Gay Marriage

I have a couple friends who are gay and it has always seemed odd to me that they are… …well… …normal. Yep, they are just people who happen to have a different sexual preference then me. And after a while, it really doesn’t seem any weirder then having a different taste in ice cream or liking cats over dogs. It’s just a variable that doesn’t seem to positively or negatively impact my life in any way.

So when someone seems overly upset about “the gays” I’m always a bit confused. Do they:

A) Think that gay people are personally out to destroy their individual marriages?

B) Just grossed out about thinking of two guys having sex (Few people seem to disapprove of two women together, as long as their hot)?

C) Actually angry about something bigger that I just wasn’t grasping?

I had originally added a D) They do not know any gay people. But then I realized that everyone knows someone who is gay.

With some research and thinking, I came up with the following:

Since our inception as a country we have been in a constant state of flux between what we now refer to as conservative and liberal directions. Both the conservative and liberal paths come from the differences in moral development and experiences that individuals travel through in their life. Cultural policy changes are generally based on shifting morals.

Jean Piaget (2006) tells us that “all morality consists in a system of rules, and the essence of all morality is to be sought for in the respect which the individual acquires for those rules”. On an individual level, rule acquiring starts a young age and develops from the parenting model out. There are two distinct parental models that most children are raised with that help them develop how they see the world and work in conjunction with any life experiences that they are exposed to. These two parental models are universal in their usage and produce individuals who, even though they can be culturally and geographically different, are split into two distinct groups that share the same basic beliefs to how the world moralistically operates.

The first of these two groups is the strict father model, wherein there is a set of assumptions that believe that the “world is a dangerous place, and always will be, because there is evil out there in the world. The world is also difficult because it is competitive. There will always be winners and losers. There is an absolute right and an absolute wrong. Children are born bad, in the sense that they just want to do what feels good, not what is right. Therefore, they have to be made good” (Lakoff 2004).

The model goes on to describe how a strong and strict father is needed as a guide to “protect the family in the dangerous world, support the family in the difficult world, and teach the children right from wrong”. This strict and physical discipline teaches the individual how to behave if they do not want to be punished by the world. It also teaches an Adam Smith Invisible Hand of morality, wherein, everyone will pursue their own self-interest to an end equally beneficial to all who are have the personal responsibility and follow that same self-interest. This model leads to the underlying belief that those who are good moral people are disciplined and self-reliant. Bad people are those who are immoral because they are dependent on others.

This strict father model of raising children leads to adults who believe it is immoral to give to those who have not helped themselves. They also believe that it is the right thing to do when the government rewards those who have pursued their own self-interest and punish those who have not. The political result of this is a conservative base that sees very little positive in almost all social programs and believes that they are the moral authority. This leads towards national and international policy based on the same strict father model and policy that sees it moral to punish and reward based on an individuals ability to remain self-reliant and disciplined enough to be successful on their own. It also has the tendency to see the world in that original “good” and “bad” mentality and treat all who are not the moral authorities as their children in need of guidance.

The antithesis to the strict father model is the nurturing model of parenting. This gender neutral model assumed that “both parents are equally responsible for raising the children. The assumption is that children are born good and can be made better. The world can be made a better place, and our job is to work on that. The parents’ job is to nurture their children and to raise their children to be nurturing of others” (Lakoff 2003). This parenting model relies on empathy and responsibility. It is the parents’ responsibility to be morally responsibly, protect, and provide nurturing values (freedom, opportunity, fairness, communication, and honesty) all while remaining strong so that they continue to be productive in their society. This nurturing parent model leads to different distinct variations of personal responsibility, but all have a supporting role in the wellbeing of all. Social program, international aid, and safety nets are the policy themes of this model. Both models have a fair share of individuals who, for different reasons, will eventually gravitate towards the other side.

So the historically conservative issue with gay marriage arises because of the simple fact that same sex-marriages go in the opposite direction as the strict father model of the family. A marriage between two lesbians does not have a father, and a marriage between two men consists of a partnership of men who are deemed feminine and less man-like. Since defending and expanding the strict father model is the absolute highest moral value for conservatives, same-sex marriage constitutes an attack on the conservative value system as a whole, and on those whose very identity depends on their having strict father values.

They are not fighting to keep gays from marrying because they think the individuals are personally attacking their marriage; they are fighting because it undercuts everything that they believe by showing them that other ways work just as well as their own. And that is more dangerous to them then anything else.

Lakoff, G. (2003). Don’t Think of an Elephant. White River Jct., VT: Chelesa Green Publishing.

Piaget, J. (2006). The Moral Judgment of the Child. NYL: Free Press.

Spirituality

What do you think of when someone tells you that they are “spiritual”? Do you think that they are Christian? Do you then see them as Earthy, Hippy, New Agey? Do you assume that they’ve spent long stretches of time trying to figure out who they are in relation to the universe around them?

So what is Spirituality? Is it different to everyone? Is it a term that has been stretched so thin that no one can really define it? Would you say that you are Spiritual? Why? Why not?

Entry for June 20, 2007

I am a non-believer in religion. I do not believe in a God, or Gods, and no words will ever change that. I do not believe that I am an Atheist because an Atheist’s belief seems to be absolute and I know that I am wrong too often to pretend I can be absolutely right on anything. Also, I have a problem with the term “Atheist” because it is defined as “someone who denies the existence of God” and that, to me, seems odd because there are no other words in the English language to describe someone who does not believe in something else. There is no word to describe those who do not believe in fairies or dragons, there is no term for those people who question the existence of Bigfoot, and no one has ever coined a saying for individuals who know that Santa isn’t real. So the only reason for a term to describe someone who does not believe in a God or Gods is so that some people can identify, or be identified, as those who don’t believe as certain others do. Atheism is an argument waiting to happen, it is a disagreement that wishes to be fought over, and it is a fight that will never have a clear winner. So I choose to be a non-believer, someone with strong convictions about my great doubts, that will probably never be overcome, and an individual who will not believe in absolutes.

Attention All Women

It has come to my attention that a high percentage of women under the age of 40 have been seriously misled as to what is “hot”. So here and now, I would like to let all women know that no strait male over the age of 14 finds Paris Hilton attractive. Please, stop wearing those ridiculously enormous sunglasses, knock it off with the ever-changing, bad, blonde hairstyle structures, and please leave vacant and vapid expressions to individuals in a coma. It is not hot, is not attractive to men, and makes us want to run away from you.

Thank you.

Confused

The news just reported that Ruth Graham, who is 87 and the wife of well-known Evangelist Billy Graham, who is 88 and blessed with fluid on the brain, prostate cancer, Parkinson's disease and age-related macular degeneration, fell into a coma Wednesday morning and appears to be close to death. The family is readying the task of burial and dealing with the inevitable fallout from the loss of a member of the family. In the interim, they are praying for her recovery and encouraging others to keep her health in their prayers.

This I find absolutely confusing.

If they truly believed that they were all going to a special place to live out eternity in absolute bliss, wouldn’t they be happy about it? Is it not incredibly greedy on their behalf to want her to live in a state like that knowing that she’s on her way to the best place that they can image? It’s like they are all standing outside the gates of Disneyworld yelling at her to come back as she goes through the turnstile. Sure it’s natural to want our loved ones to stay here with us, but if you honestly believed in an afterlife like the Christian heaven, wouldn’t you want yourself and everyone you love to get there as quickly as possible?

Reality Check

Reality Check
Between the new PhD in Public Policy and Administration and the current political climate, I’ve been a bit centered on our country, present day occurrences, daily bickerings and how they all relate to our own history. When I get mired in frustration or ecstatic in hope I ground myself by trying to remember just how small and inconsequential all of this really is. This is how I do it:



The above picture was taken by Voyager 1, while 4 billion miles away, of Earth. Along with this picture, I read the following by Carl Sagan from Pale Blue Dot:

"The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors, so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of this pixel on the scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner, how frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds. Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light."

Next time that you think that the universe is out to get you or that you are righteously special, look at the above picture, read the quote from Dr. Sagan, and think to yourself, “Am I really that important?” and I promise that you’ll feel a bit more… ..grounded.

Motorcycles are no longer cool

For Memorial Day Kela and I are traveling through a couple different places in the South, seeing some friends and family, and trying to relax in the warm and welcoming comfort of Southern hospitality. Our first sojourn along the way, Anderson, SC, was a stop to a motorcycle club on their way to somewhere else. My immediate impression of motorcycles is a flashback to 1969 with Peter Fonda and Dennis Hopper riding across the country on a self-realization trip. Or a band of 60’s Harleys rolling down the road, unencumbered with the trivialities of “normal” life.

Now my mother was at Atlamont when the Hells Angels took over the Stones Concert and killed one member of the audience and remembers it with distant horror. The Hells Angles were the quintessential motorcycle gang in our history. Vicious, merciless, and badass, they were cool in an awful way. Their motorcycles were the identifying marker of who and what they were.

Fast forward almost four decades and now Steven, an orthodontist who drives a Volvo 960 during the week, and Colin, a retired CPA with a wife actually named Muffin, ride down Main Street on their monthly trip to the Sam’s Club four towns over and back. Motorcycles use to be the pinnacle of coolness, up there with leather jackets, drugs, and anonymous sex. Now they are mostly for retired, balding guys who are trying to recapture an age which they missed because they were trying to pay off a house and put kids through school.

So it is bad that motorcycles are no longer the symbol of free expression and personal autonomy? Maybe. Is it a good thing that anyone can escape into a world where all rules are self-made and followed only on choice? Perhaps. Is it safe to assume that people are just experiencing a Disneyfied motorcycle fantasy with delusions of coolness? Yes. Do I want one? Possibly.

Net taxes could arrive by this fall

The following story is from News.com (http://news.com.com/2100-1028_3-6186193.html)

The era of tax-free e-mail, Internet shopping and broadband connections could end this fall, if recent proposals in the U.S. Congress prove successful.

State and local governments this week resumed a push to lobby Congress for far-reaching changes on two different fronts: gaining the ability to impose sales taxes on Net shopping, and being able to levy new monthly taxes on DSL and other connections. One senator is even predicting taxes on e-mail.

At the moment, states and municipalities are frequently barred by federal law from collecting both access and sales taxes. But they're hoping that their new lobbying effort, coordinated by groups including the National Governors Association, will pay off by permitting them to collect billions of dollars in new revenue by next year.

If that doesn't happen, other taxes may zoom upward instead, warned Sen. Michael Enzi, a Wyoming Republican, at a Senate hearing on Wednesday. "Are we implicitly blessing a situation where states are forced to raise other taxes, such as income or property taxes, to offset the growing loss of sales tax revenue?" Enzi said. "I want to avoid that."

A flurry of proposals that pro-tax advocates advanced this week push in that direction. On Tuesday, Enzi introduced a bill that would usher in mandatory sales tax collection for Internet purchases. Second, during a House of Representatives hearing the same day, politicians weighed whether to let a temporary ban on Net access taxes lapse when it expires on November 1. A House backer of another pro-sales tax bill said this week to expect a final version by July.

"The independent and sovereign authority of states to develop their own revenue systems is a basic tenet of self government and our federal system," said David Quam, director of federal relations at the National Governors Association, during a Senate Commerce committee hearing on Wednesday.

Internet sales taxes
At the moment, for instance, Seattle-based Amazon.com is not required to collect sales taxes on shipments to millions of its customers in states like California, where Amazon has no offices. (Californians are supposed to voluntarily pay the tax owed when filing annual state tax returns, but few do.)

Ideas to alter this situation hardly represent a new debate: officials from the governors' association have been pressing Congress to enact such a law for at least six years. They invoke arguments--unsuccessful so far--like saying that reduced sales tax revenue threatens budgets for schools and police.

But with Democrats now in control of both chambers of Congress, the political dynamic appears to have shifted in favor of the pro-tax advocates and their allies on Capitol Hill. The NetChoice coalition, which counts as members eBay, Yahoo and the Electronic Retailing Association and opposes the sales tax plan, fears that the partisan shift will spell trouble.

One long-standing objection to mandatory sales tax collection, which the Supreme Court in a 1992 case left up to Congress to decide, is the complexity of more than 7,500 different tax agencies that each have their own (and frequently bizarre) rules. Some legal definitions (PDF) tax Milky Way Midnight candy bars as candy and treat the original Milky Way bar as food. Peanut butter Girl Scout cookies are candy, but Thin Mints or Caramel deLites are classified as food.

The pro-tax forces say that a concept called the Streamlined Sales Tax Agreement will straighten out some of the notorious convolutions of state tax laws. Enzi's bill, introduced this week, relies on the agreement when providing "federal authorization" to require out-of-state retailers "to collect and remit the sales and use taxes" due on the purchase. (Small businesses with less than $5 million in out-of-state sales are exempted.)

It's "important to level the playing field for all retailers," Enzi said during Wednesday's hearing.

While it's too early to know how much support Enzi's bill will receive, foes of higher taxation are marshaling their allies. Sen. Ted Stevens, an Alaska Republican, said Wednesday that he'd like "to see an impregnable ban on taxes on the Internet."

Jeff Dircksen, the director of congressional analysis at the National Taxpayers Union in Alexandria, Va., said in written testimony prepared for the hearing: "If such a system of extraterritorial collection is allowed, Congress will have opened the door to any number of potential tax cartels that will eventually harm rather than help taxpayers."

Internet access taxes
A second category of higher Net taxes is technically unrelated, but is increasingly likely to be linked when legislation is debated in Congress later this year. That category involves access taxes, meaning taxes that local and state governments levy to single out broadband or dial-up connections. (See CNET News.com's Tech Politics podcast this week with former House Majority Leader Dick Armey on this point.)

If the temporary federal moratorium is allowed to expire in November, states and municipalities will be allowed to levy a dizzying array of Net access taxes--meaning a monthly Internet connection bill could begin to resemble a telephone bill or airline ticket with innumerable and confusing fees tacked on at the end. In some states, telephone fees, taxes and surcharges run as high as 20 percent of the bill.

These fees that states levy on mobile phones, cable TV and landlines run far higher than state sales taxes at an average of 13.3 percent, cost the average household $264 a year, and total $41 billion annually, according to a report published by the Chicago-based Heartland Institute this month. Landlines are taxed at the highest rate, 17.23 percent, with Internet access being virtually tax free, with the exception of a few states that were grandfathered in a decade ago.

Dircksen, from the National Taxpayers Union, urged the Senate on Wednesday to "encourage economic growth and innovation in the telecommunications sector--in contrast to higher taxes, fees and additional regulation" by at least renewing the expiring moratorium, and preferably making it permanent. Broadband providers like Verizon Communications also want to make the ban permanent.

But state tax collectors are steadfastly opposed to any effort to renew the ban, let alone impose a permanent extension. Harley Duncan, the executive director of the Federation of Tax Administrators, said Wednesday that higher taxes will not discourage broadband adoption and his group "urges Congress not to extend the Act because it is disruptive of and poses long-term dangers for state and local fiscal systems."

Sen. Daniel Inouye, the influential Democratic chairman of the Senate Commerce committee, said: "Listening to the testimony, I would opt for a temporary extension, if at all."

If the moratorium expires, one ardent tax foe is predicting taxes on e-mail. A United Nations agency proposed in 1999 the idea of a 1-cent-per-100-message tax, but retreated after criticism. (A similar proposal, called bill "602P," is, however, actually an urban legend.)

"They might say, 'We have no interest in having taxes on e-mail,' but if we allow the prohibition on Internet taxes to expire, then you open the door on cities and towns and states to tax e-mail or other aspects of Internet access," said Sen. John Sununu, a New Hampshire Republican. "We need to be honest about what we're endorsing and what we're opposing."

Entry for May 19, 2007

Have you ever been somewhere, listening in on a conversation (or possibly trapped where you are forced to listen) and wish you could jump in regardless of the consequences? Well, this happened to me this morning. And not being able to respond at that time, I now present just my side of the conversation with the adult voice from the Peanuts filling in the other side:

So you honestly think that a being capable of creating space, time, and matter, 125 billion galaxies, of which there are 400 billion stars and 4 trillion planets in our galaxy alone, with 1.8 million known living plant and animal species on this planet (several billion if you count the extinct ones), and you think that this being thinks YOU are important? Oh please, get over yourself. You aren’t cosmic shit. You are not special by any stretch of the imagination. And if there is a divine being, it would have the power to create something infinitely more interesting than you.

Whaa-whaa-whaa?

Died for your original sin?!?! What sins does a baby have? What kind of horrible being do you think would create a life already convicted of the worst crimes that can be imagined? How horribly cruel is that being that you’re calling a God?!??

Whaa-whaa-WHAA.

Look, I understand that you think that there is a super-cool guy out there in the sky who controls everything, but there is an old argument by some dead dude that goes something like this: If your God wants to stop evil, but can’t, then he is not all powerful. If he can prevent evil, but is not willing, then he is cruel. If he is able and willing, then evil wouldn’t exist. If he is not able or willing, then he isn’t actually a God. See how easy that was? No God, you’re on your own. Sorry.

Whaa-whaa-whaa!!!

Fine, fine, whatever, I look at it this way: The same freewill that allows you to believe in a supernatural being is the same freewill that allows me to behave myself. You choose to believe in a fantasy world because you think that its rules are sacred. I use my freewill to believe in rules for the sake of humanity and to keep myself safe. Either way, we are basically supporting the same rules. Except with my way, I can change my rules as science, morals, and technology evolves. You are now stuck because you’ve chose to submit your freewill to something that is uncompromising and your freewill no longer exists while it is in sublimation to that divine law. Therefore, I can choose to be a better person then you because I can take in more factors and current judgments about present day situations.

Whaa

Same to you.

There, I feel much better now. Thank you.

Open Question for Everyone

Is it safe to assume that with the ever increasing connectivity of information leading to a technological Lamarckian view of knowledge, or, where new generations of humans inherit the acquired discoveries of past generations (allowing for cosmic insight to accumulate without limit), that this process would channel towards an overall collectivist mindset in those knowledge’s benefactors?

If they answer is yes, will this collective attitude manifest itself into global Socialist governance and has it already started in countries where information is shared equally and with efficient fluidity?

If not, will the ease of access to any information create a subset of individuals whom choose to absorb said information and an equal subset who do not? Would this split not eventually lead towards speciation?

Caveat: I am making the assumption that those who take full advantage of the technological Lamarckian view of knowledge raise a higher percentage of children who will do the same and eventually mate in-kind.

Thoughts? Insults? Ideas?

On Disney and Southern Baptists

On June 18, 1997 the Southern Baptists approved, by an overwhelming majority of delegates, a boycott the Disney Company and its subsidiaries. At the time they claimed it was for the "anti-Christian and anti-family direction" that they believed that the saw in Disney (cnn.com). It citied Disney’s tolerance of homosexuals and subsidiaries production of controversial books and films like "Pulp Fiction". Of course, all of this hit Disney’s bottom line in ways immeasurable, mainly because it had no measurable impact whatsoever.

It wasn’t until this last week, upon seeing a couple of the Disney movies (Beauty and the Beast, Jungle Book, and Little Mermaid) when I finally figured out the real reason for the Southern Baptists frustration. What I realized was that it had nothing to do with the Disney Theme Park’s “Gay Days”, or anything to do with films like Pulp Fiction. Instead, it was because Disney is the standard for children’s entertainment and that that product is almost entirely secular. Essentially, the Baptists were pissed because Disney wouldn’t help them to sell their religion. The Southern Baptists decided to boycott Disney to force them into providing some Christian products to legitimize their beliefs in the eyes of their most impressionable of their congregation.

I don’t know why it took me so long to figure that out, and I’m almost ashamed to admit it here, but I figured that if I didn’t come clean on my own shortcomings, I would be no better then those Southern Baptists.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9706/18/baptists.disney/

Entry for May 14, 2007

Have you ever reread a book and found something new? Some undiscovered line or thought that you’ve somehow missed in subsequent readings? This weekend it happened to me and I’m better for it.

When our friends Tom and Kate invited us to go camping this last weekend, and being the nerd that I am, I decided to raid my bookshelf for something appropriate to read in the woods. This led me to rereading Thoreau’s Walden, after a morning sunrise over the lake, and for the first time in years.

Buried in the book by a fire I found the line, “I believe that men are generally still a little afraid of the dark, though the witches are all hung, and Christianity and candles have all been introduced” and sat thinking as the embers seemed to crack and hiss their approval of my fresh discovery.

As much as I would like to argue the belief, I think that we need fear to feel alive; it is the curse of being mortal. So many things we have done are aimed at controlling the fear of death, but nothing every really seeks the root. It is the one disease that we will all get, suffer with, and eventually die from. Moreover, no one has, or will, ever come back to tell tales of eternal light. So we sit in the dark, warmed by the glow of our little advancements, safe in the knowledge that evildoers are being hunted, encouraged by passing tales of myth and guesses, all the while knowing we will someday find the darkness, and are complete.

Happiness comes in all forms, most of which are denials. So it is reassuring to see mortality for what it is, because that is the only true way in which to learn to enjoy the sun as it warms us for one more day.

Science is Cool

From apples to zebras, all 1.8 million known plant and animal species will be listed in an Internet-based "Encyclopedia of Life" under a $100 million project, scientists said on Tuesday.

The 10-year scheme, launched with initial grants of $12.5 million from two U.S.-based foundations, could aid everyone from children with biology homework to governments planning how to protect endangered species.

"The Encyclopedia of Life plans to create an entry for every named species," James Edwards, executive director of the project which is backed by many leading research institutions, told Reuters. "At the moment that's 1.8 million."

The free Encyclopedia would focus mainly on animals, plants and fungi with microbes to follow, blending text, photographs, maps and videos in a common format for each. Expansion of the Internet in recent years made the multi-media project possible.

Demonstration pages at http://www.eol.org include entries about polar bears, rice, death cap mushrooms and a "yeti crab" with hairy claws recently found in the South Pacific.

"This is about giving access to information to everyone," Jesse Ausubel, chairman of the project who works at the Rockefeller University in New York City, told Reuters.

The Encyclopedia would draw on existing databases such as for mammals, fishes, birds, amphibians and plants. English would be used at the start with translations to other languages.

Edwards said the project would give an overview of life on earth via what he termed a "macroscope" -- the opposite of a microscope through which scientists usually peer.

Species would be added as they were identified. Edwards said there might be 8-10 million on earth, adding that estimates ranged from 5-100 million. Fossil species may also be added.

The encyclopedia, to be run by a team of about 25-35 people, could help chart threats to species from pollution, habitat destruction and global warming.

The project would be led by the U.S. Field Museum, Harvard University, Marine Biological Laboratory, Missouri Botanical Garden,
Smithsonian Institution, and Biodiversity Heritage Library -- a group that includes London's Natural History Museum, the New York Botanical Garden, and the Royal Botanic Garden in Kew, England.

Initial funding comes from a $10 million grant from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation and $2.5 million from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation.

Extra funds would be raised in coming years.

Ausubel noted that 2007 was the 300th anniversary of the birth of Sweden's Carl Linnaeus, influential in working out ways to classify species. "If he were alive today we think he'd be jumping up and down celebrating," he said.

Entry for May 11, 2007

I’ve heard quite a few people say the line “I don’t worry about the government monitoring me because I have nothing to hide”. To them, I offer this video. Enjoy.

On this National Day of Reason

On this National Day of Reason I offer forth the story of Mosey the Pirate form The Gospel according to the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

While brooding atop Mount Salsa having lost his pirate ship, Captain Mosey received advice from the Flying Spaghetti Monster in the form of ten stone tablets. The Flying Spaghetti Monster proclaimed these were to be forever called the "I'd Really Rather You Didn'ts", or the "Commandments" by Mosey, with his pirate gang referring to them as "Condiments". Why transporting the new sacred tablet back down the mountain, Mosey dropped two. This accident "partly accounts for Pastafarians' flimsy moral standards". The FSM's commandments address the treatment of people of other faiths, worship of the FSM, sexual conduct, and nutrition. They are as follows:
The Eight "I'd Really Rather You Didn'ts"

1. I'd really rather you didn't act like a sanctimonious holier-than-thou ass when describing my noodly goodness. If some people don't believe in me, that's okay. Really, I'm not that vain. Besides, this isn't about them so don't change the subject.
2. I'd really rather you didn't use my existence as a means to oppress, subjugate, punish, eviscerate, and/or, you know, be mean to others. I don't require sacrifices, and purity is for drinking water, not people.
3. I'd really rather you didn't judge people for the way they look, or how they dress, or the way they talk, or, well, just play nice, Okay? Oh, and get this in your thick heads: woman = person. man = person. Samey = Samey. One is not better than the other, unless we're talking about fashion and I'm sorry, but I gave that to women and some guys who know the difference between teal and fuchsia.
4. I'd really rather you didn't indulge in conduct that offends yourself, or your willing, consenting partner of legal age AND mental maturity. As for anyone who might object, I think the expression is go fuck yourself, unless they find that offensive in which case they can turn off the TV for once and go for a walk for a change.
5. I'd really rather you didn't challenge the bigoted, misogynistic, hateful ideas of others on an empty stomach. Eat, then go after the bitch.
6. I'd really rather you didn't build multi million-dollar churches/temples/mosques/shrines to my noodly goodness when the money could be better spent (take your pick):
A. Ending poverty
B. Curing diseases
C. Living in peace, loving with passion, and lowering the cost of cable
I might be a complex-carbohydrate omniscient being, but I enjoy the simple things in life. I ought to know. I AM the creator.
7. I'd really rather you didn't go around telling people I talk to you. You're not that interesting. Get over yourself. And I told you to love your fellow man, can't you take a hint?
8. I'd really rather you didn't do unto others as you would have them do unto you if you are into, um, stuff that uses a lot of leather/lubricant/Las Vegas. If the other person is into it, however (pursuant to #4), then have at it, take pictures, and for the love of Mike, wear a CONDOM! honestly, it's a piece of rubber. If I didn't want it to feel good when you did it I would have added spikes, or something.

So let us all now bask in His noodly goodness and spend this National Day of Reason contemplating those less fortunate than us, how we may help them, and what we can do to improve ourselves. Because lets face it, we all need some work.

Now if you'll join me (no need to stand, we're not that formal) in the The Flying Spaghetti Monster Prayer:
Our saucer, which art in a colander,
Draining be Your noodles.
Thy noodle come,
Thy meatballness be done on earth,
As it is meaty in heaven.
Give us this day our daily sauce,
And forgive us our lack of piracy,
As we pirate and smuggle against those who lack piracy with us.
And lead us not into vegetarianism,
But deliver us from non-red meat sauce.
For thine is the colander, the noodle, and the sauce,
Forever and ever.
Ramen

Go in Reason and Thought

Entry for May 02, 2007

It's going to be a fun(ny) election.

Entry for May 01, 2007

Is it just me, or is Christopher Hitchens is trying to become Oolon Colluphid?

Confessions from a Guilty Atheist

I love churches. Not for any religious reason, really, I’m just there for the whole production. Here you have a wonderful building, usually constructed with grand opulence, a show full of pageantry, incense, singing, dancing (in some), outfits of all designs, food and drinks, and speeches on everything from birth to death and after. It’s one hell of a show!!! Vegas has nothing on a good religious service.

Now before you out there in Brightsville start in with your “oh please, there’s just as much proof that God created the universe in some sort of Christian / Muslim / Jewish / Zoroastrian / Whateverian way as there is that the Universe was sneezed out of the nose of a being called the Great Green Arkleseizure. People just need myth to feel blah blah blah”, let me tell you that I know. Really, I agree. But I am still a sucker for a good show.

So if you see me sitting in the back of a church this weekend, munching popcorn with my feet up, let me go ahead and apologize. Chances are that the guy up front in the funny religious uniform and I will never see eye to eye, but at least when that collection plate comes around, I will be one of the only people in the room who drops in $10 and feels that they’ve got their moneys worth.

Entry for April 12, 2007

On July 24th of 2006 I posted a blog called “Who will you cry for when they die?” and posed the question “Not counting family members, loved ones, and pets, who will you shed a tear for when they pass?” Mine was Kurt Vonnegut.

Last night he died and I cried. So it goes.

From Reuters:

Thu Apr 12, 1:27 AM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - American literary idol Kurt Vonnegut, best known for such classic novels as "Slaughterhouse-Five" and "Cat's Cradle," died on Tuesday night in Manhattan at age 84, The New York Times reported on Wednesday.

Longtime family friend, Morgan Entrekin, who reported Vonnegut's death, said the writer had suffered brain injuries as a result of a fall several weeks ago, the newspaper reported.

Vonnegut, born in Indianapolis in 1922, also wrote plays, essays and short fiction. But his novels -- 14 in all -- became classics of the American counterculture. He was a literary idol, particularly to students in the 1960s and 1970s, the Times said.

The defining moment of Vonnegut's life was the firebombing of Dresden, Germany by Allied Forces in 1945, an event he witnessed as a young prisoner of war, the newspaper said.

Dresden was the basis for "Slaughterhouse-Five," which was published in 1969 against the backdrop of war in Vietnam, racial unrest and cultural and social upheaval, the Times said.

Vonnegut became a cult hero when the novel reached No. 1 on best-seller lists, the article said, adding that some schools and libraries have banned the book because of its sexual content, rough language and depictions of violence.

The novel featured a signature Vonnegut phrase, "so it goes," which became a catch phrase for opponents of the Vietnam war.

After the book was published, Vonnegut went into severe depression and vowed never to write another novel. In 1984, he tried to take his life with sleeping pills and alcohol, the report said.

Vonnegut's books were a mixture of fiction and autobiography, prone to one-sentence paragraphs, exclamation points and italics, the report said.

Some critics said he had invented a new literary type and other accused him of repeating himself, of recycling themes and characters. Some readers found his work incoherent, the Times said.

"Cat's Cradle" was published in 1963 and although it initially sold only about 500 copies it is widely read today in high school English classes, the newspaper said.

Vonnegut's last book, published in 2005, was a collection of biographical essays, "A Man Without a Country." It, too, was a best seller, the newspaper said.

His first play, "Happy Birthday, Wanda June," opened Off Broadway in 1970 to mixed reviews and around the same time he separated from his first wife, Jane, the Times said.

Vonnegut, a fourth-generation German-American, is survived by his wife photographer Jill Krementz, their daughter and his six other children, the New York Times said.

Did you know...