Go Stewart go!

Kudos to The Daily Show for showing some equality in dishing out criticism. After Keith Olbermann made some weak and uncalled for comments about the new Senator from Massachusetts, Stewart calls him out for stooping too low.

Here is a video of the exchange:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZylQXm-vis

Stewart deserves two cheers in this instance; he not only called out a clearly over-the-top Olbermann, but he managed to find the time to do this when the conservative media monster is spewing out garbage at a staggering pace. Perhaps you've heard the latest from Glenn Beck and Fox Noise:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ooPOmlm81Ro

I really wish hucksters like these would just shut their faces, or better yet, we all just start calling a spade a spade, and stop tuning into these clowns. They wouldn't last a week if we all just starting ignoring them, as we should, based on their dishonesty.

People like Olbermann and Beck (you know the rest of the list) are nothing more than "news commentators", they are not even legit news dudes. They have ZERO responsibility to be honest or even semi-factual. Hell, even the real news people have no obligation to report news accurately, and all these clowns do is "comment" on the "news" they hear! Yet, they are the voices that deliver "information" into the heads of voters, most of which may even believe that that their favorite commentator is being something akin to realistic or objective.

Self censorship and irrationality

I spend a good bit of time wondering how people can come to hold clearly false beliefs. How can two people look at a normal object, like a tree for example, and come to two radically different conclusions about how that tree came to be. How can two people hold two incompatible views about the same object? Surely, someone is wrong; perhaps both views are not entirely correct. I always scratch my head when both sides claim to have "facts" or "evidence" to backup their claim.

I think that, in part, the reason we have this kind of thing stems from the methods used by some people in gathering information (obvious I know but stick with me). If one person only takes in supporting data, and rejects or marginalizes opposing data, of course their view is going to be irrational. If I believe that our example tree is here because "magic man done it", and in turn only take in information that supports my belief, it follows that my view will be flawed.

It is a common practice of people to only take in supporting information, and find reasons to reject or downplay information that opposes their view. In fact, most people I interact with fall victim to this wish thinking in one or more aspects of their lives. I have heard some pretty interesting justifications for people's prejudices or preconceived notions; ranging from clearly corrupt to absolutely illogical. Rejection of the real world has become its own art form. People will do intellectual back-flips and contradict themselves, time after time, in attempting to explain their ignorant behavior, or their flawed logic.

Take the "christian nation" assertion as an example. To anyone that can read this claim is not supported by reality; but if a mind has been correctly indoctrinated, it is a tenable position. A properly indoctrinated person will really shock you with their crazy supporting ideas. Evidence, logic, reality, indeed all the tools we rely on, go right out the window. Some people will tell you that the word "god" appears in our constitution, when they can look for themselves and plainly see it does not, let alone does it appear in any fashion that establishes their god as the official god of the nation. I have even heard that bible passages appear in our constitution! Even if they were, that would not even begin to establish any one of the thousands of forms of christianity as the official religion of the US. This illogicality is spread and supported by half-truths, propaganda, and outright lies. To any functioning mind, this idea holds no water, but to a severely corrupted mind, it is reality.

Forget your wish thinking and illogicalities, embrace reason -- choose your brain.

Evangelical morality

A common message we hear from the faithful is that their religion and dogmas are useful, or beneficial. A common assertion is that their religion is relevant because of the morality it brings to its followers. They normally back this assertion up with a good dose of "Atheists can't be moral" or some other clearly false statement that is derived from Psalm 14:1.

After hearing this propaganda for a few years one has to really wonder: who really believes this stuff? Growing up in working class middle America, the more disturbing forms of abuse thrived in those homes that were filled with the faithful. Indeed, the very worst form of child abuse (sexual) was observed ONLY in christian homes in my neighborhood. In the name of intellectual honesty, I wanted to see more information on morality in religion, since my evidence thus far was anecdotal. I wanted to see how divorce rates, abuses, addictions, and other issues in the religious sectors stacked against secular sectors.

The results, of course, were predictable. Not only did religion completely fail to elevate people's basic moralities, it failed to even produce standard levels of basic morality. The faithful were just as likely, and in some cases more likely, to behave in ways that defy common understandings of morals. All the while, theists routinely assert that the reality is the quite the opposite -- and in doing so they illustrate the corrosive affect of faith on the human ability to reason. Theists will reject facts and evidence, and simply assert their own beliefs no matter how unsupported they are; and in the same breath demand respect for their views.

I am happy to say that I'm not one of those that respects this cult, this wish thinking, this irrational and illogical myth. I treat a theist's beliefs with the same respect I would show to someone who told me they still believe in the tooth faerie. This mental disorder should be treated with ridicule and contempt until those that cling to it realize exactly what they are doing; projecting an image of a father figure onto some entity that they have zero evidence for believing in. So long as there are illogical people that look at the Haiti earthquakes as "god's will" or a "blessing in disguise" there will be people like me that will hold the line against their stupidity.

If you are interested in reading some non-bullshit literature on the subject I would suggest:

"The Authoritarians" can be had (for free!) from: http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

State of the Union

After listening to our President's State of the Union address I have a few quick thoughts:

1. It rocks to have a President that can complete whole sentences and understands public speaking.

2. I couldn't agree more about how some of our elected officials, and most of our pundits, are shaming our politics with their juvenile smears and useless bickering. Keith Olbermann and others -- he was talking to you.

3. He points out the obstructionist methods some of our delegates have used, and are using, to slow or halt necessary legislation. More importantly, he pointed out how these actions lead the nation to lose faith in our politician's ability to solve issues. He nailed that one right on the nose.

4. Is it just me, or do the republicans seem to have very few delegates that are not strictly white and male?

5. All sides should pay more attention to the Congressional Budget Office when looking for numbers or data pertaining to an issue; leave the number fabrication to fringe figures and others who have zero responsibility to be honest. *cough Jason Lewis cough*

6. You have to be thankful to live in a country like ours. There is no military dictator presiding over these functions, there is more than one party in power to ensure that no side is too heavily favored, and open debate is allowed, in both private and public, about what the President says. I fucking love America.

Sunday double!

Since Sunday is the day of rest, I would like to stir the pot by doing double posts on God's holy day. Yes, I know Sunday is only one of three holy days on which God told us to rest, but doing doubles on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday is just too much; even if the parties of God claim all three. Don't blame me for their confusion.

Let's talk about the christian sense of acceptance and tolerance. We all hear that the faithful are open-minded, welcoming, forgiving, etc. Then we see this:

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2009/11/13/Atheist-billboard-is-moved-after-threats/UPI-87491258091561/

Atheists rent a billboard, and display a non-aggressive, insult free, and harmless message; and within just two days the owner of the land on which the billboard sits receives threats that were substantial enough to warrant the message be removed. Yeah, the threats are not leveled at the Atheists that rented the sign, or the owner of the sign -- but the poor guy that owns the property.

Are the faithful so insecure that they can't tolerate the idea of someone else being able to live their life without their space daddy? Is their sense of reality so warped they can't fathom the idea that other people may not share their wish thinking? Are they so scared by the presentation of such a reality that they would call for a Stalin-like censorship of someone else's right to free expression? Yes, yes, and yes.

Look, this is America, the first and only secular democracy this world has ever known. One of too few countries that recognize their citizen's right to freedom of expression outside of international law. In this country, you can't be dragooned into silence simply because the state, or a small group within the country, decides they don't want you to be heard. Despite taking advantage of the freedoms granted by our First Amendment, the faithful are very quick to whine, kick, scream, and threaten, in an attempt to deny others those very same rights. This is shameful, childish, and just plain anti-liberty.

If a theist wants to rent a billboard that says "All atheists will burn in HELL!" I don't care. If some other crackpot wants to rent another sign saying "Join our religion of love and peace or suffer eternal damnation!" that is fine too. Just be ready to accept the same amount of hate you dished out. If you can't, then shut the fuck up.

In this case, the parties of god did not receive hate, or even ill will. They saw a sign that simply read: "Don't Believe In God? You are not alone." and just lost their minds, they went ape-shit on an innocent party to boot. They don't care what the message is, or who is responsible, if it isn't their message they want it taken out -- and fast.

Can you imagine what would happen if we showed this kind of censorship to these cultists? They would start crying like girls with skinned knees and demanding their right to free expression -- the same right to expression they are so quick to take away from others. Well fuck them and their fantasy land; if you don't like the freedom of speech, then try living without it for awhile and see how you like it. The freedoms put forward in our founding documents apply to not just you fucktards; they are for everyone, even the ones you hate.

We live in the twilight zone.

President Obama received some very unlikely support against the claims from far-right extremists like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh that he was trying to politicize the Haiti earthquakes in his favor. You know your smears are bad when someone like Bush won't get behind them.

It is surprising that in a literate culture like ours, extremists like Limbaugh and Beck even exist. How their followers have not noticed their insane comments, and written them off as a result, is beyond me.

It is like we are living in the twilight zone. A pundit like Beck hopes and prays for a financial depression, economic armageddon, so we can "reset" the system; then in the next shows tells his listeners that he, and they, are "the center" or "the norm". What?! You are praying for a financial fucking meltdown so you can remake the system in a way that you prefer? How is that principle any different than a far-left Marxists calling for the same? Or a military dictator hoping to have the same opportunity to rebuild a society in their vision?

It isn't. It is exactly the same thing.

Yet Beck and others insist they are normal, everyday people. Not insane political radicals that want to completely overhaul our current government into something they like better. They repeat this to their followers like a mantra, hoping like hell none of them break free and say the obvious:

"If your views are normal, why the fuck do they not resemble ANYTHING like the norm we observe now?"

Democracy sold: Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission

The recent Supreme Court ruling on the amount of money that corporations are allowed to spend on candidate elections has created quite some heat. The official ruling can be had here:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf

Basically, this spells out some RADICAL changes in democracy as we know it. Big business will no longer be restrained on how much money they care to throw into the political sphere. If you thought the average person's voice was being drown out already, you are in for a real shock when you see billions of formerly restricted dollars flood the political scene.

Jamie Raskin, an American law professor had the following to say:

"I looked at just one corporation, Exxon-Mobil, which is the biggest corporation in America; and in 2008 they posted profits of 85 billion dollars. If they decided to spend just 10% of their profits in just one year, that is 8.5 billion dollars, that would be three times more than the Obama campaign, the McCain campaign, and every candidate for house and senate in this country spent in 2008. That is just one corporation, so think about the fortune 500."

I don't have to point out that this is harmful to the democratic process, that much is obvious. What I want to know is:

Who in their right mind thought this would a good idea?

Ask your family and friends to summarize their thoughts on the control big business has on our politicians, I bet they will say what my family and friends say; corporations have too much influence on our legislation.

I guess the Supreme Court thought otherwise.