Celtic Evolution

Religion and Patriotism: CNN misses the point

2011-09-29T07:22:00.000-07:00

I recently came across this article on CNN's "Belief Blog". This strange corner of CNN's website is an odd mixture of weird apologetics, inane blatherings about "modern religion", and purportedly "balanced" opinion articles on matters surrounding religion in public life. Considering all the contributors are believers, I have a had time finding any of the articles truly "balanced". They generally lean towards the apologetic, accommodating view that religion is good and necessary. They occasionally post articles about atheism, which they generally get wrong from the start with false, yet popularly held myths about atheism and the mindset of the atheist.

In this article, the author, Dave Schecter, gives his thoughts on the findings of a Pew Poll... well... actually, no he didn't. What he did was offer his thoughts on a "Christianity Today" parsing of a that Pew Poll regarding their views of the United States. Taking just a few of the data points from this poll, Christianity Today indicates that of the subjects polled, evangelical christians were the most likely to think that America is the greatest country on earth. They went on to say:

Other Christian traditions were less enthusiastic about America's position in the world, but they still saw the U.S. as one of the best on the planet. About 40% of other Christians said the U.S. stands alone as the greatest country; around 55% said it and some other countries were equally great. As with evangelicals, only a few said there were greater countries in the world.

Then, of course, comes the truly important data: "Only one in five of those without religious beliefs said the U.S. is the best country in the world, an equal percentage agreeing that 'there are other countries that are better than the U.S.' ”

The article also goes on to also show percentage of people of various faiths, or no religion, who display the American Flag. Again, the faithful do this at a much higher rate.

And then the article goes on to describe what the author calls a "God Gap", in which there appears to be a correlation between religiosity and patriotism. And this is where the article goes off the rails for me. I won't argue with any of the data points from the Pew poll... in fact it shows more or less what I expected. However the author is making the wrong correlation. The mistake is in equating being overly provincial by thinking your country is better than everyone else's, and displaying the flag with "patriotism". I would have answered the poll questions similarly to other irreligious folk. I don't believe our country is the best in the world, and I don't generally display the American flag prominently. This makes me un-patriotic? Don't be ridiculous. The truth is that I, and most of my godless acquaintances, are more deeply patriotic than any of your average "god and guns" 'patriots'. We think our country could be better. We think it is flawed... we think there are places where the quality of life for the average citizen is better... where the goal of government is to support the population, not control it. We love this country and want to see it rise to the ideals on which it was ostensibly founded, but has never quite lived up to, mainly due to the constant and omnipresent religious influence that permeates the fabric of American culture.

Religious people don't think America is the best country because they are patriotic. They believe that because they have been brought up to believe that christianity has a preferential place... that christians are "chosen" by god... and that America is a "christian nation", and if we are more christian than other nations (and by all accounts, unfortunately, we are), then by rule, we are the best. And religious people don't fly the flag because they are patriotic. They fly the flag because they have been taught to worship symbols their entire lives. The cross... the eucharist, the alter, the statue of Mary, rosary beads... the flag. From the time you are old enough to walk, as a christian you are taught to look upon symbols with awe... that the symbols are as important as the thing itself. Just ask any christian. If you desecrate a cross, you are desecrating Jesus himself. To a christian, the cross is Jesus. And similarly, the flag is America. Non-believers don't revere the flag with any less respect, we just have learned not to put too much emphasis on symbolism and idol-worship. We simply don't equate the flag as being America itself the way that believers do, because we've stripped that wiring from our brains (or never had it, in some cases). That doesn't make us less patriotic. It simply means that we'd rather focus on what should be the real American symbols... fairness, opportunity, freedom, equality, and empathy. These are the things that are of utmost importance to the irreligious... not some nylon fabric, or some silly notion that we're better than everyone else. Give me people that look at America and evaluate it in those terms, and then I'll show you a true patriot.

Reflections on 9/11, ten years later

2011-09-12T10:50:00.000-07:00

I consider myself a patriot. I love my country. I spent time serving it, and would do so again if called upon. However to many of you, what I am about to write will be seen as un-patriotic. And that's a shame, because America seems to have forgotten what it truly means to be a patriot.

Yesterday was the 10th anniversary of the tragic attacks of 9/11/2001. It was honored throughout the country as a day of somber remembrance. And as I watched the numerous ceremonies and speeches, and reflected myself upon the past 10 years since that event, I was not overcome with a sense of pride, or patriotism. I felt shame. Shame for what my country has done in response to 9/11, and shame for what it failed to do.

Where I shared the heartfelt grief was in simply remembering the tragic and innocent lives lost... not just those killed in the attacks but in those killed while trying to help their fellow man. There were true heroes in those days... both on the ground and in the air... men and women who sacrificed their lives in the simple, altruistic act of trying to help another. These things should be remembered... should be mourned and celebrated. It is good to hold those memories near, because those are the lessons of 9/11 that we should all have taken. How we can all come together to help our fellow person... how we can find strength in unity in the most tragic of times. These are important things to remember. But those are the only things we should still be carrying from 9/11. And therein lies the problem for me. Because we, the American people, are carrying far more to this very day than we ever should be from that event. We have become a nation of the fearful and paranoid, fed by a leadership that continues to enact policies that feed into those emotions. We have become nationalistic, jingoistic xenophobes who have completely forgotten their own scattered origins and have all but abandoned their core principles. And it fills me with shame and sadness.

What we have done...
Since 9/11 we have engaged in 3 separate wars that have cost billions of dollars and tens of thousands of lives, both foreign and American, both military AND innocent civilian, under the guise of "acceptable collateral damage", which might be one of the most ghoulish terms in military vernacular. We have not paid for these wars in any way, shape or form as we have in prior wars with appropriate tax increases. And as a result it has had an enormous negative impact on our nation's economy and our almost unimaginable debt. The entire military campaign from Afghanistan to Iraq to Libya and all the "operations" in between... over 100,000 innocent civilians killed in Iraq alone, is nothing short of appalling. In one day, 19 terrorists, mostly from Saudi Arabia, killed almost 3000 innocent American civilians. As a response, in 10 years we have killed hundreds of thousands of Afghani and Iraqi citizens (the total death count is almost impossible to estimate correctly due to the nature of the culture and lack of first-world facilities and communications, but some think it could be 10 times that number) and lost twice as many American lives as we lost in 9/11. To call this a "disproportionate response" would be the understatement to end all understatements.

We've also engaged in actions that Hollywood has dramatized as villainous for decades: indefinite detention without due process (even WITH due process this is unconscionable), no access to supposed "prisoners of war", torture.... this is film noire stuff, but it has become an everyday reality of American policy in the name of "keeping us safe".

And what about that mantra, anyhow... "keeping us safe". Are we really any safer? In addition to the over-reactions I listed above that impact non-US citizens, we've blithely gone ahead with policies that undermine the freedom and privacy of our own citizens with insidious legislation like the completely erroneously named "Patriot Act". What a sham of a name, by the way. That's like slapping your kids around while you tell them "I'm only doing this cause I love you". There's nothing remotely "patriotic" about illegal wire-taps and other invasive provisions in this act. In the meantime, we've made it difficult to the point of embarrassing to travel by air in this country, which in addition to subjecting potential travelers to ridiculous delays, outright racial profiling and occasionally invasive search procedures, has also had a fairly negative impact on the travel industry. Additionally, one of the little-discussed collateral impacts of 9-11 and the reaction to it has been a renewed nationalism bordering on xenophobia that has manifested itself in an outright attack on the alien population of this country. It has become fashionable, especially among the most "patriotic" of our right-wing assclowns, to take aim at anyone who not only wasn't born in the US, but all those who even LOOK like it and can't prove it on demand. Have any of you people even read the plaque that accompanies the Statue Of Liberty?

At any rate, all of the above was done, and is still being done, ostensibly to "make us safer". So ultimately, there are two questions: Are we safer? And is that perceived safety worth the price we've paid (and continue to pay). The answers are a resounding NO to both questions. Of course we are not safer. I mean, is it likely that we will fall victim to another airplane-kamikaze attack of the 9/11 kind? No. But are we really any safer from radical groups finding unique and insidious ways of attacking innocent Americans and American institutions? No. Of course not. And the reason is because the kind of "safety" that these policies presume to afford is virtually impossible in a free society. As Ben Franklin wisely noted: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety". The only way we can attempt to ever be truly "safe" is to lose that freedom. And the unfortunate truth is that THAT is exactly what we've begun to do. We've gone along with invasions of personal privacy, with unjustified searches and seizures, with forcing people to provide proof of citizenship for simply looking like the need it. And we've done so fairly quietly, and with barely a complaint. And that is that most frightening part of all. When we become a citizenship that has become complicit in the slow erosion of our constitutional liberties, we are truly lost.

Finally, I wonder if it has occurred to our political leadership that the reason we have not had a repeat attack from terrorists akin to the attacks of 9/11 is not because of these fear-driven, over-reaching Orwellian policies and torture-aided intelligence... but because it has simply not been necessary! The goal of those attacks was to instill fear into the American population, cripple the American political and military leadership and weaken or destroy the American economy. That is why the targets were chosen as they were. And they worked all too well! In fact better than they ever could have imagined. In the 10 years since 9/11 we have become a society of fear-driven, paranoid xenophobes with a penchant for making war, we have attacked the personal liberties and freedoms of our own citizenship, we have crippled our economy and shot our debt through the roof with unpaid wars and military campaigns, and have undergone an invasion of jingoistic, ideological fundamentalists (the Tea Party) that has completely crippled our already dysfunctional political system. All the while completely trashing our international reputation and making us the bullies of the modern world. And while some may go along with the bully to avoid being a target... in the end nobody likes a bully.

What we haven't done...
...is what we should have done in the first place. Stuck to our core values. Clung to the constitution. Gotten back to the basics of who we are as a nation and a people. We should have stood in stoic defiance of that display of terror. We should have stared it down and not blinked. We should have told them "do what you will... we will not compromise our principles. We will not let a few radical thugs fundamentally change who we are, and how we live. We will continue to adorn our citizens with the freedom to live as they will... to travel and work with as much ease as possible. We will risk our security to protect our freedom. You may hurt us... but you will never change us. We will never turn our backs on the principles of fairness, humanity and freedom.

And then we should have ACTED in a way to reflect that posture. Instead we could not have acted more fearful, vengeful, and paranoid. We went to war to remove a government that we suspected may have harbored the mastermind of the attacks... we killed thousands... tens of thousands and then left an already unstable, thrid-world region in rubble and utter chaos. We then used the events of 9/11 as an excuse to wage war on another country, citing, in subtle vague references, a totally invented connection to Bin Laden, and the eminent danger of weapons that simply did not exist. We removed their government... killed their leaders, killed tens of thousands more... lost thousands of American lives in the process. And once again... left an already struggling, unstable region in rubble and utter chaos. And we are there still... knee-deep in the mire of the mess we created, unable to leave because of the vast hole we caused, and again the fear of what might fill that void if we left. It's a disgrace. And all because we didn't do what we should have done. All because we decided to act as a country of frightened, vengeful adolescents instead of proud, unwavering, strong and stoic Americans...

...like we did in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. Watching the videos the news media were broadcasting all this past weekend, and remembering with keen detail the events of the Tuesday morning 10 years ago... I remember being struck with a sense of patriotic pride at watching people run towards danger, with no thought of their own safety or protection, to help those in need. Helping others... self-sacrifice... giving what you can... living for another human being... the entire voice of a country saying almost in unison "how can we help?". That was what being an American was all about. That was the America I wanted the rest of the world to see... the caring... the empathy... the togetherness and effort... I was truly proud. And then when the dust settled, the spotlight turned away from the day to day citizens and on to our leadership... our representatives to the rest of the world... the public face of America... and we furrowed our brow and we sneered. We talked of enemies having nowhere to hide, of "smoking them out of their holes"... we talked of destruction and vengeance. We showed the world the terrible face of a country scorned, bent on revenge. And under that leadership we acted on it. We waged war. We sacrificed twice as many people as we lost in the attack, we turned our backs on international law, we took away basic human rights of those we saw as "enemies"... we even stripped away some of the protections and freedoms of our own citizens. We showed our ugly side.

In just the few days following 9/11, we showed the world what America truly could, and should be... and then we spent the next ten years showing them what we really are. That's why remembering 9/11 fills me with pride... and shame.

As if you needed another reason...

2011-09-02T10:52:00.000-07:00

...To wonder why any decent, rational person would ever want to vote republican... well, process this story:

Of course you all remember the horrific shooting spree that nearly killed Arizona democratic Representative Gabrielle Giffords. She was shot with a Glock pistol. So what do you do if you are the Pima County, AZ (a county in Gifford's district) Republican Party? Why, you decide to raffle off a Glock in an effort to raise funds, of course!

Really, is there no bottom in the bucket of ooze that is the Republican party?

There's a poll on the site I linked to... of course it's far too soft. They give you the option of agreeing or disagreeing that the raffle is "insensitive". And of course there's an option for "i'm in between" for the wishy-washy accomodationists out there. But what there needs to be is an option for calling it what it is: Callous, uncaring, despicable, ghoulish and bordering inhuman.

And predictably, the Rethuglicans are stepping up to defend the action with the tired and grossly disingenuous "guns don't kill people" argument. Mike Shaw, the GOP Chairman for Pima County made this deplorable analogy: "That Glock is no more responsible for those deaths and for that congresswoman's injuries than a number two pencil is responsible for cheating on a test"... as if that had a fucking thing to do with the point. Putting aside the stupidity of that argument on its face*, let's say that a blue number two pencil with yellow stripes was used to cheat on a test, and then used to stab a very popular teacher through the eye and kill her. I think any reasonable person with even the slightest bit of empathy would see how disgusting and callous it would be to give away blue number two pencils with yellow stripes on the first say of school following such an incident.

But once again republicans show a staggering lack of understanding, caring and empathy. Seems like I've heard this song before.

*honestly... it's a stupid argument that isn't used in any other arena because it's a laughable premise. Using that logic, we can also say the following: poison doesn't kill people, guillotines don't kill people... for that matter nuclear weapons don't kill people. And toasters don't toast bread... and ovens don't cook food, and cars don't drive people. It's absurd, and anyone with half a working brain knows it.

Michele Bachmann proclaims that god is a terrorist!

2011-08-30T13:44:00.000-07:00

Wow… it’s been over a year and a half since I last posted. Far too long. I won’t bore any of you with the details of why it’s been so long since I was posting regularly… suffice to say that life intervenes. And since there will be, at least initially, very few of you actually reading anything I post, it would be pretty self-indulgent of me anyhow… so… on to today’s post…

Every time we have a natural disaster in this country, without fail, the righteous, bloviating, fear-mongering, and ghoulish elements of the religious start crawling out of the woodwork. And it’s even worse when there are more than one in any sort of close proximity. It’s mind-boggling and a little sickening, but always serves to remind me why I so hate religion in general, and the state of mind to which it is capable of reducing people, even otherwise seemingly intelligent people.

The clamor is almost always the same… the natural disaster(s) in question are sent by god… messages that we need to change, that god hates gays and women who get abortions… that we’ve lost our way and are being warned. And if the religious aren’t claiming divine warnings, they are thanking god for sparing their lives.. or their homes, or their towns, or whatever. The power of prayer at work, right? They prayed, they were spared… quod erat demonstrandum…

Of course, this sort of thinking is ripe with contradiction, ignorance, and malice… but you’ll hardly ever get a religious person who thinks this way to understand that, let alone accept it. It’s all too often an effort in futility to try and explain how completely wrong-headed such belief is and so I don’t generally make the effort, but it still pisses me off to no end so I’m going to talk about it here.

You don’t need to look very far to find examples of this sort of thinking in today’s media, which seems to have latched itself on to the craziest and least intelligent factions of society. The completely insane Glen Beck called the hurricane “a blessing” because it “reminded us we are not in control”… I’m not sure the 34 innocent people who were needlessly killed in this storm, nor their families and loved ones, would agree with you, Glen. What if Glen lost his mother in the storm? His wife? His house? Would it still be a blessing?

There have been a few others, but the other notable comment came from none other than Right wing presidential candidate, and “dimmest bulb in the bank” candidate Michele Bachman, who said the following:

“I don't know how much God has to do to get the attention of the politicians. We've had an earthquake; we've had a hurricane. He said, 'Are you going to start listening to me here?' Listen to the American people because the American people are roaring right now. They know government is on a morbid obesity diet and we've got to rein in the spending…”

Oh you can’t be serious. There is so much horribly wrong, completely ignorant and woefully grotesque in that statement that words can barely describe it… The first thing that always strikes me about people like Bachman, and the religious in general, is how completely provincial they seem to be… how totally ignorant of the larger world around them they are. Hurricanes and earthquakes are NOT rare things! We get dozens of hurricanes and typhoons every single year, and a few each year that are vastly destructive… and it has been that way since the earth has had weather. And earthquakes are even MORE common (more on that later). Yet somehow because we have two events that affect AMERICANS in AMERICA and is a top news item, they are somehow specifically different? It’s crazy.

Beyond the obvious disregard for the people that were injured or killed in this disaster, there is also an interesting element to her comments that I don’t think she, or anyone else that makes such flippant and ignorant comments, has really thought through. For if you read what she is saying, she’s claiming that god is sending us a message… trying to get his point across by sending these disasters our way… disasters that have killed dozens of people… and these are just the LATEST natural disasters. But… isn’t that precisely the definition we give to terrorists? A terrorist is someone who intentionally harms or even kills innocent people for the purpose of sending a message or getting a point across. So by her own assertion, Michele Bachman has labeled her god a terrorist! Go ahead… argue your way out of that one, Michele… you have assigned to god the EXACT behavior we would decry terrorists for, yet because these acts are perpetrated by god, in your mind, they are BLESSINGS. Think of the logical progression from this line of thought… if Michele Bachman can justify what we would otherwise define as terrorist acts by assigning them as ‘godly’, what ELSE might she be willing to engage in using the same logic? It sends a very icy chill down my spine and is PRECISELY the reason we need to make sure this woman never gets anywhere near the White House.

She of course later tried to furiously back-pedal with the following statement:

“Our hearts and prayers go out to the families of the victims. This isn’t something that we take lightly. My comments were not meant to be ones that were taken lightly. What I was saying in a humorous vein is there are things happening that politicians need to pay attention to. It isn’t everyday we have an earthquake in the United States.”

Of course this is a ridiculous statement… a very quick glance at the USGS website shows that on average the US gets over 10,000 earthquakes of magnitude 4.0 or greater. So not only do we have them everyday… generally we get multiple per day.

The scariest part of all of this is that, lest you have forgotten while reading all of this craziness, this woman is considered a SERIOUS candidate for President of the United States. This is how far we’ve fallen… this is where our money-driven, sensationalistic media, fear-mongering, hate-filled and ignorant society has driven us… to the point where people like Michele Bachman, as thoughtless, ignorant and religiously crazed as she is can be considered a serious candidate for President.

So just to clear the record… no, god did not send the hurricanes, nor the earthquake… no, they are NOT a blessing, in any form… they are naturally occurring tragedies that while we can’t prevent, we have already come a long way towards mitigating the damage. These disasters, had they occurred 100 years ago or so, when religion pretty much existed in more or less the same state as it does now, would have been FAR more devastating. Hundreds if not thousands would have lost their lives… it is only through the efforts of science and engineering that we are able to prepare for, protect against, and withstand these natural disasters as well as we do. THAT is the blessing… THAT is what we should be talking about and praising… it’s the efforts of programs like NOAA, the USGS, and other GOVERNMENT FUNDED climate and geological science programs that allow us to be as well prepared for these disasters as we are. The very programs that Michele Bachman and others in her party wish to cut. So if you REALLY want something to be concerned about… to be afraid of… it’s a world where people like her are calling the shots. That’s the only message I’m hearing…

The Health Care Reform Bill passed the House... and I'm...

2010-03-22T10:19:00.000-07:00

...happy about it. If nothing else, this is important for what it represents. For the first time in 40+ years, a President has been able to care enough about the people of this country to push through at least some form of health care reform. And while the bill is still severely lacking, make no mistake, it does provide immediate relief for some and does have some important reforms that take effect in a very short time, that will help people... lots of people.

My hope is that the country will look back at this at the amount of time and effort the Republican party spent trying to oppose this bill... trying to oppose legislation whose only goal was to help American citizens... in a politically fed, partisan flop-sweat attempt at just opposing any legislation the Obama administration put forth, just because it is Obama putting it forth. It has been a despicable display of the ugliest order and I think in the end the Republicans will be irreparably damaged for it. In fact, they stand to become even more publicly humiliated once they begin using pathetic stall tactics in the reconciliation phase of this bill for all to see. It will be infantile and silly, and will be wide open for the entire country to see. More on that later...

But first, now that the bill is passed, the important questions are: what does this bill do and what does it not do for the American people? I've refrained from posting about this bill until now because I wanted to wait till I could see in what form it was passed. I'll try to break it down in failry simple terms. This bill is huge, and it is complicated. But the items that are important to you the people can be broken down fairly simply, so I'll attempt to do that as much as possible.

First, what does the bill include? Well, its components are broken down and will be phased in over time. In six months, here are the following items the bill will enact:

Insurers will no longer be able to refuse coverage to children because of pre-existing conditions (this provision kicks in for the rest of us in 2014... which sucks, but is still better than nothing).
Insurers will no longer be able to dump a person's coverage because they get sick.
Insurers will no longer be able to cap how much coverage a person can receive in their lifetime.
Parents will be able to carry their kids on their insurance plan until they are 26.

So... this is a good start. So what are the other things that kick in down the road? Below is that list along with the year they become effective:

Insurers will no longer be allowed to deny anyone of any age coverage because of pre-existing conditions. (2014)
Each State will create a "insurance exchange" for both individual buyers and small businesses, which will consist of several insurers, based on minimum requirements for benefits, and have strict limitations on how much their premiums can vary... so that insurance plans for the elderly and ill can not cost considerably more than for young and healthy individuals. People can then buy from insurers in the exchange based on the best cost and plan for them. (2014) --- I have my doubts about how well this will work, but I'm willing to see how it goes. Again, it's still an improvement over the status quo (or as I call it, the Republican Plan of Doing Absolutely Nothing)
Subsidies for buying insurance will be offered on a sliding scale, so that families making less would pay less for the same coverage as families making more. (2014)
There will be an excise tax on the most "plush" of health care plans. (2018). This was once referred to as the "Cadillac Tax", but as this would have effected many policies currently used by Union workers, this has been amended to include only the very most opulent plans, and is now referred to by Nancy Pelosi as the "platinum Rolls-Royce Tax". Whatever. It still stinks to me. I don't care for this provision but I do understand the necessity as a means to pay for the Reform Bill.
High Income households (individuals making more than $200,000 and families making more than $250,000) will see an increase in their contributions to the Hospital Insurance payroll tax from 1.45% to 2.5%. (2014)
Those same households will see an increase of 3.8% on taxes of income from interest, dividends, annuities, royalties and rent. (2014)
You will be penalized for not having insurance. (2014) This has been an issue of much debate and heated argument, but looking at the reasons for having such a penalty (similar to auto insurance, costs come down when everyone is insured, because the chance of having to eat the cost for services for the uninsured goes down) versus the actual fines that will be instituted ($95 a year or 1% of your income, whichever is greater), it's ridiculous to argue that this is the wrong thing to do. If you choose to not carry healthcare even though you can easily afford it, fine... but you will help to make sure when you do get sick and we have to eat the cost, you've helped contribute to that. And if you simply can't afford it, well then the $95 fine is hardly a hardship (and those for which it is an undue burden, you will have the ability to have this fee waived). So quit whining about this provision... it's the right thing to do in a system that isn't single-payer.
Employers who don't offer their employees insurance will face fines of up to $2000 per year, per employee. Small businesses with less than 50 employees are exempt, but small businesses will be able to use tax credits to help pay for insurance through the State insurance exchange. (2014)
Provisions have been put in to attempt to lower the costs for Medicare, and close the "hole" in the prescription drug policy for Medicare. (2014)
Primary Care physicians and surgeons will receive a 10% bonus from Medicare as a push to improve preventative care (2011).
Additional education funding falls into this bill, including funds specifically for colleges and universities that serve large numbers of minorities. (2010)
Oh... and facilities that use Tanning beds that use UV lamps will be taxed 10% starting July 1 of 2010

There are some other odds and ends in there, but those are the important pieces. Now, let's talk about what's not in this bill that is of interest to my fellow left-leaning, people loving liberals:

No public option. BOOO. Big, huge, loud, resounding BOOOOOOOO. There was no reason this bill could not have included a public option through reconciliation. And it would have passed. But the Dems got cold feet about passing the House, and chickened out. This is the biggest failing of this bill. People deserve to have the option to have a cheap, medicade-like option available to them the same way the people putting the goddam bill together in the first place have. The same way our armed forces veterans have. I am proud of our veterans, but are the truly more deserving of basic, affordable health care than the average citizen? The lght at the end of the tunnel here is that I do not think this part of it is over... as the summer rages on and the Senate begins to hear the clamoring that the country wants and needs a public option, this may come back to the fore-front. Or maybe not. We'll have to wait and see... but for now, big, huge thumbs down to the Dems for not getting this done at the one, single time in history they could have.
Several of the "back-door" deals that had been put in to win support from certain Senators (most notably the deal with Ben Nelson of Nebraska in which all new Nebraska Medicaid enrollees would be paid for by the Federal government, forever) are thankfully gone. There are still a few "back-door" deals in place for certain circumstances (all of which do serve a "public service" at this point), but the most egregious of these have been removed.

Those are the two biggest "left out" issues. Some of you may take issue with some other things that aren't there... but I think these are the two that matter to most people.

So... is this a slam dunk now? Well, no... not really. It will in all likelihood get passed, but there are some items the House added to the Senate Bill (some of the things listed above fall within that area) which must be passed through reconciliation. Essentially this means that the Senate need only agree to the addenda or changes attached to the Bill by a majority 51 vote. And while this will happen, the Rethuglicans have already stated that they will take whatever measures necessary to delay this reconciliation process indefinitely. To do so, they will use the tactic of proposing amendment after amendment to the bill, which they can do an unlimited amount of times, and must be voted down each time. And they will come up with some pretty boorish and stupid things, just to delay the process... for example, put forth an amendment that all insurance cards must be printed on pink velvet. It is likely to get pretty boorish, and I really hope the Rethuglicans try this route, because it will expose them for what they really are to the American people who will, I predict, have little patience for this behavior.

Also, there is the looming issue of the abortion language in this bill. For some reason, middle-aged to elderly white men still think it's somehow their right to limit resources to allow a woman to decide what's best to do to her own body. It's disgraceful and I'm hoping the will exists to shut these assholes up, but we'll have to see. It could be a real problem if enough of these god-bothering, misogynistic assholes have their way.

So, at the end of the day, I feel a sense of tempered excitement over the passing of this bill. As I said above, it's an important message that after decades of deciding the american people were not worthy enough for the government to step in and take steps to stop the insurance companies from publicly raping and ultimately killing hard working Americans, a president has been able to step up and say "This is the most important thing on my agenda. Period." And actually get something done. Is it all we should have or all we deserve? No. Is it all we're going to get going forward? I don't think so. The faucet of Health Care Reform has been turned on... even if only a trickle. And once on, I think it will be much easier to open it up further than it will be to shut it back off. Go ahead, Republicans. Try it... I dare you.

Bill Donohue of the Catholic League is a vile, disgusting, evil, horrible little gobshite.

2010-03-19T12:04:00.000-07:00

Recently the Roman Catholic Church has come under a great amount of scrutiny for the sex abuse scandals that hav rocked the church, especially in Ireland. Today, CNN has been running an expose on these incidents, highlighting the lengths the RCC has gone to to cover up the scandals and protect the priests in what has to be one of the more vile, despicable ongoing acts of criminal and abhorrent behavior in any organization over the last 75 years or more.

These are despicable, vile, indefensible acts... and of course no-one would be fool-hardy, grotesque and evil enough to defend the church... right?

Ha! Obviously you've never met Bill Donohue, the grotesque little ghoul at the head of the Catholic League, a self-created and non-affiliated apologetics organization whose sole purpose is to advance the myth that catholics are persecuted, defenseless innocents.

Donohue posted an editorial on CNN in which he unbelievably, but unsurprisingly, takes the position of defending the Catholic Church, and once again reinforces the more and more common realization that the Catholic Church is a singularly horrible, overly powerful force for evil in this world. I take on his editorial below.

OK... let me first say, could there be a more appropriate image of the evil, despicable Donohue than the one next to his editorial on CNN? He looks like the RCC personified.

But let's get to the bullshit he writes:

Employers from every walk of life, in both the U.S. and Europe, have long handled cases of alleged sex abuse by employees as an internal matter.

Right. The "everyone else is doing it, stop picking on us" debate. And, notice he makes such assertions without a shred of proof or a citation. He just thinks it, and then asserts it.

Rarely have employers called the cops, and none was required to do so.

Ah... I see the propensity for lying starts off immediately. Employers are not required to call the cops regarding cases of sexual assault. You lying piece of shit.

Thus it hardly comes as a surprise that Cardinal Sean Brady in Ireland did not summon the authorities about a case involving a priest in the 1970s. What is surprising is why some are now indicting him, acting as if his response was the exception to the rule.

No, Bill, you unfathomably evil little mongrel, we are indicting him for covering it up! Whether it was more common practice or not it is still wrong and evil you vile little hobgoblin.

Selective indignation at the Catholic Church is not confined to Brady. Why, for example, are the psychologists and psychiatrists who pledged to "fix" abusers treated so lightly? After all, employers from the corporate world to the Catholic Church were told over and over again that therapy works and to give the offender a second chance.

It's hard to believe Donohue can go so completely off the rails so quickly... but What. The. Fuck??? Your defense of rapist, pedophile priests is that we should go after the psychologists and psychiatrists that treat abusers? How the... what the... this is so batshit insane it restricts the ability to even respond coherently. How about we'll just say that we might be able to know if therapy would have helped these abusers if they weren't protected and the abuse not covered up in the first place. But as they just pretended that nothing happened, therapy was not necessary.

Had the Catholic Church simply tossed the offenders out, it would have been branded as heartless.

So failing to even OFFER such help or therapy, and then lying about it and covering it up was a better option? You really are a fucking piece of work, Donohue.

There is also much noise about Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger -- now the pope -- approving the transfer of a priest out of his archdiocese in Germany for therapy. That happened 30 years ago. Again, he did exactly what virtually every other leader, clerical or secular, did.

That still doesn't make it right, asshole!! And, are we still going to pretend like members of the catholic clergy are just like everyone else? Are you going to try and make the case that priests don't hold a position of power and control over their followers that is far different from the general public? That they are not in a unique position to exert extreme pressure and power over people?

Stop trying to make the case that this situation is the same as any other sex abuse situation. It's simply not, and only an immoral asshole wouldn't realize it. Priests are in a position of reverence and unquestioned authority. They hold far greater influence over the people in their charge then in just about any other walk of life. Stop pretending you don't know that, Donohue. That's why this is different. That's why it's so much worse and commands so much attention.

Anyone who maintains that in North America or Europe it was common practice for employers outside the Catholic Church to file a police report about suspected wrongdoing by their employees needs to put up or shut up: Where is the evidence?

Nice attempt at more deflection. Define "commonplace". And, you made the statement that is was NOT commonplace, YOU provide the evidence. You don't get to make outlandish claims out of laziness and then dare everyone to prove you wrong. You're full of shit. Prove otherwise.

And again, how does this in any way change the points I made above about why the CHURCH and its clergy are different. Even if the claim you're making is right, it's irrelevant.

Beyond that issue, the focus on sexual abuse in the Catholic Church is far out of proportion to the attention given by the media to the sexual molestation of minors when committed by non-Catholic clergymen.

This statement is just too disgusting to even address. I don't know enough curse words. What an asshole.

According to a report by the New York Times in October, the Brooklyn district attorney's office had filed charges in 26 cases of sexual abuse involving members of the ultra-Orthodox Jewish community.

Ahh... and now he shows himself to be an antisemite. How completely unsurprising.

The next two paragraphs are devoted to Donohue presenting the case that Jews and Public School teachers are just as bad, but we don't give it nearly the same attention cause we love to persecute the largest majority in America. And frankly, I don't have the stomach for it.

Bill Donohue, you are a vile, disgraceful, pitiful, sorry excuse for a human being and if you were on fire I wouldn't piss on you to put you out.

Lastly, the disclaimer from CNN:

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Bill Donohue.

Yeah... no shit. There's an understatement.

Out of commission

2010-02-11T07:41:00.000-08:00

I'm sorry I haven't been able to post much recently, but life intervened and recently I was involved in a very serious car accident... I hit a tree on a snowy road and it took them an hour to extricate me from the car. I've just been discharged from the hospital and I'm a bit laid up right now with a broken sternum and some broken ribs along with various other painful injuries.

On the bright side, I was able to walk out of the hospital and given the seriousness of the crash it could have been much much worse. I'm honestly lucky to be alive.

So I'll be taking some time to heal before I post again or before I begin interacting again on the sites I normally do like pharyngula. Good health to you all and I hope to be back writing again soon. Feel free to leave a comment and say hello.

Take care.

A loss for Dems in Massachusetts... will they get the actual message?

2010-01-20T06:34:00.000-08:00

So democrats lost a Senate seat last night as Scott Brown won the special election for Ted Kennedy's vacant seat... a seat he held for 47 years. More importantly, dems lost the filibuster-proof 60 seats in the Senate, making pretty much any legislation they'd like to pass a virtual impossibility now that the party of "no" can continue being just that and do so with actual teeth.

But let's be honest, here... it's not as if the friggin democrats were actually taking advantage of the super-majority they held. So in the end what's really different? What's changed? Ultimately nothing.

Look, the big foofooraw from the left is that this will mean the end of healthcare reform. Whatever... that ship sailed, frankly, when the senate neutered it to the point of being useless several weeks ago. No useful bill that included anything the American people actually need regarding healthcare was going to come out of the senate anyhow. The house bill was weak but still WORLDS better than the senate bill. Frankly speaking, I think that health-care reform in its current presentation is dead, and I have to say I'm not going to mourn its loss. There is a growing sentiment that to save face the dems should just send the senate bill, as is, to the president to be signed. This would be a HUGE mistake as I think most Americans don't LIKE this bill, and if it is passed you can guarantee a huge swing to the republicans in the mid-term elections. Besides, are the dems interested in just saving face, or actually passing a friggin bill that helps US citizens?

Of course republicans will try to spin this the completely wrong way... they will say that this is clear indication that the people don't want healthcare reform. You wait... that's what they will say. And of course, only a moron with limited mental capacity would ever be stupid enough to make that claim... but that's what will happen.

No, the message here is NOT that the people don't want healthcare... it's pretty clear to me, anyhow, that the message is that people are fed up with the pandering, slow moving, deal-making, capitulating methods that the dems have taken regarding health care. Every poll taken shows that a major majority of american citizens want a STRONG health care plan with a PUBLIC OPTION. That's what we want, but we sat back and watched as democrat after democrat caved in to the republicans and the health care lobby, at the one time they didn't have to. With 60 dems in the senate, all they had to do was listen to the will of the american people, craft a solid, comprehensive plan that gave every US citizen the right to affordable health care and then just send the goddam thing up for vote, where it would easily pass. But instead they decided to kowtow to a party that was never going to vote for ANY plan, no matter how much the dems gave up. They were never going to put a single vote in... but for some stupid reason the dems wasted everyones time and taxpayer money on countless hours of negotiations to please republicans who would never be pleased, not to mention battling the creeps in their own party (I'm looking at you, Lieberman, you vile excuse for a senator) trying to make sure they kept the health care lobby happy. It's been a farce, to say the least.

The people want healthcare reform... the people want a public option... this should be enough to make it happen... but US politics has become so overrun with lobby interests and the money that comes with it that the idea that legislation has anything to do with what the people want is a punchline. This, more than anything else, is what needs to change. The only way to really fix what is wrong with our political system is to get rid of the lobbyists altogether. Make corporate donations to public official's campaigns illegal. However, the reality is that such reform would take the members of the House and Senate voting as a majority against their own greedy, pocket-lining interests... and that's less likely than the US getting a universal, single payer health-care system. Such is the tragedy... it's a built-in flaw of the system that legislators are allowed to vote on their own self-interests... I believe there should be special conference that convenes to vote on issues regarding such matters, such as pay raises for legislators or legality of Lobbyist money being given to campaigns... but I'm dreaming, really... so I'll move on.

Ultimately, what I think is the message that is being sent with yesterday's election is this: While the democrats may have good ideas, the party is slow, soft, and frankly incompetent. That is the perception. You can't just be a party of "ideas" and expect to be able to affect change. We have to be a party of action. We have a majority. The majority of the US is democratic, if not outright progressive, in philosophy. BUT... in difficult times, people want leadership, and they want action. We are in difficult times. People in the US are impatient and reactionary even in the best of times... you can't expect them to sit back and wait while the democratic party continues to fumble around clumsily looking for the best way to please everyone. It's time for the dems to stop fucking around and actually DO SOMETHING.

THAT is the message, democrats. Ignore it at your own peril.

Dammit, get over it already and get out and VOTE, Massachusetts

2010-01-19T06:59:00.000-08:00

It's an important day in my former home state, and the republican strategy for regaining seats in the senate is looking to pay dividends already...

I've long understood the republican strategy since Obama took office and the democrats took control of the senate... and it is brilliant in its simplicity. They understood that the whole "change" movement was a sweeping success and ushered Obama into office. They also know that the American public is fickle and impatient, and that while everyone on the left was caught up in this "change has come" movement and hoping for, nay expecting this wholesale rapid turnaround and these sweeping social policies to just come pouring out of the president's office, the pace of government is trudgingly slow and the president himself has little to no effect on procedure and pace. So, knowing the short attention span and lack of patience of the american people, republicans knew that all they would need to do is simply stand in the way and gum up the works long enough and eventually liberals would become dissatisfied. They can do the math that dissatisfied voters don't turn out, and now you can introduce weak opponents and pour money into their campaigns in otherwise solid democratic areas, get an already energized republican base to show up at the polls while grumpy, impatient and unrealistic democrats sit at home and pout.

It's a strategy that has worked in MA and I fear might carry over into the mid-terms. Wake up, dems... you really think allowing a republican like Brown to take this seat is the better option than the dissatisfaction you might feel over what Obama hasn't delivered on yet? Ridiculous. Get over it, get out and vote before we return to the dimly lit slide into the abyss of the prior 8 years.

Even more interesting...

2009-12-30T09:00:00.000-08:00

Following up from the previous post, someone asked what a cross-section of the most religious states vs. highest quality of life states would look like... well, defining "quality of life" is ambiguous at best... but I looked at this "most livable states" survey from 2007 for my cross-section... and... wow...

**** Yes, of course I am aware that correlation does not equal causation. I just find the correlation interesting.

Interesting...

2009-12-30T07:36:00.000-08:00

Branching off of this discussion over at Pharyngula, I decided to take a look at a cross-section of two studies. I took data from this study, which ranks states by how educated they are, and highlighted it with data from this study, which ranks states based on how religious they are. I used a simple color coding system for the highlighting: red for the most religious to green for the least... the results are certainly interesting, I think...

Been too long...

2009-12-28T11:29:00.001-08:00

It's been a long time since I've posted... my life has undergone some upheaval and it's kept me from keeping up with the things I've wanted to talk about or express to those of you that do stop by and read this blog occasionally.

But I think part of my personal reconstruction project needs to be to get back to writing... and this is a good place to start.

So first of all, Happy holidays to all of you, whatever you celebrate or observe... I hope you are all well and of good health and spirit.

Now, on to my post for today... it starts, as many of my rants so often do, with a post from the venerable PZ Myers at Pharyngula. In this post, PZ points out the publishing of yet another in a seemingly endless string of books serving as useless apologetics for religion... I won't bore you by repeating his thoughts, you can visit the post and read it for yourself...

I did however leave a comment in the comment thread. Upon reading it, though, my thoughts are incomplete in just that comment, so I will repeat it here in this entry, along with the rest of my thoughts on the issue:

What really irks me is the seemingly never-ending source of funds for these people to vomit up book after book of empty, base-less, vapid apologetics for religion and they all say essentially the same thing: "Science doesn't know everything, religion makes you feel good and what's wrong with that, Hitler, Mao and Stalin were atheists, and without religion we'd all go around murdering and raping each other at will".

Seriously, it's nothing short of a mass-mailing propaganda PR stunt masking the desperate, dying throngs of a belief system that is utterly incompatible with the modern world and current knowledge... Faith has no new ideas... nothing to offer at this point in time... the social and cultural advantages it once provided are long past their usefulness... they have nothing of substance to offer, so they instead attack the reasoned and rational, who have concluded that there is no magic sky fairy and that we're probably better off shedding the heavy coat of religion, as evil, soul-less, hate-filled villains.

It's pathetic and, I believe, transparent. Unfortunately the insular, lazy and under-educated majority of the US population still has too much of this poison indoctrinated from the time they were old enough to understand language, and it has been done so masterfully that questioning your beliefs has itself been purged from the cognitive abilities of the faith-addled.

While in places like the UK and many Scandinavian countries, religion has begun to be treated with casual indifference, here in the US it is still accorded special privileges, and the religious still expect, and in many cases, demand deference.

A large portion of the US population continues to carry on with the deluded mis-conception that this country was founded on faith (more specifically, christian faith, of course). This is, of course, absurd, and would make founders like Jefferson and Franklin turn in their graves, but it is the attitude of the "Fox News" fellowship, fed by self-righteous, self-concerned hate mongering egomaniacs like Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh. These people know their audience. They understand that many people don't trust government, even while collecting and living off of government initiated social programs like unemployment, welfare, medicaid and social security... they know that false patriotism and thinly-veiled racism appeals to the large portion of the population that has been made afraid of the world outside of the US by the fear / hate tactics of the Republican leadership… a tactic still employed today and used in almost every Beck broadcast. They are master manipulators that know that the right combination of anger, conspiracy theory, and claims of “we’ll tell you the truth no-one else has the guts to” will appeal to the downtrodden, hard-working but struggling, god-fearing and prideful majority of the US population looking for someone to blame for the state of the world… of THEIR world, and will get them to vote against their own interests and to toss aside their own inherent, personal freedoms just to make sure that no-one “takes their guns”, that “gays can’t marry”, and that “THEIR god will ultimately win the war and cast out the evil muslims once and for all”.

For myself, I refuse to be one of those people, and I will not have my fears exploited by those who would who would do so for their own personal gain. I will not be manipulated by those who know that ratings = dollar signs, and truth is a casualty of the act of exploitation of the lowest common denominator of the US citizenship.

No… I am free… free to find truth using the tools of logic and reason. I am free from fear of eternal punishment meted out by capricious, inconsistent deities… I am free from having morality defined by ancient, inconsistent and conveniently adjusted and re-translated texts… I am free to do right because it’s right, and avoid doing wrong because it’s wrong. I am free to be responsible for my own actions (and believe me, my actions have caused my life to keen and kilter in directions I never wanted… but they are MY actions, and I ask forgiveness only from those whom I have affected).

I am free because I won’t submit to having my freedom defined and constrained by that which has served to restrain, restrict, and enslave human progress for over two thousand years.

I am free because I don’t have religion to define the conditions of my freedom. I am free because I don’t believe. Why not be free yourself?

------ So... with that, I hope to return to posting on a more regular basis... those who frequent this blog or know me from Pharyngula will know what to expect... those who don't... well... I hope you're not easily offended.

Right-wingers give us yet another reason to create a level of crazy higher than "batshit".

2009-10-09T12:11:00.000-07:00

Courtesy of PZ Myers at Pharyngula, on the heels of Obama being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, the out-of-their-minds crazy lunatics that are supported by semi-news agency WhirledNutDaily (aka WorldNetDaily) have begun an "Impeach Obama" campaign. You have to read the post at Pharyngula to get a real look at just how evil, hate-filled, overtly racist and just plain insane the right wing has become.

Look, we can debate the merits of Obama receiving this award... I think it's premature and politically driven, yet not entirely undeserved... even Obama calls himself "unworthy" to receive the award. But impeachment? Really? Like I said, we need a new word for the level of crazy being displayed by these right-wing fruit-loops... cause "batshit" just don't cover it.

Of course, the piece goes out if its way to call Obama and his supporters "America-haters", all the while not realizing who the real "America Haters" are... people who publicly root for the president to fail, pray for his death... I could go on, but Pharyngula commenter Alison Miers does a much better job of summing it up, so I urge you to read what she wrote, as it's one of the best summations of who really are the America Haters:

Listen, WingNutDaily, there's something you need to understand. This "hate-America" crowd of which you speak...it does not live where you think it lives. Team Hate America lives in backwater mountain villages where frothing semi-literates stockpile ammo and bottled water and murder Census workers. It lives in the town hall meetings where people would rather continue letting our healthcare system simultaneously bankrupt us AND deliver underwhelming outcomes, than do anything that resembles what they do in...*hushed* France. It lives in the churches where ministers tell their congregations to pray for the death of the democratically elected president. It lives with people who use Socialism as their bogeyman without the slightest idea what Socialism means. It lives in the homes of people who shoot doctors and blow up clinics while declaiming about the "sanctity of life." It lives in homes where children die because their parents think using medicine means disobeying God. It lives in the right wing of Congress with elected officials who would rather drag America into the Second World than allow the president and the elected officials of his party to succeed in their legislative goals. It is in the schoolboards headed by people who oppose public education and actively undermine the instruction of science, who want to see our nation's children not just ignorant, but filled with misinformation, rather than live without Jesus.

I can't speak for other lefties, and I can't speak for Obama, either, but I can say that I don't hate America. I don't hate the country that taught you how to read and write and maintains an infrastructure such that you can maintain a website and other lunatics can follow it. I don't hate the country that will pay for your medical care once you reach a certain age while allowing you to rail against the evils of government power. I don't hate this country at all. I hate people like you.

Damn, that was well put... I hope you enjoyed reading it as much as I did. I only wish I was the one who wrote it.

The bottom line here is, we should all be frightened about the prospects of the attitude shown by this crazy WND impeachment campaign becoming too widespread. Just read it... it is filled with fear-mongering, dishonest, hate-filled propaganda, and is the sort of thing that makes me worry about just how far the extreme right-wing will go in their obvious attempts at "defeating" Obama, and the very real and violent tension that seems to be building up like a ground-swell among the most extreme on the right. We're getting into real concern territory here, I fear.

You read that impeachment document... read it and ask yourself if that's the sort of thing that would be put together by people who love anything but their own personal interests and prejudices? It's certainly not the type of document that would be put forth by someone claiming to love America.

H1N1 (Swine Flu), regular “flu”, and the common cold – what you should know

2009-09-21T17:47:00.000-07:00

This will be a lengthy post, but it’s worthwhile and should provide you plenty of info regarding the H1N1 virus. If you discover an error with anything I’ve written here, please let me know in the comments section.

There’s a lot of fear going around the Finger Lakes region of New York these days, which has been only heightened by the recent report of the death of a Cornell Student due to complications from the H1N1 virus, or “Swine Flu” as it is known more commonly. So what should you do? Should you be afraid? Should you pull your kids from school at the first sign of a child’s sneezing? How do you know the difference between Swine Flu, common flu, and common cold?

Well, here are some things you should know:

First, the good news: The FDA has given approval, after trials and testing, to 4 manufacturers to produce an H1N1 vaccine. It will be available Oct. 15th to the highest risk patients (children 6 mos. to 18 yrs old, woman who are pregnant, and those with chronic health problem like asthma, diabetes, lung disease, etc… and health care workers). Shortly thereafter there should be enough of the vaccine available to all those who would like it. And before you even think it, NO, this vaccine, or any other for that matter, will not cause autism in your children (that’s a discussion for another day, so let’s move on). Its side-effects will be similar to other flu vaccines... namely, mild flu-like symptoms.

*** Oh, and as a side note… for those of you who still have the gall to question evolution, this is evolution in action, folks… if not for the predictive power of the theory of evolution, vaccines like this would not be possible (here’s an example, if you’re interested: ). So if you still want to doubt that evolution is true, then by all means, skip getting this vaccine (or any others for that matter). But I digress…

Ok… so now that we know there will be a vaccine available and soon, let’s focus on the hysteria surrounding H1N1.

How widespread is H1N1? Well, that’s part of the reason for the concern regarding H1N1… it spreads quite easily and fairly fast. The CDC currently reports 21 states (including New York) with widespread H1N1 activity. So yes, it spreads rapidly. Getting vaccinated as soon as it’s available will help slow the spread of the virus.

How is H1N1 different from normal seasonal flu? Well, in many ways, and for many people, it will be tough to distinguish Swine flu from seasonal flu. Swine flu has a tendency to have additional symptoms such as violent vomiting and diarrhea, but not all who get it will have these symptoms. Also, seasonal flu is generally more of a danger to the elderly and those with weak or compromised immune systems. The H1N1 has so far shown a tendency to be more potent in young people between 6 mos. and 25 years, and pregnant women are also more at risk. There is some debate as to the reason why the elderly seem to be less at risk for H1N1, but one popular theory is that many of the elderly have already been exposed to a predecessor of the Swine Flu (although not the exact same virus… H1N1 is a “novel virus”, meaning it has not been detected in human populations before) in prior outbreaks in the 30’s, 40’s and 50’s and therefore may already possess antibodies for the virus.

So if it’s so similar to the seasonal flu in terms of symptoms, why is it seen as such a dangerous threat? This is mainly due to the fact that it’s such a new and unique strain of virus. When we are infants, we normally get exposed to about 99% of the germs and viruses we will ever encounter in our lives… during that time the body’s immune system produces antibodies that fight off these infections… this is the reason infants seem to get sick so much more often than when they get older, (and it’s also the reason that we give vaccines to our infants… vaccines are essentially engineered strains of uncommon but strong viruses that will help the body produce antibodies without making it really sick in the process). But, the benefit is that the body remembers these antibodies, and when it detects the same viruses later in life, it already has a “memory” of the antibodies needed to fight the infection off and can do say rapidly, in a matter of days or even hours. However, when the body is infected with a new virus, one that is has no antibodies for, it takes about two weeks for the body to produce antibodies that will effectively attack the virus. The problem is that during that time, an especially powerful or rapidly spreading virus (like the H1N1 appears to be) can cause too much damage and lead to sever illness before the immune system can effectively produce and release the correct antibodies.

How contagious is H1N1? It is highly contagious, as is the seasonal flu. In fact, if you have the virus, you can be contagious 24 hours before showing any symptoms. This is why it is important to maintain good sanitary habits during every flu season, such as using hand sanitizer regularly, sneezing into your arm, washing your hands regularly and not sharing utensils and other objects with other people. These are good tips for every flu season and are not meant just to prevent H1N1.

How can I tell if I’ve got the common cold, flu, or Swine flu? Well, all three can have similar symptoms… the main differences will be in the degree of those symptoms and the length of time you have them. The common cold will give you aches, pains, stuffiness, coughing and sneezing, and sometimes mild fever, but symptoms should get better in a couple of days and subside altogether within 3 or 4 days. Seasonal flu and H1N1 will have many common symptoms similar to the common cold, but will include a high fever, nausea and more sever muscle aches and pains, and will not improve as quickly as a common cold. If you have symptoms you believe to be the flu, please see your doctor immediately… the only way to know for sure if you have H1N1 is with a flu test.

Should I be afraid of H1N1? Afraid? No, not at this time. Aware and cautious? Yes. The H1N1 virus is indeed a new and potent strain of flu, but the seasonal flu itself kills 36,000 people every year. We are better equipped as a society to handle this type of outbreak than we were early in the 20th century when Swine flu wiped out millions. A vaccine is being made available and while you should take precautions to be aware of the symptoms and make sure you use common sense hygiene precautions, you should probably do that during every flu season, H1N1 or not.

So, now that we’ve covered some basic H1N1 questions, let’s talk about the vaccine.

If I get the H1N1 vaccine, am I covered for the seasonal flu as well? No. The seasonal flu vaccine was developed earlier in the year and has the 3 most common strains of flu predicted to hit the US this year in it. The H1N1 vaccine was developed separately and will only target the H1N1 virus. Please make the effort to receive both vaccines.

Is the vaccine safe? According to the CDC, yes… the H1N1 vaccine should carry essentially the same side effects as the seasonal flu vaccine. Like other vaccines, the side-effects will mainly be mild… headaches, mild fever, mild nausea, muscle aches… etc. However you must take allergic considerations into account, just like with any vaccine. People allergic to eggs, for example, should not get this vaccine.

Will the vaccine help me if I already have H1N1? No. Vaccines are meant to prevent disease, not fight it. If you already have H1N1 you will have to rely on already existing antiviral medication such as Tamiflu.

Will the vaccine be harmful if I’ve gotten H1N1 in the past? According to the CDC, no. There is no harm in being vaccinated if you’ve been infected with H1N1 in the past.

Is the H1N1 vaccine available as a shot or a nasal spray? Both. There is a shot available and a nasal spray. The two are different as to what they contain. The shot contains an “inactivated” vaccine… meaning it has fragments of the killed virus. The nasal spray contains a live, but weakened, virus that does not cause the flu itself, and is meant for healthy people age 2 – 49 years of age. Both are effective, but at this time only the shot is approved for pregnant women.

Who should get vaccinated? Initially, the vaccine will only be available to those in the highest risk categories. However, once the vaccine becomes widely available to everyone, I encourage everyone to get it. Getting vaccinated increases herd immunity and reduces the ability of the virus to spread quickly throughout the population. Additionally, if you know people who stubbornly and ignorantly refuse to get vaccinated despite studies that show it to be safe and the obvious benefit to not just themselves but the rest of us, I would avoid them like… well… like the Swine flu.

Where can I find information on H1N1 that is independent, and not sensationalized media hysteria? The CDC is the best source on information on H1N1. There you will find all the information you need regarding H1N1, how fast it’s spreading, its effect on the US population, and availability on the vaccine, as well answers to many of the questions I’ve laid out here. The CDC page on the H1N1 virus can be found here: http://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/

Also, the World Health Organization (WHO) offers a wealth of information on the H1N1 virus here: http://www.who.int/csr/disease/swineflu/en/index.html

Let them put their money where their loud, angry, ignorant mouths are...

2009-09-19T17:29:00.000-07:00

Ah, yes... we do so love our republican whacko teabaggers, don't we? Well, if they are going to be true to their stand and insane claims that the US is becoming a socialist nation, then by all means they really should sign the following oath... I urge all of you to get all the loyal teabaggers and libertarians to sign it... because after all, it's what they truly believe and are spending so much time and effort rallying behind, right? Right?

So, without further ado, here is your teabagger pledge.

(By the way... this is of course SATIRE people, and while pointed and fairly accurate, is still meant to be an absurd over-statement of the definition of "socialism" in response to the anti-public option health-care assholes that think such a thing can reasonably be called "socialism". If you don't get that, I can't help you.)

The Teabagger Socialist-Free Purity Pledge

I, ________________________________, do solemnly swear to uphold the principles of a socialism-free society and heretofore pledge my word that I shall strictly adhere to the following:

I will complain about the destruction of 1st Amendment Rights in this country, while I am duly being allowed to exercise my 1st Amendment Rights.

I will complain about the destruction of my 2ndAmendment Rights in this country, while I am duly >being allowed to exercise my 2ndAmendment rights by legally but brazenly brandishing unconcealed firearms in public.

I will foreswear the time-honored principles of fairness, decency, and respect by screaming unintelligible platitudes regarding tyranny, Nazi-ism, and socialism at public town halls. Also.

I pledge to eliminate all government intervention in my life. I will abstain from the use of and participation in any socialist goods and services including but not limited to the following:

Social Security

Medicare/Medicaid

State Children's Health Insurance Programs (SCHIP)

Police, Fire, and Emergency Services

US Postal Service

Roads and Highways

Air Travel (regulated by the socialist FAA)

The US Railway System

Public Subways and Metro Systems

Public Bus and Lightrail Systems

Rest Areas on Highways

Sidewalks

All Government-Funded Local/State Projects (e.g., see Iowa 2009federal senate appropriations--http://grassley.senate.gov/issues/upload/Master-Approps-73109.pdf)

Public Water and Sewer Services (goodbye socialist toilet, shower, dishwasher, kitchen sink, outdoor hose!)

Public and State Universities and Colleges

Public Primary and Secondary Schools

Sesame Street

Publicly Funded Anti-Drug Use Education for Children

Public Museums

Libraries

Public Parksand Beaches

State and National Parks

Public Zoos

Unemployment Insurance

Municipal Garbage and Recycling Services

Treatment at Any Hospital or Clinic That Ever Received Funding From Local, Stateor Federal Government (pretty much all of them)

Medical Services and Medications That Were Created or Derived From Any Government Grant or Research Funding (again, pretty much all of them)

Socialist Byproducts of Government Investment Such as Duct Tape and Velcro (Nazi-NASA Inventions)

Use of the Internets, email, and networked computers, as the DoD's ARPANET was the basis for subsequent computer networking

Foodstuffs, Meats, Produce and Crops That Were Grown With, Fed With, Raised With or That Contain Inputs From Crops Grown With Government Subsidies

Clothing Made from Crops (e.g. cotton) That Were Grown With or That Contain Inputs From Government Subsidies

If a veteran of the government-run socialist US military, I will forego my VA benefits and insist on paying for my own medical care

I will not tour socialist government buildings like the Capitol in Washington, D.C.

I pledge to never take myself, my family, or my children on a tour of the following types of socialist

locations, including but not limited to:

Smithsonian Museums such as the Air and Space Museum or Museum of American History

The socialist Washington, Lincoln, and Jefferson Monuments

The government-operated Statue of Liberty

The Grand Canyon

The socialist World War II and Vietnam Veterans Memorials

The government-run socialist-propaganda location known as Arlington National Cemetery

All other public-funded socialist sites, whether it be in my state or in Washington, DC

I will urge my Member of Congress and Senators to forego their government salary and government-provided healthcare.

I will oppose and condemn the government-funded and therefore socialist military of the United States of America.

I will boycott the products of socialist defense contractors such as GE, Lockheed-Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics, Raytheon, Humana, FedEx, General Motors, Honeywell, and hundreds of others that are paid by our socialist government to produce goods for our socialist army.

I will protest socialist security departments such as the Pentagon, FBI, CIA, Department of Homeland Security, TSA, Department of Justice and their socialist employees.

Upon reaching eligible retirement age, I will tear up my socialist Social Security checks.

Upon reaching age 65, I will forego Medicare and pay for my own private health insurance until I die.

SWORN ON A BIBLE AND SIGNED THIS DAY OF ____________ IN THE YEAR ______________.

___________________________ ___________________________

Signed Printed Name/Town and State

I'm not about to sit idly by...

2009-09-05T07:16:00.000-07:00

... while right-wing clowns like Hannity, Limbaugh, O'Reilly and Beck continue their attempts at lying, mis-representation and fear-mongering in an attempt to attack the President... this time aimed at school-children and gullible parents.

For the most part, the Northeast has a fairly liberal and progressive bent, and frankly speaking, I never thought the stupidity and insanity that has overtaken Texas and Virginia would spread up here... but alas it has. My daughter's school sent out an email informing parents that Obama's speech to the children of the US would be reviewed and then a decision made as to whether or not it will be shown to the children. As you can imagine, I was outraged, and more than a little surprised. I responded with the email below... (I've removed the school name and location out of consideration for my family and the school).

Dear xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,

Thank you for taking the time to send this email concerning President Obama's speech to our nation's school children. Xxxxxxxxxxxx, while I understand the school administration's desire to be mindful and considerate of the concerns of the student's parents, I must confess to some confusion regarding your email. In it you state that there will be decision made as to whether or not the children will be shown the President's speech? I must object! Xxxxxxxxxxxxx School is still, last time I checked, a public school... a publicly funded ward of the State of New York and the government of the United States of America. And like him or not, President Obama is the elected leader of our government, and our country's president. Is the administration of this public school seriously considering censorship with regards to a speech made by the President and directed at the school children of our country, all in order to appease the desperate and misguided attempts of a vocal minority of people with a transparent goal of attacking this President by any means necessary?

Whatever your politics, whatever your beliefs, whatever your thoughts are concerning President Obama, the fact remains that he IS our President, our government's elected leader, and the very idea of a public institution even considering an act of censorship of this kind leaves me simply appalled.

While it may not seem convenient to those waging this wedge-driving campaign to remember, this is hardly the first time a President has delivered a speech to the children of the US. In 1991, then President George H.W. Bush delivered a speech to school children in a widely broadcast teleconference. The message was hardly one of trying to convert school-kids to a political ideology. It was a speech meant to encourage kids to work heard, stay in school, and learn. It was an admirable effort that should no more have been opposed than the proposed speech by President Obama.

The thought that President Obama would present a speech to children that would somehow encourage them towards a specific political ideology is simply laughable, and is just another in a long succession of fear tactics being employed by a small minority with a specific goal. And I for one will not sit by idly while a public school considers such an act of censorship.

I encourage you to please use common sense in this matter, and not buy into the hysteria simply as a matter of appeasement. A speech by the highest elected official in our country to our schoolchildren encouraging them to work hard and be successful can be nothing but a positive thing. I would recommend showing the speech to the school as a whole, and invite parents along to watch with their children if they wish. This will get the parents involved and help provide context if the parents feel it is needed.

However, I will strongly resist the school being complicit in an act of censorship. I have known the school administration to use common sense and intelligent consideration with issues in the past, and it is my hope that this will continue.

Thank you, xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, for your time in reading this letter.

Miracles - just more proof that god's an a-hole.

2009-09-04T08:35:00.000-07:00

I’ve talked about my disdain for organized religion before… most people of course accuse me of hating people who believe in religion. This is untrue… most people I know subscribe to one religion or another, and in fact my best friend is quite happily religious. I have no problem with people believing in god, for the most part… it’s the organizations of religion that I really have a problem with.

The reasons are many… they are the purveyors of the “great lies”, they assert truths without evidence, they offer forgiveness for abhorrent behavior by simply affirming belief, they harm progress by stifling independent thought, they stunt intellectual growth by promoting the concept of belief in things despite contrary evidence. They govern and control on a principal of fear of eternal and horrific punishment. And what’s worse, they can never be contented with keeping their beliefs to themselves. Almost all religions have the same goal: convert as many people as possible to your belief. The term “missionary” is one of reverence and respect to the religious, while all it is to me is an asshole who insists him / herself on other people whether they like it or not.

In addition, religion instills people with a false sense of hope, and a belief that problems can be solved without action, by simply praying. How can this lead to a productive, affluent, progressive society? Additionally, religion is notoriously exclusivist, and bigoted by its very nature. There are thousands of religions... in fact, according to the Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary (2006), there are over 38,000 denominations of christianity alone. And each one thinks every other one has got it wrong… so much so that despite believing in the same god and reading from the same essential 2000 year old texts, protestant and catholic members of the same god still actively kill each other over who’s fucking interpretation is more correct. This is the insanity that religion breeds in people. It removes objectivity and creates insular, ignorant followers who believe without question, and accept without consideration.

It’s with this preface I come to the case of the recent “miracle” at Lourdes. According to the Catholic News Agency, via a report from the Italian news agency ANSA, a woman who was reportedly wheelchair-bound, stricken with ALS (Lou Gehrig’s Disease), bathed in the waters at Lourdes and immediately was cured… and now she is walking and even running… all signs of her disease apparently completely gone.

Now, first of all, let’s attack the “miracle cure” thing directly… these things are almost never truly miracles. They nearly always end up having some mundane, if not medically cool, answer once looked into more closely. In this case, despite the quotes from her doctor, I’m left unconvinced that she was “cured”. What was her actual condition when she was at Lourdes? What was she doing just prior? She was apparently medically diagnosed with ALS, so was she participating in any drug trials? Was she mis-diagnosed? Was she examined immediately after Lourdes? No… “miracles” never have these questions available, nevermind actually answered. In fact, interestingly enough, there has been an ongoing medical trial for ALS treatment involving Lithium, which has shown the ability to halt or even completely stop the progression of ALS. Where has this trial been taking place? In Italy, interestingly enough. I have no direct knowledge of it, but would I be surprised to find out that this woman was part of such a trial? Nope… in fact I find it far more likely than the possibility that she was miraculously cured by magic water.

But for the sake of this discussion, let’s just take the claim of a “miracle cure” at face value. So she was cured, by god, at Lourdes. She alone, out of the hundreds of thousands that visited Lourdes this past year alone, was worthy. We’ll accept that premise for this discussion. Reports are that the crowd at Lourdes wept and praised god when the woman got up out of her chair. They were all grateful. GRATEFUL! This is what I don’t understand about christians, and the religious in general. At best, if this is a true miracle cure, does it not show god to be capricious and inconsistent? Millions of people have come to Lourdes… millions upon millions… many very sick, all believers. I’m sure many of the afflicted have suffered far worse and lived a far more pious life than this woman, and yet she was chosen to be cured? Why? What could be the possible reason that god would do this? If god has the power to remove pain and suffering instantaneously at his whim, why must one make the effort of going through ritualistic behavior like traveling to Lourdes, which may be painful and difficult, if not impossible for some, in order for that suffering to be alleviated? If this woman was worthy of being cured, why not just cure her? And if making a statement for god was the point, why make it so rare?

Additionally, if this woman was so worthy of being cured, why make her suffer the disease in the first place? And what of the others? Why are they unworthy? And why do they not ask this question of themselves?

I’ve asked these questions of the religious, and invariably I get the same answers. It's apologetics at its worst. The most common has to do with why god allows her and so many others to suffer. Invariably the answer is that we must suffer in this life to become closer to god and to enjoy the afterlife, or some bullshit like that. OK… fine. So god allows suffering as some sort of “penance”. So does that mean that this woman who has been cured and doesn’t suffer anymore will not be getting into heaven? If that is the case, I’d bet the woman would gladly take her ALS back to make sure she gets into heaven… if that’s not the case, then why not just remove suffering for all who believe in him? Why allow it for some and remove it for others? It seems capricious and arbitrary. If there is a god, then he’s a monster and I’d rather not know him anyhow.

Once the questions start getting tough, where the answers begin to contradict each other, most inevitably resort to the religious “ace-in-the-hole” catch-all answer: god works in mysterious ways, and you can’t know his mind, and to assume you can would be arrogant.

Great. Well that’s just great. So god can continue to be shown as a capricious, arbitrary, sadistic, petulant child with no consistency who insists on worship but refuses to show evidence for himself, and continually tests our faith just to prove how great he is, but we are to accept it anyhow because we can't know his mind? Fuck that. I want no part of it. Frankly none of it makes any sense, and the older I get the more clear to me it becomes that the only rational, reasonable thing to believe is that it’s all complete hogwash - ancient mythology that served to control populations and answer questions we didn’t yet have answers to. Every answer religion provides is so irrational, inconsistent, arbitrary and vague as to not merit consideration unless you have already been pre-programmed to accept a specific set of answers.

For too long, the term “taking it on faith” has been seen as a virtue. It’s not. It’s an admission of willful ignorance. The world needs less of that, not more.

Daily FAIL - Terrifying Teddy...

2009-07-27T07:40:00.000-07:00

What deranged dentist thought this would be a cute way to show little kids teeth? This is about the creepiest teddy I've ever seen... I'm gonna see this thing in my nightmares.

A man with a true super-power: stupidity.

2009-07-24T07:42:00.000-07:00

I've talked about people who claim to have supernatural powers before... for some reason, many people simply can't accept reality for what it is. For them, super-human powers and ghostly spirits and predicting the future simply MUST be true. I don't really get it.

We are fragile humans... some people are stronger, or smarter, or taller, or more beautiful, but we all have physical limitations. No-one is immortal, no-one has super powers, and no, sorry, no-one can talk to dead people (but that's a topic for another post).

Still and all, people claim these abilities all the time... sometimes they are true charlatans looking to bilk credulous people out of their money, and sometimes they actually convince themselves that they do have these abilities. The latter group are less dishonest, but more dangerous because they truly believe it. A charlatan will know when he's gone too far before he's done any real harm... a true believer won't.

Most times, it's other people that are damaged as a result of the claims of these people... but sometimes, these kooks are so convinced of their own supernatural abilities that they will put themselves in harms way... usually to their own detriment.

That brings us to today's whackaloon, Dmitry Butakov, who believed that he had "super-powers"... specifically the ability to ingest poisonous liquids without being harmed. It seems that Dmitry's body did have a somewhat high tolerance for certain types of toxic liquids. For example, he once drank some dissolvent in front of reporters and survived. He decided to use his "super-powers" to gain fame and perhaps fortune.

You'll notice that I've been talking about Dmitri in the past-tense. You can probably guess why. After setting up a demonstration with reporters in which he drank about 10 oz. of anti-freeze, he gave a couple of interviews, then started to feel sick. He later died, predictably, of blood poisoning.

I'd wrap this up with a lesson about stupidly believing in super (or supernatural) powers, but if you didn't get that already, I'm not sure it would help you anyhow.

Book burning... a ghastly demand made by ghastly people.

2009-07-22T12:58:00.000-07:00

What is it with religious right-wingers and burning books?

That's the demand being put forth by some right-wing-nuts in a small town in Wisconsin. It seems the local library had the nerve to put some books on the shelves of the public library. Books that dealt with some fairly controversial issues. Specifically books that talked at length and in detail about homosexuality.

These books were written about, and targeted for, young adults, and were correctly placed in the young adult section. You can find these books at most libraries across the country, and find them in the young adult section. You see... it's a library. A public library. Its responsibility is to offer reading material to the public community. It is not responsible for censoring the content of that material or restricting access to that material based on arbitrary moral decisions demanded by religious authority.

Unfortunately too many of the residents of West Bend, WI don't fully understand the First Amendment, nor do they fully grasp the slippery slope they are planting their moral flag upon. And if that's not bad enough, they can't be bothered to simply voice their opinions... no, in traditional christian fashion, they must resort to threats of violence and damage to public property. It's a long-standing religious tradition: "believe what I believe or I'll beat the shit out of you".

Interestingly, the two people who started this whole mess, Jim and Ginny Maziarka, while totally ridiculous for believing they have the right to impress their morality on the community at large, are not the most unreasonable. They disagreed with the content, and petitioned that it should be placed in the "adult" section and marked as "sexually explicit". While completely wrong in that assessment, the request is not inappropriate and they went about it the right way. They even asked the library, if nothing else, to offer books that affirm hetero-sexuality. This is also not an unreasonable request, assuming those books do not incite hatred and violence against the homosexual community (or ANY community for that matter). I'm always in favor of libraries offering as many varied opinions on a topic as possible.

Ginny Maziarka began blogging about the issue, and that brought the righteously batshit crazy out of the woodwork... and that's where things start to get surreal. People began calling for the jobs of the library board... one man stood up during a meeting on the subject and told the library director he should be tarred and feathered! Another man, Robert Braun, who is 74 and a professed staunch christian, actually filed a claim along with 4 other "elderly" men to have the book burned! In the 21st century we actually have adult men calling for book-burnings.

Anger, hatred, violence, and destruction. That's the christian response to that with which they do not agree. It has been that way for 2000 years and shows no signs of changing. And burning books is the absolute worst form of ignorance and censorship, and is generally an action reserved for only the most hate-filled, vile idiots among us. I've said this before, but this is why I have such a problem with religious accomodationists. Religion can't be happy to leave the rest of us alone... it insists itself... its self-serving morality and dogma, upon everyone else, and does so often violently.

Thankfully, we continue to educate people in this country... and the tide is beginning to turn. The elderly, hateful christian fundamentalists like Mr. Braun are slowly dying out... and more and more we are seeing people stand up for rational, intelligent action and behavior. For example, in this case we have Maria Hanrahan, who started her own blog in opposition to that of Ginny Maziarka, calling for free speech and parental responsibility for what their children read and learn about. Her quote is what I would expect from a rational, intelligent person:

"I'm against any other party telling me what's appropriate for my child and what isn't," said Hanrahan, 40, who also created a West Bend Parents for Free Speech group. "We don't mean to say these are appropriate for everyone, but we don't feel they should be set apart from other materials or restricted from the young-adult section."

We need more of that type of intelligent discourse from our vocal citizens. Too often it's the angry, hate filled mob that have the loudest voice and brightest spotlight... It's good to see a shining light like Maria Hanrahan glowing in the darkness.

The good news: the library board voted to keep the controversial books right where they are. It was the only correct decision.

The bad news: in typical fashion, the city council voted not to renew the board members when their current terms expire. Which means the city could put new board members in place that could then decide to restrict access to the books or remove them altogether.

I hope they do, because thanks to people like Maria Hanrahan it looks like they'll have a legal fight on their hands... one that they shouldn't, and won't, win. Good for her. I said it a few posts earlier... it's about damn time we grew up as a society.

_______________________

By the way, if any of you are interested, the two main books in question are The Perks of Being a Wallflower by Stephen Chbosky, and Baby be-bop by Francesca Lia Block. Neither has ever been classified as "adult" or "sexually explicit" by any official authority.

Get in the f..ing sack!

2009-07-22T11:32:00.000-07:00

We need more comedians like this guy... rationalists are too often portrayed as being humorless and boring. This made me chuckle out loud. Enjoy, and please, send this any of your friends who are into "alternative medicine" and the like.

Why I'm an atheist... and refuse to hide it...

2009-07-21T07:13:00.000-07:00

The meat of this post is a few paragraphs below, but I wanted to share some thoughts first...

As many of you know or have already guessed, I am an atheist. Contrary to popular belief, I don't kill babies or eat puppies as a result. I simply have no reason, not a single shred of proof or evidence, for the existence of a god or gods. Gods of all sorts have come and gone throughout our history... some have faded away into myth, like the Greek and Roman gods of old, while some have maintained a foothold in modern society, like Christianity, Islam and Buddhism. All religions, from ancient Egypt to Sumeria to Aztec Mexico, have the same basic goal: control. Religion is a means of controlling a society and its population. Religion initially springs from a need to put answers around natural phenomena that a culture is unable to explain through mundane explanation, and more often then not fail when human knowledge expands to a point where religious explanations are overturned in favor of empirical evidence.

This is perfectly displayed with the collapse of ancient Greek religion. Over time, it became obvious through observation and application of scientific method that a giant, immortal being was not throwing lightning down from the clouds, that the sun did not ride across the sky in a chariot.

At any rate, that desire to explain the unknown is quickly used by those who wish to wield power over a group of people. It's an easy thing to do, really. If you are a member of an early society, and you want to be in charge, simply assign mysterious and frightening phenomena to supernatural forces, and then claim that you speak to, and therefor FOR, those forces. If you are convincing enough, you will instill enough fear of this possibility into the society. Thus religion is born, and your community is now under the control of that religion. The problem of course arises when someone else from somewhere else comes along with different answers from a different supernatural being... and depending on how convincing that person is, you might have a problem on your hands (Christians call this missionary work, by the way).

I think that over the course of our development as humans we've needed that structure... that ability to assign something to the things we don't understand, in order to function and start crawling out of the caves and start living in organized, fruitful communities. Religion has embedded parables into our culture that teach some basic lessons of right and wrong, and convey the customs of the time. The biggest problem I have with chrsitianity now is that too often christians look to a literal interpretation of the bible, a book written 2000 years ago by barely literate goat-herders. The lessons were relevant to the culture and society of the time, but they do not translate well to today's culture. The bible is full of hateful racist and misogynistic verbiage that was far more commonplace and acceptable in the time and place it was written. It is the same with other religions, including islam. Unfortunately there are many cultures who still enforce a strict adherence to these writings, and women and minorities are still persecuted and oppressed as a result to this day.

__________________________________

I was raised an Irish catholic in a section of Boston that was, and still is, very religious. I was an alter boy for a time and was confirmed when I was about 12. However, I was also a fairly intelligent and very curious young man, and as a result of the very teachings I was given to become confirmed, I began to have serious questions and concerns about the writings in the bible. So I began to research some of this stuff, and actually read the bible for the very first time. I was amazed at how much I was expected to swallow. The more I learned, the more and more clear it became that the bible was no more factually correct than Aesop's fables. I think it's safe to say I was an atheist by the time I was 18.

But, being an atheist in the mid-80's in Boston was not something you could just proclaim. Even then, I wouldn't admit to being an atheist... to those who would ask I would simply say "I'm not sure what I believe" and leave it at that. I spent many years playing the role of the agnostic for fear of the stigma attached to atheists.

As I got older and more educated, my refusal to accept religious claims was only reinforced, and I began to read books about the atrocities committed in the name of religion (the crusades, the Inquisition, to name a couple) and I began to embrace my atheism even more. I had become an atheist because I was unable to accept the obvious problems with religious doctrine, but I've become a more outspoken atheist as I've gotten older because religion continues to make it impossible for me to do otherwise. I've come to feel that religion does far more harm than good, and continues to be nothing more than a means of control over a population. And outside of the abject inhumanity of fundamentalist islamic sects in the middle-east, there is no better example of this than the Roman Catholic Church of which I was once a member.

And there is no better example than the story of the 9-year-old Brazilian girl who was raped and became pregnant. This poor, innocent little girl was raped by her step-father and became pregnant... with twins. Carrying twins to term at her age would likely have killed the little girl, so her family and her doctor decided an abortion was the only safe, humane thing to do. Of course, the Roman Catholic Church doesn't understand the concept of humane action when it opposes its outdated dogma. The local bishop ex-communicated the doctor and her family for having an abortion. The little girl would have been ex-communicated too, but catholic doctrine does not allow for ex-communication of people under the age of 18. While this is absurd, of course, it is not all that surprising. The catholic church's position on abortion is that the blob of cells is far more important than a living, breathing 9-year-old. And you may think this is just something that happened because it's Brazil and they are more fanatical... well you'd be wrong. The Vatican has weighed in on this, and has defended the decision of the bishop. A vatican official was quoted as saying "This is not just theory. And you can't start backpedaling just because the real-life situation carries a certain human weight." Yup... you read that correctly. According to the vatican, strict adherence to doctrine is paramount, and exceptions can not be made under any circumstances.

Yes, ladies and gentleman... it is time to grow up as a society. These are not the governing morals we want to continue to be driven by. Religion is never content to be left alone and keep to itself... it insists itself upon society... it demands respect where it has not earned it, it expects to be treated with deference and be given special treatment... it pushes its beliefs into places that should remain secular. It will not leave well enough alone. It never has, it never will. I've read in many places recently that we need to "play nice" with religion in order to further the goals of secular society, that being the "angry, uppity atheist" only hurts the cause. That's code for "sit down and shut up", and to that I say, fuck no! I am angry because stories like the one above make me angry... and if they don't make you angry then there's something wrong with you, and you need to adjust your moral compass. I will continue to write in outrage and continue to push the message that it is time to cast off the shackles of religion and leave it behind along with the other fairy tales we've dismissed.

Defenders of religion claim that we need religion in order to maintain a proper morality. I've seen too many examples of "christian morality", like the one above. I'm not religious, but I have morals as strong as any christian... stronger, in my opinion, as I don't share, for example, a hatred of homosexuals or beliefs that cause me to say "praise jesus" when a relative is spared their life in an accident that also took the lives of other innocent women and children. Was Jesus not looking out for them? My daughter has never known religion in any formal way, and her morals are spot on... in fact even at her young age, she is far more giving, caring and empathetic than most of her peers that go to church every Sunday and bible school in the summer. And she doesn't need the fear of burning in eternal fire in order to know the difference between right and wrong and act appropriately. Funny that.

I was once afraid to admit that I was an atheist... but every day that I live and see how religion affects the world around me, I'm more and more proud of it. You should be too.

Daily FAIL - this would be funnier to me...

2009-07-15T14:01:00.000-07:00

but I think the guy that built this place also built my house... grrr....

Espada flops back to Dems... what did we learn?

2009-07-09T15:48:00.000-07:00

Well... I'm not altogether sure yet.

Reports out of Albany, NY today indicate that dissident senator Pedro Espada is poised to rejoin the democratic caucus and restore the 32 - 30 majority that existed prior to the insidious coup he orchestrated back in early June.

So... what dose this mean? Well, first of all it means that the senate will return to the state the electorate voted it as in the first place. Second, it means several bills that have been hung up in limbo while these petulant infants had their little standoff will finally get passed through the senate.

Should we, voters of the state of New York, be satisfied? Hell, no! Both democrats and republicans came off looking like boorish jerks, and I come away from this episode utterly exasperated at the state of the New York Senate. I said it before and I meant it... I think the only solution to fix this problem is to disband the senate completely and hold new elections. This whole fracas was a complete mockery of the state political system from the beginning, and after a month of chaos, embarrassment, and posturing from both sides, they essentially accomplished nothing...

Well, that's not altogether true. They did manage to put NY State up as the laughing stock of American State politics, and piss off the voting electorate in the process. And who knows, perhaps some real reform will come from this mess... but considering reform would have to pass the approval of the idiots who are responsible for this mess in the first place, I find it unlikely in the short term. But I'm hopeful that the real fallout of this incident will be felt at the polls during the next round of senatorial elections.

As for Pedro Espada, the loathsome, corrupt degenerate who started this whole mess... I really have to wonder what happened to cause him to flop back after all his ego-driven, line in the sand speeches over the last month. Although, knowing the man's track record so far, I'm sure there was something in it for him... I'll wager that we'll find out the dems offered him a deal to remain in power at the top of the senate in exchange for his return to the dem side of the aisle.

All that means is that the democrats are as willing to engage the services of a corrupt politician as the republicans are.

And what's sadder still? I will find myself not in the least bit surprised if Espada winds up winning a re-election.

Sigh.

Daily FAIL - why we need to increase education spending...

2009-07-09T15:39:00.000-07:00

You'll really be appalled when you find out how much money the guys who did this make...

Tea-baggers and town picnics: an Independence Weekend remembered

2009-07-07T11:35:00.000-07:00

It's certainly a tumultuous time in our country... we are in the middle of a vast economic crisis, that is only showing the slowest signs of recovering. We have a damaged international reputation and a world of international strife centered mainly in a place on the other side of the world engaged in a struggle that few of us can even explain the reasons for being there...

We have a new president, a progressive that represents almost the exact opposite of the regime that dragged us into this abyss in the first place, and yet we have the party leadership of the defeated republicans, whose only real platform at this point seems to be unified objection too every initiative put forth by the current leadership. The idea of doing what's best for the country has been shelved in favor of personal gain and survival. The republican party is throwing stones from the bottom of the well they dug themselves into, instead of working together to find a way to climb back out, or even to take hold of the rope the president has tossed them time and time again.

They've forgotten the first rule when in a hole: stop digging.

This was made more apparent over this past weekend when republicans again took to the public squares for their now comically infamous "tea-parties". These things are such a bad idea that even most republicans know to stay the heck away from them (except for the staff of Fox (faux) news, who wouldn't know a bad idea if it slapped them in the ass... remember when news agencies at least gave the appearance of being politically neutral? Thanks Mr. Murdoch).

Most of the people at these rallies have no idea what they're actually protesting, except that they don't like that Barrack Hussein Obama fella and they want him to stop spendin' their money, gal-dangit! They also have no idea what the original tea-party stood for; they are at best ignorant, and at worst confusing losing with tyranny. Worst of all, no-one at any of these rallies has the most important aspect of a well thought out protest: a better idea. There's quite a bit of complaining about... well, they're not really exactly sure what... but very little in the way of actual solutions, beyond "stop spendin' our money!". Fiscal Conservative Andrew Sullivan put it best:

"These are not tea-parties. They are tea-tantrums. And the adolescent, unserious hysteria is a function not of a movement regrouping and refinding itself. It's a function of a movement's intellectual collapse and a party's fast-accelerating nervous breakdown."

And this dovetails into the other common event that took place over this 4th of July weekend: the display of fireworks. This is, of course, a time honored tradition across the country in both big city and rural small town. I happen to be a resident of the latter. Often times, these celebrations are held in conjunction with local picnics, where residents come together to share food, friendship, and community. It's a time for everyone, regardless of political affiliation or idealogical belief, to celebrate the very reason they have the ability to display those traits and qualities. It is a time for true patriotism, even for those who have forgotten the real meaning. And more often than not, they are supported financially with funds from the local government, however in rural areas this is often supplemented with contributions from locals.

I attended one of these local rural picnic days on Sunday. It was a beautiful summer day, and people from all around the surrounding area showed up, carrying with them food items to be shared freely with the rest of the community. It was a magnificent spread, complete with every type of picnic food you could ever imagine... there were no fewer than 11 trays of some type of macaroni salad. So I sat there on the picnic bench as the line for food wound around the pavilion, and I listened to the people talk. They spoke of layoffs and tough times, but also of hope for the future. There were Conservatives griping about the release of prisoners and Obama's stimulus plan and how their grandchildren would never be able to afford college because of it... all the while ignoring the man behind them who just started his new construction job repairing a local bridge, paid for of course by the Obama stimulus package. Did he at least appreciate where the money for his new job came from? Nope... he chimed right in, totally unaware that his good fortune was a direct result of the president's action.

And there were progressives and liberals... talking about community and how they hoped that someone would be able to figure out a national health plan, and how much they wanted to get our troops out of the middle east... while complaining still that the "change" they hoped for was slow in coming at the very least, and hopiing that the president would live up to his word.

But as the line-standers got their meals and sat together, they talked more about family, and local goings-on... the kids that had just graduated and summer activities that were just starting up. And they looked down at the beach where the children were playing in the water and laughing and screaming. And there was smiling... lots of smiling; the sort of physical display of pleasure that has become all too unfamiliar these days.

And at the end of the night we spread out and covered the hillside above the like a quilt, and we watched with oooohs and aaahs as the pyrotechnics exploded in the night sky in colors of blue and gold and red and yellow... kids blocked their ears and toddlers clapped and shrieked with glee. For that day... in that place, the world was... right.

And we, the people... we needed that. It was a perfect day to celebrate who we are, and it was done so in the most perfect way without anyone even realizing it or intending it. A community getting together and organizing a day of fellowship and celebration, as an act of patriotism... accepting people in from all communities to share in what they had to give, sitting and standing together to watch the sky light up... smiling... and hoping.

Yes... the community needed it, desperately... and having watched and been engaged in the celebration, I wondered to myself what it was worth. What price can you put on what was on display on that Sunday afternoon? I had a hard time doing it. The joy and peace of that event, the sense of community... these are all priceless. The fireworks are a tradition... people look forward to them and the rewards that come from the celebration far outweigh any cost... and so it saddens me to read that so many communities with short-sighted leadership were so easily able to justify cancelling similar celebrations in towns and cities all across America.

Now is not the time to throw out the baby with the bath-water, people. Read what I wrote above again and remember how important things like this are. In places like Providence, RI, Caseyville, MO and even Colorado Springs, CO, the people were deprived of the experience I just wrote about in an effort to "save money". Believe me, I understand the importance of saving money in this environment, but in doing so, it is the responsibility of our leaders to also consider the morale of the citizens. The loss of these important celebrations in such a trying time has a much larger effect than simply the bottom line.

This is America, and we need to celebrate that now more than ever.

Daily FAIL - a diet I could stay on...

2009-06-25T11:54:00.000-07:00

Man... if this were accurate I'd be sooooooo much thinner than I am right now.

Seeing isn't always believing...

2009-06-24T12:52:00.000-07:00

One of the reasons I love Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy website is because not only is he a brilliant astrnomer and movie buff, but he's a total geek and nerd of the highest order, which makes him OK in my book.

So, from his blog, please regard the image below:

I love optical illusions... in this image, you can see three embedded spirals... one is green, one is pinkish-orange, and one is blue... right? Wrong! In fact, the green and blue spirals are actually the same exact color! How cool is that? Don't believe me? Check out Phil's full entry for the complete explanation... it's worth it, trust me.

Apple IPOD Touch 3.0 software upgrade - I have to PAY for this???

2009-06-24T11:49:00.000-07:00

My IPOD touch is about the best single technology gizmo I've ever owned. I didn't want an IPhone because a) I really only get Verizon where I live, and b) the IPhone sucks as an actual mobile phone. So, the Touch is a perfect compromise... I get all the fun and features of the Iphone, while still getting to pay for an actual cell phone and service... it's a win - win.

Anyhow, a couple of weeks ago Apple released a new software upgrade for the Touch, version 3.0... which is great, cause, you know, software updates are generally good things. So off I went dutifully to Itunes to download the new bytes... and that's when I got the sucker punch: Apple is actually asking people to pay for the privilege of this upgrade, to the Itune of of $9.95. What in the blazes? I have to pay for an Ipod software update? NONSENSE!

Well, I sighed and shrugged and decided that in order for them to be charging for what should rightfully be a free update, like all other ipod updates have EVER been, they must be offering some phenomenal new features. Ummm... well... not so much.

The additional functionalities afforded in the 3.0 software are as follows: Stereo bluetooth connectivity (nice, but until bluetooth headphones can offer the same hi fidelity sound as higher end connected headphones, no-one's going to be too excited about that one), peer-to-peer gaming (eh... ok), copy, cut and paste functionality with a "shake to undo" feature (should have always been there), a landscape keyboard (duh!), spotlight search (which really is only useful if you have tens of thousands of items on your ipod that you can't find by just, you know, knowing where they are), shake to shuffle (again, why was this not there to begin with?), auto wi-fi login (see comment regarding shake to shuffle), push notifications, and parental controls (ummm... ok... good luck with that last one).

So, there's the laundry list of updates (oh, you also get some additional language support). I have to say, I'm left largely unimpressed, and feeling like these are things that should have been available all along. Considering how much the Ipod Touch sells for to begin with, I think it's gauche to ask for another 10 bucks for a functionality upgrade.

I can live without most of these new features, and I think most Touch owners will be able to as well. Can you imagine if Microsoft tried to pull something like this? The MAC crusaders would be up in arms and it would make the lead on "MSNBC". I'd like to see the "I'm a PC" guy turn and kick that smug little "I'm a MAC" guy right in the gonads for this awful piece of profiteering by Apple. Thanks but no thanks.

________________________________________

*Update - The Cnet CRAVE blog actually has a more complete list of all the new features in the 3.0 update, including those for the IPhone, but still, what's not listed in my article pretty well qualifies as "fixes", or improvements that should have been there in the first place, not as added functionality you should be required to pay for.

Do the right thing... OR ELSE

2009-06-23T17:41:00.000-07:00

As I tend to be liberal leaning, I am, of course, a proponent of social responsibility and community. But I also understand the importance of personal freedom. Most of us remember the series finale of "Seinfeld"... the plot revolved around the Seinfeld characters being arrested and convicted under a "good Samaritan" law, whereby people could be arrested and convicted if they did not intervene on the behalf of a stranger in distress. The episode took a direct jab at many such "Samaritan" laws that have been passed in states throughout the country. They were being mocked, and rightfully so.

Today's online edition of the Ithaca Journal (Ithaca, NY) carries an editorial about a proposed bill in NY State known as "Steven's Law", after Steven Bacon, the victim of a tragic hit and run accident in 2007. If passed, the law would carry penalties for witnesses of an accident that do not report the accident to the appropriate authorities. The penalties would include fines of up to $500... but more importantly could count as a misdemeanor on a person's criminal record.

In principal, (and of course absent the over-the-top comic delivery presented in the Seinfeld episode) it sounds like a good idea. We should all endeavour to help our fellow humans, especially when they are in real distress. However, is it the responsibility of a society to impose this morality on its citizens? While I personally have a strong internal imperative to intervene and offer help when it is needed, and to report crimes or abuses when I see them, I find the enforcement of those morals, under penalty of law, to be an affront to personal freedom.

While reporting an accident is certainly the right thing to do, and I would of course encourage anyone to do so in any circumstance, is it really right to hold someone criminally negligent for not doing so? I'm not sure I can make that argument. People have all sorts of reasons for not wanting to become involved in certain situations... is it the responsibility of society to adjudicate that decision? I have a hard time with that.

Additionally, I think an attempt to enforce such a law would be nearly impossible. The concept itself is too ambiguous and far to open to interpretation of a given incident. So, besides being socially questionable in my mind, passing a law that is almost impossible to enforce is simply irresponsible. And while I am saddened by the tragic accident that caused the death of an otherwise innocent man, and am outraged by the behavior of a thug that would drive away and leave someone to die, passing a law that punishes the witnesses, especially with a misdemeanor on their record for the simple act of refusing to get involved, seems more like anger and vengeance than justice. That's not what our system of justice is supposed to be about.

Thankfully, this bill never got through the committee, but the editorial writer of the Ithaca Journal article believes it deserves more attention. The article concludes with the line: "It's a law that could save a life". While this may be true, it's unlikely. What is far more likely is that some witness, while in no way involved with an accident, will find themselves with a criminal record for not wanting to get involved. I'm sorry, but I must whole-heartedly disagree with the editorial writer. Doing the right thing is a virtue. Forcing people to do the right thing... I'm not so sure.

Daily FAIL - Challenging Urinal Etiquette

2009-06-22T11:04:00.000-07:00

This would totally make sense... if you were Bob or Walt Tenor.

Daily FAIL - If you can't...

2009-06-17T12:37:00.000-07:00

... Love the one you pork...

Mmmmm... TomTom...

2009-06-17T11:59:00.000-07:00

Oh... I am SO getting this:

TomTom has been making celebrity voices available for download with TomTom GPS devices for some time now. If you are so inclined, you can be told where to go... err... how to get there... by such lexicons as Mr. T, Kim Cattrall, Burt Reynolds or Gary Busey... but now, you can get your directions from none other than one Homer J. Simpson.

All I can say is, "WOOHOO!"

** Oh, and rumor has it that Knight Rider's "Kitt" will be the next voice to be rolled out. Just awesome.

This is democracy?

2009-06-17T05:30:00.000-07:00

I've made my feelings about this issue already pretty well known, so what I'm about to write should come as no surprise. This situation is deplorable and every member of the NY State Senate should be embarrassed and ashamed.

The NY Supreme Court decided, rightfully, that it had no business getting involved in the legislative branch, and dismissed the case brought to it by the democrats. The judge correctly stated that the Senate should work out its issues on its own and it had no jurisdiction in the matter.

While this is the correct decision, it is also unfortunate. Without any means to right the wrong, it now appears that corrupt power grabs orchestrated by spiteful, insanely wealthy men who simply know how to line the pockets of people with no moral compass (yeah, I'm looking at you Pedro Espada. How do you even sleep at night?) can be achieved at will, and the ability to completely shut down a critical branch of government can be wielded by those who are more concerned with political and personal gain than they are acting for the people.

The Supreme Court judge (Thomas McNamara) in this case made a wise, albeit naive, observation: "The failure of the Senate to resolve this issue in an appropriate manner will make them answerable to the electorate." This should be true, but history shows us that it likely will not. Not if the elections are held at their regular intervals.

This is where the constitution of the State of NY needs to be amended to allow a provision that prevents this sort of thing from ever happening again. At no time should the legislative branch EVER, of its own will and volition, be able to challenge the power structure established by the electorate without the electorate being involved in the process. What has happened in this case is nothing short of anarchy. The electorate has been effectively disenfranchised. The power structure established by the will of the voting populace has been replaced by the will of a rich man and a corrupt senator. How is this democracy?

In my opinion, three things need to happen. First, the damned Senate needs to get back into session and start passing some of the local and state budgets that are in jeopardy otherwise. Democrats: you made your case and you lost. You were duped. You were swindled and cheated. Now get over it and get back to work. The taxpayers of NY are not paying you to stand outside the chamber pouting. Republicans: stop claiming some high ground victory for the State of NY. What you did was repugnant and with any luck will be made illegal in the future. You have turned your back on the will of the electorate of the state you purport to represent in an obvious power grab. You are nothing more than schoolyard bullies with a rich uncle (Gallisano). But, you got away with it. And so it goes. So quit grandstanding and find some common ground with the Democrats and get the hell back to work. Like yesterday.

Second, I believe the elected Senate has utterly failed its first responsibility to the voters of the State of NY. I call for the immediate dissolution of the senate at the end of the current session and for complete elections to be run this fall for new representation. Let the voters decide this dispute, and let them do it in a hurry. It's the only democratic thing to do.

Third, I demand, as a voter, that a provision or amendment be put in to the legislative branch bylaws, or the NY State Constitution , or whatever governing body is required, that at no time may the legislative branch be allowed to cast off its leadership and replace it ad-hoc without a referendum put to the people. The saddest part in all of this is that these Senators are acting alone, not out of the best interests of their constituents, but out of their own greed and political desire, and the voters had to stand by and watch, powerless to do anything about it. This is not democracy, and it needs to be fixed. What took place on the floor of the NY State Senate may not be technically illegal, but for the sake of the voters of the State of NY, it damn well should be.

Daily FAIL - honest dishonesty.

2009-06-16T06:19:00.000-07:00

We all know someone who would write a note like this, don't we?

see more Fail Blog

Movie Review - Up!

2009-06-15T11:53:00.000-07:00

It's been 14 years since we were first introduced to the wonderful Pixar Studios' production of "Toy Story". I remember seeing that movie and thinking that animated movies would never be the same. I also remember thinking that "Toy Story" would be tough to top. I was so naive.

Since that summer of 1995, Pixar has treated us with spectacular movie experiences just about every year or two. This is a production company that has never known failure. Ever. Every movie they have thrown up onto the big screen has been wildly successful, and that is no accident. The biggest thing Pixar movies have going for them is the sheer breadth of their appeal. The movies, from Toy Story on, have made a concerted effort to not target any specific group; age, ethnic or otherwise. These movies are, quite literally, for everyone from age 3 to 103. Every single production gives you something to enjoy, no matter your demographic. The visuals appeal to both very young and very old alike... the stories are most often both child-like in their innocence, yet mature in their message. The characters are well developed and likable... even the villains. They are cast well, and the animators have an uncanny knack for representing accuracy in delivery: the characters so often just look like the actors playing them even if they don't really look like them. For example, Mr. Incredible looks nothing like Craig T. Nelson, and yet he so much does... it's an uncanny talent that is unique in animated films to Pixar movies, as far as I am concerned.

However, despite all the praise and acclaim I've just heaped upon the folks at Pixar, I've also noticed another peculiar phenomenon concerning their movies. For whatever reason, immediately following "Toy Story 2", each time I would hear of an upcoming Pixar release, I would treat it with relative disinterest. I had loved every movie they had produced up to that point, but the new movies, as they would be teased, just never seemed to capture my attention. Even the wonderful "Finding Nemo", which I think is the high-water mark for Pixar movies to date, was greeted with a barely registering "Eh..." when I first saw the trailer. And that stayed with me right up until the release of the movie. I was blown away when I saw "Nemo", of course. And that movie served to solidify Pixar movies as "must-see" movie events, for me anyhow.

And yet, when "The Incredibles" was released, again I was struck with a weird sense of disinterest. I saw it and loved it, too. The same pattern has continued with each subsequent release up to "Ratatouille". Once I saw that movie, I vowed that whatever it was inside me that wanted to undersell Pixar movies, I was going to bury it deep down and be damn-well excited when the next movie came out. I was wary with "Wall-E", but remained excited... and I was rewarded with one of the best movie's I've seen in years.

So along came the teasers for the latest Pixar production: "Up". And I have to admit... based on the title and the few teasers and trailers I saw, I was once again, struck with a sense of being underwhelmed. This movie just looked boring to me. Clearly I had learned nothing from the prior success of Pixar's films. Pixar has made a habit of being understated with the promotion of its movies, and I think it has served to make the experience all that much more enjoyable when you see them. The same is exactly true for "Up". Before I get to reviewing the movie, for those that have not seen it, I can't recommend it highly enough. Take your kids, your significant other, or your grandmother. Each of them will be rewarded with a wonderful movie experience, and all for different, yet similar reasons. Ok, so on to the review.

SPOILER ALERT!

From this point on, I will likely talk about parts of the movie that might give away the story or plot. Don't read any further if you haven't seen the movie or don't want to spoil it.

As has been Pixar's way over the last few of its films, this movie opens with a quiet, fairly dialog-free scene that is meant to set the stage for the rest of the movie. This has been a recipe for success for many of Pixar's movies... only in "Up", it's the quintessential scene of the entire movie. "Up" starts right off by pulling at your heart strings, and telling a beautiful story without ever saying a word. We learn all about our main character in the first few minutes of the film in a profound and meaningful way... and the man never speaks a word.

"Up", despite its complete lack of a love interest throughout most of the movie, is in fact a love story. It's a love story in the abstract... one in which a quiet man feels the meaning in his life disappear with the passing of the love of his life. He has seemingly had a good, long life with his beloved, and yet now, near the end of his days, feels the weight of a promise made, heretofore unfulfilled. The promise made between two young adventurers to someday visit the lost world of their long-gone childhood hero.

And the audience is immediately invested in the story. So much so that once Carl Fredricksen (voice by Ed Asner) decides it's time to fulfil that promise to his deceased wife, no-one really questions the outrageous method he uses to get to South America: by using enough helium filled balloons attached to andirons in his fire-place to lift his entire house off its foundation and fly the air currents south. It's preposterous. And completely ok. It is sweet and naive and fun and it would be heinous of a movie-goer to even question the probability of it. If that's your reaction then this movie probably isn't for you. In fact you should probably avoid Pixar movies altogether, as talking cars and monsters in the closet probably would make you just as irritable.

This movie of course has several interesting and well thought-out subplots. A young boy, Russel, looking to acquire badges for his scout sash becomes an unwitting stowaway on the flying home. Russel is an innocent, naive, but good hearted little boy who comes from an apparently broken home and is in desperate need of a father-figure. Carl, being single-minded in his purpose of getting his house, who he has now personified as his late wife,Ellie, to the lost world in South America, sees Russel as an inconvenience and an annoyance. And it is here that the movie begins to shape its message.

The rest of the movie is framed around forming relationships and letting those relationships take you in places you never expected. Carl, poor soul, feels incomplete since his wife passed away. He feels that he is missing something, and he believes with every fiber of his being that he has but one last task to complete to make his life complete. He made a promise to Ellie, and he meant to keep it, or risk living out his life feeling like he had disappointed her.

But it is during the very adventure of trying to fulfil this promise that he learns that his life was full and wonderful, and what he was missing now was not the fulfillment of a promise made in his youth, but the living of a life the way he had lived it before Ellie died... with hope and love and kinship towards someone who means something special to you. Carl needed Russel in his life (and Doug, of course... the dog they find along the way), and similarly Russel needed Carl. And in her wisdom, Ellie knew this all along. And in the "adventure book" she had kept, a book that Carl had not looked through since they were kids, Ellie left her own legacy to Carl, with pictures and mementos of the real adventure she had lived. She had long since given up the childhood fantasies she once carried in favor of an adventure far more meaningful and satisfying, and now she was urging Carl to do the same. And in becoming a part of Russel's life, he did just that, and in that way, did fulfil his promise.

In typical Pixar fashion, "Up" is ripe with humor, from the comically tense early interactions between Carl and Russel, to the strange dogs that live on the lost plateau in South America that wear collars that allow them to speak their thoughts (the funniest bit in the movie involves the "alpha dog" and the effect of a somewhat broken collar). Pixar knows how to push all the right buttons, and "Up" is no exception. I found myself at various times equally amused, entertained, and thought-provoked.

So once again, Pixar has managed to give us a portrait of life, to be enjoyed and cherished, in a 90 minute snapshot. Enjoy it and embrace it, as I did... and hope, as I do, that the next Pixar offering lives up to the impossibly high standards they continue to set for themselves.

Daily FAIL - I don't remember ordering this...

2009-06-15T09:33:00.000-07:00

At that price, she couldn't have been all that good anyhow...

see more Fail Blog

NY Senate update - Monserrate returns to Dems, Espada still in love with himself

2009-06-15T08:18:00.000-07:00

The sit-com otherwise known as the NY State Senate continues to amuse and confuse...

One of the two dissident democrats, Hiram Monserrate, who helped the republicans stage a coup of the State Senate leadership last week has returned to the democratic caucus, and pledged full support for the job which he was voted in to do in the first place.

So now we have a nice 31-31 logjam of dems vs. republican votes in the Senate, even though one of the 31 republican votes actually belongs to the odious Pedro Espada, who somehow still purports to be a democrat. This man has quickly become one of the most vile, contemptuous figures in the history of NY State politics. And to solidify this position, here's what he said regarding Monserrate returning to the democratic caucus: "While Senator Monserrate will be returning to the democratic conference, he assured me that he continues to support my historic election as Temporary President of the New York State Senate". (emphasis mine)

What an ego on this guy. He loves saying his title out loud, and does it every time he gets the chance. And frankly I doubt that Sen. Monserrate said anything of the kind.

"Historic" indeed... to quote a classic: "You keep using the word... I do not think it means what you think it means."

NY State Senate carnival continues

2009-06-11T12:14:00.001-07:00

As I wrote about yesterday, the situation in the NY Senate continues to be a complete farce. And it shows no signs of getting better.

Today, Senate republicans, led by the downright deplorable Pedro Espada, tried to convene a session, only to find that the democrats had locked away any relevant bills and withheld the official stenographer. After 30 fruitless and comical minutes, the re-thug-licans gave up and went home.

In addition, one of the dissenters responsible for the coup, Hiram Monserrate, is apparently having second thoughts and stated that he would not vote for any bill this re-thug-lican coalition brings up, and then left the chamber, leaving the repubs without the 32 vote majority they thought they had rightfully bribed for. And in the background calliope music plays on...

Listen closely, Pedro Espada and senate republicans: What you are doing is embarrassing, transparent, contrived, petty, boorish, and a disservice to the citizens of New York State. The problem is, our Governor seems to think his place in all this is to stand by quietly and disapprove from the sidelines.

Not me. I'm fed up. Our NY State senate has failed its citizens utterly and completely, and I am calling for a complete dissolution of the Senate, with new elections across the board in every district across the state. Get rid of them all. Every damn one. The ones that have shown leadership and positive movement should, and likely will, be re-elected. The records and behavior of people like Pedro Espada should be brought to light, front and center, and they should lose the right to continue to mis-represent the people who voted them in.

Anything less than a complete dissolution of this senate is unacceptable in light of the despicable activities of the last week.

Daily FAIL - We're back from church... let the beatings commence.

2009-06-11T07:08:00.000-07:00

I wonder how many christian fundies will read this and have no idea what's wrong with it?

see more Fail Blog

Pour some HFCS on me!

2009-06-11T06:06:00.000-07:00

Being a man of slightly large girth (that's code for 'fat guy'), I'm well aware of what high calorie diets do to a person. And in making a sincere attempt at losing weight, as I'm prone to try and do about every 3 months, I know that cutting back on certain foods and reducing a certain amount of sugar in my diet will help me achieve weight loss, along with regular exercise.

But, I'm also a skeptic. So every time I start hearing the wails from the masses (or Oprah watchers) that food item X is bad for you, will cause unsightly blemishes or will just plain kill you, or that you should only eat products that are made a certain way (don't even get me started on the "organic foods" over-hype)... well, I raise an eyebrow and usually refrain from being another one of Oprah's mindless lemmings. (Side note: at this point, with all the crack-pot woo that Oprah promotes anymore, including dreck like "The Secret" and dangerous nutjobs like Jenny McCarthy, I pretty much take the default position that anything she promotes at this point is made of stupid.)

This brings me to the modern kerfuffle over HFCS (High Fructose Corn Syrup), a common food sweetener found in many, many products. If one were to listen to the talk lately surrounding HFCS, one would think it was the root of every health problem facing the world today... from obesity to cancer to acne to foot fungus, HFCS is the bane of the food additives world. Just dastardly, nasty stuff. Even self-appointed Public Watchdog No. 1, Michael Moore, declared that elimination of HFCS should be President Obama's no. 3 priority (according to his book, "Mike's Election Guide"). Ok, yeah... it's hysterical to see a guy of Moore's... ummm... stature talking about reducing HFCS as such a priority... but leaving that aside, with all the problems facing Obama as he entered the office of the President... HFCS is no. 3 on the agenda? Really? That's bat-shit crazy even for Michael Moore. (Please don't get me wrong... I appreciate Moore's work in opening up eyes on some very sensitive issues, but let's face it... the man has a penchant for being absurdly hyperbolic.)

So, exactly how dangerous is this HFCS scourge? Is it really any worse than any other substance of the same caloric value? Are the cereal companies in league with Big Pharma to keep people sick using HFCS? (Don't laugh... this has really been proposed.)

The short answer is "no". Actually, the much longer answer is also "no", but I won't go into that here. There's a much more in depth article on the HFCS misconception at skeptoid. I highly recommend reading it. In that article you will learn how HFCS is chemically similar to table sugar, how HFCS has been mis-characterized and wrongly attributed to health problems, even by so-called experts like Oprah's regular, Dr. Oz (See? What did I tell you about Oprah... just being on her show makes otherwise intelligent people salivate under her bountiful financial umbrella and embrace loony fringe theories just to keep the cash cow appeased). This article also points to peer-reviewed studies that show no substantially different metabolic effects between HFCS and plain old sucrose.

Does HFCS lead to obesity? Absolutely. If you take in too much of it and don't burn off the calories you take in... but it will do so at no higher a rate than other sugars like glucose and sucrose, in whatever form they take. In general, high calorie intake without burning those calories off is what leads to obesity, regardless of the source of those calories. So, if you want to lose weight, eat healthier food in general... don't overeat (that's my biggest problem) and exercise regularly.

But don't buy into the hysteria that HFCS is one of the top health concerns in the country. That's just irresponsible finger-pointing. So read the article I linked to if you want to learn more about this. It's really worth the read.

Daily FAIL - OOOUUUUUUUCH

2009-06-10T08:08:00.000-07:00

"Smilin Bob" from the Cialis commercials has nothin' on E.T.

see more Fail Blog

NY Senate apparently watching too much professional wrestling

2009-06-10T06:34:00.000-07:00

I'm a resident of NY State, and currently I have to whisper that with a fairly high degree of embarrassment. NY State politics has always been, shall we say, a little on the dysfunctional side, but what has gone on in the last week in the NY State senate is nothing short of comical.

Watching the behavior of the two "democratic" senators,Pedro Espada and Hiram Monserrate (both from the 5 boroughs... big surprise), made me feel like I was watching one of those goofy, staged WWE wrestling events, where one of the participants switches allegiances in mid-match and attacks his own partner. It's contrived, silly, and only works because everybody knows it's fake.

Apparently, Espada and Monserrate think shit like this is actually acceptable behavior on the floor of the NY Senate. In what can only be described as a spiteful coup, the two senators backed a proposal by bullying republicans who seem to think that the will of the voters is really just secondary when it comes to control of Senate leadership. These goobers LOST their elections and thereby lost their ability to control the Senate, but being the corrupt little weasels that they are, saw an opportunity to go around the voters by making back-door deals with Monserrate, and ESPECIALLY Espada, who was immediately named Senate President by the republican leadership. Does anyone really believe that particular action wasn't the gravy that convinced Espada to turn like Brutus? Of course it was.

Espada already has a track record of shady politics. He's racked up over $60,000 in fines for ill-begotten campaign funds, has fines for failure to file reports to the state Board of Elections 41 times, and doesn't even live in the district he represents. This guy is dirtier than the floor of a chicken coop, and the republicans knew exactly who to target when they decided that a simple matter of lost elections was merely a technicality. Since when do NY State voters and their will mean a damn thing to republicans? Losing an election, to them, merely means they need to get more creative in their attempts to strong-arm the political landscape, and shows once again that ethics and voter representation are secondary to their agenda.

The disturbing part about all of this is that the NY Senate Republicans aren't even being coy about the level of corruption they are displaying. They are simply abusing a flawed system to assert power and completely ignore the will of the voters. Democracy in NY State is officially on hiatus, and I for one am disgusted. The voters of the Bronx have been disenfranchised. Pedro Espada, you were hired by the voters of the Bronx to represent their best interests. However it is clear that the only interests you are representing are your own. My only warning to you is this: voters remember behavior like this, and while your despicable actions may be a short term gain, I promise you they will be a long term loss.

Yup... just like watching a pro wrestling match, I know two things about what's going on with the NY Senate... the outcome is fixed and the two main participants are puppets... and puppets are puppets because they are paid to be... enter Tom Galisano.

Galisano, as many of you recall, is the upstate billionaire owner of the Buffalo Sabres and failed (3 time) NY Gubernatorial candidate. Galisano spent a great deal of money helping the Dems win control of the Senate on the November elections. Once that was accomplished, the Dems appointed Malcolm Smith, a democrat from Queens (another borough... you'd think NY City was the only place in NY that matters) as majority leader. Galisano hoped that Smith would help him push his agenda, seeing as he was so helpful to the Dems in their campaign. This didn't happen... apparently Smith was too busy, you know, actually representing his constituents, to bow to Galisano's will and be at his beck and call. Outraged, Galisano secretly came up with the ploy to oust the Dems from power and find people he could manipulate (see the aforementioned "puppets") to put in power.

The thing is, Galisano is not an officially voted in representative of any government agency in NY. He should have no part, no say in any of this whatsoever. All that he is, is rich. Extraordinarily rich... and as a result, powerful enough to significantly tip the balance of NY politics. It is corruption at its very basic and worst level... and it's alive and well on the floor of the NY Senate. And you thought 'The Sopranos' was a work of fiction...

UPDATE: Jim Dwyer has a great article about the despicable, corrupt Espada and how this whole thing came to pass in today's NY Times.

Daily FAIL - Inaugural.

2009-06-09T06:15:00.000-07:00

The world is full of stupid. You know it, I know it... and so do the folks at Failblog.

So, as a tribute to epic stupidity, captured for our amusement, I will post some of my favorite FAILs here on a semi-regular basis. I know the post says "Daily"... but come on... there's no way I'm doing this every day. Deal with it.

For your inaugural daily fail I offer you TWO! That's right, TWO epic fails. Enjoy!

see more Fail Blog

Use ITunes to manage any MP3 player

2009-06-08T12:54:00.001-07:00

I'm a HUGE fan of ITunes. For my money, I think it's the best music download / MP3 management application available. I'm not a fan of Rhapsody, and I frankly hate the Napster (and others) subscription model for the same reason I hate NetFlix: Namely, after I watch all the movies (or download all the music) I've bee looking to watch, I end up paying a monthly fee and frankly barely using the service any further. I'm much more the type of person who would rather just pay for what I want and not feel like I have to download stuff to make it worth the subscription price. Add that to the "Genius" feature that has found me countless hours of new music, and it's simply my personal favorite music download site.

At any rate, lots of people use ITunes, but I get the same comment from many people: I can't use ITunes because it doesn't work with my Zune, or my Sansa, or my IPOD Touch rip-off from China...

Well, those people are wrong. You CAN sync your non-fruit-based MP3 player using ITunes... all you need is a little software help. CNET makes a great, and better yet free, little tool called "ITunes Agent". You can download it here. This great little app will add an icon in your System Tray (bottom right of your screen) when you launch ITunes.

To sync your non-IPOD device, first connect your MP3 device to your PC, then right-click on the "ITunes Agent" icon in the system tray and click "Preferences". Then click "New".

BIG IMPORTANT WARNING: Just like the first time you sync up a new IPOD to ITunes, you will get a warning that the first time you sync up your device to ITunes, all your data on your device will first be erased, then the ITunes data will be added to it. So... ya know... keep that in mind before you do this and wipe out your MP3 player and then try to blame me.

Anyhow, I assume you're OK with this process, since you wanted to sync up your MP3 device with ITunes in the first place. So go ahead and fill out the fields for the new device as needed, then click "save". Once that's done, right-click on the ITunes Agent and click "Synchronise devices"... and that's it.

So, please feel free to enjoy all the wonderfulness of ITunes on your Zen or Walkman MP3 with this great little utility.

Music Review: Miranda Lee Richards - Light of X

2009-06-01T10:08:00.000-07:00

I spent the other night watching an episode of "Bones", when a suddenly haunting and melodious song began playing in the background during the final scene of the episode. As I often do when watching TV, I was paying more attention to the music then what was going on in the episode. Not that the program was all that bad.. it wasn't. Bones is a terrific show. But the song had me captivated.

So I put my most excellent Google-fu skills to work, and in about 5 minutes I had found the song, and more importantly, the artist. And so another ten bucks was donated to the great Empire of the Forbidden Fruit as I downloaded the album from Itunes.

The artist, as you've guessed by now, is Miranda Lee Richards. Richards has an interesting background. She grew up in San Francisco as the daughter of underground-comic book creator Ted Richards, who created "the 40 year old hippie" of cult comic book fame. And her first real exposure to music was as a result of her best friend dating Kirk Hammett, the Metallica guitarist, who taught her to play some songs on the guitar. She picked it up quickly and began writing shortly thereafter.

Fast forward to present day, where Richards now lives in LA and has already produced one acclaimed album, "The Herethereafter", and released "Light of X" in early 2009.

"Light of X" is a soulful, sweet and beautiful sounding effort that doesn't over-produce itself for the sake of being more marketable. It is both ethereal and folksy, and harkens to the bluesy, guitar-laden tones put forth by groups like Cowboy Junkies and Mazzy Star.

The album has its own slow, calm pace. None of the songs get too upbeat, and many of them have a feel of sadness and longing. But to call the album "depressing" or "maudlin" does not do the songs justice. This is a soft, deep, and meaningful album that allows the listener to 'feel' the music rather than just hear it. The lyrics are generally heartfelt and uplifting, and Richards' airy, whispy vocal quality works well in this light; in other words, these are songs you'd want to hear sung by a voice like Richards'.

That's not to say there aren't some flaws... the album stagnates in places and some of the songs seem seem almost forgettable. After starting off strong with "Breathless" and "Lifeboat" (the song featured on the "Bones" episode), both excellent songs with meaningful lyrics and catchy hooks, the fairly plain and forgettable "Savorin your smile" follows. The album continues this way, with a couple of purely excellent songs interrupted with a mediocre and almost contrived effort. This can be forgiven, however, in the modern day 10-song per album format we've become accustomed to. How often have you bought an album where all the songs were choice?

Songs like 'Hideaway' and 'Early November', with their simple, melodious sound are more than enough to make up for the few weak tracks, like 'Hidden Treasure'. And the album does take a more upbeat turn with the fun 'Pictures of You', and I can guarantee you that you will be hearing 'Here by the Window' on an episode of "House" at some point.

"Light of X" conveys the perfect mood for heart-tugging drama, and I wouldn't be surprised to see its songs popping up in the background of some of TV's best shows. Heck... that's what I would do if I were in charge of such things.

Astronomically good stuff, cheap!

2009-05-29T07:26:00.000-07:00

I am an astronomy buff. And as many of you know, 2009 is the International Year of Astronomy. Yay!

So you can imagine my joy in learning of the initiative put forth by a group called galileoscope.org. This group is producing replicas of the telescope Galileo used to survey the heavens over 400 years ago. These telescopes, while by no means top of the line, will easily allow you to get a good look at the craters on the moon, Jupiter and its 4 largest moons, and the rings of Saturn. And the most amazing thing about them is the price: $15.00!

I've read some comments on other blogs about the shipping costs being high, and some concern about their capabilities and how long it might take to get them. But for $15.00??? I'll take a shot. I bought 2: one for my (soon to be) 8 year old daughter, and one to donate to her school.

I urge any of you who have children and want a decent starter telescope at a ridiculously low cost to pick one of these up, and maybe get one to donate to your local school.

Courtesy of the one and only Bad Astronomer .

I can turn myself invisible! But only when no-one's looking.

2009-05-26T11:47:00.000-07:00

As a skeptic, it never surprises me to learn that the people who claim to have "special abilities" or psychic powers turn out to be either insane, fraudulent, or self-deluded. But the cognitive dissonance displayed by some people never ceases to amaze me.

To wit: please regard one Patricia Putt, who signed up to take the James Randi Foundation "million dollar challenge" to prove the existence of psychic or other-worldly abilities. The test parameters are pretty clearly defined and agreed to by both parties ahead of time, but when Mrs. Putt failed the test disastrously, she of course claimed that the test was never fair and she in fact was able to prove her abilities. It's really quite silly and fairly amusing. Some people want so much to not be ordinary that they will delude themselves into truly believing that they have special powers... even when it is shown beyond the shadow of a doubt that they in fact do not.

She's not as bad as some of the others out there, though. Charlatans who knowingly bilk innocent people out of money by proclaiming to have psychic abilities... those types are the worst. Patricia Putt is merely self-deluded, I think. These other types are truly despicable. You know who you are... you don't have to go cross country to figure it out.

Movie Review: Star Trek - Part 2

2009-05-23T17:52:00.000-07:00

For part one of this review, please scroll down to the previous entry.

When word started to come out that the latest in the Star Trek line of movies was going to be a redux of the original crew, re-cast with up and coming young actors, I have to admit I was both intrigued and skeptical. This was a clear gamble by Paramount... as I discussed in my prior post, breathing new life into the original series crew and the stories that surround them had unlimited potential. On the flip side, a poorly written plot, or poor casting could doom the franchise permanently. The casting part in particular was crucial. This isn't your run-of-the-mill re-make... this is Kirk, Spock, Uhura, Scott, Bones... these are cultural icons and larger than life personalities. Leonard Nimoy became so synonymous with his Spock character that he found it nearly impossible to find work as an actor outside of that role, and had an identity crisis that stayed with him most of his life, to the point that he wrote a best-selling book about it. Getting the characters for the original crew cast properly was critical. And to their credit, J.J Abrams and his crew did an outstanding job of casting the roles.

Eschewing larger name actors for the major roles, Abrams pegged the young and fairly unknown Chris Pine for the role of Kirk, while casting 'Heroes' uber-villain Zachary Quinto as a convincing Spock. In what may have been the most controversial casting move, Abrams picked the super-sexy Zoe Saldana, another relative unknown, for the part of Uhura, and then gave that character a more interesting and dynamic role than I think anyone would have imagined.

Warning! From this point, there may be some spoilers... not so much on the plot or the film's conclusion, but on some of the more important plot points of the movie and character interactions.

The movie starts out jumping right into the plot, with Jim Kirk's father, George, serving aboard the USS Kelvin. The plot immediately deviates from the traditional "Trek" lore when George is killed during an attack on the Kelvin. It is during this attack James T. Kirk is born (and we also learn the origin of his middle name, 'Tiberius') as his mother is ushered off of the badly damaged Kelvin. This initial scene, and how it deviates from the original 'Star Trek' lore concerning Jim Kirk's father, is actually critical to the plot as the movie develops. In fact, while it is not immediately clear to the movie-goer at the time, this one encounter is a space-time event, and completely re-shapes the lives of the original Enterprise crew, and from that point forward, all original 'Trek' lore is completely wiped away as a new 'Trek' universe is created.

I'd like to spend a moment talking about that aspect of the movie. There are several aspects of this movie that are what I would consider HUGE gambles for the 'Trek' franchise. But from my vantage-point, I consider them all brilliant moves. First off, killing off Kirk's father early in the movie (an even that never took place in the original 'Trek' lore) adds an entirely new element to Kirk's personality and motivation. This is a theme that is touched upon several times in the movie. In fact, in one of the best lines of the movie, Captain Pike (who served with Kirk's father aboard the Kelvin) reminds Kirk that his father "served as Captain for exactly 12 minutes, and saved 800 lives... I dare you to do better". So again, here we have an entirely new aspect to Kirk's psyche to explore that did not exist in the prior Trek world.

In another stunning plot twist, as a result of the same "space-time" event that destroys the Kelvin, the entire planet Vulcan is destroyed... turned into a quantum singularity (one of Star Trek's favorite plot devices over the years) by something called "Red matter". Only a small fragment of the Vulcan population survives. Later it is revealed that the person, however indirectly, responsible for all the chaos is none other than a much older Spock (reprised, of course, by Leonard Nimoy) in a time several hundred years into the future.

At this point it is clear that what the writers are doing here is not only creating an exciting and interesting set of plot devices, but in doing so, completely wiping the slate clean on the entire Star Trek universe. This, I imagine, is done with the foresight of introducing a new series or movie sequels, using the original crew, but unbound by any of the lore or story-lines of the prior series. In essence, the original crew of the Enterprise is re-born, and is starting over from day one.

This concept is the essential launching point for the rest of the movie. The events that lead up to the 'alternate' universe for Kirk and the rest of the crew, and the events that follow during the movie, almost feel secondary to the characters and their interactions in this new world. And I think this is a good thing. It's not that the story is all that terrible, it's just not all that important once the major plot points are laid out early on. As a Trek fan and a viewer, I was far more drawn in by the back stories surrounding the crew members... especially Kirk and Spock. In fact, I could have watched, with great interest, an entire movie devoted to Kirk's character and his development, with more focus on his time at Star Fleet Academy. And similarly, I would loved to have spent two hours with Spock's character and his development.

And it's at this point that I think the movie hits a home run: the interplay between Kirk and Spock. One of the things that I never liked about the original series was that Kirk and Spock were such complete polar opposites, yet had such admiration and respect for each other and were ultimately the best of friends. I know, I know... that was supposed to be the juxtaposition, but the fact is that even if they ended up as friends, they NEVER would have started out that way. In fact, they likely would have started out hating each other. And in this film, that's exactly the dynamic that Abrams explores. Kirk and Spock spend most of the film as direct, fierce adversaries, and it is in this dynamic that we learn the most about their respective characters. Those two should have hated one another, especially in their youthful, developmental days. Kirk and Spock share a contempt for each of the other's reputed strongest qualities: Spock finds Kirk's impulsiveness and neglect of basic protocol wreckless and dangerous, and Kirk finds Spock's adherence to regulation and logic cold and calculating. This leads to a palpable tension between the two, and a clear dislike. In one rare adherence to 'Trek' lore we are shown Kirk's solution to the 'Kobayashi Maru' (no-win scenario) test at Starfleet Academy. This event really did have to be explored in this film, as it is a central construct to Kirk's personality (he famously declares 'I don't believe in no-win scenarios'). However, the writers put an interesting spin on the incident, making Spock the person who programmed the test, as well as the primary accuser during Kirk's hearing on the incident. Thus the initial animosity is born.

Speaking of Spock, I really thought Abrams and his writers did a great job of putting more focus on Spock's youthful character, and highlighting how it would have differed from the Spock he would become later in his life as part of the original crew in the original series. Being half-human, no doubt the young Spock would have been filled with conflict regarding his place, and would have struggled restraining his more 'human' impulses. Abrams explores these aspects wonderfully, albeit briefly. This lends Spock's character, in this movie, to be far more flawed than ever would have been allowed with the original Spock character. Additionally, it allowed the writers to introduce another key element that would serve to heighten the tension between Spock and Kirk: Spock's intimate relationship with Uhura (again, a plot twist that never would have been accepted with the original characters, but within the constructs of this movie, it is perfectly acceptable), whom Kirk has been hitting on since early in the movie.

The rest of the characters are well cast by Abrams. 'Bones' McCoy is played admirably, if not a little over the top, by action movie regular Karl Urban (of Lord of the Rings and Chronicles of Riddick fame). Anton Yelchin takes on the role of Chekov, and does a pretty good job, despite the over-play of the humor in his Russian accent. The 'Asian ubiquitous' John Cho plays an excellent Sulu, and Scottish comedian Simon Pegg reprises the role of Scottie with great humor, along with a much more believable Scottish accent and mannerisms. In an interesting twist, the more famous actors that appear in this film play more bit roles, with the exception of Eric Bana, who makes a wonderfully understated primary villain. Other big names making bit appearances: Winona Ryder as Spock's mother, Ben Cross as Spock's father, Jennifer Morrison (House's Dr. Cameron) as Kirk's mother, and of course Nimoy as the "future Spock".

As I said, the most engaging aspects of this film have little to do with the plot. The plot is there to set up the bigger parts of the story, and then to sort of act as an agent to force the interaction of the primary characters, and not get in the way... and in this way it works wonderfully. Some would call the plot weak and contrived. I'm not sure about contrived, but it might be a little weak. However I see this as a good thing in this case. A half-hour into the film, I couldn't care less about Nero and the Narada and who they were going to attack next... I wanted to see Kirk and Spock interact... I wanted to see Uhura and Spock explore their relationship... I wanted to see the integration of the other characters, and enjoy the interplay off of one another, and I got that in spades.

As with most 'Trek' movies and many episodes, the whole 'space-time' rip meme gets old and confusing, and while I understand why it was needed to set up the events that would define the movie, I still hate it. It's never well explained, you are always just supposed to 'accept it' without question. And for the sake of the rest of the movie, I will... but I'm warning you, 'Trek' producers, we're all getting sick of how easy it is to screw with space-time. It's just too convenient and easy a plot device to do whatever you want. Just ask the audience of "Generations".

Beyond that minor nit-pick, though, I thoroughly enjoyed this film. It gave me everything I wanted as a 'Trek' fan, while inserting elements I never expected, and can't wait to explore further. As I said above, the whole film feels like a set-up for more movies or even a series. If it is written and acted as well as this movie, it can't come soon enough.

Grade: A

Movie Review: Star Trek - PART 1

2009-05-23T08:37:00.000-07:00

This is going to be a bit of a long post, so I'm going to break it into two parts. The first will be a reflection of Star Trek over the years leading up to the release of the latest Star Trek production, and the second will be a review of the movie itself... Enjoy!

OK... I admit it... I'm a Trek fan. I wouldn't go so far as to call myself a "Trekkie", as I've never attended a Trek convention or dressed up in any Trek costumes, but I started watching the

show regularly when "The Next Generation" came out in the 80's and I was hooked. After that I went back and caught all the old episodes from the original series. Campy, cheesy, sci-fi goodness. The Trek universe evolved, and we were given "Deep Space 9", which, while not as acclaimed as either the original or 'TNG', was under-rated. DS9 allowed for deeper character development and a more meaningful ongoing plot as opposed to the episode-by-episode plots that had to exist by the very nature of the "explorer starship" theme.

Things began to go a little south for the Trek productions after the final episode of 'TNG' was aired.It was clear the Trek world had more to offer, and fans were clamoring for more. But production executives worried that the 'Enterprise' label was getting stale. So

instead of re-treading the Enterprise for

more exploratory voyages in the section of the galaxy Trek fans were already familiar with, they instead came up with the concept of a completely new ship getting accidentally flung to the farthest quadrant of the Milky Way galaxy, and thus was born "Voyager". Voyager had many issues that turned core Trek fans off. First, I always felt the

casting was weak. Second, they spent far too many episodes on story lines that revolved around the ship perhaps finding a

shortcut home. Well, viewers all knew before the episode was 10 minutes old that this wasn't going to happen or the show would be done. It was sort of like Gilligan's island in that way.

Not that 'Voyager' was all bad. It had its moments, but overall it did not have the hook that the prior Trek series' had. It often seemed stale and contrived, and the regular influx of new species and cultures was difficult to keep up with.

In the meantime, Paramount kept cranking out Trek movies with the 'TNG' cast, and they were all far more successful at the box office than the viewership of 'Voyager' would make one think. And that was when producers realized that part of the appeal to the current generation of Trek fans was the familiarity with the original Trek world. The original Trek world was well defined, with cultures that were well known and well liked. Klingons, Vulcans, Romulans, Cardacians and the Borg. It became clear to producers that what Trek fans really wanted was more of the original Trek world, and so they gave them 'Enterprise'.

'Enterprise' was a chance to build an entire new platform of stories in a completely different world than any other Trek series prior, while at the same time doing so within the already well known and well established Trek paradigm. This was a really brilliant idea, and the show itself was excellent. Well produced, written, and acted, the fatal flaw with 'Enterprise' was not with the show itself, but with the distribution and marketing. By not marketing the show hard enough to one of the major networks (or frankly by not putting the show directly into syndication as was done with 'TNG' and 'DS9') and placing the show on UPN, with its small viewership, 'Enterprise' was doomed from the start. The show was cancelled after 4 seasons.

However, on the big screen side of things, the 'TNG' crew had pretty much run its course. "Generations", while it did well at the box office, was received fairly mildly by most fans. In stark contrast, "First Contact" was hailed as one of the best in the big screen Trek series. It was followed up by the forgettable "Insurrection" and lastly by the nearly unwatchable "Nemesis". It was pretty clear that ideas for the 'TNG' crew were pretty much run out. "Nemesis" flopped badly, and it was thought that might be the death knell for the Trek series.

However, Trek producers knew they had stumbled on to something with 'Enterprise'... the premise of the show occurring before any of the other Trek series', but in the same familiar world, allowed for completely new plot devices to be constructed on already familiar stories. What if, they asked, they could pull the same stunt with the original Star Trek crew in a time before fans got to know them? When the original show aired, the characters and their relationships were already pretty well established. The development of those relationships was secondary to the episode-to-episode plots.

In recent years, going 'back to the beginning' has become a familiar plot device, especially in sci-fi. For example, in the short-lived but highly acclaimed 'Firefly' series, the show starts out in the middle, where the characters already know one another well and inter-personal relationships have pretty much been long established. However, one of the most beloved episodes in that series involves Capt. Reynolds reminiscing about how he first met each of the crew members. This same sort of thing could work for the crew of the Enterprise, surely! And so the plot for the newest Star Trek movie was hatched. And indeed, once details of the movie began to surface: that it would be a movie exploring the initial meetings and interactions of the original series crew, albeit with new cast members, the Trek world was abuzz. It was a fresh start, a breath of new life into one of the most beloved sci-fi series of all time. And I, for one, couldn't wait to see it.

Dice-K back on the mound tonight for Sox

2009-05-22T12:03:00.000-07:00

WARNING! Shameless Red Sox post forthcoming!!

Daisuke Matsuzaka climbs back up on the hill tonight for the Sox against the Mets. The Japanese right-hander has been on the disabled list since April 14th with a "tired shoulder". This after pitching a ton of innings for team Japan in the World Baseball Classic (we'll tackle that sham of an exhibition in another post someday). Dice-K is dazzling when he's right, but even then he throws a ton of pitches, and even if he comes out strong tonight, it's only May 22nd, and there's a long season still ahead. If his shoulder went south after a month of WBC play and two major league starts, how long before the grind of the regular MLB season wears him down again? I hope I'm wrong, but count me among the concerned in The Nation.

How bad journalism hurts science; the 'Darwinius Masillae' foofooraw

2009-05-22T07:52:00.000-07:00

As you readers will come to find out, if you haven't figured it out already based on the description and first post of this blog, I am a proponent of reality. I do not take comfort in abject devotion to imaginary sky fairies made up over 2ooo years ago by nomadic goat-herders from the middle-east. If those are your beliefs, so be it... more's the pity. But I stopped believing in magic and fairy-tales when I was about 12.

So needless to say, I have a fairly obvious position in the debate over evolution vs. creationism. Actually... as far as I'm concerned, there is no debate. Evolution, as a scientific theory, has over 100 years of research and literally mountains of evidence supporting its premise. It meets all the same criteria that any other widely accepted scientific theory, for example, Gravity, meets. Creationism has no more supporting material than the Greek mythologies of the ancient world that we so easily dismiss now. Yet somehow a large portion of the population still rejects evolution as an affront to their religious beliefs. Someday we'll grow up as a race... but anyhow, I digress.

The purpose for that preface was to give some background for this post. Recently, a significant fossil discovery was released: Darwinius Marsillae. See the image below:

As you can see it's a spectacular fossil... I'm not an expert, so I'll leave it to PZ at Pharyngula to give you more of the details as to why this particular discovery is important.

The problem is not so much with anything in the discovery. It's an important and relevant find. The problem came with the media circus that surrounded the find, and the backlash from the religious / Creationist community. Some of what follows comes from a comment I made at Pharyngula, so I apologize if any of this seems familiar: When the discovery was announced, the media went hyperbolic, and claims of "the missing link" being found were tossed about. This, of course, made the science community cringe, because as any real scientist knows, "missing link" is a completely useless phrase. There is no missing link. There never will be. The fossil record is quite definitive in the lineage that leads to homo sapiens. No missing link is required. Also, many media outlets reported that this discovery "proves Darwin was correct", or "proves evolution". This could not be more laughable. We have over 100 years of evidence, fossil records that show quite thoroughly that evolution is correct. This fossil does little more than adds another piece, albeit a spectacular and significant piece, to that growing mountain of evidence.

What the over-hyping of this find does is actually puts undue significance on an otherwise important find for the wrong reasons. And this is dangerous for the credibility of the science in the eyes of the layperson public.

So, the find is announced, and it is beautiful and stunning in its preservation, especially considering its age... but a frenzy-driven, revenue-conscious media gets a hold of the story, and a fame-grabbing "scientist" unleashes undue hyperbole, and terms like "missing link" get thrown around. This grabs the attention of the general public, many of whom are fence-sitters on the whole "evolution vs. creation" debate, mostly because all they know they get through the mass media. Unfortunately, after the initial awe of the first reports wear off, you start to have reactions from all sides. And in this case, all sides are reacting to the initial report fairly negatively. Scientists are reacting to the fact that this find, while significant, is simply another piece in the mountain of evidence for evolution, and doesn't in any way represent any "missing link". Creationists react negatively, as expected, dismissing the find as meaningless and using the same tactics they've used to try and ignore and discredit other significant finds. So there are all sides of the issue, all reacting negatively to the find, and all the general public hears is "this is no missing link"... and as a result, for many, this equates to a negative perspective on evolution, and becomes an easy item they can point to and say "well, they thought that fossil they found back in '09 was the missing link and it turned out to be nothing". Which is a complete mis-representation of the facts. All sides have problems with the way the story was presented by the media, but for completely different reasons.

Had the story been reported accurately, and hailed for what it was: a significant find that adds another piece to the evidence in the fossil record; then the science community would have nothing to complain about, and the Creation community wouldn't be getting its public exposure, while all up in arms. And what we'd be left with is a beautiful specimen ripe for study and discovery, which is really all we should be looking to get from Ida.

New to you

2009-05-22T06:28:00.000-07:00

As this is my first blog entry I feel a little like I'm talking to myself... but ahh, well. Won't be the craziest thing I've done this week.

I won't go into an ego-driven lengthy descrption of who I am, my likes and dislike, blah, blah, blah, as I don't intend this to be a personal ad to 'pick up chicks' on teh intertubes. So I'll just make a quick entry about the blog and why I've started it.

I'm a part time writer, and regular contributor to several other blogs across the webs, and thought I'd really like a forum to express my own opinions on the topics that matter to me. So yeah, that makes me person number 1,356,247,212 to start a blog for the same reason. Nonetheless, I will forge ahead to give you my thoughts on the topics I have listed in my blog description above.

In doing so, I will state up front, for the record, that I am a liberal, an atheist, and a freethinker. And I have rather strong opinions on matters that touch these subjects. So I will be speaking about them regularly. I'm also a movie buff and music lover... so there will be plenty of my own reviews and thoughts on both. OH... and if you don't already hate me based on my description, I'm also a huge Red Sox fan, so that should push any of you fence-sitters over the edge.

I hope you enjoy the blog, and I welcome your comments and feedback. And speaking of which, I'm not one for censorship, so I won't just try to ditch comments I don't like or agree with... but I will toss out junk comments that are just "drive-by ad-homs" or basic stupidity for stupidity's sake. There. That should be about it. Enjoy!