Jesus Pan! Put the image of Jesus right on food!
Wednesday, May 31, 2006
Okay, I'm off to Washington State for the summer. Not that it should make the least difference to any of you good people online. I might be off for tomorrow, though. Although, posting these cool videos takes about ten seconds. That's pretty nice. Maybe in a couple of days I'll show you my pictures from the Granby Zoo I tooko yesterday. I got some Cute Overload-style pics, meaning the Snowy Owl is so cute that it might kill. That place is great. You can get pretty close to the animals. In the meantime, enjoy this disturbing video, and I'll see you soon.
Tuesday, May 30, 2006
Just posting this to my Odeo station. This week, Francois and I welcome Aaron Kinney, Billing Oversight Administrator for an insurance company. We talk about how insurance is like a casino, in that having and using insurance can be a financially risky operation. Aaron gives examples of how insurance can be a money-loser in many situations. We also discussed reverse insurance, and slipped in a clip from a listener, Jax, who talks about being a pagan in a christian world.
Show 106: The Insurance Game
My Odeo Channel (odeo/155751a7605948fc)
The best site in the world, well, today, is Sharpeworld. It was on hiatus for awhile, so I hadn't been checking on it, but it has been back now for a few months, and it is better than ever before! Watch out: you could waste a lot of time here.
Sharpeworld posts the greatest videos from YouTube and Google video. There are also some fantastic art sites to check as well.
Here is a clip from Turkish Star Wars, followed by a vid from the fantastic BJ Snowden.
That should be the national anthem.
Monday, May 29, 2006
While I get ready for my second move of the season, listen to one of Francois' posts from earlier this month.
As must be obvious by now, I write a great deal about morality. In fact, it is my primary preoccupation. I might, however, be accused of being altogether too concerned with the morality of "mean Christianity", the Christianity of a vengeful god and absolutist rules. And that perhaps the morality of "Lovey-Dovey Christianity", that of the peaceful hippie Jesus, is a superior alternative ?
This is, however, not the case at all. "Lovey-Dovey Christianity" (henceforth to be called LDC) is no more rational, and no more desirable, than "mean Christianity". To make this case, I will look at the two main moral principles of LDC : "love thy neighbour as yourself" and the Golden Rule.
1. "Love Thy Neighbour As Yourself"
LDCers lash on to Romans 13:9, which says :The commandments (...) are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself."
It then goes on to say :Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
That's fine. Few people want to do harm to others, unless it's necessary. So this principle, while not original to Christianity, is not so bad. But what about "love" ? One thing which Paul does not examine at all is the nature of "love". What is "love" and why should we express it towards everyone ?
Love is, according to humanist psychology, a spontaneous affective movement towards beings or things which satisfy our values. While love is very complex, perhaps the most complex emotional phenomena, it has one thing in common : the feeling of well-being and happiness that the loved brings us, because we perceive it as being able to satisfy our values.
So how can we feel love towards all people ? There are people in the world whose value systems are quite opposed to ours, and some who even wish us harm. How do these people satisfy or fulfill our values ? If they do not, then how can we possibly love them ? It is impossible for anyone to love someone who wishes them harm. Even LDCers do not feel that way.
To love everyone is to love no one at all - such universality completely dilutes any meaning it could possibly have. It is difficult enough for a polygamist to keep a loving relationship with two people at a time, so how can we possibly imagine ourselves capable of loving everyone ?
Such love is not desirable, even if it was possible. A healthy cynicism about people's motives is always moral. When we abandon this, we abandon our desire for social truth. In a sense, the idea that "universal love" is a regressive concept can explain this problem. The regressive, childish view entails that everyone holds the same values, and that there is no moral difference between individuals. The Christian concept of "universal love" could only work if this was the case. Therefore it seems to me to be regressive.
2. The Golden Rule
In the Sermon on the Mount - perhaps one of the most evil moral discourses ever written - "Jesus" says :So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
The first problem with this principle is that it is wholly incompatible with other parts of Christianity, such as the God-believer relationship, the priest-believer relationship, the saved-unsaved relationship, the husband-wife relationship, the parent-child relationship... basically every power relation prescribed in the Bible. But LDCs probably profess not to subscribe to those anyway, so let's continue.
The main problem of the Golden Rule is the same as for "Love Thy Neighbour" : it is a regressive, childish rule. It assumes that every single individual in the world has the same values. Otherwise, how can I know that I should do to them what I would want ? What I want depends on my values. What they want depends on their values. Therefore, by asking us to assume uniformity, the Golden Rule is a golden ticket to total social warfare.
And the other problem, which is also similar to the ones for "Love Thy Neighbour", is that no one can follow such a rule. In fact, many people err in the opposite way of moral relativism, completely dissociating values between those of the past and those of the present, those of one country and those of another country. And so does Christianity, for that matter. And so is Lovey-Dovey Christianity - the product of moral relativism !
So what is the general problem with LDC ? Its problem is that it is still working within the framework of Christianity, which is amoral. Therefore, the only way it can be Lovey-Dovey is by starting from the premise that everyone is the same. The only rational position - that everyone has different values but exist in the same world with the same moral principles - is completely outside of the limited amoral framework of Christianity. To be a moral person, you have to completely leave Christianity.
The only difference is that in the dictatorship of Fundamentalism, everyone's sad, and in the dictatorship of LDC, everyone's smiling - because they get shot if they don't.
My only objection to this article is the fact that people can and do love others who wish them harm. However, this stems from emotional and mental illness. Those who truly love others who hate or hurt them are messed up. Can this be said about Christian Love?
Pretending, for a moment, that there is no hellfire and brimstone in Christianity (as Lovey-Dovey Christianity often asserts), there is still a certain taboo against anger and hatred. If one must love everyone, there is no room for anger against the injustice against oneself, as in an abusive household, or nation state, if you will. There is also an incredible amount of wiggle-room for the very definition of love itself. You could say (and I have read and heard it said often) that corporal punishment, spanking, beating, imprisonment and other types of harm are themselves love. Why, even hellfire could be love, according to one Calvinist. Punishment and correction, of course, must be good for you, and doing good to others must certainly be love, right?
Anything that can be done in the name of state, God, or any collectivist belief system can be re-named to In the Name of Love. Murder, torture, violence, and, most relevant to Christianity, self-harm, or suicide. One Man in the Name of Love.
Saturday, May 27, 2006
It's a small town in Quebec, about 75,000 people. It seems to be a small town with money, as it is obsessed with fountains and ponds. It has a big zoo. It's green and quiet, but as far as I know, it's totally Francophone. Franc wants to move here, but I don't know if I could fit in, even if I took French lessons. What could I do but clean houses or be a nanny? I'm too old to take such jobs. I've worked too hard and too long to end up being "the immigrant who takes jobs others won't do." See, this is what it really means to be an immigrant . You work and go to school for years, and have all sorts of qualifications. But you end up somewhere where you are not fluent in the language, and all of a sudden you're stupid and childlike, and people yell words at you as if the louder they say them, the better you'll understand.
I've met "immigrants" from eastern Europe who were doctors and one surgeon, who ended up as glorified candy stripers. To everyone else, they are the house painters and the landscapers.
There's your "immigrant." Fuck the experience we have, the qualifications. We're children.
Thursday, May 25, 2006
The “rhythm method” may kill off more embryos than other contraceptive methods, such as coils, morning after pills, and oral contraceptives, suggests an article in the Journal of Medical Ethics.
The method relies on abstinence during the most fertile period of a woman’s menstrual cycle. For a woman who has regular 28 day cycles, this is around days 10 to 17 of the cycle.
It is the only method of birth control condoned by the Catholic Church, because it doesn’t interfere with conception, so allowing nature to take its course.
It is believed that the method works because it prevents conception from occurring. But says Professor Bovens, it may owe much of its success to the fact that embryos conceived on the fringes of the fertile period are less viable than those conceived towards the middle.
We don’t know how much lower embryo viability is outside this fertile period, contends Professor Bovens, but we can calculate that two to three embryos will have died every time the rhythm method results in a pregnancy.
Is it not just as callous to organise your sex life to make it harder for a fertilised egg to survive, using this method, as it is to use the coil or the morning after pill, he asks?
Professor Bovens cites Randy Alcorn, a US pro-life campaigner, who has equated global oral contraceptive use to chemical abortion that is responsible for tens of thousands of deaths of embryos, or unborn children, every year.
But says Professor Bovens: if all oral contraceptive users converted to the rhythm method, then they would be effectively causing the deaths of millions of embryos.
Similarly, regular condom users, whose choice of contraception is deemed to be 95% effective in preventing pregnancy, would “cause less embryonic deaths than the rhythm method,” he says.
“…the rhythm method may well be responsible for massive embryonic death, and the same logic that turned pro-lifers away from morning after pills, IUDs, and pill usage, should also make them nervous about the rhythm method,” he contends.
Tuesday, May 23, 2006
Check out this site, dontregulate, for a position you might not have heard before.
Edited to add: if you haven't seen Francois' post about this subject on Radical Libertarians, you should.
What is "Internet Freedom" ? Is that different from normal freedom, with a small F ? And how many times have idiots preached the end of the Internet ? How is charging more for Google traffic going to kill the Internet anyway ?
Yes, things around here will be a little chaotic, as I am moving today. I won't have my regular computer, and I'll be very busy at other things. So please don't write me off, because, obviously, the internet isn't going anywhere.
Also, some of you might find that the Live 365 station will be ending for non-VIP listeners at the beginning of the month. I am switching to music podcasts for that part of my fin. I don't know what we'll do with the big "play"buttons, but I am sure it will be something hilarious and witty.
Saturday, May 20, 2006
More proof of insanity bolstered by Christianity, this time from "I Anonymous," a feature of the Stranger Weekly.
To the lost soul who is my new roommate: You think I'm some kind of cool punk chick, but you've got a Christian in your house. Just because someone has tattoos and dyed hair and looks like a pagan doesn't mean she's not a shepherd who has been sent to bring you salvation. Little by little, I will bring you around. I'll start by some subtle conversation starters. It's as innocent as leaving a Bible on the table. I will guide you from your simple curiosity about me (I think you are attracted to me, but I only want a Christian man), to having a profound theological discussion, to questioning the value of your own life without God in it. My walk with the Lord is righteous, even though I may look like I'm just taking a walk on the wild side. The Lord works in mysterious ways.
Good job, girl. Sell Jesus with your body, and your costume/trap. You seem to think you're Our fucking Lady herself. I think you're seriously ill. I wonder what she would think if I tried my best to "look christian" and paint my face up like a tart in order to lure a christian away from his beloved faith? Perhaps it might work, but the difference is that I am not a willing slave to my insanity. I prefer living for myself, thank you very much. How absolutely tragic.
Thursday, May 18, 2006
I know you guys don't watch this nonsense, but there's an interesting post about this on Cult News from Rick Ross.
The philosophy “Artie” concocted and later taught his disciple Belushi is a facile, self-serving mix of Robert Bly (Iron John), with a dash of John Gray (Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus) presented through a mass marathon training weekend format much like EST, which Sterling himself was once involved in.
Apparently the former “Estie” realized the profitability of such seminars and essentially copied the format to create his own spin-off of another guru’s teachings named Werner Erhard, formerly known as Jack Rosenberg, who just like Sterling had changed his name too.Much like his mentor Belushi’s book is largely derivative and it appears the sitcom star may have done the Sterling Weekend himself. He offers warmed over “Sterlingisms” such as “men don’t apologize for being who they are,” with such original thought as “Beer does not judge you” reports the Chicago Sun-Times.
Sterling teaches what are affectionately called his “$50.00 tips” such as the following:
Men don’t have any emotional needs (that can’t be gotten from a dog) Men should never discuss feelings with women Men should never do anything with women that they do with men (in a competitive sense) like play golf, tennis, etc. because women take it personally. There is no room for competition in a relationship Women are 100% responsible for the relationship Women are attracted only to power and resources or the potential to get these things. Women marry for power and resources, not love. Men marry for love.
OK--men don't have emotional needs, but they marry for their emotional needs. There's no contradiction that I can see.
I don't have a problem with men trying to work on their self-esteem. But relinquishing responsibility for any value is obviously a smart thing to do. And if you want to be screwed up, and I can't blame you, why not believe that you have no emotional needs? Hell, why not believe that if you feel anything, you're a dirty, dirty woman. And who in their right mind would want to be a smelly one of those? Icky, icky. My first thought when I read this article was "that's so gay." Why?
One of the most bizarre features of the ”Sterling Weekend” is its finale. At the conclusion of the seminar the participating men strip naked for a male bonding ritual that is routinely videotaped by Justin Sterling’s devoted “volunteers.”
Is there a video of Jim Belushi dancing naked sitting up on Justin Sterling’s shelf?
Well, it's not gay, as in a normal, healthy, out-of-the closet gay man. It's gay as in married guy who stalks around in parks after dark for male action, discovers good way to hide gay behavior in a hyper-masculinized cult, not unlike the Nazis. In this way, Sterling is as masculine as the Village People.Nobody's fooled but Jim Belushi.
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
Haven't seen this in a while...
This is great, but the post can't be complete without...
According to Toon Tracker,
The character Timer (voiced by Len Maxwell) originally appeared in "The Incredible, Indelible, Magical, Physical Mystery Trip", an ABC Afterschool Special that combined live-action with animation. This 1973 DePatie-Freleng Enterprises Production, in association with ABC, was an educational and entertaining journey which took two youngsters, Joey (voiced by Peter Broderick) and Missy (voiced by Kathy Buch), through the mistreated body of their Uncle Carl, who has lived a hard life, failing to maintain his health. The kids are miniaturized prior to the trip by Timer. The special was later re-broadcast as a two-part ABC Weekend Special.
Timer (voiced by Lennie Weinrib) then took two miniaturized youngsters, Carol (voiced by Diane Murphy) and Larry (voiced by Ike Eisenmann), on "The Magical Mystery Trip Through Little Red's Head", a 1974 DePatie-Freleng production which combined live-action and animation. As the trio explore Little Red's (voiced by Sarah Kennedy) mind, they learn how people express and deal with their feelings from the inside. The hour-long feature was originally broadcast as an ABC Afterschool Special and later re-broadcast as a two-part ABC Weekend Special.
The Timer character was later revived by ABC and DePatie-Freleng in 1977 for a series of ABC Health and Nutrition Commercials, short public service spots which aired on ABC's weekend schedule. Other characters featured in the shorts included Chopper, a motorcyclist who explained how teeth work. Some of Timer's topics included "hankering for a hunk of cheese" and explaining to youngsters how to make orange juice popsicles which he called "Sunshine on a Stick".
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
That's supposed to be the "liberating" part. Sexual role-playing, masochism, and discipline. Someone get me a cigarette. But the most "liberating" part of all, it seems, is to deny one's own humanity. I just don't know why women don't get it!
"I wish women would realize that this can be a liberation," Dorothy Chabot said.
Dressed in a kitchen worker's uniform, the pocket of her white tunic featuring an emblem of stylized cooking implements, Chabot was chatting with a reporter in an impeccable small parlour decorated with paintings of gardens and a cabinet of knickknacks at a complex near Valleyfield affiliated with Opus Dei. There was one religious item, an iconic portrait of the Virgin.
The parlour adjoins a bright, spacious foyer of the Centre de Gestion Hoteliere Soulanges, where stylishly turned out teenage girls and young women whisked across the gleaming hardwood floor, exchanged cheerful goodbyes over their luggage and headed for homes across Quebec and Ontario.
It had been a busy weekend at the complex, on spacious grounds on the banks of the St. Lawrence about midway between Montreal and the Ontario-Quebec border.
Since 1997, when she became an Opus Dei member at age 19, [Dorothy] has been what is known as an assistant numerary, or numerary assistant -- a woman who devotes herself to domestic chores.
Yes, she said, she like other numeraries does mortify her flesh with a cilice, a barbed chain she wears around her thigh for a couple of hours a day, and the discipline, a cord with which she whips herself once a week while reciting a prayer, in her case usually the Hail Mary.
A far cry from the torments to which one of the characters in Brown's thriller subjects himself, the cilice and discipline, she said, cause less discomfort than a good jog or some of the more spiritual disciplines, such as cheerfulness in the face of all adversities.
"I wouldn't call it painful. I would call it uncomfortable," Hoffman said. "Corporal mortification is something legitimate. It's something the saints have done."Quote from Behind The Secret Sect Of Opus Dei, another article posted today about the sect. My question to the good Opus Dei Spokesman is, if it's not painful, how is it discipline and mortification? Why wear it at all? If the saints did it, surely they suffered. Not to say that whipping yourself actually does anything positive. But if it's some kind of pussy-imitation of saints' suffering, why not wear a pair of sparkly deely-bobbers on your head? And why are you lying about this?
More doublespeak that will surely be repeated, ad nauseum, for weeks to come. Enjoy it.
The Evolution/Creationsim/Inherit the Wind episode of The Simpsons (needs Quicktime)
Attorney: Now Mr. Flanders: You're familiar with the bible, right?
Ned Flanders: As familiar as it's appropriate to be.
Marge Simpson understands The Origin of Species?
I wonder what evolution will make next? Maybe s bird with a people face, or a bear with pants on?
Monday, May 15, 2006
Sunday, May 14, 2006
Friday, May 12, 2006
Here's another typical anti-immigration argument. John Gibson, on The Big Story, couldn't be more racist if he went on wearing a white hood.
I still haven't seen an argument against (or for, for that matter), "immigration," that wasn't racist .
View the video, from good ol' Media Matters, here.
Gibby, if America becomes Hispanic, so friggin' what? Will you be forced to eat chimichangas and wash them down with Tequila? Or is the problem that you can't stand to see so many dirty brown people? Clearly he knows his audience when he tells them to start fucking. All of them. Here's hoping that the audience for The Big Story can't stop picturing Gibson's pasty, mealy-mouthed mug every time they have the old in-and-out, no female orgasm involved, under the covers, no dirty-talk, polite sex. Not that they were ever turned on to begin with.
Not that he isn't slapping their wrists for being too snobby and self-centered to have babies. How he figured that there was one atom of selflessness involved in having babies though, I'll never figure. How is it not selfish to have a baby?
So the lefties are telling us the world will end if we keep having babies, and the righties tell us the economy will collapse if we don't have more babies. But if I have to hear any more economic ignorance, and see any more of the faces of Gibson and Vladimir Putin associated with sex, I'm never having a kid--by accident, of course.
It just couldn't be more creepy!
Thursday, May 11, 2006
American Atheists wants Charlie Sheen to apologize for his stupid, stupid words:
Well, Charlie, if you look into the eyes of your children and see God, perhaps you should, I dunno, try rubbing your eyes or something?
Charlie and Denise are parents to two small girls: SAM, aged 2, and LOLA, who is only 10 months.
"They represent the real gifts and treasures of this life," says Charlie, who also has an older daughter, CASSANDRA. "Anybody that doesn't believe in God hasn't looked into the eyes of their child."
Atheist parents everywhere: I know you never expected Charlie Sheen to be a non-idiot, because he's a public figure. You're also most likely aware that his words are part of some surreal public campaign to keep his kids after the divorce. Oh No. What A Tragedy.
But perhaps this is some kind of opportunity to talk about how being an atheist does not mean you ignore your children. I say, leave Sheen to his blatant idiocy, and continue to fight against the immorality and evil of raising children in religion. Sheen, of course, has no doubt passed on his retardation to his children. Don't know if Denise Richards will continue to teach them the same moral outrage, but perhaps, if they rebel, they won't be total write-offs.
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
This is snarky. (Giggle)
This is not snarky: (Giggle)
While libertarian, individualist, freethinking, market anarchists like Kinney are avoiding things like jury service, voting, running for office, active participation in society, bathing, etc. -- and restricting their activities to typing up snarky little blog entries -- the rest of us in the Great Secret Universal Communist Power Cabal can pass laws, without hindrance, to further restrict Kinney's rights and eventually crush him into worthless dust, or use him as greasy, foul-smelling fodder for our great World Domination Machine.
Insert menacing laughter here.
The sad, sad truth is that our favorite creepy internet stalker, who never forgave us for having forced him to be our fan after he's listened to one or two of our shows, and then making him put our banner on his site--and then probably hiding our non-liberalism from him--is 100% right.
Statists are much, much better people than we are.
- Liberal Statists take long showers every day, moisturize, and splash with Jean Naté.
- Individualists roll around in dust to keep the fleas off.
- Liberal Statists have active social and love lives
- Individualists cower in dark basements, re-counting our money
- Liberal Statists care about others, and help them out whenever they can
- Individualists call this "collectivism," or "religion," and rarely go out during the day, except to make bank transactions, or buy beef jerky and superhero comics.
- Liberal Statists engage in sports and other healthy activities.
- Individualists call this "collectivism," or "religion," unless they are role-playing Jedis in the park.
- Liberal Statists never use strawman arguments
- Individualists use so many strawman arguments (to make themselves look like smarty-pants), it's like 100 jillion scarecrows exploded on the internet, and there's like straw everywhere, man.
- Liberal Statists make posts that say to their readers, "My readers are wonderful people and are far superior to individualists." This makes their blogs successful and popular, just like the Liberal Statist.
- Individualists don't care WHAT their readers think, or, at least, they want to FOOL their readers into thinking they don't care what they think, which doesn't make any difference anyway, because nobody reads their blogs.
- Liberal Statists point to Individualist's self-depricating posts on the internet and feel goaded into sending more hits their way.
- Individualists rub their hands together and say, "Excellent." Because pop-culture references are all we have, since we are sad, lonely failures.
- Statists write endless articles about George W Bush, which EVERYONE wants to read.
- Individualists defeated the Banana Argument.
The coinkidink is that they had James Randi on talking about facilitated communication. I swear, I didn't know. Otherwise I wouldn't have expected to get on the show.
At this point, I don't know if I will manage to be on anytime soon. It's all a matter of fitting in with the content.
I just got a list email from James Randi where he previewed one of his upcoming articles on his site. He linked to a transcript of a PBS article about Facilitated Communication and Dr. Douglas Biklen. According to Randi on a previous article,
Dr. Douglas Biklen is the genius behind “facilitated communication,” the claptrap idea that has some scientists convinced that severely autistic children are actually geniuses who write poetry and have intellectual abilities far beyond what we ordinary mortals can ever suspect. This bizarre process consists of a “facilitator” holding the typing hand of a child, and “guiding” it on the keyboard of a special machine. The child can be screaming, struggling, looking at the ceiling, or even on the floor with its hand held over the keyboard, yet intelligible words appear. The “facilitator,” however, watches the keyboard carefully….
It seems that facilitated communication is somewhat like the ideomotor effect, the phenomenon at work when using a Ouija Board.
According to the Skeptic's Dictionary,
Facilitated Communication (FC) is a technique which allegedly allows communication by those who were previously unable to communicate by speech or signs due to autism, mental retardation, brain damage, or such diseases as cerebral palsy. The technique involves a facilitator who places her hand over that of the patient's hand, arm or wrist, which is placed on a board or keyboard with letters, words or pictures. The patient is allegedly able to communicate through his or her hand to the hand of the facilitator which then is guided to a letter, word or picture, spelling out words or expressing complete thoughts. Through their facilitators, previously mute patients recite poems, carry on high level intellectual conversations, or simply communicate.
and Skeptic's dictionary on The Ideomotor Effect:
The ideomotor effect refers to the influence of suggestion or expectaton on involuntary and unconscious motor behavior. The term "ideomotor action" was coined by William B. Carpenter in 1852 in his explanation for the movements of rods and pendulums by dowsers, and some table turning or lifting by spirit mediums (the ones that weren't accomplished by cheating). Carpenter argued that muscular movement can be initiated by the mind independently of volition or emotions. We may not be aware of it, but suggestions can be made to the mind by others or by observations. Those suggestions can influence the mind and affect motor behavior.
Of course, this would suggest that those involved in FC are only naive, not immoral. I think that perhaps many parents who were taught the technique are playing Ouija Board with their kids. But is Biklen simply hapless or immoral? Stay tuned to randi.org for more, and read the PBS transcript. Faced with this info, how can anyone be simply naive?
By the way, the advocates at Breaking the Barriers have turned it into a political issue. they are activists for "the right to communicate."
- Communication is the foundation for all interactions. Meaningful relationships develop when each person is respected, valued and embraced as an active member in every interaction. True friendships are born on a level playing field. "Inclusion" moves from being a politically correct thought to a true experience. All people bring a unique gift and life experience to any interaction. Seeking that gift begins by acknowledging the personhood of an individual first and labeling them last!
- A method that is effective for an individual needs to be respected and supported, even if some question its validity for everyone. Every person is an individual and has the right to communicate with the method they choose and or effectively have the ability to use for communication.
- If a person communicates differently you may have to listen differently to support them.
- We need people to understand that labels of autism or mental retardation are how people without disabilities try to label our experience - but really it is a label for your experience - what you see or experience a person doing. The label or what you see them doing tells you nothing about what they are experiencing or what they "get" from what their actions. This needs to be learned on a person-by-person basis.
- Facilitated Communication has been a controversial form of augmentative communication. However, many of us who require touch to type have used facilitated communication for a number of years, and this form of communication has allowed us to achieve incredible progress, and has made a significant difference in our lives.
Incredible--apparently the site was designed through the use of human ouija boards! I agree, that it is very important to let people have a voice. That is precisely what this "technique" is preventing!
" Every person is an individual and has the right to communicate with the method they choose."
That would be great, if these individuals were choosing at all! Stuff a ball-gag in your kid's mouth, tell everyone what she is saying, and then claim that she "chose" to speak through her mother. Great. Perhaps this is naiveté, but as we know, willful ignorance is the cause of great injustice and evil.
Finally, as one would expect, the ball-gaggers use their human ouija boards to beg for money:
What we ask of each of you
…Sign on to the Right to Communication Resolution
Support funding for alternative and augmentative communication – including funding for access to equipment and facilitators.
And that's always what it comes down to, doesn't it?
Tuesday, May 09, 2006
Download Audio Excerpt: Ray Concedes
In the best of all possible situations, I have toppled an insurmountable argument for creationism, and have furthered the cause of science by leaps and bounds. Hooray for me!
Of course, this insurmountable argument was not only the stupidest argument for creationism in existence--and that's why it went around the internet so much, but it wasn't really me. It was Ray Comfort's doing. One could either say, "you have to hand it to him, to have so much humility as to say, "ok, you've got that one, you can have the banana," or you could say that perhaps it's a good political move on his part to distance himself from the Banana Argument. It made him look stupid.
But, being the cynical bastard that I am, I want to milk this banana thing for all its worth! The Banana is not dead. There are currently Christians around the web who are using my banana as we speak, to try and argue their way into the Talking Snake Theory. We now have the Argument From Authority necessary to slap the hands of these misguided individuals. That's because the real argument, the one I pointed out to Ray, just doesn't work for them. But perhaps, if you can tell them, "Ray Comfort, the better half of Kirk Cameron of The Way of the Master, has conceded this argument to Hellbound Alleee. He said, and I quote, 'Okay, you've got that one, you can have the banana.' So you can't use that argument anymore." Perhaps that's the moment you can explain how fruits and vegetables are grown, and their place in evolutionary biology.
It's sad, but true. These people know nothing about plants. Who does? That's why we ask gardeners, and farmers. If anyone knows about how evolution can work, it's a farmer. Gardeners and farmers use artificial selection, but they tend to absorb knowledge about wild plants, and how they've changed over the years. They know about pollen, seeds, carbon, photosynthesis, the birds and the bees. That's what many creationists yahoos lack: basic knowledge about how babies are made.
So let it be known throughout the internet: the banana argument, which was handed over personally to me by its author, I now give back to science, and bio-engineered foods.. My only request is that, if you remember, mention that Hellbound Alleee gave it to you? Thanks. My second request is to put aside one day, May 5th, for the value of Bio-Engineered foods, because, after all, the chances are huge that anything you happen to eat is ultimately bioengineered--like the banana. Sure, it may not have spider genes in it, but many people worked very hard to engineer that plant, the one that used to be hard, tasteless, and full of seeds, to become the soft, sweet, and easy-to-feed-to-baby fruit we enjoy today. And the perfect fruit to fit Kirk Cameron's pretty, pretty mouth.
Daiquiris on me!
Monday, May 08, 2006
Sunday, May 07, 2006
I read a piece on The Disgruntled Chemist and Pharyngula about this classic Bill O'Reilly comment on kids, cursing, and public schools:
OK. That happens every day, all day in the public schools here in New York City. And I know it happens in Chicago and Los Angeles and Boston and Washington, D.C. In any major urban center. It doesn't happen in the small towns; it happens in the cities. I live in New York. I'm not gonna have my 6-, 7-, 8-, 9-year-old go to a school where they're saying that stuff in the hallway and the teacher doesn't do anything about it. You know, private school, that does not happen.
I don't wish to comment too much about the argument for or against public schools, because this simply has no bearing, whatsoever, about government funding of schools. After all, being funded by the government or by mom and dad, or having scary nun teachers will change the way people talk.
What I'm confused about is what Bill O'reilly is trying to say about small towns, big cities, and cursing. Let me try to deconstruct as I go. Bill O'Reilly believes in a fantasy called "profanity." I do not hold this belief. The idea of profanity is an ancient religious belief, stemming from the idea that gods and demons can be controlled by the uttering of their names in ritual. Thus the commandment against "taking the Lord's name in vain." And we know that this nonsense is just not true.
I once heard an explanation about why cursing is bad on the kids' show, Arthur. Arthur's mom explains that cursing is bad because many people consider it to be rude. Using curse words means you want to hurt people. So, saying "fuck" is bad because people say so. And when your mom says that you are supposed to be hurt by it, I suppose you can be hurt by it. And so on. Cursing is nothing but a social construct. It's like saying God exists, because people believe in it.
From there it must be easy to assume that cursing is the same as other "bad behaviors," and should be treated as such. Kids who curse, the idiot believes, are kids who smoke and do drugs. Idiots believe that this is a behavior of bad people also, since, after all, bad people curse. And people who smoke and do drugs are loose sexually. And everybody knows that people who are loose sexually are bad people. Because they curse, smoke, and do drugs. And so on. And this is what happens in big cities, right?
Of course, the idea this doesn't happen in small towns is totally false, and either the ramblings of a lunatic or a liar. But what are the implications? What is to be done about these big cities? Does Bill O'Reilly think that children should be taken away from big cities? Is it everyone's duty, as a citizen and moral person, to move to small towns in order to protect their children? Or is a private school a way of mimicking the small town experience?
Most of you reading this know how silly this all is. After all, in the smallest of towns, cursing and smoking and sleeping around is pretty much all there is to do. Well, that and every conceivable truly evil action there is to do, can be done, and is done, in small towns. Actions like rape, murder, incest, gay bashing, wife beating, and lynchings. You know. Like they did in the good old days. In the small towns. Where they vote for Bush and don't swear.
Saturday, May 06, 2006
Listen for me on Penn Radio, on Tuesday, May 9, between 2 and 3 pm eastern time. I am invited to call into Penn Radio to discuss my conversation with Ray Comfort, wherein he said, quote, "You can have the banana."
I'm excited. I hope they it all works out. If you don't hear me right away, keep listening--they have phone troubles sometimes.
April 30, 2006
Eagles and conservation have been the joy and occasional sadness of my life. This is a sad moment. It appears that the Hornby Island bald eagle eggs are infertile. The first egg should have hatched April the 26 and the second egg today. The first embryo, if it developed at all, is surely dead. The second embryo, could still hatch but I cannot see the proper pipping of the egg shell, where the chicks beak has broken through enabling it to draw in air, the precursor to the final struggle for hatching. It does not look good for this pair this year. In fact this is the second year of failure for this nest territory.
They offer some educated guesses as to why the eggs did not hatch.
The good news, though, is that they will have a new nest to watch. I suppose this one might be watched with a little less blind belief. More good news: they'll have a live Grizzly Bear cam!
Friday, May 05, 2006
On Friday, Francois, Aaron and I spoke with Ray, and went through the usual Christian nonsense, leading up to the big question about THE BANANA.
You have to hear it to believe it, but we had a great conversation. My favorite part came at the very end, courtesy of Francois. When you hear it, don`t forget that the argument in question (the one about truth telling), was mine.
Expect to hear the show by Saturday night one The Hellbound Alleee Archives.
Thursday, May 04, 2006
From: Leah Hutson
Subject: RE: READ NOW
Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 10:06:58 -0700 (PDT)
"I love how you didn't write me back because I was right. "
Leah--I did respond to you. Many times. By the way--great display of one of the seven deadly sins--"pride." I thought you Christians believed in being meek.
"You have no argument against me. "
What are you talking about? You were the one who didn't answer my questions. What do you mean, I have no argument against you? Is that all you can say? Ignoreeverything I said and proclaim yourself the winer to some fight you picked with me?
Looks like I have plenty of arguments, Leah.
"I was wondering...did you post any of my letters on your blog for entertainment or are you just too embarrassed because I am once again right and it would make you look pretty uneducated (or what you say is educated)...huh? "
How old are you?
I posted everything you said on my blog because my readers think you are both funny and immoral. If I were "embarrassed," as you say, I wouldn't have posted any of it.
"And you need to get it straight about the whole levitating thing...God didn't levitate. He rose and ascended into Heaven. "
Honey, ascended means he flew up into heaven That's what magicians do.
"I bet you couldn't do that...even if you can levitate. "
OF COURSE I CAN'T LEVITATE, YOU IDIOT! That's called "a trick." Do you think magicians actually do the magic? Wow, Leah/Emily, or whatever your name is. You're seriously deluded.
"There is a BIG difference between GOD and man and I think you really need to understand that."
"He is your father and you treat Him like He is crap. "
I wonder if you understand the irony of those two sentences togethrr, Leah. The difference between your god and people is that your god doesn't exist. A God cannot be a father, because fathers have something called "sperm." Does your God fuck women, Leah? That's pretty weird. I guess you could say that if your god existed, he's fucked a lot of people. But you wouldn't know that, because you worship a leather-bound volume of words you don't read.
"And don't try to be a smart elec and say that your father is "such..and...such" because your parents on this earth just bring you up and raise you. "
Why, Leah, because being smart is bad, and therefore you are good?
A parent GIVES YOU YOUR GENES, you moron. Don't you know that? Let me tell you a little story about how babies are made, Leah. The mother has an egg that is lying in the mucus in her uterus. When mommy and daddy lie down together, he puts his penis inside the mother's vagina, and rubs it back and forth, hoefully after he has given the mother a good, long session of cunnilingus. Woman comes first, I always say. then , when he E-JAC-ULATES, his sperm rush inside to fertilize her egg. One or two of them reaches the egg and fertilizes it. Then nine months later, hopefully father (the man) hasn't left for some little boy or something and helps to raise the kid, in a good, moral, secular way, and doesn't abuse the child, like your parents did to you, by teching it a lot of lies.
"Your real DADDY is in Heaven."
No, my Dad lives in Washington state. And I am a grown woman, so I don't have to do what he says any more. But I have nice phone conversations with him.
"I truly have compassion for you."
No, you don't.
"You are so blind-sighted by the world's evil ways...so I will be praying for you.
Until the whole world knows."
No, Leah, you are suffering from something that only you can cure yourself from.
See you on my blog, girl.
And now, Emily/Leah:
----Original Message Follows----
From: Emily Walker
Subject: RE: Hello?
Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 10:11:59 -0700 (PDT)
(we were talking about ascending to heaven/levitation, etc.)
"CORRECTION: So you mean to tell me they had string and stuff like that back then? WOW!!"Yes, dear, they had string. They actually had string.
But that's not how you do levitation tricks. It's actually done without any props.
Yes. I smart.
" But you know what your wrong. "
I know what my wrong what?
"In the dictionary it says levitation means to float in air, rise above the ground, or hover over the ground. God didn't "hover" over the ground he ascended into Heaven. Maybe you should read the Bible before you come to these conclusions."
I read the bible all the time. But you don't. And you're desperate. There was no Jesus, but plenty of people who looked like they were "ascending" into heaven, through a trick called "levitation."
excerpts from "Variations Based on Noises From a Garage" (performed during band appearances) Willie plays the violin while wearing a pair of shoes mounted on long boards, plays "Pop! Goes the Weasel" with the violin in various positions, and plays "Stars and Stripes Forever" on a bicycle pump.
Dancing by Al Norman (performing his rubber-legged, snake-hips dance) and the Russell Markert Dancers
This wouldn't remind you a little bit of John Cleese's "Silly Walk," does it? Just watch the end of his dance.
The King of Jazz is one of those early musicals they rushed to put out after The Jazz Singer. The y weren't yet quite sure how to make the kind of musical MGM was famous for in the golden age, so this film is typical of the stage-style, vaudevillian performances. It's also famous for its two-colour technicolor process. The film is silly, psychedelic, and full of the typically great performances by stellar musicians such as der Bingle (then very young and a part of The Rhythm Boys), Joe Venuti and Eddie Lang.
If anyone knows of real information of the personnel of the film, please let me know. According to the film Bix, Beiderbecke was pulled from the film as he was detoxing at his mom's house from his alcoholism. I don't know who replaced him.
To see almost the absolute rest of this film, visit red Hot Jazz. It has pretty much everything from the movie you'd want to see.
What he wrote: “I think I need to understand atheists better.”
What he meant: Atheists are so hard to figure out, because they are liars.
What he wrote: “I bear them no ill will.”
What he meant: I wish they would shrivel up and die.
And this just in:
The Second Mouse's Guide to Life rings in with a great entry:
Axiomatic to our existence in communities and nations is that each one of us has a profound effect on each other’s objective reality. It cannot be denied that how we decide to engage each other, how we decide to rule ourselves, and how we decide to be civil is something that is not simply confined to our own perceptions. Our actions and decisions affect each other’s objective reality and if we expect to engage each other in a civilly responsible manner, we cannot retreat to the ubiquitous, yet fundamentally flawed rubric of The Golden Rule.
Hmm...does this post belong on another entry in this blog?
A Great New Discovery!
They found out that humans could communicate with both plants and animals by translating the messages of plants through animals, who apparently have some kind of clairvoyance to their language.
So, we had this plant on a plate or something, and there was this small Golden Retriever. We turn on the machine, and, according to the dog, the first message from plants to humans is,
"Come, let us understand."
Is this the kind of humour my sleeping mind generates? Jesus Christ.
Wednesday, May 03, 2006
Tuesday, May 02, 2006
This entry is part of the War on Relativism.
Dear Internet Diary,
Most Christians are atheists, and many atheists are christians!
I was listening to a very interesting episode of This American Life, called Allure of Crime. In one of the stories, a man told of his childhood with an abusive minister father. The young man related his final confrontation with his father, where the man threatened to beat him with free weights, and he defended himself by cutting his father's throat, sending his Dad to the hospital, and away from him for the rest of his youth.
After that incident, the man entered a life of crime. He said that he feared only two individuals in this world: his dad, and God. And since he couldn't see God, he decided to become his own god. That meant, in his addled fundamentalist christian mind, that he was free to harm others as payback for what his father did to him. He decided that since he had destroyed his source for morality, he had no morality to follow.
As you know, we've been doing a lot of writing about moral realism, and we've been getting a lot of objections to it, exclusively from atheists. It appears that the objections stems from their assertion that morality is only imaginary, and following standards is arbitrary and voluntary. The standard is only something agreed upon by groups of people, rather than something based on the laws of causality, as we assert.
Let me repeat for those who have just joined us:
Morality is the study of causality as it relates to human action.
In Christian Morality, Christians have a being who can change his mind, as is not subject to the laws he makes. Most relativists don't understand that means Christianity is relativistic. They tend to think it is "objective" which they confuse with "absolutist." In leaving a cult such as Christianity, the relativist sees that standard as oppressive. Some atheists replace the oppressive standard with another oppressive standard, Culture. You can still be counter-culture, they think, while retaining values they see as "belonging" to a culture, which in most cases is Christianity.
Remove God from Christianity, they think, and the moral standard becomes culture. They see themselves as following the moral rules of christianity without believing in God, which actually makes them more "functioning Christians."
Which is ironic, since neither group--functioning Christians, or the Christians--follow Christian morality. The Ten No-No's which are identified as morality, are in fact not moral at all. They're mostly not even legal in the US. The Christians who believe in God are "functioning atheists," because they live as if there were no god, and no absolute No-No's.The atheist who believes in a Christian Morality lives as if there were none. (The answer to both is, "there is none.")
Remove both irrational beliefs from the problem and what are you left with? What you had to begin with: you and the facts of nature. Now go take on the day.
Thanks for listening.
Monday, May 01, 2006
I propose a strike against the rejection of fact in morality.
Too many secularists reject (or claim to reject) fact and science when it comes to morality, even though they demand them in every other respect. How can we, as atheists and individualists, hope to criticize religion effectively if our evaluations are based on belief? We must submit to the standard of fact, just as science does, in order to properly evaluate ideas and actions.
What You Can Do:
If you have a blog, and use fact to make decisions and evaluate positions, if you wish to reclaim moral autonomy from belief systems, write an article about morality, highlighting fact, or exposing fallacy in subjective/cultural morality. You can write about how you make decisions in your own life, or how cultural belief can prevent you from making good decisions. Maybe you can write about how otherwise rational people treat morality as different from every other aspect of their world.
Your blog post can be from any realist worldview, and can be in any language as long as you have a summary in English. I will post a link to both your blog and the post here. I encourage the use of my banner, such as it is (unless you want to make a cooler one). Send me your link here in the comments, or email me at firstname.lastname@example.org . Don't forget to give me the post url and your blog url. New forum threads will also be accepted, if they are substantial enough.
Join the War on Relativism, and reclaim morality from belief systems!
The Atheist Jew
The Secular Outpost
This Dang (or something) Blog
Come on, people. Is that it? Or is it more that Marc Gellman said such stupid, simple-minded things that the rest of you just don't give a flying flip about him? Am I just fishing for things to say in my blog? Maybe. But can you blame me?
Colbert, who spoke in the guise of his talk show character, who ostensibly supports the president strongly, urged Bush to ignore his low approval ratings, saying they were based on reality, “and reality has a well-known liberal bias.”
He attacked those in the press who claim that the shake-up at the White House was merely re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. “This administration is soaring, not sinking,” he said. “If anything, they are re-arranging the deck chairs on the Hindenburg.”
View Video here, at Crooks and Liars