I received a call from my younger sister yesterday. “Santa, Alex will not brush his teeth,” were the first words out of her mouth. “I am so glad I don’t have children,” I replied. Apparently, neither one of us were on top of this conversation…yet. “Sant-UH, Alex will not brush his teeth.” A light bulb went off somewhere in the nether regions of my brain. “Oh, am I supposed to be Santa?” After chiding my sister that this kind of deception was unethical—lying only begets lying—I wholeheartedly played along. I could hear Alex in the background being obstinate and he only seemed to relent when he actually heard that his mother was in fact talking to someone. “Alex, do you want to talk to Santa?” my sister pushed after Alex came to this realization. “Noooo,” Alex demurred. This was an unfortunate turn of events as I thought how I could teach Alex and my sister a thing or two about Santa.
I imagined the conversation this way: “Ho, ho, ho, Alex! How are you little fellow? Say, your mommy tells me you aren’t brushing your teeth. Alex, brushing your teeth will make you big and strong, like your daddy! Mommy and Daddy know what is good for you, that’s why they ask you to do things like brush your teeth.” [By now, a four-year old’s attention span is waning, so you have to stay on top of the situation.] “Alex, you want presents don’t you? Of course you do! But you can’t get presents unless you do everything Mommy and Daddy tell you to do between now and Christmas. And, if you’re really good, Santa (that’s me, ho, ho, ho!) will bring you a motorcycle! Just like the one The Terminator rides! You’d like that, wouldn’t you, Alex? But don’t tell Mommy and Daddy I’ll get you these things or they might not get presents either. So be good, Alex!”
Perhaps after making several other promises Santa—or Alex’s parents—can’t possibly keep, I figure my sister would have a lot of explaining to do on Christmas morning. Thing is, I don’t quite get why the deception of Santa is necessary. Sure, it’s all magic and wonder; how does Santa visit all the little kid’s houses in one night? My question is this: Do parents think of Santa as a white lie, one that politely coerces children into behaving? I’m sure getting children to behave during the holidays is necessary, because it is a time that is particularly stressful, what with all the presents that must be bought for the children who, if you would just let them misbehave, wouldn’t get presents anyway (just a thought). Want to get children to behave? One word—squirt bottle. At least it works on my cat. In other words, the reasonable application of corporal punishment should be sufficient when dealing with unruly children. [Excuse me a moment while I kick the ass of some liberal douche-bag who thinks a world without punishments for broken rules would result in some sort of Utopia. I mean, it really depends on whether the rules are reasonable enough for everyone, something neither liberals nor conservatives ever consider. Anyway...]
I am a little disappointed that I almost participated in the deception. I am particularly disappointed that I didn’t consider some time ago that it would generate a lot of income to set up a 1-800 number that charges $2.99 a minute to call Santa for just these kinds of situations. If I’m going to compromise my ideals, I might as well make some money while I’m at it. I think in another universe somewhere, I am a well-paid lawyer.
Thursday, December 25, 2008
Friday, December 19, 2008
Aw, Hell
[Originally aired August 2008.]
As the thermometer topped 100 degrees in Portland today, I began wondering about Hell, and I'm not talking about another season of MTV's Real World. It was hot today, but was it hotter than Hell? After living in Tucson, AZ for seven years, a few 100 degree days in Portland is uncomfortable, sure, but hardly the end of the world. That got me thinking about what Hell might actually be like. However, before I get to that, an observation: I find it odd that people think their earthly life is so bad they have to imagine Heaven, so wouldn't that practically equate life on Earth with life in Hell for these same people? (It would make sense after all; life, what with its endless array of nuisances.) If life is so bad that people have to imagine Heaven beyond a life on Earth, do they need to even imagine Hell? I mean, if it could get worse (i.e., go to Hell) than why would anyone complain about their terrestrial downtime? I figure that if Hell were so bad, religious folk would be doing a lot more to avoid going there.
So what is Hell like that makes it such an uncompelling place to avoid? For most of us who grew up in the U.S., we're familiar with Hell as a fire and brimstone kinda place, where your flesh is seared off your bones on a daily basis, the only beer available is Budweiser, and Los Del Rio's Macarena is on eternal rotation. If the proprietor of Hell were a little more ingenious, I think Hell would be more like forever living out our worst fears. For example, a binge-eating bulimic who can't throw up. Nauseating, right? That said, I know what hell would be for me, but I don't know how other people imagine Hell, if they do at all. The whole concept doesn't seem to be thought out very well, for it doesn't seem to be much of a deterrent to bad behavior.
Similarly, what is so great about Heaven that I should want to go there? I've heard that you get to forever be in God's presence and that alone is worth the agony of living a pious life. However, this seems like it would get boring after a few days. For the gentlemen though, Islam is particularly attractive it seems; just martyr yourself and you'll wind up with a divine harem of virgins! (In Hell, the guy is awarded a harem but is afflicted with erectile dysfunction.) Yet questions remain: In Heaven, do I need free will anymore? If so, why? Can I do whatever I want in Heaven if I do have free will, such as commit evil (because I so would)? Are there activities, like shuffleboard, or Bingo? Will I be the young me, the old me, the way I am when I die, or simply disembodied? How big is Heaven? What's the weather like? Does God have an "open door" policy for handling complaints? I'm curious to know if anyone has really thought their visions of Heaven through.
I'll leave it at that for now. The computer is overheating, but that's not the weather's fault. It's just a Dell piece of crap, compliments of Satan. I would try to go on but…ack, BSOD!!
"The only Hell there is, is the one we're living in." Ron Ruiz, circa 1988; high school classmate and eventual penitentiary inhabitant.
As the thermometer topped 100 degrees in Portland today, I began wondering about Hell, and I'm not talking about another season of MTV's Real World. It was hot today, but was it hotter than Hell? After living in Tucson, AZ for seven years, a few 100 degree days in Portland is uncomfortable, sure, but hardly the end of the world. That got me thinking about what Hell might actually be like. However, before I get to that, an observation: I find it odd that people think their earthly life is so bad they have to imagine Heaven, so wouldn't that practically equate life on Earth with life in Hell for these same people? (It would make sense after all; life, what with its endless array of nuisances.) If life is so bad that people have to imagine Heaven beyond a life on Earth, do they need to even imagine Hell? I mean, if it could get worse (i.e., go to Hell) than why would anyone complain about their terrestrial downtime? I figure that if Hell were so bad, religious folk would be doing a lot more to avoid going there.
So what is Hell like that makes it such an uncompelling place to avoid? For most of us who grew up in the U.S., we're familiar with Hell as a fire and brimstone kinda place, where your flesh is seared off your bones on a daily basis, the only beer available is Budweiser, and Los Del Rio's Macarena is on eternal rotation. If the proprietor of Hell were a little more ingenious, I think Hell would be more like forever living out our worst fears. For example, a binge-eating bulimic who can't throw up. Nauseating, right? That said, I know what hell would be for me, but I don't know how other people imagine Hell, if they do at all. The whole concept doesn't seem to be thought out very well, for it doesn't seem to be much of a deterrent to bad behavior.
Similarly, what is so great about Heaven that I should want to go there? I've heard that you get to forever be in God's presence and that alone is worth the agony of living a pious life. However, this seems like it would get boring after a few days. For the gentlemen though, Islam is particularly attractive it seems; just martyr yourself and you'll wind up with a divine harem of virgins! (In Hell, the guy is awarded a harem but is afflicted with erectile dysfunction.) Yet questions remain: In Heaven, do I need free will anymore? If so, why? Can I do whatever I want in Heaven if I do have free will, such as commit evil (because I so would)? Are there activities, like shuffleboard, or Bingo? Will I be the young me, the old me, the way I am when I die, or simply disembodied? How big is Heaven? What's the weather like? Does God have an "open door" policy for handling complaints? I'm curious to know if anyone has really thought their visions of Heaven through.
I'll leave it at that for now. The computer is overheating, but that's not the weather's fault. It's just a Dell piece of crap, compliments of Satan. I would try to go on but…ack, BSOD!!
"The only Hell there is, is the one we're living in." Ron Ruiz, circa 1988; high school classmate and eventual penitentiary inhabitant.
Be Cause
~For the past ten weeks I have attended school downtown. During that time, I have been accosted innumerable times by activists on every street corner, day and night, whether I was coming or going. They wave at me frantically from twenty yards away so that I cannot pretend to avert my attention. Armed with their Shield-of-Justice (read: clipboard) and smiles that could melt the very ice-caps they are intent upon saving, they begin their spiel. "Hi, I'm Brandi! Help me fight global warming?"~
DIE!
No, Brandi (if that's your real name) I cannot help you fight global warming in the manner with which you would have me "help." I'm not giving you money and I'm not signing a petition to advance some ill defined measure on Capitol Hill that any evil corporation worth their salt can easily circumnavigate. You see, Brandi with an "i"—you cherry red-headed, peace-loving, iPod-grooving, Double Venti Cinnamon Latte slut who took up global warming as a cause because taking up slavery in the Congo is something you'd sooner see swept under the rug seeing how the silicon used to make your iPod comes from the Congo—If I actually cared about stopping global warming, I would actually do something relevant about it. I would be going to school to become an environmental or political scientist. Or, I would take up arms, raise an army, and overthrow China (while my country of origin refuses to sign the Kyoto Treaty). Or, I would stop myself and encourage everyone else from eating beef, soy, corn, and wheat. Unfortunately, I'm a philosophy major who'd rather address the problem of overpopulating the fucking rock we live on and the consequences of doing that, which is something no one wants to talk about because ARGH!, what good are we if we don't keep pumping out babies and raise them to be assholes like the assholes who are causing global warming? Brand"i", stop fighting a losing battle.
Let me tell you something else, Kelly Clipboard. Anyone over the age of twenty, a demographic I am clearly a part of, knows about climate change and doesn't need to be told what's up. If I were really interested in saving the Polar Bears, I'd contact Al Gore myself or at least pretend that turning off the lights when I leave a room is any help. No, no, I'm not giving you my personal info so that you can decide at some point to steal my identity, having determined that mugging for signatures on a street corner just doesn't pay as well as crime. I respect that you want a job and be useful at the same time. You do have other options. In other words, I don't want you to think that stripping isn't a job 'cause honey, that's your best bet when you see me coming.
Next time, I'm just going to tell you I'm for whatever you're trying to peddle. Global Warming? Who the hell wouldn't be for that? Brandi, sweety, have you ever been through a Russian winter? There are some people whom I'm sure would like the planet to heat up just a little fucking bit. So yeah, that's what I'm going to do. It'll be interesting to see how you react. Sorry I couldn't be of more assistance. Oh, but here are some kids with disposable income leaving Abercrombie & Fitch. I'm sure they're not up on the whole global warming thing. Smile and introdouche yourself to them. Me? I've got things to do. Look, there are some trees I can cut down…
DIE!
No, Brandi (if that's your real name) I cannot help you fight global warming in the manner with which you would have me "help." I'm not giving you money and I'm not signing a petition to advance some ill defined measure on Capitol Hill that any evil corporation worth their salt can easily circumnavigate. You see, Brandi with an "i"—you cherry red-headed, peace-loving, iPod-grooving, Double Venti Cinnamon Latte slut who took up global warming as a cause because taking up slavery in the Congo is something you'd sooner see swept under the rug seeing how the silicon used to make your iPod comes from the Congo—If I actually cared about stopping global warming, I would actually do something relevant about it. I would be going to school to become an environmental or political scientist. Or, I would take up arms, raise an army, and overthrow China (while my country of origin refuses to sign the Kyoto Treaty). Or, I would stop myself and encourage everyone else from eating beef, soy, corn, and wheat. Unfortunately, I'm a philosophy major who'd rather address the problem of overpopulating the fucking rock we live on and the consequences of doing that, which is something no one wants to talk about because ARGH!, what good are we if we don't keep pumping out babies and raise them to be assholes like the assholes who are causing global warming? Brand"i", stop fighting a losing battle.
Let me tell you something else, Kelly Clipboard. Anyone over the age of twenty, a demographic I am clearly a part of, knows about climate change and doesn't need to be told what's up. If I were really interested in saving the Polar Bears, I'd contact Al Gore myself or at least pretend that turning off the lights when I leave a room is any help. No, no, I'm not giving you my personal info so that you can decide at some point to steal my identity, having determined that mugging for signatures on a street corner just doesn't pay as well as crime. I respect that you want a job and be useful at the same time. You do have other options. In other words, I don't want you to think that stripping isn't a job 'cause honey, that's your best bet when you see me coming.
Next time, I'm just going to tell you I'm for whatever you're trying to peddle. Global Warming? Who the hell wouldn't be for that? Brandi, sweety, have you ever been through a Russian winter? There are some people whom I'm sure would like the planet to heat up just a little fucking bit. So yeah, that's what I'm going to do. It'll be interesting to see how you react. Sorry I couldn't be of more assistance. Oh, but here are some kids with disposable income leaving Abercrombie & Fitch. I'm sure they're not up on the whole global warming thing. Smile and introdouche yourself to them. Me? I've got things to do. Look, there are some trees I can cut down…
This is like, so annoying, and stuff
I don't know how it began. I don't know when people began doing it (circa Beavis and Butthead?) and exactly when I began to notice it. Now I hear it every time it is spoken, even when I do it myself. And I hate that I do it.
Sometimes I tell people I chose not to be an English major because I didn't want to be one of those people who always corrected people on their use of language. [That and because I'm my own worst editor.] Language is, after all, ever-changing and fluid. The children texting today are inevitably going to reshape the English language; this is to be expected. However, this is not reason enough to abuse language and speak in a manner that clearly demonstrates stupidity. "These ones," is a good example. Just say, "These." While criticizing someone to this end might incur something akin to wrath, this does not relieve them of wrong-doing because everyone does it. Nor is it about being anal. We have grammar rules so that we are able to know what is being talked about in a conversation. Moreover, if I were an employer, I would not hire someone who talked in such a manner. It is not correct and hence, not professional.
In the past month or so, I began to notice that people use the word "Like" in a manner completely unbefitting its meaning. I believe it acceptable to use the word when trying to approximate. For example, "She used the word 'like' like, 25 or 26 times in the course of our conversation," if you can't recall exactly how often she actually said it. And, of course it is always okay to use the word "like" when making an analogy. Here is when it is not okay: [Actual one-side of a phone conversation I overheard.] "Yeah, his birthday is like, on Saturday. He's cool. He's like, shy and stuff. But he's like, really funny." Well, IS his birthday Saturday or not? IS he shy or not? IS he really funny? Does she know this person at all?
Using "like" in this manner isn't even appropriate as an interjection in the same manner that "Um" is often used. "Um," is useful insofar that it allows a listener to digest what has just been said while preparing for what is about to be said. No one needs time to digest, "He's like, shy and stuff," before preparing to hear, "But he's like, really funny." I suppose talking in this manner wouldn't be so annoying if only a few people did it. But everyone does it! Even I do it, though I am getting better at catching it and sometimes stopping myself. If you take a few minutes to really listen to other people or yourself, you'll be amazed. It is insane how often you will hear "like" abused in the course of a five minute conversation.
"And stuff," is typically used in conjunction with "like." Wtf does "and stuff" mean? "He's like, shy and stuff"? What stuff? Shy and what, homicidal??" And stuff" doesn't tell me anything. I have no recourse but to ask, when "and stuff" is uttered, "What stuff?" Try it. It's LIKE a deer in the headlights.
Sometimes I tell people I chose not to be an English major because I didn't want to be one of those people who always corrected people on their use of language. [That and because I'm my own worst editor.] Language is, after all, ever-changing and fluid. The children texting today are inevitably going to reshape the English language; this is to be expected. However, this is not reason enough to abuse language and speak in a manner that clearly demonstrates stupidity. "These ones," is a good example. Just say, "These." While criticizing someone to this end might incur something akin to wrath, this does not relieve them of wrong-doing because everyone does it. Nor is it about being anal. We have grammar rules so that we are able to know what is being talked about in a conversation. Moreover, if I were an employer, I would not hire someone who talked in such a manner. It is not correct and hence, not professional.
In the past month or so, I began to notice that people use the word "Like" in a manner completely unbefitting its meaning. I believe it acceptable to use the word when trying to approximate. For example, "She used the word 'like' like, 25 or 26 times in the course of our conversation," if you can't recall exactly how often she actually said it. And, of course it is always okay to use the word "like" when making an analogy. Here is when it is not okay: [Actual one-side of a phone conversation I overheard.] "Yeah, his birthday is like, on Saturday. He's cool. He's like, shy and stuff. But he's like, really funny." Well, IS his birthday Saturday or not? IS he shy or not? IS he really funny? Does she know this person at all?
Using "like" in this manner isn't even appropriate as an interjection in the same manner that "Um" is often used. "Um," is useful insofar that it allows a listener to digest what has just been said while preparing for what is about to be said. No one needs time to digest, "He's like, shy and stuff," before preparing to hear, "But he's like, really funny." I suppose talking in this manner wouldn't be so annoying if only a few people did it. But everyone does it! Even I do it, though I am getting better at catching it and sometimes stopping myself. If you take a few minutes to really listen to other people or yourself, you'll be amazed. It is insane how often you will hear "like" abused in the course of a five minute conversation.
"And stuff," is typically used in conjunction with "like." Wtf does "and stuff" mean? "He's like, shy and stuff"? What stuff? Shy and what, homicidal??" And stuff" doesn't tell me anything. I have no recourse but to ask, when "and stuff" is uttered, "What stuff?" Try it. It's LIKE a deer in the headlights.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Heelarious? Heel NO!
Is capitalism evil? It is if you consider the following: A Seattle based company has fashioned high-heeled shoes for babies. I’m not joking and I’m not making this up. As jaded as I am (and contrary to popular opinion), I do have a conscious. I am literally disgusted. Dolled up, pimped out children in beauty pageants are one thing, but this crosses an unholy new line! But before I take action, I am going to ask myself whether or not this really matters. Maybe I’m just over reacting. What’s wrong with babies wearing high heeled shoes?
First of all, it’s simply unnecessary, at least from the baby’s point of view. What does a child gain from wearing such shoes? Babies really aren’t aware enough to care beyond the desire to chew on a shiny new object (the safety hazard the straps provide is reason enough to shelve the shoes). Nor will other babies care. So who cares? The parents do. Putting high heels on a baby says a lot about the people who would do something so ridiculous. It is an attempt by said parents to say,”Hey, look at my child, dammit! Look how cute not to mention how advantaged they are! That’s right, we’ve got so much money, we can afford to throw away $35 in this floundering economy! Clothes make the person, yessiree.” Carrie Bradshaw would be proud. The rest of us should be sick. There is no purposeful statement to be made here other than trying to keep up with the Joneses. Frankly, if the Joneses are the kind of people who thoughtlessly spend money to buy meaningless objects with which to fulfill their empty lives, I don’t want to know them or run in their social circle. [I understand the attractiveness of resources from an evolutionary perspective, but it seems sad to me that humans have evolved in that direction. It drives people to behave poorly.]
Secondly, I don’t like what it may potentially teach the child. Indeed, the afore mentioned Carrie Bradshaw may be a heroine to meager freelance columnists with poor relationship skills everywhere, but in reality children don’t need to be programmed to spend all their money on shoes and clothing. Teenagers already do that so that they can be more attractive to their peers. Do tweens, children, toddlers, and babies need to be more attractive to the opposite sex? Sure, because really, there just aren’t enough pedophiles running around these days. Maybe it would be wiser to spend the money on something else for little girls; a chastity belt perhaps. Ah, but if little girls don’t learn to put out, how will the parents ever expect to marry them off? After all, it’s not like she’ll grow up to be anything useful, like a scientist or teacher. Little girls: The latest in window dressing. Smile! Are we STILL doing that? REALLY?
I will grant that the shoes are soft and elastic and not meant for babies to try and walk in. Great, it won’t lead to any trips to the podiatrist…until little Suzy actually does start walking and wants to do it in high heels. Oh for God sake, why don’t we just cut to the chase and bind little girl’s feet in linen so their feet don’t grow. At least Geisha’s are instructed in fine arts.
According to my calculations, human beings are getting stupider the more they multiply, though I haven’t figured this latest travesty into the equation yet. And I dare not. We can stop this. We can email this wicked people over and over until they get the message that what they are doing is wrong. They must be stopped or at least inconvenienced by an avalanche of email. Join the fight! The revolution will be emailed!!
http://www.heelarious.com/index.php
Email them, ideally with a fake name and email so they cannot respond. Do it more than once. Then copy and send this entire message to every sane person you know. Stop Heelarious® before they become a problem! BECOME THEIR PROBLEM INSTEAD.
First of all, it’s simply unnecessary, at least from the baby’s point of view. What does a child gain from wearing such shoes? Babies really aren’t aware enough to care beyond the desire to chew on a shiny new object (the safety hazard the straps provide is reason enough to shelve the shoes). Nor will other babies care. So who cares? The parents do. Putting high heels on a baby says a lot about the people who would do something so ridiculous. It is an attempt by said parents to say,”Hey, look at my child, dammit! Look how cute not to mention how advantaged they are! That’s right, we’ve got so much money, we can afford to throw away $35 in this floundering economy! Clothes make the person, yessiree.” Carrie Bradshaw would be proud. The rest of us should be sick. There is no purposeful statement to be made here other than trying to keep up with the Joneses. Frankly, if the Joneses are the kind of people who thoughtlessly spend money to buy meaningless objects with which to fulfill their empty lives, I don’t want to know them or run in their social circle. [I understand the attractiveness of resources from an evolutionary perspective, but it seems sad to me that humans have evolved in that direction. It drives people to behave poorly.]
Secondly, I don’t like what it may potentially teach the child. Indeed, the afore mentioned Carrie Bradshaw may be a heroine to meager freelance columnists with poor relationship skills everywhere, but in reality children don’t need to be programmed to spend all their money on shoes and clothing. Teenagers already do that so that they can be more attractive to their peers. Do tweens, children, toddlers, and babies need to be more attractive to the opposite sex? Sure, because really, there just aren’t enough pedophiles running around these days. Maybe it would be wiser to spend the money on something else for little girls; a chastity belt perhaps. Ah, but if little girls don’t learn to put out, how will the parents ever expect to marry them off? After all, it’s not like she’ll grow up to be anything useful, like a scientist or teacher. Little girls: The latest in window dressing. Smile! Are we STILL doing that? REALLY?
I will grant that the shoes are soft and elastic and not meant for babies to try and walk in. Great, it won’t lead to any trips to the podiatrist…until little Suzy actually does start walking and wants to do it in high heels. Oh for God sake, why don’t we just cut to the chase and bind little girl’s feet in linen so their feet don’t grow. At least Geisha’s are instructed in fine arts.
According to my calculations, human beings are getting stupider the more they multiply, though I haven’t figured this latest travesty into the equation yet. And I dare not. We can stop this. We can email this wicked people over and over until they get the message that what they are doing is wrong. They must be stopped or at least inconvenienced by an avalanche of email. Join the fight! The revolution will be emailed!!
http://www.heelarious.com/index.php
Email them, ideally with a fake name and email so they cannot respond. Do it more than once. Then copy and send this entire message to every sane person you know. Stop Heelarious® before they become a problem! BECOME THEIR PROBLEM INSTEAD.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
"Expelled" Exposed
After reading “Ben Stein vs. Sputtering Atheists” in the news this week, I am compelled to respond. Stein, a former Nixon campaign writer and generally regarded as one of the smartest men in America , recently filmed a documentary called Expelled, a movie that seeks to expose the biases present in the scientific and academic communities. The review of Expelled, written by conservative right-wing nut L. Brent Bozell III of the Media Research Center “Think” Tank renders the reviewer as anything but a reliable source. Below, I analyze some of the review’s finer points.
...It is a reality of PC liberalism: There is only one credible side to an issue, and any dissent is not only rejected, it is scorned...
To begin with, most liberals in America do not and would not describe themselves as atheists, which is what Bozell alludes throughout the review. Rather, the PC-Liberals Bozell alludes to are largely agnostics, a position of intellectual suicide greater than either theism or atheism. That said, pretty much anything a PC-Loving Liberal says should be taken with a grain of salt. However, Bozell raises an otherwise interesting point. Dissent in the scientific community is often scorned, regardless how many times scientists have been wrong. The difference between the scientific community and the religious community though, is the fact that in science, the truth (read: greater accuracy) can only be ignored for so long. Eventually, the dog gets its day and the people who thought they had it right, simply forgotten. Ultimately, the scientific system works. Let’s not forget that.
...Theirs (academics) is an ideology that preaches the freedom of thought and expression at every opportunity, yet practices absolute intolerance toward dissension...
Seems like 4000 years of monotheistic conditioning is harder to suppress than initially believed.
...Evolution is another one of those one-sided debates. We know the concept of Intelligent Design is stifled in academic circles...
As well it should be. It’s not an academic pursuit. The hypothesis is not scientific; The hypothesis presupposes the answer. That’s not science.
...Ben Stein's extraordinary presentation documents how the worlds of science and academia not only crush debate on the origins of life, but also crush the careers of professors who dare to question the Darwinian hypothesis of evolution and natural selection...
I’m sure it happens and its probably wrong, but we’d need to know exactly what the circumstances were. If a professor wants to teach a hypothesis they cannot so much as test, it doesn’t even qualify as a hypothesis—it’s speculation, and speculations are not and should not be taught. As far as Darwinism is concerned, it is a reliable theory whose inferences have withstood repeated testing. What people at large do not understand is that Darwinism does not answer how life began. We simply don’t know. Yet. It angers my superior intellect when people then extrapolate from their speculations a basis for theism Grrr.
...Stein asks a simple question: What if the universe began with an intelligent designer, a designer named God? He assembles a stable of academics -- experts all -- who dared to question Darwinist assumptions and found themselves "expelled" from intellectual discourse as a result...
Wow, how misleading. Again, Bozell tries to imply Darwinism is an attempt to explain an origin (the origin of the entire universe in this case) when it in fact does no such thing. Furthermore, I’d be very interested to hear the context in which Stein asks his simple question because the context has major implications for the answers he should receive. Which god is Stein referring to? Is the god he referring to just a watchmaker, long since left the watch to unwind? Did the designer leave instructions to be followed? Who designed the designer (a question we must ask since by the interrogator’s reasoning we are forced to assume all things must be designed)?
...Stein engages them in conversation. They speak their minds. They become sputtering ranters, openly championing their sheer hatred of religion...
As everyone knows, this is a four-lane highway going in both directions.
...But when Stein suggests to Dawkins that he's been critical of the Old Testament God, Dawkins protests -- not that Stein is wrong, but that he's being too mild. He then reads from this jaw-dropping paragraph of his book: "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."...
Dawkins never asked for or needs the accolades of PC-Liberalists. Dawkins made an observation, one that I personally find hard to disagree with (which is why I used the entire quote).
...It's understood that God had nothing to do with the origins of life on Earth. What, then, is the alternate explanation? Stein asks these experts, and their very serious answers are priceless. One theorizes that life began somehow on the backs of crystals. Another states electric sparks from a lightning storm created organic matter (out of nothing). Another declares that life was brought to Earth by aliens...
The lack of a serious alternative explanation is not excuse enough to insert whatever explanation one wishes. If that is going to be the case, I’m converting to Pastafarianism. All hail the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
...The most controversial part of the film follows Stein to the Dachau concentration camp, underlining how Darwin's theories of natural selection led to the eugenics movement, embraced by Adolf Hitler…He points out, however, that Hitler's mad science was inspired by Darwinism...
Post Hoc logical fallacy. Red Herring logical fallacy. Questionable Cause logical fallacy. Pick a card, any card.
...Everyone should take the opportunity to see "Expelled" -- if nothing else, as a bracing antidote to the atheism-friendly culture of PC liberalism. But it's far more than that. It's a spotlight on the arrogance of this movement and its leaders, a spotlight on the choking intolerance of academia...
“The arrogance of this movement and its leaders”? Pot. Kettle. Black. As for me, considering the extent to which I often piss off other atheists, I surely cannot be considered an advocate of PC Liberalism. Actually, I do not know a whole lot of other atheists who care for political correctness much less myself. The documentary is probably more important for atheists to see, to remind themselves not to get too full of themselves given that human knowledge is in its infancy. But the film as a “bracing antidote”? There’s no antidote when preaching to the choir, Bozell.
Ben Stein? Not looking so smart anymore. That may be Bozell’s fault.
...It is a reality of PC liberalism: There is only one credible side to an issue, and any dissent is not only rejected, it is scorned...
To begin with, most liberals in America do not and would not describe themselves as atheists, which is what Bozell alludes throughout the review. Rather, the PC-Liberals Bozell alludes to are largely agnostics, a position of intellectual suicide greater than either theism or atheism. That said, pretty much anything a PC-Loving Liberal says should be taken with a grain of salt. However, Bozell raises an otherwise interesting point. Dissent in the scientific community is often scorned, regardless how many times scientists have been wrong. The difference between the scientific community and the religious community though, is the fact that in science, the truth (read: greater accuracy) can only be ignored for so long. Eventually, the dog gets its day and the people who thought they had it right, simply forgotten. Ultimately, the scientific system works. Let’s not forget that.
...Theirs (academics) is an ideology that preaches the freedom of thought and expression at every opportunity, yet practices absolute intolerance toward dissension...
Seems like 4000 years of monotheistic conditioning is harder to suppress than initially believed.
...Evolution is another one of those one-sided debates. We know the concept of Intelligent Design is stifled in academic circles...
As well it should be. It’s not an academic pursuit. The hypothesis is not scientific; The hypothesis presupposes the answer. That’s not science.
...Ben Stein's extraordinary presentation documents how the worlds of science and academia not only crush debate on the origins of life, but also crush the careers of professors who dare to question the Darwinian hypothesis of evolution and natural selection...
I’m sure it happens and its probably wrong, but we’d need to know exactly what the circumstances were. If a professor wants to teach a hypothesis they cannot so much as test, it doesn’t even qualify as a hypothesis—it’s speculation, and speculations are not and should not be taught. As far as Darwinism is concerned, it is a reliable theory whose inferences have withstood repeated testing. What people at large do not understand is that Darwinism does not answer how life began. We simply don’t know. Yet. It angers my superior intellect when people then extrapolate from their speculations a basis for theism Grrr.
...Stein asks a simple question: What if the universe began with an intelligent designer, a designer named God? He assembles a stable of academics -- experts all -- who dared to question Darwinist assumptions and found themselves "expelled" from intellectual discourse as a result...
Wow, how misleading. Again, Bozell tries to imply Darwinism is an attempt to explain an origin (the origin of the entire universe in this case) when it in fact does no such thing. Furthermore, I’d be very interested to hear the context in which Stein asks his simple question because the context has major implications for the answers he should receive. Which god is Stein referring to? Is the god he referring to just a watchmaker, long since left the watch to unwind? Did the designer leave instructions to be followed? Who designed the designer (a question we must ask since by the interrogator’s reasoning we are forced to assume all things must be designed)?
...Stein engages them in conversation. They speak their minds. They become sputtering ranters, openly championing their sheer hatred of religion...
As everyone knows, this is a four-lane highway going in both directions.
...But when Stein suggests to Dawkins that he's been critical of the Old Testament God, Dawkins protests -- not that Stein is wrong, but that he's being too mild. He then reads from this jaw-dropping paragraph of his book: "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."...
Dawkins never asked for or needs the accolades of PC-Liberalists. Dawkins made an observation, one that I personally find hard to disagree with (which is why I used the entire quote).
...It's understood that God had nothing to do with the origins of life on Earth. What, then, is the alternate explanation? Stein asks these experts, and their very serious answers are priceless. One theorizes that life began somehow on the backs of crystals. Another states electric sparks from a lightning storm created organic matter (out of nothing). Another declares that life was brought to Earth by aliens...
The lack of a serious alternative explanation is not excuse enough to insert whatever explanation one wishes. If that is going to be the case, I’m converting to Pastafarianism. All hail the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
...The most controversial part of the film follows Stein to the Dachau concentration camp, underlining how Darwin's theories of natural selection led to the eugenics movement, embraced by Adolf Hitler…He points out, however, that Hitler's mad science was inspired by Darwinism...
Post Hoc logical fallacy. Red Herring logical fallacy. Questionable Cause logical fallacy. Pick a card, any card.
...Everyone should take the opportunity to see "Expelled" -- if nothing else, as a bracing antidote to the atheism-friendly culture of PC liberalism. But it's far more than that. It's a spotlight on the arrogance of this movement and its leaders, a spotlight on the choking intolerance of academia...
“The arrogance of this movement and its leaders”? Pot. Kettle. Black. As for me, considering the extent to which I often piss off other atheists, I surely cannot be considered an advocate of PC Liberalism. Actually, I do not know a whole lot of other atheists who care for political correctness much less myself. The documentary is probably more important for atheists to see, to remind themselves not to get too full of themselves given that human knowledge is in its infancy. But the film as a “bracing antidote”? There’s no antidote when preaching to the choir, Bozell.
Ben Stein? Not looking so smart anymore. That may be Bozell’s fault.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
The McCain Expirement
In response to the moronic chain email about Barack Obama that is currently debasing our in-boxes (along with the people who forward such drivel), I've come up with this little informational email about who Senator John S. McCain really is. At first, the idea was to entertain as well be a lesson to those people stupid enough to believe and forward the kind of crap they do about presidential candidates without doing any research themselves. That said, on a deeper level, it kind of became a measure of vengeance. I'm angry that people are dumb enough to forward me crap about Obama, angry that anyone would write such completely untrue garbage, and then that they would have the nerve to say unequivocally it is true. Grrrrr...
The idea, dear reader, is for you to please copy and paste the body of this blog about McCain into your emails and send it to as many people you know (especially to businesses that declare their pills can add six inches to your penis). It's you're turn, Democrats and Independents, to piss off the Republicans for a change. They've been doing it to you for eight years now; don't you think its time to return the favor? By the way, yes, a few minor things about McCain here are invented, a few more a sensationalized, but by and large, most of the content is true. Feel free to verify it. [Btw, the sources I cite in the email are not all the ones I used. I name these sources for reasons that should be obvious..]
WHO JOHN McCAIN REALLY IS
All of the following information is true according to Snopes.com, Wikipedia.com, Smokinggun.com, The Drudge Report, and Fox News.***John SIDNEY McCain was not born on American soil to John "Jack" McCain, Jr. His father, a four-star Admiral and submarine commander, became known for being as an absentee father in the wake of Pearl Harbor, where many of Jack's homosexual lovers/crewmembers perished. This made John SIDNEY McCain resentful, aggressive, and a poor student, as he finished last in his class at naval academy. From there he was assigned to Pensacola and then Corpus Christi Air Station, where he dated a prostitute named "Marie the Flame," from whom John contracted syphilis. Often drunk, John barely passed flight school.***John SIDNEY McCain's sub-par performance would come to haunt him over the skies of Vietnam where he was quickly shot down while on a bombing run that deliberately targeted civilian women and children. McCain was lightly beaten by his captors (which John SIDNEY would later exaggerate completely to gain political votes) until his captors found out he was the son of an admiral. The Vietnamese offered to release McCain but SIDNEY refused, having fallen in love with an enemy general. They broke up and John SIDNEY McCain returned to the U.S. where he soon abandoned his wife, frequently partying and having extramarital affairs with strippers. In John SIDNEY'S own words, "My marriage's collapse was attributable to my own selfishness and immaturity." After divorcing, John SIDNEY McCain went on to marry the transsexual daughter of a beer magnate for show, as he planned to enter politics.***McCain became a Republican member of Congress thanks to the (biased and underhanded) backing of The Arizona Republic newspaper. Aligning himself with most of Ronald Reagan's views, McCain voted against Reagan's desire to keep a multi-national peace-keeping force in Lebanon and against sanctions that would have punished the nation of South Africa for apartheid. John SIDNEY McCain was starting to become known as a political maverick who cared nothing for peace or racial justice. +In 1986, SIDNEY became a senator and quickly became embroiled in scandal as a member of the Keating Five, being one of five U.S. senators who interfered with federal regulators investigating the Lincoln Savings and Loan Association. In order to clean up his image, SIDNEY began lobbying against Washington lobbyists, though he had no intention of actually voting for such resolutions. [In 1997, McCain became chairman of the powerful Senate Commerce Committee; he was criticized for accepting funds from corporations and businesses under the committee's review.] ***John SIDNEY McCain attempted to run for the office of the President of the United States in 2000, but even his state of Arizona rejected him in favor of George W. Bush. Having been rejected so harshly, in 2001, McCain considered leaving the Republican Party to become an Independent, a move that would have given control of the Senate to Democrats. However, after 9/11, John SIDNEY McCain became AFRAID of opposing Bush because he knew that anyone who did so would be labeled unpatriotic. In the 2004 election, John SIDNEY McCain's name was tossed around as a possible VP pick of the Democratic presidential nominee, John Kerry, who looks French. A closet liberal, John SIDNEY McCain frequently appears on The Daily Show, which is hosted by closeted Communist Jon Stewart.***John SIDNEY McCain's lack of true Republican values is evidenced by his opposition to Bush's tax cuts and policies on torture, and flip-flopping views on abortion; views that change upon whomever's vote he is trying to get. He also opposes any health care reform.***I don't know about you but I do not want this kind of "political maverick" to become the next president. I don't care if Arnold Schwarzenegger endorses him—Schwarzenegger is the governor of Commiefornia! My vote will be cast for a true American with unwavering values. I'm voting for Ron Paul!
The idea, dear reader, is for you to please copy and paste the body of this blog about McCain into your emails and send it to as many people you know (especially to businesses that declare their pills can add six inches to your penis). It's you're turn, Democrats and Independents, to piss off the Republicans for a change. They've been doing it to you for eight years now; don't you think its time to return the favor? By the way, yes, a few minor things about McCain here are invented, a few more a sensationalized, but by and large, most of the content is true. Feel free to verify it. [Btw, the sources I cite in the email are not all the ones I used. I name these sources for reasons that should be obvious..]
WHO JOHN McCAIN REALLY IS
All of the following information is true according to Snopes.com, Wikipedia.com, Smokinggun.com, The Drudge Report, and Fox News.***John SIDNEY McCain was not born on American soil to John "Jack" McCain, Jr. His father, a four-star Admiral and submarine commander, became known for being as an absentee father in the wake of Pearl Harbor, where many of Jack's homosexual lovers/crewmembers perished. This made John SIDNEY McCain resentful, aggressive, and a poor student, as he finished last in his class at naval academy. From there he was assigned to Pensacola and then Corpus Christi Air Station, where he dated a prostitute named "Marie the Flame," from whom John contracted syphilis. Often drunk, John barely passed flight school.***John SIDNEY McCain's sub-par performance would come to haunt him over the skies of Vietnam where he was quickly shot down while on a bombing run that deliberately targeted civilian women and children. McCain was lightly beaten by his captors (which John SIDNEY would later exaggerate completely to gain political votes) until his captors found out he was the son of an admiral. The Vietnamese offered to release McCain but SIDNEY refused, having fallen in love with an enemy general. They broke up and John SIDNEY McCain returned to the U.S. where he soon abandoned his wife, frequently partying and having extramarital affairs with strippers. In John SIDNEY'S own words, "My marriage's collapse was attributable to my own selfishness and immaturity." After divorcing, John SIDNEY McCain went on to marry the transsexual daughter of a beer magnate for show, as he planned to enter politics.***McCain became a Republican member of Congress thanks to the (biased and underhanded) backing of The Arizona Republic newspaper. Aligning himself with most of Ronald Reagan's views, McCain voted against Reagan's desire to keep a multi-national peace-keeping force in Lebanon and against sanctions that would have punished the nation of South Africa for apartheid. John SIDNEY McCain was starting to become known as a political maverick who cared nothing for peace or racial justice. +In 1986, SIDNEY became a senator and quickly became embroiled in scandal as a member of the Keating Five, being one of five U.S. senators who interfered with federal regulators investigating the Lincoln Savings and Loan Association. In order to clean up his image, SIDNEY began lobbying against Washington lobbyists, though he had no intention of actually voting for such resolutions. [In 1997, McCain became chairman of the powerful Senate Commerce Committee; he was criticized for accepting funds from corporations and businesses under the committee's review.] ***John SIDNEY McCain attempted to run for the office of the President of the United States in 2000, but even his state of Arizona rejected him in favor of George W. Bush. Having been rejected so harshly, in 2001, McCain considered leaving the Republican Party to become an Independent, a move that would have given control of the Senate to Democrats. However, after 9/11, John SIDNEY McCain became AFRAID of opposing Bush because he knew that anyone who did so would be labeled unpatriotic. In the 2004 election, John SIDNEY McCain's name was tossed around as a possible VP pick of the Democratic presidential nominee, John Kerry, who looks French. A closet liberal, John SIDNEY McCain frequently appears on The Daily Show, which is hosted by closeted Communist Jon Stewart.***John SIDNEY McCain's lack of true Republican values is evidenced by his opposition to Bush's tax cuts and policies on torture, and flip-flopping views on abortion; views that change upon whomever's vote he is trying to get. He also opposes any health care reform.***I don't know about you but I do not want this kind of "political maverick" to become the next president. I don't care if Arnold Schwarzenegger endorses him—Schwarzenegger is the governor of Commiefornia! My vote will be cast for a true American with unwavering values. I'm voting for Ron Paul!
Sunday, January 20, 2008
Morons and Chain Email
Know what I hate? People. Stupid, stupid people. Human beings just can’t stop being irrational, spiteful jackasses. On top of that, they have the audacity to lay claim to some measure of intelligence. Such arrogance!
Take for example the architect of a semi-recent email about who Barack Obama really is, an email designed to strike fear into the hearts of every former slave-owning, white Southerner who lacks education and refinement. The email, sent to me by parties who shall remain anonymous, was intended to dissuade me from supporting the junior senator from Illinois. Problem is, I think for myself. My opinion is not easily manipulated. So let’s examine the email with a critical eye because really, that’s what anyone should do.
The email begins innocently enough by saying everything is factual. Heck, the info is right there on snopes.com, and by golly, if it’s on the internet, it must be true…”Probable U. S. presidential candidate, Barack Hussein Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, to Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., a black MUSLIM from Nyangoma-Kogel, Kenya and Ann Dunham, a white Athiest from Wichita, Kansas.” Hmm, okay, not that innocently. Barack’s name is pointed out for obvious reasons (he’s related to Saddam Hussein! OMG!). Then the author spells out in caps the word “Muslim,” as if that’s so vital a point as not to be missed. As an atheist, I‘m practically offended. As everyone knows, evil atheists orchestrated the brutal and oppressive communist Soviet government all those years ago. But it looks like we’ve got nothing on Muslims.
“Obama's parents met at the University of Hawaii. When Obama was two years old, his parents divorced. His father returned to Kenya. His mother then married Lolo Soetoro, a RADICAL Muslim from Indonesia. When Obama was 6 years old, the family relocated to Indonesia. Obama attended a MUSLIM school in Jakarta. He also spent two years in a Catholic school.” Again, “Muslim” is spelled out in caps while “Catholic” is not, as the author intends/pretends to appear, uh, fair and balanced. What is not mentioned here is that in that Muslim school, no one is taught Islamic doctrines. Catholic schools on the other hand, well, I think they’re busy even today teaching kids that the Sun goes around the Earth.
“Obama's political handlers are attempting to make it appear that he is not a radical.” How are they trying to do that exactly? I’m pretty sure that if he talked the talk and walked the walk (praying five times a day to Mecca, strapping bombs to his chest—because all Muslims do that—while shouting ‘God is great!’), someone would notice. In what manner does Obama act like a radical and how does his staff cover it up? Have they been hiring Cheney’s people or what?
“Keep in mind that when he was sworn into office he DID NOT use the Holy Bible, but instead, the Koran.” Actually, according to snopes.com, this is false. Sooooo, where-the-*$@# does the author get off previously stating all the information was factually correct, being that it appear on snopes.com?? What’s also worth mentioning here is that religious tests are not required to hold office. Again, wtf? Is the author implying that we should only trust Christians? Why the hell would I trust anyone who says they are a follower of Jesus Christ but doesn’t act anything like him? And isn’t the Catholic Church busy going bankrupt because their priests couldn’t keep their hands off kids? I’m just sayin’…
“Barack Hussein Obama will NOT recite the Pledge of Allegience…Obama turns his back to the flag and slouches.” Factually incorrect again, not to mention sensationalist. Obama was photographed without his hand over his heart while the national anthem played. Make of that what you will, just be sure to look around the stadium next time you’re at a ballgame. See how many patriots can’t be bothered to put down their beer while the Star Spangled Banner plays. At any rate, I’d rather have a president who doesn’t put his hand over his heart for the national anthem than a president who treats the Constitution like toilet paper.
“The Muslims have said they plan on destroying the US from the inside out, what better way to start than at the highest level - through the President of the United States, one of their own!!!!” So…George W. Bush is a Muslim? Oh, sh*t!
The author closes by saying that while Oprah may want Obama to be president, he does not! Well, who are you going to trust, Oprah, or some jackass who won’t give you their name or credentials? I don’t typically give a hoot what celebrities say, but I’m gonna trust my gut and go with Oprah on this one. I don’t know about you.
Take for example the architect of a semi-recent email about who Barack Obama really is, an email designed to strike fear into the hearts of every former slave-owning, white Southerner who lacks education and refinement. The email, sent to me by parties who shall remain anonymous, was intended to dissuade me from supporting the junior senator from Illinois. Problem is, I think for myself. My opinion is not easily manipulated. So let’s examine the email with a critical eye because really, that’s what anyone should do.
The email begins innocently enough by saying everything is factual. Heck, the info is right there on snopes.com, and by golly, if it’s on the internet, it must be true…”Probable U. S. presidential candidate, Barack Hussein Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, to Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., a black MUSLIM from Nyangoma-Kogel, Kenya and Ann Dunham, a white Athiest from Wichita, Kansas.” Hmm, okay, not that innocently. Barack’s name is pointed out for obvious reasons (he’s related to Saddam Hussein! OMG!). Then the author spells out in caps the word “Muslim,” as if that’s so vital a point as not to be missed. As an atheist, I‘m practically offended. As everyone knows, evil atheists orchestrated the brutal and oppressive communist Soviet government all those years ago. But it looks like we’ve got nothing on Muslims.
“Obama's parents met at the University of Hawaii. When Obama was two years old, his parents divorced. His father returned to Kenya. His mother then married Lolo Soetoro, a RADICAL Muslim from Indonesia. When Obama was 6 years old, the family relocated to Indonesia. Obama attended a MUSLIM school in Jakarta. He also spent two years in a Catholic school.” Again, “Muslim” is spelled out in caps while “Catholic” is not, as the author intends/pretends to appear, uh, fair and balanced. What is not mentioned here is that in that Muslim school, no one is taught Islamic doctrines. Catholic schools on the other hand, well, I think they’re busy even today teaching kids that the Sun goes around the Earth.
“Obama's political handlers are attempting to make it appear that he is not a radical.” How are they trying to do that exactly? I’m pretty sure that if he talked the talk and walked the walk (praying five times a day to Mecca, strapping bombs to his chest—because all Muslims do that—while shouting ‘God is great!’), someone would notice. In what manner does Obama act like a radical and how does his staff cover it up? Have they been hiring Cheney’s people or what?
“Keep in mind that when he was sworn into office he DID NOT use the Holy Bible, but instead, the Koran.” Actually, according to snopes.com, this is false. Sooooo, where-the-*$@# does the author get off previously stating all the information was factually correct, being that it appear on snopes.com?? What’s also worth mentioning here is that religious tests are not required to hold office. Again, wtf? Is the author implying that we should only trust Christians? Why the hell would I trust anyone who says they are a follower of Jesus Christ but doesn’t act anything like him? And isn’t the Catholic Church busy going bankrupt because their priests couldn’t keep their hands off kids? I’m just sayin’…
“Barack Hussein Obama will NOT recite the Pledge of Allegience…Obama turns his back to the flag and slouches.” Factually incorrect again, not to mention sensationalist. Obama was photographed without his hand over his heart while the national anthem played. Make of that what you will, just be sure to look around the stadium next time you’re at a ballgame. See how many patriots can’t be bothered to put down their beer while the Star Spangled Banner plays. At any rate, I’d rather have a president who doesn’t put his hand over his heart for the national anthem than a president who treats the Constitution like toilet paper.
“The Muslims have said they plan on destroying the US from the inside out, what better way to start than at the highest level - through the President of the United States, one of their own!!!!” So…George W. Bush is a Muslim? Oh, sh*t!
The author closes by saying that while Oprah may want Obama to be president, he does not! Well, who are you going to trust, Oprah, or some jackass who won’t give you their name or credentials? I don’t typically give a hoot what celebrities say, but I’m gonna trust my gut and go with Oprah on this one. I don’t know about you.
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Vegan Bikers Who Smoke Are Stupid
First, a letter witten to the Portland Mercury by a member of the vegan-bicyclists-who-smoke community, a group of people "Not Invited Back in '08" by the free periodical...
DEAR MERCURY—I hate to point out the obvious, but I've read your scathing words toward "vegan cyclists who smoke" enough times to feel the need to do so ["Things Not Invited Back to 2008," Feature, Dec 27]. I'm VEGAN because it depresses the shit out of me to eat flesh and otherwise cause suffering to living things. I BIKE as an alternative to the glaring destruction caused by both absurdly inappropriate methods of transport and oil dependency. And I SMOKE, on the street and in backyards, and the harm I cause is reserved to my own lungs—because when it comes down to it, the only thing I'm okay with hurting is myself.- Mandee
My response...
Dear letter-writing, sh*t-for-brains, vegan cyclist who smokes—if pretense were a steak, you’d be the whole f'ing cow. You’re vegan because you don’t like to cause living things suffering? Wtf do you think plants are? Ah, but they’re okay to eat because they lack a nervous system you can relate to, right? Perhaps your double-standard is reasonable given the IQ of broccoli, but as long as we’re all pointing out the obvious, who do you think gets taken advantage of, working the fields where your produce is grown? In even more obvious news, your bike is made of composite materials made possible only through the miracle of industrialization. You think industrialization doesn’t hurt people besides yourself? And then there’s the matter of your cigarettes, which I can smell within a half-mile of wherever you’re smoking them. It harms more than your health; it also endangers mine. Now, judging by the scorecards, we see that it’s Suffering-3, You-0. I think it’s time you drank a nice big cup of shut-the-f*ck-up.
My work here is done.
DEAR MERCURY—I hate to point out the obvious, but I've read your scathing words toward "vegan cyclists who smoke" enough times to feel the need to do so ["Things Not Invited Back to 2008," Feature, Dec 27]. I'm VEGAN because it depresses the shit out of me to eat flesh and otherwise cause suffering to living things. I BIKE as an alternative to the glaring destruction caused by both absurdly inappropriate methods of transport and oil dependency. And I SMOKE, on the street and in backyards, and the harm I cause is reserved to my own lungs—because when it comes down to it, the only thing I'm okay with hurting is myself.- Mandee
My response...
Dear letter-writing, sh*t-for-brains, vegan cyclist who smokes—if pretense were a steak, you’d be the whole f'ing cow. You’re vegan because you don’t like to cause living things suffering? Wtf do you think plants are? Ah, but they’re okay to eat because they lack a nervous system you can relate to, right? Perhaps your double-standard is reasonable given the IQ of broccoli, but as long as we’re all pointing out the obvious, who do you think gets taken advantage of, working the fields where your produce is grown? In even more obvious news, your bike is made of composite materials made possible only through the miracle of industrialization. You think industrialization doesn’t hurt people besides yourself? And then there’s the matter of your cigarettes, which I can smell within a half-mile of wherever you’re smoking them. It harms more than your health; it also endangers mine. Now, judging by the scorecards, we see that it’s Suffering-3, You-0. I think it’s time you drank a nice big cup of shut-the-f*ck-up.
My work here is done.
Saturday, January 5, 2008
George W. Bush: Terrorist? No, Idiot.
“George W. Bush: Terrorist.”
I’ve seen you, you pseudo-intellectual college students and aging hipsters of the “Free Love” generation, wearing one of those witty t-shirts in recent years. Those t-shirts are without doubt so clever they induce in your conservative Republican opponents a sort of quasi-introspective trace, don’t they? “George W. Bush is a terrorist? I never thought of it that way. Perhaps I should,” they’ll tell themselves.
I can understand why someone might want to think of President Bush as a terrorist. Let’s assume for a moment the culturally sensitive perspective of a foreigner whose country has been invaded by US forces and has seen fellow civilians killed or harmed by the US military. Why wouldn’t they think of the American Commander-In-Chief as a terrorist? After all, he is using force to achieve political or ideological objectives while he wears the “disguise” of a civilian. Though, I don’t know how much of a disguise a business suit is. Maybe it’s the inflammatory red ties he always wears.
While I am no fan of rednecks, ah, red neckties, calling George W. Bush a terrorist broadens what it means to be such a radical, perhaps to the point of even cheapening the word “terrorist” (at least they don’t try to avoid their duty). Perhaps such name-calling is to be expected though from people who merely wish to pray for world peace instead of taking action as means to achieve their visions of utopia. And while these same opponents of President Bush call for his impeachment (its all the rage these days for American presidents), they cannot do so on the grounds that George W. Bush is a terrorist. The President may be many things—and we can be unfriendly about that—but he is not a terrorist. Breath.
Now that any liberal rage you may have had has passed, let’s think about what defines a terrorist.
We’ll begin with the kind of actions that are to be reasonably expected from someone who is called a terrorist; in other words, they terrorize. Now, causing another person great harm can be either mental or physical in nature. However, a terrorist’s method-of-operation is specifically and primarily physical in nature, and typically targets civilians. If terrorist attacks were instead psychological in nature (instead of an expected result of the primary physical attack), then it would be reasonable to expect to find Catholic and Jewish grandmothers imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay.
The purpose of this physical violence against civilian populations is to install fear in a target populace as a method of coercing a population to meet the political or religious demands of the terrorist or the organization they represent. If the population does not give into the coercion, is expected that terrorist attacks will continue. In this way, the acts of terrorists follow a systematic pattern with which to weave a quilt of destruction.
Moreover, a terrorist characteristically masquerades as a member of the society in which they wish to attack. This tactic is designed to avoid capture by either military or civilian police opposition. This disguise technique causes a target population further concern, because they do not know who the enemy is, much less when and where the unknown assailant(s) will attack. Thus, in an attempt to gain security, a society might lobby their government to give into terrorist demands, such as was the case with the Madrid, Spain train bombings in March 2004. Who knows where they read it, but terrorists certainly make abuse of the phrase, “Better safe than sorry.”
So does President Bush fir the bill of a terrorist? In sending US troops to invade Iraq, the President did not call for specific civilian targets to be engaged. Though civilians might be killed as a matter of collateral damage, they are not the primary focus of any intended violence. In fact, the term “collateral damage” is applied to civilian casualties during military operations exactly because they would be spared any harm if it could be avoided, ideally speaking. If a government’s military intended to kill civilians, they would just go ahead and do it (though it would perhaps be wise to kill all the local reporters as well). Because the US military does not go out of it’s way to kill civilians, their Commander-In-Chief is spared the label of “terrorist.”
It is also exactly because George w. Bush is recognized worldwide as The United States’ Commander-In-Chief that he is not a terrorist. Regardless then of whether he is dressed in a suit and tie or a flight suit stuffed to the nines, he cannot be considered a terrorist because he has explicit ties to the military. Terrorists rarely if ever are connected to a country’s military or governing body, and even when they are, it is not known or disclosed who these people might be.
In order to clear President Bush of any further accusations of being a terrorist, allow me to paraphrase terrorism expert A.P. Schmid who in 1992 defined to the UN what terrorism is: “Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by clandestine individuals/groups, for religious or political ideals, whereby… the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The victims of violence are chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (symbolic targets) to serve as a message generator.” If we use the Iraq War as an example, President Bush commanded the US military to engage non-random, practical military targets, not civilians. Furthermore, George W. Bush can hardly be considered a clandestine individual.
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but George W. Bush is emphatically not a terrorist. He doesn’t fulfill any of the qualifications used to define what a terrorist is. Call him what you want (I prefer the term “Errorist”), but he is not a terrorist.
So yeah, about those t-shirts with The President’s picture on them, branding him a terrorist? Feel free to go ahead and put those unsightly little t-shirts away. You wouldn’t want to be accused of terrorizing the fashion industry, now would you?
I’ve seen you, you pseudo-intellectual college students and aging hipsters of the “Free Love” generation, wearing one of those witty t-shirts in recent years. Those t-shirts are without doubt so clever they induce in your conservative Republican opponents a sort of quasi-introspective trace, don’t they? “George W. Bush is a terrorist? I never thought of it that way. Perhaps I should,” they’ll tell themselves.
I can understand why someone might want to think of President Bush as a terrorist. Let’s assume for a moment the culturally sensitive perspective of a foreigner whose country has been invaded by US forces and has seen fellow civilians killed or harmed by the US military. Why wouldn’t they think of the American Commander-In-Chief as a terrorist? After all, he is using force to achieve political or ideological objectives while he wears the “disguise” of a civilian. Though, I don’t know how much of a disguise a business suit is. Maybe it’s the inflammatory red ties he always wears.
While I am no fan of rednecks, ah, red neckties, calling George W. Bush a terrorist broadens what it means to be such a radical, perhaps to the point of even cheapening the word “terrorist” (at least they don’t try to avoid their duty). Perhaps such name-calling is to be expected though from people who merely wish to pray for world peace instead of taking action as means to achieve their visions of utopia. And while these same opponents of President Bush call for his impeachment (its all the rage these days for American presidents), they cannot do so on the grounds that George W. Bush is a terrorist. The President may be many things—and we can be unfriendly about that—but he is not a terrorist. Breath.
Now that any liberal rage you may have had has passed, let’s think about what defines a terrorist.
We’ll begin with the kind of actions that are to be reasonably expected from someone who is called a terrorist; in other words, they terrorize. Now, causing another person great harm can be either mental or physical in nature. However, a terrorist’s method-of-operation is specifically and primarily physical in nature, and typically targets civilians. If terrorist attacks were instead psychological in nature (instead of an expected result of the primary physical attack), then it would be reasonable to expect to find Catholic and Jewish grandmothers imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay.
The purpose of this physical violence against civilian populations is to install fear in a target populace as a method of coercing a population to meet the political or religious demands of the terrorist or the organization they represent. If the population does not give into the coercion, is expected that terrorist attacks will continue. In this way, the acts of terrorists follow a systematic pattern with which to weave a quilt of destruction.
Moreover, a terrorist characteristically masquerades as a member of the society in which they wish to attack. This tactic is designed to avoid capture by either military or civilian police opposition. This disguise technique causes a target population further concern, because they do not know who the enemy is, much less when and where the unknown assailant(s) will attack. Thus, in an attempt to gain security, a society might lobby their government to give into terrorist demands, such as was the case with the Madrid, Spain train bombings in March 2004. Who knows where they read it, but terrorists certainly make abuse of the phrase, “Better safe than sorry.”
So does President Bush fir the bill of a terrorist? In sending US troops to invade Iraq, the President did not call for specific civilian targets to be engaged. Though civilians might be killed as a matter of collateral damage, they are not the primary focus of any intended violence. In fact, the term “collateral damage” is applied to civilian casualties during military operations exactly because they would be spared any harm if it could be avoided, ideally speaking. If a government’s military intended to kill civilians, they would just go ahead and do it (though it would perhaps be wise to kill all the local reporters as well). Because the US military does not go out of it’s way to kill civilians, their Commander-In-Chief is spared the label of “terrorist.”
It is also exactly because George w. Bush is recognized worldwide as The United States’ Commander-In-Chief that he is not a terrorist. Regardless then of whether he is dressed in a suit and tie or a flight suit stuffed to the nines, he cannot be considered a terrorist because he has explicit ties to the military. Terrorists rarely if ever are connected to a country’s military or governing body, and even when they are, it is not known or disclosed who these people might be.
In order to clear President Bush of any further accusations of being a terrorist, allow me to paraphrase terrorism expert A.P. Schmid who in 1992 defined to the UN what terrorism is: “Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by clandestine individuals/groups, for religious or political ideals, whereby… the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The victims of violence are chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (symbolic targets) to serve as a message generator.” If we use the Iraq War as an example, President Bush commanded the US military to engage non-random, practical military targets, not civilians. Furthermore, George W. Bush can hardly be considered a clandestine individual.
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but George W. Bush is emphatically not a terrorist. He doesn’t fulfill any of the qualifications used to define what a terrorist is. Call him what you want (I prefer the term “Errorist”), but he is not a terrorist.
So yeah, about those t-shirts with The President’s picture on them, branding him a terrorist? Feel free to go ahead and put those unsightly little t-shirts away. You wouldn’t want to be accused of terrorizing the fashion industry, now would you?
Friday, January 4, 2008
Entertainment "News"
Know what I hate? I hate entertainment news. I hate it because it's no longer informative of the art that is entertainment. There was a time—in a galaxy, far, far away—when entertainment news meant the latest information about books, movies, theater, music, and an artist's art—not the bull'ish that currently passes for entertainment news. Now, pausing to scan the entertainment headlines means getting a load of what Li-Lo (Tipsy Lindsey Lohan) did this time. When did the lives of celebrities become breaking news? Shouldn't we have stopped caring when Zsa Zsa Gabor married her 23rd husband?
How did America get to the point where anyone gives a flying (pardon my French) what Britney does in her spare time? It's not like she was ever a promising talent in control of her own destiny. I think we all know she was screwed in the head when she cheated on then dumped poor Justin Trousersnake. I mean, how do I even know about all that?
An oft given explanation is that human beings like to build each other up in order to have someone/something to tear down. Goddamn, what does that say about our supposedly intelligent species? That doesn't sound particularly (explicative) sharp for a species that has only gotten as far as it has by cooperating more often than not. Yet a market appears to exist for just this kind of "journalism." Rags like The National Enquirer, People, and Star magazine sell the dirty laundry of a privileged and usually famous class. AND MAKE LOTS OF MONEY DOING IT! Do people without money hate the rich so much that they can rationalize buying these kitty box liners so that they can have deep and meaningful discussions about what Jamie-Lynn should do with her baby? [I'm pro-life in a perfect world, but the world is not perfect.] I'm pretty sure what some gossip-slinging douche-bag on the street has to say about the Spears family is not going to change who they are (demons). Actively seeking news about Brit's wild ways does not make Britney a loser. It makes the reader a loser. As in, L.O.S.E.R.
Then there's the Watching-A-Train-Wreck defense some attempt to invoke, but that plane doesn't fly with me. I am not the kind of guy who slows down to see how many people died in that collision between the two drunk soccer-moms driving unwieldy SUV's—I have places to go. Such a justification tells me one thing, that you don't think your life is so bad by comparison. Well, guess what, you're dead wrong! Your life does sucks, which is why you even have the time to slow down and take a look in the first place. Oh, but I know poor dears, I know. What would your wretched lives be like without the vital information that Li-Lo spent 84 minutes in jail for her thirteenth DUI? Imagine not having access to that information. Why, you might get something important done, like cooking the kids a meal! Uh oh, scratch that. Parents today don't know how to cook because they're too busy either trying to be like Paris or drooling over the skank. Put the yippee dog down and give it a chance to run away before I kick your teeth down its throat. At least the dog stands a chance of still making something of itself. Simply accept the fact that some people are above the law, that you are not one of them, and get on with your life. Oh-bloody-kay?
When news broke that one of my all-time favorite singers—Rob Halford of Judas Priest—was gay, I thought, "So beeping' what? The SOB can scream like a mother beeper." I care about his talent, not his personal life. Why should I care If Lance Bass of N'Suck is reportedly gay? Like no one had that figured out already! What bearing on my life does the news that Lance Bass is gay have on my life? NONE. I don't give a damn what anyone outside of my circle of friends and family does with their personal time unless it directly impacts my life. Marilyn Manson getting divorced does not impact my life. Miley Cyrus upset over leaked photos does not impact my life. Just learn never to name your daughter "Miley" and move along.
So make a New Year's Resolution: When tempted by headlines of Britney having another meltdown, show some, SOME will power and skip it. We all know it's going to happen, so the details aren't really important. Leave Britney alone? I'd love to leave Britney alone! You should too, all of you. If we're lucky, we'll once again know when a new Radiohead album is going to be released (this Tuesday, had no clue). I'm not even a Radiohead fan, but I'd rather hear about their new album than another Amy Whorehouse relapse.
Of course I could be wrong. I therefore challenge anyone to make a compelling argument in favor of celebrity gossip. No? Didn't think so…
Still Waiting...
How did America get to the point where anyone gives a flying (pardon my French) what Britney does in her spare time? It's not like she was ever a promising talent in control of her own destiny. I think we all know she was screwed in the head when she cheated on then dumped poor Justin Trousersnake. I mean, how do I even know about all that?
An oft given explanation is that human beings like to build each other up in order to have someone/something to tear down. Goddamn, what does that say about our supposedly intelligent species? That doesn't sound particularly (explicative) sharp for a species that has only gotten as far as it has by cooperating more often than not. Yet a market appears to exist for just this kind of "journalism." Rags like The National Enquirer, People, and Star magazine sell the dirty laundry of a privileged and usually famous class. AND MAKE LOTS OF MONEY DOING IT! Do people without money hate the rich so much that they can rationalize buying these kitty box liners so that they can have deep and meaningful discussions about what Jamie-Lynn should do with her baby? [I'm pro-life in a perfect world, but the world is not perfect.] I'm pretty sure what some gossip-slinging douche-bag on the street has to say about the Spears family is not going to change who they are (demons). Actively seeking news about Brit's wild ways does not make Britney a loser. It makes the reader a loser. As in, L.O.S.E.R.
Then there's the Watching-A-Train-Wreck defense some attempt to invoke, but that plane doesn't fly with me. I am not the kind of guy who slows down to see how many people died in that collision between the two drunk soccer-moms driving unwieldy SUV's—I have places to go. Such a justification tells me one thing, that you don't think your life is so bad by comparison. Well, guess what, you're dead wrong! Your life does sucks, which is why you even have the time to slow down and take a look in the first place. Oh, but I know poor dears, I know. What would your wretched lives be like without the vital information that Li-Lo spent 84 minutes in jail for her thirteenth DUI? Imagine not having access to that information. Why, you might get something important done, like cooking the kids a meal! Uh oh, scratch that. Parents today don't know how to cook because they're too busy either trying to be like Paris or drooling over the skank. Put the yippee dog down and give it a chance to run away before I kick your teeth down its throat. At least the dog stands a chance of still making something of itself. Simply accept the fact that some people are above the law, that you are not one of them, and get on with your life. Oh-bloody-kay?
When news broke that one of my all-time favorite singers—Rob Halford of Judas Priest—was gay, I thought, "So beeping' what? The SOB can scream like a mother beeper." I care about his talent, not his personal life. Why should I care If Lance Bass of N'Suck is reportedly gay? Like no one had that figured out already! What bearing on my life does the news that Lance Bass is gay have on my life? NONE. I don't give a damn what anyone outside of my circle of friends and family does with their personal time unless it directly impacts my life. Marilyn Manson getting divorced does not impact my life. Miley Cyrus upset over leaked photos does not impact my life. Just learn never to name your daughter "Miley" and move along.
So make a New Year's Resolution: When tempted by headlines of Britney having another meltdown, show some, SOME will power and skip it. We all know it's going to happen, so the details aren't really important. Leave Britney alone? I'd love to leave Britney alone! You should too, all of you. If we're lucky, we'll once again know when a new Radiohead album is going to be released (this Tuesday, had no clue). I'm not even a Radiohead fan, but I'd rather hear about their new album than another Amy Whorehouse relapse.
Of course I could be wrong. I therefore challenge anyone to make a compelling argument in favor of celebrity gossip. No? Didn't think so…
Still Waiting...
There's No Conspiracy About Theories
The following disclaimer appeared in the science text books of Cobb County, Kansas in 2002: "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."
Many evangelical, Fox News-loving conservatives would like you to believe there is an apocalyptic battle raging over the strength of evolution as a theory. It is their conviction that because the definition of fact and theory differ, this somehow allows for the insertion of their own ideas about how human life in particular began. Evangelicals have submitted, for what is likely the sake of brainwashing their constituents, the theory of Intelligent Design (or simply, ID); that is, that the universe is too complex to have happened by accident and by implication, was designed to be the way it is. However, much like in any given episode of Three’s Company, there’s been a misunderstanding. That misunderstanding comes from the misappropriation of the word, theory.
Let’s pretend its an early spring afternoon in Seattle, its raining, and we’ve got nothing better to do than to pick up the friendly neighborhood Oxford English dictionary. We look up the word theory and this is what we find: 1 A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained. 2 An idea accounting for or justifying something. 3 A set of principles on which an activity is based. We also learn that theory comes from the Greek word theoria, which means to contemplate or speculate.
In this sense, evangelicals attempting to sneak religion into the classroom have used the word theory appropriately in the description of their ideas about how life began; ID certainly does qualify as speculation. It qualifies as speculation in much the same way one might speculate JFK was assassinated by inanimate garden gnomes. It’s merely an idea to account for some given incident. The question is whether or not such speculation carries the validity of a theory as the word is applied within the scientific community.
According to the highly regarded National Academy of Science, a theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inference, and tested hypothesis. In short, scientific theories are substantiated by evidence.
For example, The Big Bang is a scientific theory about how the universe began. Based on information gathered from numerous observations and known scientific laws (as opposed to theories, laws have outcomes that can be predicted without fail), we can reasonably infer that a big bang started the universe we live in. If we look at the evidence for evolution, which is all we can do because we cannot observe this action directly, we can be reasonably sure that evolution is the mechanism by which one species becomes another. The particulars may be incomplete, but the inference holds.
The conclusions drawn from the observation of evidence is why the theory of Intelligent Design fails as a scientific theory and should properly be regarded or dubbed as being a hypothesis or speculation. Why does ID fail the scientific qualifications of a theory? Most notable is the fact that there are no tests from which one can infer the universe was designed and that proponents of ID ignore evidence that clearly contradicts what they believe. As George H. Smith said of these two notable failures, “Evidence for Intelligent Design are those things not found in nature.” We recognize designs because we know what man-made objects look like. The last time I checked (which would have been this morning), no man has ever created a universe.
A ruling in early 2006 in an evolution vs. ID case in Dover, Pennsylvania was highly critical of the differences between evolution and Intelligent Design as theories. In a 139-page ruling, Judge John Jones (a George W. Bush appointee no less!) ruled that ID was in fact not a scientific theory because the advocates of ID had made several critical mistakes. Foremost among those mistakes was the direct implication that Intelligent Design invokes supernatural causation, which cannot be tested to have its results predicted. Another flaw pointed out by the judge saw that the idea of an intelligently designed universe was predicated upon circular, instead of linear, reasoning. As it applies to ID, the basis of the argument in question is assumed to be true prior to rigorous (let’s make that any) investigative work.
Theories do differ from ideas that are regarded as facts. Though scientific theories are the best explanation for a given phenomenon based on the evidence at hand, theories are possibly falsifiable if reliably contradictory evidence becomes available. In the light of additional evidence, a theory is also amendable. To consider this is to make the word theory a bit malleable. This does not alter the fact though that in the scientific community, a theory is testable. If reasonable predictions cannot at least be guessed regarding the theory, it was never a scientific theory to begin with. It is merely, at best, a hypothesis. That distinction should always be made clear.
To quote the late philosopher Ashley Montague as it pertains to the debate on what is or is not a theory (particularly as it pertains to evolution); “Science has proof without any certainty; Creationists have certainty without any proof.” I could not put it any more succinctly.
Many evangelical, Fox News-loving conservatives would like you to believe there is an apocalyptic battle raging over the strength of evolution as a theory. It is their conviction that because the definition of fact and theory differ, this somehow allows for the insertion of their own ideas about how human life in particular began. Evangelicals have submitted, for what is likely the sake of brainwashing their constituents, the theory of Intelligent Design (or simply, ID); that is, that the universe is too complex to have happened by accident and by implication, was designed to be the way it is. However, much like in any given episode of Three’s Company, there’s been a misunderstanding. That misunderstanding comes from the misappropriation of the word, theory.
Let’s pretend its an early spring afternoon in Seattle, its raining, and we’ve got nothing better to do than to pick up the friendly neighborhood Oxford English dictionary. We look up the word theory and this is what we find: 1 A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained. 2 An idea accounting for or justifying something. 3 A set of principles on which an activity is based. We also learn that theory comes from the Greek word theoria, which means to contemplate or speculate.
In this sense, evangelicals attempting to sneak religion into the classroom have used the word theory appropriately in the description of their ideas about how life began; ID certainly does qualify as speculation. It qualifies as speculation in much the same way one might speculate JFK was assassinated by inanimate garden gnomes. It’s merely an idea to account for some given incident. The question is whether or not such speculation carries the validity of a theory as the word is applied within the scientific community.
According to the highly regarded National Academy of Science, a theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inference, and tested hypothesis. In short, scientific theories are substantiated by evidence.
For example, The Big Bang is a scientific theory about how the universe began. Based on information gathered from numerous observations and known scientific laws (as opposed to theories, laws have outcomes that can be predicted without fail), we can reasonably infer that a big bang started the universe we live in. If we look at the evidence for evolution, which is all we can do because we cannot observe this action directly, we can be reasonably sure that evolution is the mechanism by which one species becomes another. The particulars may be incomplete, but the inference holds.
The conclusions drawn from the observation of evidence is why the theory of Intelligent Design fails as a scientific theory and should properly be regarded or dubbed as being a hypothesis or speculation. Why does ID fail the scientific qualifications of a theory? Most notable is the fact that there are no tests from which one can infer the universe was designed and that proponents of ID ignore evidence that clearly contradicts what they believe. As George H. Smith said of these two notable failures, “Evidence for Intelligent Design are those things not found in nature.” We recognize designs because we know what man-made objects look like. The last time I checked (which would have been this morning), no man has ever created a universe.
A ruling in early 2006 in an evolution vs. ID case in Dover, Pennsylvania was highly critical of the differences between evolution and Intelligent Design as theories. In a 139-page ruling, Judge John Jones (a George W. Bush appointee no less!) ruled that ID was in fact not a scientific theory because the advocates of ID had made several critical mistakes. Foremost among those mistakes was the direct implication that Intelligent Design invokes supernatural causation, which cannot be tested to have its results predicted. Another flaw pointed out by the judge saw that the idea of an intelligently designed universe was predicated upon circular, instead of linear, reasoning. As it applies to ID, the basis of the argument in question is assumed to be true prior to rigorous (let’s make that any) investigative work.
Theories do differ from ideas that are regarded as facts. Though scientific theories are the best explanation for a given phenomenon based on the evidence at hand, theories are possibly falsifiable if reliably contradictory evidence becomes available. In the light of additional evidence, a theory is also amendable. To consider this is to make the word theory a bit malleable. This does not alter the fact though that in the scientific community, a theory is testable. If reasonable predictions cannot at least be guessed regarding the theory, it was never a scientific theory to begin with. It is merely, at best, a hypothesis. That distinction should always be made clear.
To quote the late philosopher Ashley Montague as it pertains to the debate on what is or is not a theory (particularly as it pertains to evolution); “Science has proof without any certainty; Creationists have certainty without any proof.” I could not put it any more succinctly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
