am3ricanath3ist

Mon, 12 May 2008 20:44:29 GMT

No such luck, 66.240.30.62. Not this time at least.

In Memoriam

Tue, 11 Sep 2007 11:37:13 GMT

It's been six years since the events that changed the nation. Seemingly overnight, we changed from a leader of peace and prosperity in the eyes of the international community into a savage warmonger. We began to systematically hand over control of our lives, our freedoms, to the government in the hopes of gaining protection. Nearly 3,000 people were killed in a set of coordinated attacks. There are 300 million Americans (not including foreign nationals residing in the US), even in that attack, the largest of it's kind on American soil, the chances of being killed were 1 in 300,000. The 2005 hurricane season was almost; over 3 times as many perished in the tsunami back in 2004. And if the defense/CT budget weren't so bloated, we could have given more support to the victims of recent natural disasters and perhaps invested more into performing actual measures of protection against them (patchwork levees are not a solution). I am not saying that the events were not tragic, they most certainly were, but we shouldn't lose sight of what is truly important. Those who lost loved ones six years ago today should certainly keep this day in memory, but America has to move on.

On Free Speech

Mon, 25 Jun 2007 16:37:47 GMT

It is official: free speech is dead. The Supreme Court of the United States of America (SCOTUS) ruled 5-4 against the student who flew a "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" banner back in 2002. The philosophy behind the ruling was that the banner may have advocated drug use. According to the student, it was merely a politcal statement, an exercise of free expression. So perhaps some folks out there don't see this incident as a major issue. "Why don't you just avoid drug references?" they say. It's not about what was banned from speech, but that anything was banned in the first place. If SCOTUS exempts one topic from free speech, it will be that much easier to do exempt another one. And if we just give up on this blatant violation of our 1st amendment rights, it will be that much easier to give up next time.

On a religious jury

Thu, 14 Jun 2007 11:26:56 GMT

As if I needed another reason to avoid Texas, a Harris County (TX) jury, with "Ninety-eight percent of the evidence pointed to (Cook) [the accused] being correct" (according to a juror) and still unable to render a verdict, pray to ultimately decide. Can anyone say "mistrial"? Isn't guilt supposed to be determined beyond a reasonable doubt? Is 98% not guilty not reasonable?! I do recognize that it was only one juror who pulled the figure 98% out of his ass, but come on! Even the prosecutor said there wasn't much of a case! And all involved honestly believe that god him/herself allowed for the not guilty verdict. Judging from the rest of the article, it would have taken a supernatural force to convict the guy, not the other way around. Is this standard practice in Texas? Why even have the jury present if they have to rely on prayer despite overwhelming evidence? And remembering a story a while back about a tourist who was arrested for asking a movie patron to be quiet during the film, I have no intention of risking my life on the off-chance of having to face a Texas jury and their deluded interpretation of a divine being. Please, but no thank you.

On Religion in Public Schools

Mon, 16 Apr 2007 17:40:47 GMT

Every year it seems, there is a high profile event concerning the involvement of religion in public schools. The Texas state House of Representatives has introduced a bill that would require public schools to accomodate students wishing to study the bible provided that at least 15 students were interested. I would like to hope that the Supreme Court of the United States steps in and shoots this bill down before it gets enacted.

It is important to note that the bill in question specifies that the bible class is dedicated to the study of the literary and historic content of the old and new testaments. Of primary concern is whether or not a public school in the state of Texas, where the populace is overwhelmingly religious, even can teach the course with neutrality as the bill specifies. Veering from the goal of teaching the literary and historical merits of the bible (which I and others believe don't even think exist) could and should be considered a violation of the law. The same applies for focusing on the new testament, or even pointing out inaccuracies or faults with the old testament while praising the new testament. Many see this as another attempt by the fundies to inject religion into schools.
Another topic for debate is which version of the bible to use. Different sects of Christianity have different bibles, some differing in their translations, others have added or removed entire chapters. What process would be put in place to select the edition they use? How will the teacher's be trained in preparation of the course if at all? What would they use as a textbook? These questions are as of yet unanswered.
There was a little agreement a while back in which religious groups wouldn't pay taxes and in return, wouldn't receive tax money. This has been the lead argument against several faith-based initiatives in schools. I am not going to pay money to support a religion. In fact, most people don't pay money to support a religion unless they pay it directly. Particularly if the class is religiously slanted, why should non-Christians have to pay (in the form of taxes) for this program? And funding would have to come from the taxpayers. Perhaps they could put on their tax forms an optional tax to support the program. I wonder how many people would willingly pay to support a program that they could and should be doing themselves or having a local church do it if they want it so badly.

Some people complain that religion is being unfairly stripped from our nation, that there is a war against it waged by the nonbelievers. They mention instances where a pillar of this country was torn down because it hinted at religion. Yet their main examples of the removal of religion were hardly part of the foundation of the US. They bring up prayer in school, the pledge of allegiance, even the oath of office (when an elected official wanted to swear on the Koran instead of a bible). Prayer in school was removed as a result of action from Christian families. The phrase "under god" was added to the pledge of allegiance in the 1950's as was "In god we trust" on our currency. And there is no law that says an elected official has to say "so help me god" during their oath of office. So stop bitching when a fundie ploy fails or is reversed by the courts. Your churches are still safe, an no interpretation of the first amendment will change that. You can still read whatever book you like in the sanctity of your own home. There is no need to push your religious beliefs into public schools and make taxpayers foot the bill.

On Elastic Reality, Rigid Beliefs

Tue, 27 Mar 2007 11:26:03 GMT

There are some rather silly ideas out there in the world today. Undereducated individuals make some claim and, for some reason, others believe it. Take, for example, Georgia State Representative "Ben" Bridges. He [allegedly] wrote a memo calling for a ban on teaching evolution. This is nothing new, particularly in the state of Georgia. But what sets this apart from most other such statements is the reason for calling the ban. He believes that evolution and the Big Bang are lies being concocted by Kabbalah. I would have thought we were past blaming the Jews for everything we perceive as wrong, at least on this hemisphere. What this memo actually refers to is a two-thousand year-old alternative creation story. He then falls back on the famous "evolution is a theory, not a fact, so it shouldn't be taught in a science class" argument. You can read this and other arguments at their website fixedearth.com.

Evolution is a theory and a fact. We have, in our lifetimes even, observed microevolution. We have seen new species form and we have observed changes in phenotypes occur. We have a fossil record (if you choose to accept that they aren't another ploy by the Jews) that shows gradual change in species over time. Though the mechanisms of evolution are fact, the process as a whole and topics of genesis are unproven. Thus it remains a theory, and it probably will remain theory indefinitely. The science class is not a nothing-but-facts class. If science teachers could only teach proven facts, there would be little to teach. Gravity is a theory, but it is still taught. Assuming that the Theory of Gravitation is tossed aside, we would need to send with it (amongst others) Atomic Theory, Relativity, Circuit theory (hydraulics and electric currents), and the propagation of sound waves. Then consider everything based off of those subjects that would, too, need to be dismissed.

A theory is a falsifiable prediction or assumption about a (potentially unobserved) phenomenon. It's not some arbitrary guess; it is a hypothesis that has withstood rigorous testing. If part or whole of a theory is found to be untrue through testing, it is modified to reflect new observations or discarded as per the scientific method. Those that use the theory-not-fact argument ought to wage a full-scale war on mathematics since the entire field is base on a set of axioms. 0 < 1 is an axiom as well as 0 and 1 existing. An axiom is considered widely to be truth; however, there is no proof other than the axiom itself (sounds kind of familiar, doesn't it?). And if mathematics is dismissed, most of the rest of science must also be dismissed. Being a legislator, Ben Bridges would probably be interested in this idea, since he could remove several subjects from the curriculum and save an awful lot of money. Of course, few colleges would like to admit students with no math or science background whatsoever, and few employers would hire a fry cook or cashier who can't count.

Even if a general idea was proposed thousands of years ago, a modern theory that includes the idea is different (particularly in the area of testing. A cosmic spark that jumpstarted the creation of the known universe did not become an accepted theory until evidence was found in the form of a congruence between actual universal expansion and the Robertson-Walker model. Since then, other evidence has been found to support the theory. Myths are generally fabricated to provide some explanation of an unexplained phenomenon, albeit with no evidence and often the inclusion of supernatural elements. However, that does not mean there isn't any truth whatsoever in these myths. Like the Medium Paradigm, if you make enough guesses, one of them will eventually be correct.

This appears to be another attempt at weaseling creationism (or ID) into public schools. This also illustrates this idea of "elastic reality, rigid beliefs" whereupon a group or individual takes a fact or observation and finds a way to link it to their hypothesis usually by stretching or distorting the truth. It happens often in arguments from young-Earth creationists and other ID supporters and leads to some pretty wild claims (such the Grand Canyon was caused by the great flood of Noah's fame). Last October, Richard Dawkins gave a book reading to students and academia at Randolph Macon Women's College in Lynchburg, VA. A few students and faculty from nearby Liberty University (a Christian liberal arts school) made the trip to attend the lecture (whether they were genuinely interested in his views or just wanted the chance to confront him for his ideas is debatable). At the question and answer session following the selected readings, more than half the questions were raised by those from LU, and all of those questions all had the same purpose: discredit Dawkins and his ideas. Many such questions had multiple parts, some being along the lines of "Why not believe in God?" or "What if you're wrong?". But one man from LU brought up a very troubling example. He claimed that the LU museum contained a dinosaur fossil that was merely 3000 years old. There was no mention of how this fossil was dated, but if it were tru, it would surely be considered the greatest archaeological find of the ages. It's a wonder we didn't hear of it before or see the headlines covering newspapers and magazines across the world. The question was what would it take to convince Dawkins that the fossil was truly a few millenia old. It should be mentioned that there have been extraordinarily many dinosaur fossils found and dated. None of them are less than 65 million years old. Dawkins said that the sample would need to undergo radioactive dating processes. Not just one dating, but several different age-determining processes. There are many different radioisotopes that can be used for dating that use completely different fundamental principles to determine age. Yet these different process still agree on the age of a specimen. Dawkins replied, "If it's really true, that the museum at Liberty University has dinosaur fossils which are labeled as being 3000 years old, then that is an educational disgrace. It is debauching the whole idea of a university. And I would strongly encourage any members of Liberty University that are here to leave and go to a proper university." [from wikipedia]. As far as I can determine, no follow-up has been done and no scientific aging has been performed on the suspect fossil.

This urge to manipulate reality to fit one preferred model is not only absurd, it stands in the way of academic advancement.

On flu shots

Mon, 06 Nov 2006 13:21:56 GMT

You've heard that joke about flu shots stopping the flu by giving you a cold for a year; but there's as much truth to that joke as that other one about flu vaccinations stopping the flu at all. For those of you unfamiliar with how flu shots work, let me explain. The flu is one of the most common illnesses and a general annoyance to the public. It is so common partially due to the fact that it mutates quite frequently and antibodies for the previous form of flu are no longer effective. Flu vaccines are made of dead or weakened flu viruses that are predicted to be that year's strain. Due to the sheer number of possible mutations and the development time of the vaccine, determining the upcoming flu-season strain is like predicting what the weather will be (exactly) in 10 days. The feat is nearly impossible, but that doesn't stop companies from producing their vaccine and clinics from pushing concerned people-folk into getting innoculated.

Proof of flu shots actually working as prescribed is shady at best. Conclusive evidence of effectiveness is still missing. In fact, there is more evidence to conclude that getting a flu shot is worse that doing without. Recent studies show that there are inherent health risks for those under the age of 5 and over the age of 65; yet, due to the high flu-fatality rate of these groups, they are the ones under the most pressure to get vaccinated.

And then there's this bullshit.

On False Patriotism

Tue, 17 Oct 2006 15:24:48 GMT

Since 9/11/2001, there has been a resurgence of blind patriotism in the United States. By "blind" I mean that it is fairly unguided and often misled/misused. The so-called "war on terror" became a highly lethal sporting event with the home team being a bunch of drunken rednecks shouting at at other bystanders, "You don't like America? Then we'll kick your ass!". For a time, those who weren't wearing Amercian flags on their clothing or driving around with a "United We Stand" sign in a car window were looked upon with suspicion. And they call this patriotism. This whole notion of "patriotism" is corrupted, perhaps beyond repair. This commentary is focused primarily on an original American symbol: Old Glory, the Stars and Stripes, the flag of the United States of America.

In the days following 9/11/01, flags lined city streets, buildings and parks around the country. It wasn't long before the flag was in commercials on every network. Competition between products became less about which product was better for the consumer or which candidate was more in line with your views on politics, and more about which one is more "American", more "patriotic". I remember seeing a commercial for some sleazy lawyer which simply had an American flag flying in the background and a message pops up near the end with the lawyers phone number. Perhaps these people didn't read or didn't care about the United States Flag Code which states in section 8, paragraph (i):
The flag should never be used for advertising purposes in any manner whatsoever.
Disregarding this guideline diminishes the stature of the flag and what it stands for. A recent short that periodically shows up on television has John Mellencamp strumming a guitar singing a tune that will one day get collected with the other patriotic-for-the-sake-of-being-patriotic singles that have shown up in vast quantities (and should soon be located in the $0.99 bin at a truck stop restroom). Various scenes of pivotal events in American history since 1950 flash in the background to the chorus "this is our country". Among the scenes shown are pictures of Rosa Parks sitting at the front of the bus (standing up, so to speak, for her human rights), Martin Luther King, Richard Nixon's farewell, and results of hurricane Katrina. The video ends with a shot of a wheat field and a new pickup truck pulling to a stop. The culmination of decades of effort to better this country, pulling through hard times was all just to allow people to buy a damned truck? Are the marketing gurus who came up with that one trying to compare a fucking pickup with the massive reconstruction efforts to rebuild the storm-torn Gulf coast? Do the efforts of major civil rights figures mean the same as a oversized, pice-of-shit, gas-guzzling pile of fuck on wheels? Cheverolet has hit a new low in advertising. I'm surprised the FCC hasn't stepped in and pulled that self-serving bullshit off the air (and actually do something worthwhile with all that power they have). The only thing worse is that, according to Jalopnik, one of the images in the ad which wasn't shown was that of a nuclear blast. Real patriotic, isn't it.

There are no real patriots anymore, it seems. They've gone the way of the vacuum tube and common sense. We are left with political candidates waving a couple of flags here and there to boost their ratings a couple of points. We are left with catchphrases that mean nothing but a couple of bucks for the guy printing the bumper stickers and the oversized banners hanging from the bridge of an aircraft carrier. We are left with only memories of what it means to care.

On Separation of Church and State

Mon, 28 Aug 2006 17:30:16 GMT

I stumbled upon a headline recently which struck my fancy. "Rep. Harris: Church-state separation a 'lie'". Being the fooling man that I am, I mistook that to mean that there is no separation of church and state and decided to read the article. Silly me. No, the republican stated that the doctrine was not meant to create secular government or laws. And she goes on to say that electing a non-Christian is to promote "legislating sin". She still believes in the divine mandate (that the ruling power is granted only by a higher power, according to Harris, God and God alone). I suppose it's a good thing that her opponent is Jewish, provided the people of Florida see things her way, too. And the Floridians will also need to overlook the $30K+ in illegal campaign contributions she accepted. And the fact that she's a lunatic.

We all know that more than 50% of Americans believe in a supreme being. We know that Christian values are "popular". However, even many Christians will scoff at claims that only Christians are fit to serve in government (doesn't that claim sound an awful lot like the idea of a supreme race - my obligatory Hitler reference). Just once I'd like to see a Jewvangelist candidate. "The Jews are the only ones fit to lead!" Just to help balance things out a little. Then the atheists take control.

On Food

Tue, 22 Aug 2006 15:49:58 GMT

"Are you tired of giving hope to the starving people of the world? Do you just hate the notion of making agriculture easier and more efficient? Then why not join a Green group and make sure that the food supply fails to support 2 billion people"

The European Union has blocked "GMO-tainted", that's genetically modified, rice from being introduced to their food supply amidst pressure from "Green groups". The fact of the matter is that there is NO VIABLE REASON TO BAN GMO CROPS. None. Not a single [supported] reason. Japan has also blocked imports of American rice for similar concerns as the EU. But why the fuss? According to groups such as Greenpeace, GMO crops are completely untested for food safety and environmental safety and they are the products of "Frankenstein"-like experimentation, combining rice genes with genes from animals, humans and where ever else genes could be found. For the record, these crops are not untested; they are. They are tested more rigorously than organic and other non-GMO crops. After decades of testing by the FDA and EPA, THERE ARE NO KNOWN HEALTH EFFECTS of GMO crops different from standard (aside from millions of people NOT starving to death) and THERE ARE NO KNOWN ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS either (aside from the fact that wastelands and other areas with climates once too harsh for food crops can sustain some GMO crops). You'd think that with how long we've been working at it and testing it, we'd have seen some sign of human mutation (seriously, this is a noted concern of many anti-GMO-crop groups) or cross-species "infections" if there were any problems.
There is little doubt that the EU will block shipments of US rice. These Green groups have won similar battles (undeveloped parts of Africa are "protected" from GMO crops). What will it take to convince these eco-nutjobs that these crops aren't contagions; they're food. A consumer can likely live their entire lives without ever knowing the difference between GM corn or rice and traditional. People like Greenpeace are probably never going to give up the fight, regardless of how much evidence contrary to their propaganda may surface. It's depressing.

How about a new campaign? Go to your local grocery store and picket in front of their organic produce section. You can protest against purchasing organic using the same style propaganda as the anti-GMO'ers. Say that these crops haven't been treated against harmful (potentially deadly) diseases that could be transferred to consumers. The goal of organic crop prodcuers is a plan that stands to kill not thousands, not millions, but billions of human beings. The reasonings here hold more water than the reasons against GMO crops. And the thought of supporting a cause that plans to kill billions of people just isn't appealing to most.

On Holidays

Mon, 21 Aug 2006 12:05:13 GMT

Friends and family may note that I still observe certain Christian holidays. And to some extent, this is true. However, I do not observe them for their Christian roots, and some Christians don't either (I think). Take Easter. I don't believe in the resurrection of Jesus. Although, if, in the unexpected instance, I have children, I expect to do the whole candy-filled-egg hunt.
Now for the big one: Christmas. The ancient Romans knew how to party. One feast in particular was in honor of an agricultural god, Saturn. It was usually held near the Winter Solstice, but in 274, Aurelian celebrated it in honor of Sol Invictus on December 25 and the date stuck. It was a very important event for the Romans (agriculture was hugely important) and involved some particular traditions. Included amongst them were an exchange of gifts, drinking (referential to egg nog, a "traditional" Christmas drink?), and evergreen tress (for their ability to survive in the winter) which were cut down and decorated as a tribute. I prefer to celebrate Saturnalia as opposed to the more commonly known winter holiday. It's not that I believe in Saturn, but I believe in the idea surrounding the holiday regardless of its name (though I like Saturnalia better - it incorporates drinking!). For me, it's an excuse for my family to gather in one place and share some good times. We don't sing carols or hymns. We don't attend mass. We just try to make the day enjoyable. Does that make me any less an atheist? No. It just makes me glad I get a day off work each winter.

On BP - An Interlude

Thu, 10 Aug 2006 11:31:13 GMT

You can hardly turn on a television this week without hearing some news about the shutdown of BP's Alaskan oil pipeline. The announcement of the closure came amidst a war in the Middle East, higher-than-expected summer demand, and already high oil prices. This article, if true, is a counter to a popular argument defending BP. From now on, the details of the article are used as if true, although time will [hopefully] tell. Some BP supporters are saying that BP stands to lose the most from the shutdown, with lost revenue and cost of repair. BP knew about the corrosion and that it had to be dealt with. The recent oil leak spawned an investigation that would have likely required the repairs anyway, so shutting it down and paying to fix the pipeline was an inevitable cost. As for losing revenue, that's not true either. The company most likely to profit from lost supply from Alaska is California's other main supplier, ARCO. By the way, BP owns ARCO. And the oil coming from Alaska is not that $75+ per barrel oil you see in the large commodity markets; lower transportation costs and high sulphur content drag the price down quite a bit.
But what about the timing? That is severe corrosion they cite. How could that have gone unnoticed by their drones for so long? The answer is that the last time they used a drone was in 1992. The monitoring process should have been continuous. This 14 year gap is unacceptable. And corrosion was a known problem for quite some time. In fact, BP went to great lengths to assure that knowledge of it was kept hidden.
Perhaps if you still believe that BP was trying to protect consumers, BP has been charged with artificially raising the price of propane in the rural US. There is only one reason a company such as BP would do such a thing: profits are more important than people.

On Censorship, Part II

Mon, 07 Aug 2006 13:16:39 GMT

The first amendment of the US Constitution states states (amongst other items) "Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; [...]". However, there are ways around it and, being the freedom-haters that we are, we created (or at least helped create) them. Okay, I understand restrictions on slander and libel, and I can forgive restrictions on national security issues, but regulations by the FCC and standards of the ESRB, unwarranted wire-tapping (which I say forces self-censorship), and a fuzzy line on standards of pornography are going too far. Perhaps the mention of pornography (pr0n) may confuse/uspet you, but the level of censorship is based on virtually undefined and highly subjective labels of "indecent" and "obscene".

After my last post, I conducted an informal survey on censorship amongst what should be the most influential demographic: parents. Not a single one said that the FCC should expand their list of what gets censored (the "hit list" or HL). Less than 10% said that the FCC is doing fine, and over 90% said that they would strongly support increased awareness of the V-Chip coupled with tighter watch on ratings (for conformity) and lessened censoring. Something to think about.

It's hard to bring up Howard Stern without hearing about how he "crosses the line" and we all remember the long history of fines he has accumulated. Firstly, I applaud his efforts to exercise his freedom of speech; he is truly a hero amongst the underspoken. The FCC forbids the use of profanity across the airwaves, profanity here including ethnic and racial slurs (even if they use "clean speak"). In fact, new guidelines mean that one mention of "fuck" on a syndicated radio show should mean a hefty fine that has to be paid once per broadcast station. In other words, a $30K fine for a show across 10 radio stations is now a $300K fine. And those are smaller numbers than ones would normally find in practice. But why bother? Why do we need censorship on the radio? Nowadays, we have all sorts of alternatives to Stern. In addition to having, typically, over a dozen radio stations to choose from, most of the "impressionable youth" listen to CD's or MP3's these days anyway. Censorhip on the radio came into being during a time when it was normal for families to sit around listening to one of the (very) few radio stations. Printed publications were not subject to the censoring of radio, since objectionable material could be avoided, and there were far more newspapers than radio stations. I get two papers in my town. I can get a few more national papers (USA Today, Chicago Tribune, the Times, one from Seattle) from a super market. There are nearly two dozen radio stations and probably 1000+ CD's available in my town. If a CD has an offensives song, I can switch to another CD or skip the track; if a radio station is offensive, I change the station. We have a choice. It should not be up to the government to arbitrarily say that one phrase is offensive and finable when another one may offend someone but be AOK by the FCC. It simply is right, and it most definitely isn't American.

We all know that improved graphical power in video games equates to more realistic-looking violence. The Electronic Software Ratings Board or ESRB is the bunch of assholes that put those ratings on video games (T for teen, M for mature and so on). They don't do a very good job, for one thing. Take the popular example of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas (GTASA), which recently was re-rated from M to AO (adult only) because of questionable content. The content in question was a silly-looking sex scene that was removed from the final version of the game and its code altered so that a random cheat device couldn't unlock it. A group of programmers found out about it and re-rewrote the code to unlock it. The game was pulled from shelves (the few copies that were sold were retagged with the AO rating). The hacks are beyond the control of the producer of the game, yet they get penalized (having to pay to get the game "fixed"). And although there are many descriptors that the ESRB uses, none of them seem to be enough to warrant the AO rating (take the serial-killer game Manhunt, which depicts some of the most realistic - and visually painful - killings in all of video games; if it doesn't get AO, none will). There is no requirement for game makers to submit their games to the ESRB, however most retailers won't sell a game unless it has been rated. Even then, an AO rating won't place it on the shelves of EB or WalMart. The ratings (done by a group of three people, typically) are inconsistent and often misleading or unclear (what constitutes "graphic violence" as opposed to "brutal violence" or "violence" in general?). The primary concern is that children are believed to emulate what they see in games. Is this the games' fault? Hell no. If a kid plays Super Mario, he doesn't think that eating a mushroom will instantly make him bigger. He doesn't think that touching a leaf will turn him into a raccoon. Video games are not real. End of story. If some kid thinks otherwise, there are professionals that deal with that kind of disorder.

Why am I so passionate about censorship, so much so that I dedicate not one, but several posts about it? It is a direct attack on American rights and values. They say that censorship is all about protecting our children. It does more harm than good. By having the government step in and say, "You can't say that", you are telling the youth of this nation that you have the freedom of speech, but you can't exercise it. You say that one of their freedoms isn't real, so what stops them from questioning other freedoms. Thomas Jefferson said that a healthy democracy should experience revolution every twenty years. Twenty years! Revolution doesn't mean taking arms and bloodshed; it means standing up to the government and saying that you aren't going to give in. Jefferson also said that the people should never fear the government, the government should fear the people (also used in "V for Vendetta", great movie!). The people should have power over the government, not the other way around. This is my revolution. This is my stand. Speak up and be heard.

Sat, 05 Aug 2006 17:14:07 GMT

Con Ed gives a credit to those who lost power in Queens
Too bad it's a whopping $3. That's not a typo. Three dollars. That's less than a gallon of gasoline. Doesn't that just suck.

On Censorship, Part I

Fri, 04 Aug 2006 12:50:00 GMT

I know that most of my posts thus far have been focused on religion. It's not my fault if they keep giving me ammunition, but I don't mean to make this LJ one that does nothing but bash religion. The name "am3ricanath3ist" is 2 derived from 2 words, American and atheist. American is first, since above all else, that's what I am. My goal is for one day, the atheist can be dropped from the title; that the distinction is unnecessary.

Today's topic is censorship. This topic is one that affects us all, yet is mostly ignored. There's enough of it that to cover it all would take far more than a single post. I figure I'll do one topic per post.

The first amendment of the US Constitution states states (amongst other items) "Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; [...]". However, there are ways around it and, being the freedom-haters that we are, we created (or at least helped create) them. Okay, I understand restrictions on slander and libel, and I can forgive restrictions on national security issues, but regulations by the FCC and standards of the ESRB, unwarranted wire-tapping (which I say forces self-censorship), and a fuzzy line on standards of pornography are going too far. Perhaps the mention of pornography (pr0n) may confuse/uspet you, but the level of censorship is based on virtually undefined and highly subjective labels of "indecent" and "obscene".

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) was established by the Communications Act of 1934 as an independent US Government agency. The goal of which (according to the Congressional statutes that empower it) is to make broadcasted signals accessible to all people in the US "without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex [...] for the purpose of the national defense, for the purpose of promoting safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio communications". There's also something about a centralized infrastructure, but that doesn't change the fact that they still censor radio and television transmission. Also of note, they don't specify age discrimination. So I wonder why adult themes raise flags with the FCC. If sexual content (an undeniable truth about human existence) is censored for being inappropriate for children, why aren't shows like "Teletubbies" and "The Snugglepuff Super Fun Fun Show" (so I made that second one up, but you get the point) censored for being inappropriate for adults? Having it protect one side and disregard the other is blatantly hypocritical. Adults are Americans, too! It would be like America supporting laws that apply only to one particular group of Americans (a perfectly arbitrary example: African Americans, who we all know have never been treated unfairly by any laws like those concerning segregation).
Do we even need restrictions, though? Do you really think that if broadcasters could air whatever they wanted, our children wouldn't have anything to watch? Of course not! Daytime demographics, people! Young children are still nice portion of the audience to capture (if only for advertising purposes. Do we need censorship to protect children? No. That's taking parenting out of the hands of parents. We have a rating system and hardware systems that use ratings to block programming. Instead of working to prevent any such programming, we should work towards increasing awareness of the V-Chip and other devices so that parents can be put back in control. We can let them determine what's appropriate for their children and let their neighbors worry about their own.

NEXT TIME: FINISHING WITH THE FCC (radio) AND THE ESRB (video game software)

Thu, 03 Aug 2006 13:37:58 GMT

Yet another instance of people using religion instead of common sense: Police in England fight crime by praying. I suppose it's inevitable when your law enforcement agency is the Christian Police Association (but can they do taxes?). "Dear Lord, please be on the lookout for a suspect driving blue sedan south on route 12."

Speaking of problems in the justice system, here in the US, Bush's new plan to combat the Supreme Court's June ruling (military trial system illegality) by expanding the authority of military trial commissions. Such added features include allowing the trial of non-terrorists, denying freedoms currently granted by civilian and military justice systems, and the ability of the Secretary of Defense to add crimes that the court has authority over.

On the plus side, the Kansas State Board of Education has a changing of the guard. Creationist conservatives lost their majority on the board, and the GOP nominee is pro-evolutionist. For the creationists who stumble upon this post, STFU. Creationism isn't science; it doesn't belong in a science classroom. Evolution is science. It is a theory, but "theory" is not the same as "something we made up" or "tool for converting 'good' Christians to the ways of the devil" like many are prone to believe. Even amongst proponents of the theory, there is debate, but over the exact mechanisms, not over the fact that it happens. We know it happens. We've seen it in nature and the laboratory. We have seen single-cell organisms group together to form a multicellular entity. We have seen speciation occur. Before you complain about the "religion" of evolution being taught while ID is removed, remember that unlike religious principles (ID), the theory of evolution is NOT dogmatic; it is based on observed data and subject of continuous testing; it's based on the scientific method, not solely from a single text written by persons unknown.

Oh, and that whole Ockham's Razor supports creationism thing doesn't work. It only states that if you have a solution that explains the data sufficiently, there is no need to create multiple solutions. Non sunt multiplicanda entia praeter necessitatem. Creationism was around before the theory of evolution, but it doesn't sufficiently explain the data. In such instance, Ockham's Razor deems adding another "entity" is necessary, namely evolution.

Follow Up on Flat Earth

Wed, 02 Aug 2006 14:08:05 GMT

Here is another article about the ideology of the Flat Earth-ers (Zetetics, they are called, it seems). Some of the examples of flat-earth history are quite amusing, particularly George Washington was a Zetetic and broke ties with England, who were supporters of the "ball-earth" theory. The truth comes out!

On the Flat Earth Society

Wed, 02 Aug 2006 13:56:40 GMT

I believe I recently posted about people taking religion too far (and if I didn't I should soon). However, few take it as far as the Flat Earth Society. This is a [REAL] group of people that, according to Scripture, believes that the Earth is flat. No joke. Flat. Like a pancake, or a CD, or stale pop. I found an excerpt from the September 1988 issue of The Flat Earth News. It's a column they [at least used to] run entitled "One Hundred Proofs Earth is Not a Globe". Just to note, this excerpt is copied and pasted from a source that typed it up verbatim; observe the quality of their editorial staff:

"If the Earth were a globe, there certainly would be -- if we could imagine the thing, to be peopled all around-'antipodes:' 'people who,' says the dictionary, 'living exactly on the opposite side of the globe to ourselves, having their fee [sic] opposite to ours' - people who are HANGING DOWN, HEAD DOWNWARDS while we are standing head up? But since the theory allows to travel to those parts of the earth where the people are said to hand head downward, and still to fancy ourselves to be heads upwards, and our friends whom we have left behind us to be heads downwards, it follows that the WHOLE THING IS A MYTH - A DREAM - A DELUSION - and a snare, and, instead of there being any evidence at all in this direction to substantiate this popular theory, it is plain proof that the Earth is Not A Globe."

Glorious. I don't know about you, but I'm convinced. I know I'm not "hanging down, head downwards" while others standing "head up". So unless someone on the other side of the Earth is willing to believe he is hanging-down-head-downwards while I stand-head-up, the Earth has to be flat.

I also found a copy of the mission statement/membership application. Here are a rew pearls of wisdom from the president of the organization, Charles K. Johnson:

The International Flat Earth Society is the oldest continuous Society existing on the world today. It began with the Creation of the Creation.

Creation of the Creation? Whuh? He goes on to describe "Creation of the Creation"...

First the water...the face of the deep...without form or limits...just Water. Then the Land sitting in and on the Water, the Water then as now being flat and level, as is the very Nature of Water. There are, of course, mountains and valleys on the Land but since most of the World is Water, we say, "The World is Flat."

And your brain appears to be mostly not functioning, so we say "Shut the fuck up you braindead sonofabitch".

[...]'scientists' consist of the same old gang of witch doctors, sorcerers, tellers of tales, the 'Priest-Entertainers' for the common people. 'Science' consists of a weird, way-out occult concoction of jibberish theory-theology...unrelated to the real world of facts, technology and inventions, tall buildings and fast cars, airplanes and other Real and Good things in life;[...]

And we all know that technology shares no roots with this "science" he speaks of. But let's let him make that point...

[...]technology is not in any way related to the web of idiotic scientific theory. ALL inventors have been anti-science.

He actually has a point here. Most of the "idiotic scientific theory" gets used to fuel bullshit organizations such as the Flat Earth Society.

Science is a false religion, the opium of the masses.

I've heard that same quote, but it wasn't "science". What was it? Oh yeah: Religion! And to close his tirade, Chucky explains his own role.

I myself count it as a begining of Sanity to confess 'the creation proves there was a Creator' so a God or Creator...Exists. From a life-time of study, of seeking out a proving things, from the study of 6,000 years of recorded history, from observation, from experience, from Common Sense Observation, have concluded the 10 Commandments are in fact good Laws of Living and Behavior for oneself and all in contact with you...truley 'Laws of Physics for Living.' That is my opinion. The Fact the Earth is Flat is not my opinion, it is a Proved Fact. Also demonstrated Sun and Moon are about 3,000 miles away are both 32 miles across. The Planets are 'tiny.' Sun and Moon do Move, earth does NOT move, whirl, spin or gyrate. Australians do NOT hang by their feet under the world...this is a FACT, not a theory! Also a Fact the Spinning, Whirling, Gyrating Ball World Planet, Globe Idea is Entirely 100% now and at all times in the Past, a RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE[...]

Mon, 31 Jul 2006 17:34:44 GMT

Firstly, check out my post on atheism.

Secondly, I'd like to clarify my stance on religion. Believe whatever you want to. Just don't force your beliefs on others. As I've written once before: I don't care how much you like your cake. You can make all the salivating noises you want to while eating it. You can offer me a piece, but don't expect me to have any. But if you try to ram a forkful into my mouth, I'll grab that fork and stab you in the farking eye. Use your brains people; religion is never any substitute for common sense.

Some quotes and comments

Mon, 31 Jul 2006 15:01:05 GMT

Give a man a fish, you feed him for a day.
Teach a man religion and he'll starve to death praying for a fish.

The religious disbelieve all gods but theirs. Atheists don't make an exception for that last one.

Even a thousand praying hands cannot accomplish as much as two hands doing work.

Eskimo: "If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to hell?"
Priest: "No, not if you did not know."
Eskimo: "Then why did you tell me?"
-- Annie Dillard, 'Pilgrim at Tinker Creek'

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
-- Stephen Roberts

On gas prices

Sun, 30 Jul 2006 11:52:29 GMT

An Indy Star article mentions that gas prices are up 30% from this point last year, while oil companies are recording profits that are more than 30% higher than this point last year. Marvelous coincidence.
And more evidence that oil companies aren't concerned with high prices, shortages of gasoline, or you, here's a report from the Enquirer. The gist of it is that oil companies were too efficient to get profitable. They needed to increase revenue, but gas prices were too low to make that possible. So they shut down refineries, enough to reduce the refining capacity to dangerously low levels; so low that any disruption could be disatrous. And they got their profits.

On Net Neutrality

Tue, 25 Jul 2006 12:34:44 GMT

I found an interesting article on the [free] internet today concerning net neutrality. There is a lot of confusion on what this means as evidenced by various discussion threads on the subject. Most believe that broadband internet will cost more for the consumer if they wish to actually have broadband speeds. This isn't true. We already are paying more to get information from the world wide web to your computer. That's why we pay mor for cable and DSL. The issue is with information going into the web. Net neutrality protects internet services from being charge premium fees to have their service delivered at the same speeds as premium services (i.e. those which pay the extra fee). The limitations on bandwidth for "regular" sites may be reduced to the point of inoperability (imagine trying to view videos on YouTube at less-than-dial-up speeds. Sites that were once free, may need to raise rates for advertisers (who might not want the extra cost on top of their own premium fees) or charge users directly. The end result is an internet like a carnival: there's fun stuff to see, but you have to pay to do anything. Perhaps you won't mind paying to play a few games, but the cost will prevent you from doing too much.

As for the article, it's not a perfectly accurate analogy, but it is still something to think about. Write to your congressman and help this golden age of the internet last for [even] a little longer.

An Introduction: Morality doesn't need religion

Mon, 24 Jul 2006 16:37:16 GMT

I am an atheist. I do not believe in a "supreme being" nor the supernatural world*. Particularly in the "Bible Belt" (mostly the American South and parts of the midwest), society's perception of atheists is misguided; people view us with hostility. The overlying reason for this is morality. There is a misconception that lack of religion means lack of moral code. Lack of moral code equates to evil. The belief is that since I don't believe in God, I cannot possibly have any moral code and therefore cannot morally distinguish between helping an old lady cross the street, donate to charity, steal a stick of gum and eating a small child. This idea is absurd beyond words. I have a fair understanding of the difference between right and wrong, even if it didn't come from some Jewish man who had no sense of direction, who led the entire Jewish population of Egypt on a suicidal trek through barren desert, and who claimed that a burning shrub spoke to him. Moreover, by that argument, you could infer that the reason "good Christians" don't steal, lie, kill (even many actually do at least one) is because of their religion. Meaning that if they weren't Christian, they'd have no problem going on murderous rampages. I don't believe in eternal consequences for my actions; the results here and now are sufficient. I don't mean to say that I'm better than the religious; I'm just not worse.

*Some consider themselves atheists but still believe in ghosts, reincarnation, karma, etc.; I don't consider them part of the same grouping.