK YOU, National Geographic!, in praise of the issue with the cover asking "Was Darwin Wrong?" and the first page answering "NO!"

Anonymous said, "All you have to do to understand what life without God would be like is to look at the animal world, when a male cat comes upon a litter of kittens that are not his he kills them...We only strive for civility because of our knowledge of God. If there were no God I would just kill you for your food."

If this statement is true, then Anonymous should be institutionalized. No one can use God or the lack of God to justify murder or sociopathic behavior. The millions of ethical atheists around the world who are leading perfectly functional lives, knowing that there is no God, are proof that we do not need one. And while I'm at it, to the atheists who believe that some people would be forever lost without their misguided faith: don't you think that this view is a bit pompous?

I happen to hold everyone to the same moral standard that I hold myself to. I refuse to coddle other people as if they are inferior to me. Adults are capable of treating each other with civility, with or without a belief in a god. In response to the statement about male cats killing kittens that are not their own: assuming that a person was raised by humans rather than by feral cats, they have no excuse to do intentional harm to anyone.

That being said, I've always thought it was more commendable to see an atheist do something charitable than it is to see a believer do so. As atheists, we can be honest, caring people, not because we are afraid of divine punishment or we seek some reward in the afterlife. We are good people because we have advanced beyond the toddler stage and we can feel empathy for others. We do not have to do the right thing, but we do it because it is rewarding in itself. I would argue that for this reason, the ethical code of the atheist is more admirable than that of the religious person. If you had a young child and he decided to help you clean the dishes without being asked to do so, wouldn't you be more impressed than if the child only did his chores after you threatened some form of punishment, or enticed him with the reward of dessert? More on the origins and reasons for an atheist ethic to come. For now, on to the next comment...

Anonymous said, "Don't forget to mention to the public that evolution is completely homophobic as there is no way that two organisms of the same sex would be attracted to each other because they can't reproduce and would completely fall outside the evolutionary model of survival of species."

Who said that the meaning of life was solely to reproduce via childbirth? And who said that the meaning of sex was solely to reproduce? I certainly didn't. And how can you be so certain that homosexuality falls outside of the evolutionary model of "survival of the species," anyways? Has it occurred to anyone that in a time in which overpopulation and diminishing resources are a threat to the survival of every species including our own, the evolutionary biological (or, more likely, cultural) basis for homosexuality may start to make an awful lot of sense when we look back on it? Did I mention that studies show increased homosexual behavior in certain animals when food is scarce? Of course, now it's possible for two women to have a child together, but this is obviously something that has to be prepared for and planned in advance. Imagine if all heterosexual couples had to put that much thought into having children...

That's all the time I have tonight. More hate mail responses to come later...

New Look, Still Angry

2007-06-10T14:45:00.001-07:00

It is so good to get back to my blog that I decided to give it a whole new look to celebrate the occasion. My gratitude goes out to Banksy, the anonymous British graffiti artist who is responsible for the scene that you now see before you, made available for free download on his website. I think that the image of a young girl with balloons, floating over the Palestinian side of the Israeli West Bank barrier, is a poignant symbol for what's wrong with the world today (read: the uncompromising nature of any and every religion).

Now if I can only get the three-column display code I've been tweaking to work... As for the new profile: yes, that is my eye in the new photo, but no, my skin is not actually blue. At least not that blue. I don't see much of the sun up here in Northern California...

So much has happened while I've been slaving away as a full-time Film Production major (why, you ask? I'll get to that). Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion and Sam Harris' Letter to a Christian Nation have been at the top of the bestseller lists, Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards hired outspoken feminist atheist bloggers to head his campaign blog, and atheism has finally captured at least a moment in the spotlight. Too many things to get into in retrospect. Let's just hope that this moment lasts long enough to make a difference.

So, why have I been slaving away on a Film degree and missing out on all of the excitement? Some days I dream of going back to the less labor-intensive Philosophy or English paths, but I realized some time ago that there are more writers out there than there are readers. To do something that would touch the lives of people other than the miniscule compulsive book-buying crowd (or are these mythical creatures?), a more high-tech medium was in order... On that note, though, just in case there are any mythical book-reading creatures out there, here is my recommended reading for the day (and it's mostly pictures, actually):

This Banksy art book is pretty @#$% delightful, not just for the full-color photographs of all of his recent exploits, but for the insightfully snide commentary throughout, such as "Sometimes I feel so sick at the state of the world that I can't even finish my second apple pie." The fact that it has a "now with 10% more crap" sticker on the cover made me fall in love with this book before I had even opened it. Definitely a treasure.

ABOVE: an armed beetle (labeled "Withus Oragainstus" United States)
sneaked into a NY Natural History Museum display by Banksy
(lasted 12 days before being spotted and removed by museum security).

More on the the big names in atheist literature later. I seem to have received some hate mail while I was away, so my next post will be a response to all of it. I can't wait!

Christian Freudian Slips

2006-12-08T10:41:00.000-08:00

Here's some comic relief - just a few highlights from a list circling the internet. Supposedly these are all real, which I don't find difficult to believe...

----------------------------------------------------------

"The peacemaking meeting scheduled for today has been
cancelled due to a conflict."

Oh my, how appropriate.

----------------------------------------------------------

"Don't let worry kill you off - let the Church help."

----------------------------------------------------------

"At the evening service tonight, the sermon topic
will be 'What Is Hell?'
Come early and listen to our choir practice."

--------------------------------------------------------

"Ladies, don't forget the rummage sale.
It's a chance to get rid of those things not worth keeping
around the house. Bring your husbands."

-----------------------------------------------------------

"The Rector will preach his farewell message after
which the choir will sing: 'Break Forth Into Joy.'"

---------------------------------------------------------

"For those of you who have children and don't know it,
we have a nursery downstairs."

--------------------------------------------------------

"Low Self Esteem Support Group will meet Thursday at
7 PM. Please use the back door."

--------------------------------------------------------

"Irving Benson and Jessie Carter were married on
October 24 in the church.
So ends a friendship that began in their school days."

--------------------------------------------------------

"Scouts are saving aluminium cans, bottles and other
items to be recycled.
Proceeds will be used to cripple children."

Crippling the minds of children, at least...

--------------------------------------------------------

"The church will host an evening of fine dining,
super entertainment and gracious hostility."

--------------------------------------------------------

"This evening at 7 PM there will be a hymn singing in
the park across from the Church.
Bring a blanket and come prepared to sin."

--------------------------------------------------------

And my personal favorite:

"Ladies Bible Study will be held Thursday morning at
10 AM. All ladies are invited to lunch in the Fellowship Hall
after the B.S. is done."

Hey, YOU!

2006-11-03T01:33:00.000-08:00

Dear fellow Americans,

I am sick of those of you who stay home on election day because of the tired excuse that "there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats." The more support you show for progressive causes, the more your party will support those causes in turn. Political parties do not exist in a vacuum; they are supposed to be the voice of the people. So get out there and make them hear yours by voting for progressive measures in your state, voting down measures that will strip away your civil liberties, and giving more progressive candidates the majority they need to make a difference on Capitol Hill.

Remind your friends and family to vote on election day, and remind them why to vote against the Republicans in power. Let's face it, we need a landslide to counter the inevitable right-wing intimidation of minority voters and tampering with voting machines. Remember voting machine manufacturer Diebold's CEO stating that he was "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the President" in 2004? Remember the disproportionate distribution of polling places, forcing voters in poor, Democratic leaning neighborhoods to wait so long in line that they had to abandon their mission and go back to their jobs or their children waiting for dinner at home? Are you a working class citizen? Do you have obligations and bills to pay? If so, these Republican tactics should outrage you. The NAACP will be sending representatives to polling places this year to try to monitor and prevent disenfranchisement, but this is much more than a question of race. If you are anything less than a privileged, upper class citizen living off of the industrial fortune of your ancestors, the party in power is laughing in your face.

Fight back.

See "Five Simple Reasons to Vote Democratic!" if you are not convinced.

Five Simple Reasons to Vote Democrat!

2006-11-02T22:13:00.000-08:00

1) Support our troops by bringing them home.

Do not let another soldier die in an out-of-control war, founded on lies, that is serving little more than to multiply our enemies and breed jihadists like roaches.

2) Stop funding terrorism and global armageddon!

We do not need to be giving ludicrous amounts of money to Islamic Fundamentalists who refer to us as The Infidel. Reduce our dependence on countries that are run by Extremists by supporting the party that will actually invest in alternatives to the fossil fuel we obtain from them. I can not stress how important this is. Alternative energy should be the number one issue right now, for other obvious reasons as well (watch "An Inconvenient Truth," about the apocalyptic dangers of global warming and its link to natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina, if you have not already! These are not Biblical end times, these are end times that we are bringing upon ourselves in a very real way).

3) Prevent a return to the Dark Ages.

Do not let radical ideologies stand in the way of scientific progress that benefits us all. Do not be fooled about stem cell research! The so-called Religious Right has tried to make this into a moral issue, but you know what? They know the truth and they are counting on the fact that you do not. This is a political issue that has been invented to polarize us. This is not a question of science fiction worthy baby farms. The method called nuclear transfer technique involves an unfertilized egg (the kind that a woman loses each month when she menstruates!) with a different nucleus injected into it. And the 5-day-old blastocysts used in the in vitro method are excess fertilized eggs that have been taken from fertility clinics, where they would otherwise be discarded! Do you know someone who has heart disease? Diabetes? Parkinson's disease? Cancer? AIDS? Why deny them the right to a cure?

4) Show the rest of the world that we are not as stupid as we've made ourselves look in the last six years.

This is a popular video that's been circling the internet. Gosh, I don't know... Does it seem like maybe we need to STOP MAKING CUTS TO EDUCATION so that we can fund 177-million-dollar-a-day wars?

5) Think of your children, and your children's children.

What sort of world do you want to provide them with? What do you want them to see on the news 20 years from now? What sort of air do you want them to breathe? What resources do you want them to have at their disposal? What opportunities? Support the party with a vision for the future that is more far-reaching than the immediate material gain of the privileged few.

For more reasons, see the Democratic Party's 6 Point Plan for 2006.

Evolution Schmevolution

2005-09-11T12:49:00.000-07:00

I think we all need some comic relief. I know I do. Just in time, I hear that Comedy Central is presenting a special week-long report on The Daily Show called "Evolution Schmevolution." Monday through Friday at 10 PM / 11 PM Central. Sure to piss off and delight.

The Power of Prayer and Psychedelics

2005-08-03T22:48:00.000-07:00

In the news recently, a worldwide study about the healing power of prayer found no significant difference between the recovery of sick patients having strangers pray for them, and sick patients without the prayer treatment. This included prayer groups from several Eastern and Western religions and denominations, and the patients did not know whether they were being prayed for or not.

The study also states, "A growing body of evidence has found that religious people tend to be healthier than average, and that people who pray when they are ill are likely to fare better than those who do not." However, this is referring to people who pray for themselves. It makes sense, in any situation, that prayer would benefit the person praying more than it would the person being prayed for. For one, religious activities like repetitive chanting have been found to block sensory information in the part of the brain that tells us where our body ends and the rest of the world begins. In another recent article, this is compared to a feeling that the self is "endless and intimately interwoven with everyone and everything." Reducing stress has been shown to help people get and stay healthy, and if anything is going to reduce stress, what better than a "universal, unifying thread of love"? Of course, you could take Ecstasy and feel the same thing.

No Doubt About It

2005-07-21T00:50:00.000-07:00

Sorry for the long internet silence again (I am attempting to condense a spacious one-bedroom apartment in northern California into a tiny, cramped room in L.A. - hello eBay, goodbye hordes of childhood toys).

I just came across this L.A. Times article, inappropriately titled "A Time of Doubt for Atheists." Yes, we are being assaulted by the commercialization of Jesus everywhere we look, but doubt has no place here. "A Time of Outrage" or "A Time of Bewilderment" or, for some, "A Time of Mild Irritation" would be more appropriate.

Doubt.

It seems that every time I tell someone I'm an atheist, they attempt to make an argument that there is no such thing. "Surely you must believe in something. You believe that we're standing here having this conversation, right? Then you're not an atheist." This logic escapes me. An atheist is not, by definition, someone who does not believe in anything. An experience that can be recorded scientifically, such as exchanging vocal sounds with another human being, is not the same as an imagined conversation in which God or Satan tells you to put on a green sweater and kill your neighbor's dog. Equally absurd is the agnostic argument: "How can you know that God doesn't exist? How can you truly claim to be an atheist?" I admit, I have seen terrible paintings of unicorns frolicking in the clouds, but I don't think that they should be studied in zoology, alongside the zebra and the gazelle. And I have read Peter Pan, but I don't believe in fairies. Tinkerbell may not make it, but we don't need her to. We can make do without her. We always have, in reality.

When Mormon Insects Attack!

2005-06-01T23:22:00.000-07:00

I just returned from the City of Angels, and don't have time for a long post yet, but here, at the very least, is my favorite news headline of the day: Mormon Crickets Begin Assault in Nevada . I'm picturing them in short-sleeved white shirts and ties, riding tiny bicycles and bearing Bibles made of leaves. In related news, Mormon leader Brigham Young was born on this very date in 1801.....Coincidence?? Or is he sending this plague of crickets to wreak havoc on non-believers from beyond the grave?? And what better state to attack than Nevada, with its legal gambling and prostitution? What does it all mean.....?

An Interlude of Vonnegut

2005-05-04T00:01:00.000-07:00

"... This is a hard world to be ludicrous in, with so many human beings so reluctant to laugh, so incapable of thought, so eager to believe and snarl and hate...Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith, I consider a capacity for it terrifying and absolutely vile!" -- Kurt Vonnegut, Jr., from Mother Night

Here is an interesting post on a Libertarian blog yesterday, comparing Vonnegut's 1952 novel Player Piano (in which the U.S., in a corporate command economy resulting from a war, has become so technologically advanced that most humans have become obsolete) to the present state of affairs here in the States.

And on the subject of sainthood, here is a quote from a speech to college students, reprinted in In These Times:

"A sappy woman sent me a letter a few years back. She knew I was sappy, too, which is to say a lifelong northern Democrat in the Franklin Delano Roosevelt mode, a friend of the working stiffs. She was about to have a baby, not mine, and wished to know if it was a bad thing to bring such a sweet and innocent creature into a world as bad as this one is. I replied that what made being alive almost worthwhile for me, besides music, was all the saints I met, who could be anywhere. By saints I meant people who behaved decently in a strikingly indecent society. Perhaps some of you are or will become saints for her child to meet."

That sounds about right to me.

Pope, pope, pope, pope, POPE.

2005-04-21T23:42:00.000-07:00

I just read this in one of the many articles about the newly appointed pope:

"...All agree that he is strongly rooted in church traditions and inflexible on issues such as the church's bans on contraception and women priests."

Well, that's just dandy, isn't it? I'm not pro-abortion by any means. Because I don't believe in an afterlife in the sense that a Christian does, life itself is very precious to me. In a perfect world, women wouldn't need to have abortions. Pregnancies would all be planned in advance. Babies would be born to mothers who were ready for them and able to support them. Contraception is one of the most important advances ever made by the civilized world; not to acknowledge that is outright barbaric.

The ban on women priests irks me as well, for obvious reasons. No progress here. Let's all just stagnate, or better yet, let's regress to the Dark Ages.

April Foolery

2005-04-01T17:38:00.000-08:00

I heard from a friend of mine earlier today that the Pope was dead. This news apparently came from NPR. Oh, NPR, you silly April Foolers! Of course, he probably will be dead before the day is over, but really, now....

Gay Messiah

2005-03-31T16:11:00.000-08:00

I like my music like I like my men, drunk and gay. So of course I enjoyed Rufus Wainwright's latest, Want Two. He has really always sounded to me like a flamboyant, heavily medicated Elvis Costello. Which is good. Really. This is one of those CD's, like Want One, that I can put on while trying to read or write, and find that I've drifted off in the middle of a sentence and become lost in the music instead. It defies attempts at being relegated to the background. You will find yourself sighing and shaking your head in wonder at so much talent in such an alarmingly young man (damn, what did I do with my early twenties?). He sings convincingly and touchingly from the viewpoint of a middle-aged woman in "Art Teacher." And who else could get away with the lyrics in "Gay Messiah," a tongue-in-cheek attack on the Religious Right: "He will then be reborn/From 1970's porn/Wearing tubesocks with style/And such an innocent smile." Oh, Rufus.

"What the #$*! Do We Know!?" Still very little.

2005-03-30T21:46:00.000-08:00

I just watched the DVD of "What the #$*! Do We Know!?" and found this examination of quantum physics and consciousness both touching and annoying. I can appreciate the sentiment and the enthusiasm that went into the making of this film, and yes, I found myself wanting to believe while looking at Masaru Emoto's images of water crystals which had been subjected to emotional "vibrations," that I really could positively affect the world around me just by giving meditational thanks to the water that makes up 70 percent of it. And to some extent, what the film aims to teach us is true. We do create and manipulate the world around us through our own consciousness. We sometimes see what we want to, what we are conditioned to, and disregard the rest (this includes inventing things that are not really there, though, as well as missing things that are). This film is obviously an exuberant labor of love, and as far as the views espoused on religion and spirituality, I see them as fairly healthy, and perhaps even reasonable if interpreted in the right way. Just fast forward through the inane CGI animated sequences. Really, I would have enjoyed this film more if the whole subplot involving Marlee Matlin and her vapid, free-spirited friend had been cut entirely.

In conclusion, although some of the theories presented in the film may not hold up to scrutiny, who really cares? Be positive, be curious, and be aware of your "emotional addictions" - hey, why the #$*! not? Just don't throw down too much dough for those New Agey seminars......

A Misanthropist's Wet Dream

2005-02-13T17:40:00.000-08:00

Another highlight of this month's Discover magazine is an article called "Earth Without People." If the human population was wiped from the Earth, apparently, other carnivorous mammals would flourish (lions and tigers and bears, oh my!), while the populations of domesticated animals, rats, and cockroaches would disappear. Cultivated plants would return to their ancestral forms. Bridges and dams would collapse. Nuclear reactors would leak radioactivity into rivers, but in 20,000 years glaciers would "scrape the landscape clean." I'm not a misanthropist per se, but there is something comforting in all of this...

More Proof that Evolution Works

2005-01-16T18:58:00.000-08:00

To the dismay of creationists everywhere, scientists at Michigan State University have not only created digital life forms, but have watched them breed and evolve into more complex organisms. Each organism begins as a string of commands, similar to a computer virus, and can produce tens of thousands of copies of itself within minutes. A software program called Avida, which is available for free download here, tracks the birth, life, death, and mutations of generations of these organisms. Among the scientists' findings: organisms with either an insufficient or an overabundant supply of food were less likely to evolve the capability to perform an equals operation (comparing 2 binary numbers bit by bit to see if they are the same) than those with intermediate food levels. Asexual organisms were more likely to develop lethal mutations than their digital counterparts who reproduced "sexually" (swapping parts of their code with another organism to produce "offspring"). And in what I think was the most interesting find, when they tried to keep the organisms from adapting (by killing off those with beneficial mutations), the digital organisms outwitted them by evolving a way to tell when they were about to be tested, and essentially playing dead by not processing any numbers at those times. Another question this brings up is: could there be non-DNA-based life out there which we are overlooking, and should we alter our search for life on other planets accordingly? More on this can be found in the February issue of Discover Magazine (at newsstands soon, or at their website after February 1st).

Ohio's hilarious electoral hijinks!

2005-01-16T17:39:00.000-08:00

In an update of my last post, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) has agreed to join House Democrats in filing an objection to counting Ohio's electoral votes. Thank you to anyone reading this who wrote to her urging this move. Here are some excerpts from her speech to the Senate:

"Every citizen of this country who is registered to vote should be guaranteed that their vote matters, that their vote is counted, and that in the voting booth of their community, their vote has as much weight as the vote of any Senator, any Congressperson, any President, any cabinet member, or any CEO of any Fortune 500 corporation...

Our democracy is the centerpiece of who we are as a nation. And it is the fondest hope of all Americans that we can help bring democracy to every corner of the world. As we try to do that, and as we are shedding the blood of our military to this end, we must realize that we lose so much credibility when our own electoral system needs so much improvement. Yet, in the past four years, this Congress has not done everything it should to give confidence to all of our people that their votes matter..."

Read the rest here.

Ask Not What Your Country Can Do For You...

2005-01-04T21:46:00.000-08:00

Feeling disenfranchised? As if your vote did not - and never will - count? Lost faith in your Congressional and/or Senatorial representatives? Read on, then. As in 2000, House Democrats plan to show their misgivings over Bush's re-election by contesting Ohio's electoral votes. This is mostly a symbolic gesture and will not reverse the outcome of the election, but it will show that we will not stand idly by and let voters be disenfranchised through intimidation or any other means - be it a dirth of polls in minority communities, polls opening late and causing excruciatingly long lines, or the malfunction/manipulation of computer voting systems. As in 2000, the dissenting House Democrats need a Senator to stand up and back them, and once again they do not have one. Should you write to your Senator? No. Waste of time. You should write to my Senator, Barbara Boxer, who is the only hope for this cause, and who has said she is "considering it." You may be asking yourself, "Why should I take a minute of my time to do this when Bush has already won the election?" It is true that Dubya will be appointed C.E.O. of the country again on January 20th (which is, by the way, National Not One Damn Dime Day). However, this small protest will help to show that we will not just roll over and be kicked in the gut repeatedly by the Religious Right and their cronies. Rant here. Thank you.

Dogville: What is arrogance? What is forgivable?

2004-12-29T01:26:00.000-08:00

Now that the latest Lars von Trier film Dogville has been out on DVD for some time, I won't feel guilty about giving away the ending here. This film opens rather awkwardly, with jarring theatricality (the set is essentially a black stage with white chalk marking where walls and doors and bushes should be. It looks like a giant architect's blue print as we see it from above). I thought that there was no way I could make it through almost three hours of this, but I was quickly proven wrong when Grace (Nicole Kidman) entered the scene as a woman on the run from gangsters and seeking refuge in the small town. I say "seeking refuge," but in actuality she refuses it at first. She will not even accept the piece of bread offered to her by one of the townspeople because she has stolen a bone from one of their dogs and feels she must punish herself for this. As soon as this outsider shows up, something about the town changes. The stagy set becomes more and more real as we are thrown into her predicament; one actually begins to see the cloudlike outlines on the ground as gooseberry bushes, or the row of wooden frames as a mine. By the end of the film I was completely absorbed, and I would dare say emotionally invested.

Mostly, though, I am interested in the philosophical nature of this film. In her efforts to please the townspeople and be accepted by them as a friend, Grace becomes essentially a slave to them. Their demands on her become more and more absurd as it becomes apparent that she needs their hospitality, but the idealistic Grace continues to think of them as good country folk. She is scapegoated and degraded in just about every possible way. When the townspeople finally turn her in bruised and battered to the gangsters who had come looking for her, thinking that she will be killed and they will be rewarded, we find out that she has been keeping her true identity secret. In my favorite scene from the film, she has an argument with one of the gangsters about which one of them is more arrogant. She claims that he is, for "plundering as if it were a God-given right." His counter is this: "You forgive others with excuses that you would never in the world permit yourself...You hold the notion that nobody can possibly attain the same high ethical standard as you, so you exonerate them. I can not think of anything more arrogant than that." He says that Grace sympathizes with murderers and rapists if they were brought up under difficult circumstances, but he calls them dogs. She argues, "Dogs only obey their own nature - so why shouldn't we forgive them?" Finally, and I think this is where he really begins to convince her, he tells her that "the penalty you deserve for your transgressions, they deserve for theirs." Grace would never forgive herself if she had acted in the way that the people of Dogville had; she knows this. In the end, the only resident of the town who is spared in her vengeance is the dog. One of the gangsters is about to shoot it, but she tells him, "No - he's just angry because I once took his bone."

What is forgivable in a dog is not as forgivable in a human. This scene reminded me of something Dostoevsky said in The Brothers Karamazov: "A beast can never be so cruel as a man - so ingeniously, so artistically cruel. A tiger merely gnaws and tears to pieces, that's all he knows. It would never occur to him to nail men's ears to a fence and leave them like that overnight, even if he were able to do it." This could be seen as a view conflicting with Von Trier's, but I think they are basically the same in the end. As humans we have the capacity for horrifying cruelty, and perhaps it is in our nature, but it is something that we can and should overcome. More should be expected of us. A dog is a dog, innocence incarnate. We are not dogs.

Pagans: On to Something?

2004-12-23T23:09:00.000-08:00

The standard small talk of the month always begins with, "Do you have plans for the holidays?" I politely answer that I'll be spending them with family, because this is true. Although I do not come from a religious family, I do understand the psychological need for a holiday this time of year. The days are getting shorter and darker, and there is a need for human warmth to combat the cold lurking just outside the window. We see bare, grey trees and we are reminded of our finite nature. It's easy to be overcome by despair. I think this is why so many cultures have a tradition of family gatherings at the beginning of winter. Before Christmas, Hanukkah, and Kwanzaa, there was the Winter Solstice. If more recent religions had not dreamt up December holidays of their own, it would have been difficult to compete with and convert those pagans, don't you think? This week, I plan to spend as much time as I can with good friends, stay away from the mall at all costs, and drink as much mulled wine as I can get away with. Those are my plans.

Secular Holiday Songs?

2004-12-17T01:04:00.000-08:00

I spend a great deal - probably too much - of my spare time making compilation CD's - not just random comp CD's, mind you - themed ones (examples from the past include "Love Songs for a Robot," "Gross! Perv Out!," and "Buttered Britpopcorn"). Knowing this, my boss asked me to make a "Christmas CD" to be played at work over and over again from now until the big day. Was I offended? No! I was thrilled that she had chosen me. Visions of the Nightmare Before Christmas soundtrack danced in my head. Oh, and who can forget "I'm the One Who Gunned Santa Down" by Deadbolt? She must have seen the conspiratorial gleam in my eye, though, because she added, "Just make sure they're all appropriate." So I bring you this, my semi-appropriate, semi-secular "Winter Solstice Compilation." Sneak this into the CD player at work to replace that Clay Aiken Christmas CD that's been in heavy rotation. Please let me know if you have any suggestions to add to this (obviously this subject is not my forte').....:

"It May Be Winter Outside," Barry White
"Skating," instrumental from A Charlie Brown Christmas
"You're a Mean One, Mr. Grinch," Boris Karloff
"Winter: Lux Aeterna" from the Requiem for a Dream soundtrack
"Baby, it's Cold Outside," Dean Martin
"Hazy Shade of Winter," Simon & Garfunkel
"Jingle Bell Rock," Bobby Helms
"Gift of the Magi," Squirrel Nut Zippers (based on the O. Henry story)
"Winter Wonderland," Louis Armstrong
"Alan Parsons in a Winter Wonderland," Grandaddy (the title says it all)
"December will be Magic Again," Kate Bush
"Let it Snow, Let it Snow, Let it Snow," Eydie Gorme & Steve Lawrence
"Home of the Sugar Plum Fairy," Spike Jones
"Frosty the Snowman," Cocteau Twins
"Kidnap the Sandy Claws," from The Nightmare Before Christmas soundtrack
"A Fairytale of New York," The Pogues (warning: contains some foul language)
"Winter A Go-Go," Yo La Tengo
"Santa, go Straight to the Ghetto," James Brown (I just like the sentiment of this)

and....?

THANK YOU, National Geographic!

2004-11-30T02:10:00.000-08:00

I first picked up the November issue of National Geographic at my Christian chiropractor's office, among the religious magazines. It caught my eye because in big, red letters on the cover is the question: WAS DARWIN WRONG? I held my breath as I opened it, wondering, has the Far Right gotten ahold of this rather mainstream magazine? The first page of the article began with the same question, nothing else, but there it was, on the second page, in marvelously large capital letters: NO. Then it goes on to say: "The evidence for Evolution is overwhelming." Just scanning through the pages, one can immediately see bold headings such as "Skeptics of evolutionary theory ask: CAN WE SEE EVOLUTION IN ACTION? Can it be observed in the wild? Can it be measured in the laboratory? The answer is yes." Basically, the gist of this impressively researched cover article is that Evolution is not some fringe theory, it is cold, hard scientific FACT.

It made me almost giddy to see National Geographic take the dangerous stance of Reason, but as I read on I saw some statistics that made my giddy little bubble burst. In a 2001 Gallup poll, for instance, "no less than 45 percent of responding U.S. adults agreed that 'God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.'" WHAT THE @#&%??? That's 45 PERCENT, people!! For one thing, humans existed in their present form at least 160,000 years ago, and human ancestors can be traced back anywhere from 3.5 to 6 million years! Here's more from National Geographic: "Only 37 percent of the polled Americans were satisfied with allowing room for both God and Darwin...Still fewer Americans, only 12 percent, believed that humans evolved from other life-forms without any involvement of a god. Here's an even more recent breakdown of the numbers, in terms of Bush voters vs. Kerry voters, on CBS News. These percentages terrify me as they are, and if Republicans have their way, we will only become more and more ignorant as a nation.

The National Geographic article closes by talking about a Russian man with drug-resistant tuberculosis. Here is the very last sentence (italics are my own): "He hopes that God will help him, but evolution-based science is what guides the search for an earthly cure." If you can find a copy of this issue, I highly recommend it not only for its historic value, but some rather exceptional photo spreads as well. National Geographic, I commend you.

Sailors, Silliness, Satanism

2004-11-21T01:59:00.000-08:00

A friend recently printed out this article in The Guardian (London) about a naval technician who has "been granted permission to practise his faith on board a Royal Navy frigate in the U.K." (Nevermind that the U.S. military has recognized his religion since the 1960's - apparently any religion is better than none). Leading Hand Cranmer's faith just happens to be Satanism, the silliness of which is revealed in passages like this from Anton LaVey's Satanic Bible: "I am a thrusting rod with head of iron, drawing to me myriad nymphs, tumescent in their craving!" The tone of the Guardian article is rather cheeky, but really, the practices that are mentioned in it are no more absurd than certain practices of Christianity. Curious, I visited the Church of Satan website, and was stricken not with fear, but with how...seventies it all is. It seems almost innocent - icky perhaps, but somehow innocent - with its ultra-hetero "free love" indulgences, in the era of speed dating and atrocities like Paris Hilton. I mean, really, you'll see much more disturbing things in a strip club in Portland (or so I hear), not to mention on the daily news. The modern Church of Satan seems to have put a warm and fuzzy face - maybe even a clown face at times - on the Left-Hand Path, and advocates things like "kindness to animals and children." For the most part, this modern version of Satanism seems to be rather passive and accepting of people from other walks of life, and for that reason I find it much, much less terrifying than Christianity or Islam...

Waiting for Santa

2004-11-19T20:18:00.000-08:00

Three times today I was told that I looked "Christmasy" (red velvet coat, white angora hat...), and finally it hit me: it's holiday shopping season again. I suppose I had been trying not to notice all the little Santas painted on the windows of furniture shops, and the plastic nativity scenes sharing space with lawn gnomes. This is the time of year that I am inevitably confronted with a line of starry-eyed children waiting to sit on Santa's lap at the mall (I can only stay away from Borders and Ross for so long). What I would really like to do is stand on a table in the food court and yell into a megaphone: "Don’t hold your breath for that new pony, kids, or that swimming pool, because Santa DOES NOT EXIST, and soon neither will the middle class...You can thank your hard-working parents for the gifts you'll get under the tree." But no, I don't think the parents would appreciate my giving them credit where credit is due. They would rather that their children find out later on about this little trickery, and be as baffled by it as they are when they find out that no, Christopher Columbus did not really discover America, we're just taught that because - well, because...we need to justify the holiday, after all.

Anyways, I'd like to take this time to thank my mother for raising me without child support, and for those My Little Ponies I got as a kid.

I Heart I Heart Huckabees

2004-11-18T02:23:00.000-08:00

Kids, you don't have to smoke cloves and dress from head to toe in black to appreciate Existentialism. Most people seem intimidated by the very mention of it, and yet here is Existentialism for the masses...sort of. At least, I'm hoping that the star power of Mark Wahlberg and Naomi Watts draws the unsuspecting public to this film. I remember the first time I picked up a book by Sartre, at fifteen - that feeling of (ironically) camaraderie and exhilaration... I left the theatre after "Huckabees" feeling much the same thing: rejuvenated, inspired, ready to face the world again...I needed something to cheer me up after the presidential election results, and this was it. There is one scene in particular, in which Wahlberg and Watts' characters share a sort of epiphany, which I think is one of the most touching "love scenes" to be filmed in recent years. Here's a little preview: I Heart Huckabees.

Bush vs. Kerry on Science

2004-11-12T14:08:00.000-08:00

Here's an interesting article from Discover magazine looking at Bush and Kerry's track records when it comes to supporting - or impeding- the sciences:

Bush vs. Kerry on Science

Highlights:
"No one can ignore that the number of scientists who say research is being influenced by right-wing ideology is increasing."
"Under Bush, the military share [of the research budget] has climbed to 57 percent of the total and is budgeted for further growth."
"Kerry noted that the president “has repeatedly questioned the underlying science of climate change and attempted to reignite the debate over whether the threat is real.” Kerry pointed out that Bush’s position [on the Kyoto protocol] conflicted with the findings of distinguished scientific bodies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 'a scientific panel founded at the behest of his own father.'"
"Kerry and his colleagues emphasized that embryos in excess of fertility needs at in vitro clinics are routinely destroyed. 'We ought to realize their promise of life,' the senators wrote, 'rather than lose it altogether.'"

Bush Sees Re-election as Mandate for More Tax Breaks for the Rich, War with France, and the Burning of All Books That Mention Evolution

2004-11-10T02:36:00.000-08:00

I find it unnerving that as Democrats consider strategies for the next time around, the main consensus seems to be that they should focus more on “moral values” and try harder to court fundamentalist Christians in the South. I find a plethora of things unnerving right about now, as you can imagine. For starters, that word keeps cropping up, “values.” Not values, as in compassion and mercy for those with less than us, an attempt to understand and accept those who are different, and careful stewardship of the land to preserve it for future generations. If these were considered by the general populace to be “values,” as they are to me, John Kerry would have been elected. Apparently “values” as used in this context refers only to denying a woman the right to choose an abortion even in the case of, say, rape by a family member, denying gay couples the right to marry, and denying the sick and dying the right to a cure through stem-cell research. The Bush campaign really has to be commended for convincing us Americans that keeping a couple of guys from making out with each other is more important than the fact that more and more of our jobs are being outsourced to other countries with the help of our government, and that we are making an utter ass of ourselves around the world and losing the support of allies. Religion truly is proving itself to be the opiate of the people…