 |
 Social Contract: Something that was never, and can never be a contract, used by Locke and Hobbes to make their theories sound correct. A contract that is "signed" by not leaving a "country" at birth? conception? once one learns to read? at voting age? (and living in the middle of an ocean somewhere) that "gives" "rights" to the unsigned, that can be changed at any time for any circumstances by that country. Violation of "contract" can result in a punishment to the unsigned, which is not specified, and subject to change, depending on coordinates within the "state," the prevailing fashion of the ruling class, and how many drinks the judge had for lunch. Most importantly, it grants a portion of all money earned by the unsigned, and a portion of the value of anything the unsigned owns, depending on how well the sports team related to the coordinates of the unsigned's home, is doing, in exchange for pristine roads, sidewalks, and a simply fabulous education.
| |
Writer/director Brett Hanover has made the first full length feature about Scientology.
|
 Altruism: The belief that the quality of doing good is proportional to the amount of pain suffered by the good-doer. It seems to me this belief is described best as the existence of "good" as a giant doughnut. Some of us have large pieces of doughnut, others have very little. In order to do good, one must sacrifice part of his doughnut for someone else. In fact, doughnuts can be made from flour, water, yeast and fat. Good, like doughnuts, is made from other things, like time, energy, money and desire. If this Good is truly Good, it benefits the do-gooder by fulfilling his Values. You will find, throughout the web, that mother-child relationships, in human and animals are sacrificial and altruistic. Do we find most mothers claiming that giving all to their child does them harm? Are their children not among their highest values?  Does it not occur to anyone the evolutionary benefits of this so-called "sacrifice?" Does it not encourage a harmful, sexist stereotype that mothers, in order to be good, should be constant sufferers? Does it not propagate the harmful myth that suffering should be sought after, and admired? Can we not do away with the teachings of Christianity, in a secular world? Who performs an act he considers good that goes against his values? That would certainly be a sacrifice. Does a devout fundamentalist Roman Catholic supply condomns at bathhouses? Yes, that would almost seem to be a sacrificial, altruistic act. Yet, it is a good act, and it would certainly benefit the doer, even if he disagrees with it, by protecting his community, and probably his loved ones from certain sexually transmitted diseases. The point I'd like most for people to take away from this is that if the action is really good, then it stands to reason it should benefit the one performing the good act. Instead of judging good by the suffering in the work, which is irrational and propagates this false construct, we judge values by their rationality, and acts by their benefit, and opportunity costs. Morality is in our brains and in our hands.
 This week I'm going back to the movies! Playlist - Movie1 Eegah
- Opening
- Jean-Jacques Perrey-The Savers
- Gene Pitney--Town Without Pity--Town Without Pity (1961)
- Movie2-Dolemite
- Nelson Riddle/Sir Julian--Your Zowie Face--Our Man Flint (1966)
- Benoit Charest--Belleville Rendez-Vous--Les Triplet des Bellville
- Mov3-Manos: Hands of Fate
- John Barry--Beat Girl--Beat Girl (1960)
- Rock and Roll
- Fiddler on the Roof Theme--Flick Themes '72
- Mov4-The Beast of Yucca Flats
- The Aaron Bell Orchestra--Sorta Blue--Peter Gunn
- The Leaping Nun's Chorus--Bedazzled (1967)
- Mov5--The Trial of Billy Jack
- Nino Rota--Il Teatrino Delle Suore--Guilietta degli Spiriti
- JJ Johnson with Martha Reeves--Keep on Movin' On--Willie Dynamite
- Mov6--Jesus Christ, Vampire Hunter
- Kenyon Hopkins--Extension 7--The Reporter
- ELO--I'm Alive--Xanadu
- Mov7--Robot Monster
- Henry Mancini--Tail Gate--The Thief Who Came to Dinner
- Legion of Decency
- Improved Sound, Ltd--Old Captain Cook--Swinging Munich Movies of the 60's/70's
- Mov8--The Brain from Planet Arous
- Henry Mancini--Charade--Charade
- Virginie Ledoyen--Mon Amour, Mon Ami--Huit Femmes (2002)
- Mov9--American Beauty
- Michel Legrand--His Eyes, Her Eyes--The Thomas Crown Affair (1967)
- The New Main Street Singers--Fare Away--A Mighty Wind
- Mov10--Santa Claus Conquers the Martians
- Harry McClintok--Big Rock Candy Mountain--O Brother, Where Art Thou?
- Thunderosa--Our Man Flint--Thunderosa
Download in 160Download in 96
 WHAT DO WE WANT? CHANGE!WHEN DO WE WANT IT? NOW!Why do people...ugh...vote for candidates? Every 8 years or so they vote for them "because they will effect change." Who doesn't want change? I want change, don't you want change? If you don't want change, you're a Member of the Old Boys' Club, and you're immoral.
Throw the bums out, replace them with the other false construct (number 3?) of "the other party." Because of course there are 2 parties. Only. Two. Parties. And As We All Know, the Other Party will CHANGE EVERYTHING. Because Americans have lousy memories and no damned sense in their heads.
What that change actually is doesn't matter to anyone.
Enjoy your stupid election, suckers.
 There's an interesting post over at the great blog, Debunking Christianity, about "Family Values."
I find it outrageous that Christians are claiming to be pro-family and therefore by default or by admission, claiming that people who do not condemn alternative family structures are somehow "anti-family" and "anti-values."
It seems to me atheists, agnostics, secular humanists, and other non-believers need to stop allowing Christians to define what it means to be pro-family and pro-values. Because non-believers are just as pro-family and pro-values as Christians, if not a lot more.
I understand completely, and I used to complain about this a lot. I don't want people thinking that atheists are anti-family, because then people think that atheists are bad people. But now I'm taking a different angle. There are a lot of phrases and term-memes out there, and I have found myself responding to them awkwardly: "that's just a thing people say that doesn't mean anything." I say that so often now, that I realize I sound inarticulate about it. I need to invent a new term--this time, one that actually means what I say it means. It's not a "sound-byte." That's so...so 90's. I send out the call now. Someone help me come up with a good term for this! I'm implying that "family values" is a marketing term, an empty slogan. The comments section of the blog makes an interesting read. (Especially since I commented.) I responded thusly: said... Well, Rich, I'd have to say that the point is not that you have family values and others have science values. The point is that the term "family values" is either loaded, or, more in keeping with my opinion, meaningless. When I hear the phrase "family values," I tend to think that it means hating queers. Which makes the term meaningless. Hating homosexuals is not a value at all. So if you claim "family values," I have no idea whatsoever if you are referring to values at all, or you just want to use a term that sounds good to most people.
If "family values" really meant what it means, it means a person wants the best for himself and the people related to him, generally those who live with him. It's rather a given, don't you think? So there's actually only one point to be made by saying "I have family values:" that is, you hope that it makes you look like a standup guy to whomever is listening. It's nothing but politics, and, well sorry, just a bunch of BS to fill empty air. Of course, the response is to say that while one opposes homosexuality, one doesn't hate homosexuality, etc etc. You oppose the air, but you don't hate it. Difficult job! I'm very good at not making myself clear, aren't I? Claiming that, your little 50's-esque, country-fucking club Christian Political Action Committee is pro-family is a really great way to send the message that you hate queers, and the ladies better damned well shut their mouths and go get you some cold ones. Wearing modest pink pantsuits. Those hair-dryer-brains really know how to communicate without saying what they mean. It's called politics, and you can argue with me that "it's just that you have values and we have different values" until your brains explode, but the lie isn't going to go away. You can't call it "values" when it means being against things. That's why you're not going to find values in the damned Ten No-Nos (at least the ones people think are the Ten Commandments. The real ones--with the Feast of the Unleavened Bread, and such-- showed value in the first of everything, which goes to show that values can be analyzed as irrational, and therefore morality comes from your brain). "Values" means what it means, and, wouldn't you know it, groups can't have values! Political Action Committees can't have values! That's sort of the bad news. "Atheists," as a whole, as a group described by, say, hairdryer-brains, can't have values. Even a family can't have values. Individuals have values. You have values. If you oppose the sand, that's your business, but don't try and tell me it's a value. For now, the phrase "family values" is getting put on my list of empty slogans. Can someone help me to put a good deconstructionist label on it?
 This week, Aaron Kinney joins us to tell you to Get Depoliticized! Stand up! Be disenfranchised! Be actively apathetic! The polls are open in a couple of months--Don't Vote! If you vote, you can't complain about the system you actively participated in! Franc also tells us other ways, besides not voting, you can start to Get Depoliticized. Download NowFor more download options, visit the Hellbound Alleee Archives.
I would still like to know what Satan ever did that was so bad. Nobody can tell me. A listener, Marcus, pointed me to this site, a page that compares God's killin's with Satans. The author has not found any instance of Satan killing anyone. However, we know that God killed almost every living thing on earth, gave people hemmorroids and is planning to send those that do not love Him (and who wouldn't agree with this) to everlasting torment. So if you have to choose between two paths, why would you choose God? Are you just a hedonist, a masochist, or a little bit of both? If you're an atheist and have the lack of shame to go into a christian message board and ask for me, I'd appreciate it. Update: Here is an example of an act MAYBE by Satan, maybe by God, but certainly endorsed by God: the death of Job's family. A wind came and blew their house down and it killed them. So Satan is either a God who can control the wind or God did it after having an intellectual conversation with Satan (who is probably not the same guy Christians believe was thrown out of heaven, otherwise he wouldn't be conferring with him or using him as a go-fer--but they sure sound like equals to me). Either way, a christian has no case to make that the act was an evil done by Satan. Unless you use MATERIAL MORALITY and show that even a stormtrooper following Hitler's orders does evil. Satan: 10 God: Over 300,000 individuals less the flood massacre
 This week, I offer a tiny peek at my Vintage Jazz collection, in Red-Hot Mondo: Playlist - L&H1
- The Beau Hunks--Bells--The Beau Hunks Play the Original Little Rascals Music: 50 Roy Shield Themes
- Jack Smith--Poor Papa (He's Got Nuthin' at All)
- L&H2
- Jane Green--I'm Gonna Meet My Sweetie Now--Flappers, Vamps, and Sweet Young Things
- Fred Waring and His Pennsylvanians--Collegiate
- L&H3
- Helen Kane--Dangerous Nan McGrew
- Dear Geraldine
- Hoagy Carmichael--Stardust
- Joe Haymes and His Orchestra--Can't Do Without His Love--Can't Help Lovin' That Man
- L&H4
- Fats Waller and Alberta Hunter--Sugar--Young Fats at the Organ
- Vaughan DeLeath--Ukelele Lady
- L&H5
- Blossom Seeley--A New Kind of Man, with a New Kind of Love for me
- WJB: William Jennings Bryan
- The Chocolate Dandies--Got Another Sweetie Now
- Irving Anderson and the Commanders--Vo Do Dee-O
- L&H6
- Aileen Stanley--I'll Get By (As Long as I Have You)
- Jean Goldkette and his Orchestra-- Sunday--Featuring Bix Beiderbecke Tommy Dorsey, Eddie Lang and the Keller Sisters
- L&H7
- Mildred Hunt--Please Don't Talk About Me When I'm Gone
- Lee Morse--T'Ain't No Sin
- L&H8
- Lee Morse--Walkin' My Baby Back Home
- Frankie Trombauer/Jeannie Lang--I'd Like to Do Things for You
- L&H 9
- Don Redman & His Orchestra--Reefer Man--Reefer Songs
Helen Kane Al Barnes' Vintage JazzDownload in 96Download in 160
 Satan: What the Hell Has He Ever Done That was So Bad?
For centuries, popular culture has treated Satan as God's nemesis – an angel consumed by pride and cast out of heaven to run his own evil empire.
But Henry Ansgar Kelly says poor Satan has gotten a bad rap. For decades he has pleaded the devil's case, arguing that Satan is simply one of God's celestial agents with the dirty job of gauging humanity's virtue.
While that job has made Satan cynical and jaded over time, Dr. Kelly said, it doesn't make him the mastermind of evil.
"Christian tradition has laid a lot of blame on Satan for things they're causing themselves," said Dr. Kelly, 72, a former Jesuit exorcist and now a medieval scholar at the University of California, Los Angeles and author of three books about the devil. "I am pessimistic about human nature. I think we are totally capable of doing what we have done. You can blame it on psychosis if you want."
But you can't blame it on Satan, he said.
 Charlotte Church: You've hit the nail on the head!Charlotte Church wants Tom Cruise as a guest on her new TV show - but thinks he would refuse because he doesn't have a sense of humour.
The 20-year-old Welsh singer is hosting a new programme, 'The Charlotte Church Show', on Channel 4 which is a mixture of interviews, singing and comedy.
Charlotte admits Tom would be a dream guest but doesn't think he would be happy to join in with the funny sketches.
She said: "I met Tom Cruise when I was about 15, doing the Jay Leno show in Los Angeles. He was ridiculously nice, came and knocked on my door and said that his kids were fans of mine.
"I'd love to have big stars like him on my show, but I'm not sure if they'd be as keen to join in all the silliness." Darling, considering the subject matter of your show, not only wouldn't Tom be into the silliness, his church wouldn't be, either.
 This week, Francois and I welcome James Lazarus, of the Infidel Guy Show, to discuss the more complex and clever theistic arguments of the new wave of Modern apologetics; namely Swinburne and Plantinga. DownloadFor more options in downloading, visit the Hellbound Alleee Archive page.
Dial The Truth Ministries (a fundie site, of course, just to make it clear), reports on a kicky new bible:
The first to crawl out of the "fashion" pile is the Revolve Bible. The Revolve Bible is aimed directly at the young teenage Christian girl. It is published by Thomas Nelson Publishers under Transit Books (www.transitbooks.com).Transit.com says of it’s new creation, "It's the complete New Testament, but it looks just like a fashion magazine!" and a little P.$. "Order your copy today at www.amazon.com!" A "boy" version of the Revolve is also in the works. Zondervan reportedly, also has "fashion-bibles" on the way. (did I hear ca$h-ching?)
And yes. . . The Revolve "Bible" does indeed, look, feel and read just like a teenage "fashion" magazine. As the saying goes, "If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck – it’s probably a duck." An updated Bible PERversion translation says, "If it looks like a fashion magazine, feels like a fashion magazine, and reads like a fashion magazine – it’s probably a new Bible PERversion".
Don't forget to check out the "Guys Speak Out" section, for typical teen magazine wisdom: Q: How long should you date before you say "I love you?"
A: I would say that when all you can do is think about that person, and you know them really, really well, then you can say "I love you."
(Revolve, p. 67) I hope this mag gives out good christian tips, like sharing your husband with 12 other pre-teen girls.
|
