I must have been asleep the last few days, because I could have sworn that the US was facing one of the worst financial crisis in it’s history, accompanied by two wars that are not going very swimmingly. It’s must be all fixed, since a group of Senators are busy trying to get the motto “In God We Trust” up in the new Capital Visitor Center in Washington.
The building is your classic boondoggle; it cost 3 times what was estimated, and now there’s a huge debate going on about whether or not the current national motto “From Many, One” is really an accurate representation of America’s history of democracy. Better to make it about it’s theocracy, thinks GOP Senator Jim DeMint, of South Carolina.
You see, according to Jimmy here, the most remarkable thing about the history of America isn’t it’s devotion to the principles of democracy, but rather the fact that it was founded by a bunch of religious prudes. He’s convinced that God has blessed his land, and he trusts no one more than his big bearded anthropomorphic god. The Visitor Center is meant to tell the history of the nation’s capitol, so naturally, DeMint thinks that God was the main reason why anything happened, and he wants to make sure we think that too.
He’s joined by Senators Roger Wicker and Tom Coburn, who have all managed to delay the opening while this debate goes on. Evidently, they feel strongly enough about this issue to ignore other less pressing matters. It’s a good feeling to know that government representatives are doing exactly what we all expect them to do: run around like chickens with their heads cut off.
I don’t think anyone should be surprised that Christians are getting uppity about the place of God in today’s society. They view the steady erosion of Christianity’s importance in American society in general as a terrible affliction. They probably genuinely feel as though these kinds of battles will save the “soul” of the country they love so dearly. What they fail to realize is that this “soul” is not dictated by a religious creed, but rather a different belief that human beings should be free of the tyranny of both government and clergy. The separation of Church and State is meant to ensure that all religious matters could be left up to the individual, not the state. These gentlemen have seriously misunderstood their roles. Regardless of your religious affiliation, every voter should act with haste to inform these men that their job requirements do not include shoving Christianity in everyone’s face.
As a Kid, I loved my Lego collection. I find the whole idea behind those little blocks to be pure genius. It stimulates creativity, and it also makes up for the fact that when you don’t get a lot of presents each year you can at least build your own. So it doesn’t surprise me at all when someone tries to capitalize on my nostalgia for a few bucks. Enter this little fellow, who is an obvious cheap attempt to get a few laughs.
The title suggests that there is something misleading here, and the answer is simply that this figuring is not a Lego doll, but rather manufactured by a company called BrickArms, which is in the business of making stupid and offensive Lego ripoffs. It also has a Santa with a sled full of guns that says “God Bless America”. The real story here is how every news outlet that picked this up put “Lego” in their title and then only later mentioning that the manufacturer is in no way affiliated with the company. Sure, it’s a common nomenclature to call building blocks “Lego”, but I find it’s just more sensationalism meant to get people to react. The doll is stupid and pointless; let’s not give these guys anymore airtime, shall we?
On December 14th, 1999, a man named Amhed Ressam was arrested crossing the Canadian-American border. Custom officials found explosives hidden in his spare tire, and more bomb making materials in his apartment in Montreal, Quebec. He was subsequently interrogated, and in return for a lighter sentence, Ressam would reveal the existence of a complex sleeper cell network to investigators that eventually lead to the creation of a report called “Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US. This report was given to President Bush on August 6th, 2001. It was not discussed because at the time, Bush was on vacation.
Prosecutors worked a deal with Ressam for a lighter sentence in exchange for his information and his help in prosecuting other terrorists. He agreed, but in the now 8 years since his incarceration, Ahmed is being re-sentenced. A judge found that solitary confinement and repeated interrogations had made him cease to be cooperative in prosecutory efforts.
I’m not one for government conspiracy theories, so I will base my opinion on the long and detailed accounts of the the United State’s continued use of torture to interrogate suspected terrorists. Even if they had somehow spared Ahmed of this fate, it’s generally recognized that solitary confinement is itself a form of torture, as human beings have been known to go mad from repeated isolation.
I’m not going to claim that the change of heart from Ressam was a direct result of his treatment at the hands of his captors. Prosecutors are claiming that rather than a mental breakdown, Ressam was unhappy about his sentence. But this directly conflicts with even his own response to the 22 years being tacked on. He told the court that “I’m a terrorist…I’m going to do it again when I get out”.
American investigators have always been overzealous in their efforts to uncover information about terrorist organizations, which is why their reputation around the world has suffered. Torture is not an effective investigatory technique precisely because the information gathered is likely to be inaccurate and highly compromised. An individual in duress is as likely to give bad information as he is good information. The problem is there’s no way to know when it is or isn’t valid. Ahmed had been cooperating for years, but my guess is that, after spending almost a decade in prison, his information began to lose value, and investigators began applying more and more pressure in the hopes of extracting some information.
The result of this gong show is that Ahmed is now recanting his previous testimony, which means that real bad guys now have the ability to appeal their arrest and incarcerations. So, not only did the US fail to use Ressam’s most useful information; now they have destroyed all of the work they managed to accomplish. In other words, the US killed their golden goose trying to extract more eggs out of him.
With so much competence on the war on terror, we’ll have this thing “won” in no time, boys and girls!
An Australian Study found that men who study science in University are less likely to get laid. It found that science “nerds” were more likely to be doing homework and far less likely to go to parties and bars. as a general rule, i hate garbage studies that only reinforce the stereotype that science is somehow unhip, uncool, and something only “nerds” do. I’m sure there’s a similar correlation between level of education and frequency of fornication, but what exactly does this prove? Not to be a nitpicker, but did the reporter in this story really have to call science students “nerds”? Might as well start calling anyone with a college degree an “elitist”.
Here’s the way i see it: getting laid is great and a lot of fun, but science is a pretty serious field of study, and unlike most yahoos that phone in their work, dedicating your life to science means you can’t go to as many parties as the guys who are studying for their MBA’s. So while some guys are working on their “macking” skills, some science nerd is unlocking the secrets of the Universe. Who’s the bigger stud here?
Every year, you get at least one desperate mother giving up her child in a nativity scene, and this year is no exception. This time, it’s out of Augsburg, Germany. The woman said she gave up her child because of a “difficult personal situation”. That’s mother speak for “I can’t stand this little shit crying all the time, and I only got preggers because I wanted my boyfriend to stay with me but he bailed”.
The church hopes to raise funds to help the woman take care of her son, but considering how quick she seemed to want to get rid of the thing, I’m not sure a cash infusion is what the doctor ordered. How about we stop rewarding people who leave babies in set pieces, and instead toss their asses in jail for child endangerment? Guess that wouldn’t be in line with the Holiday spirit now, would it?
I used to laugh at the whole “Chuck Norris facts” stuff, until i read one of his insane blog posts where he maintains that the Founding Fathers of America wanted their country to follow Christian principles and doctrines. Not only is this blatantly false, it’s completely dishonest. Most of these guys were deists. Thomas Paine wrote a book called “The Age of Reason” which basically tore Christianity a new anus. Even Jefferson wrote his own version of the Bible which kept only the moral teachings he felt were important. Let’s just say it’s a slim read.
Now Chuck Norris wants Bible taught as a mandatory class in all public schools. How about not. He should go back to doing what he knows best: cheesy television shows whose plots revolve around him roundhouse kicking some bad guy in the face.
The goal of science has alwys been to uncover the secrets of nature. This pursuit has, in the past, been the hobby of already rich men who did it out of sheer pleasure and curiosity. As the cost of conducting experiments have increased, however, a devil’s bargain was struck; science became increasingly about the ability to exploit discoveries for profit.
Many of us are unaware that in the late 90’s, a race was being fought between groups of scientists over the mapping of the human genome. One group was made up of scientists earnest about unlocking the secrets of DNA, wanting to share their data with the world. The other group was privately funded, and their interest was in the ability to use this information to establish patents on something most of us have taken for granted: our genetic information.
Because no one company was able to patent the human genome, companies have been busy patenting specific harmful anomalies in our genome that cause illnesses. Genetic Technologies in Australia managed to be issued a patent for a very specific form of epilepsy, which causes Dravet Syndrome. Because the company owns the patent, hospitals are not allowed to conduct any test for this specific type of epilepsy, for fear of being sued by the patent holders. To bypass this patent, hospitals are sending off samples to hospitals in other countries for testing if their symptoms resemble Dravet Syndrome, but they are not allowed to do any of these tests in house.
There’s apparently some debate raging as to what the ethical implications of patenting genetic sequences in any living organism, but it’s becoming obvious that the debate is just a smoke screen. There should be no debate over whether human being should be allowed to develop treatments and cures for diseases that cause misery, pain and death. Genetic Technologies refusal to allow testing is due to their fear that other companies will discover some new way of combating Dravet syndrome and that their investment might be threatened by it. There is no clearer example of placing profits over people. It doesn’t help that the victims in this circumstance are children that are not properly diagnosed.
We are just now beginning to see the effects of these ridiculous patent laws. Research will continue to suffer so long as these patent trolls seek to endlessly control the flow of innovation and ideas. That any company could be so callous does not surprise me; what does is when we are silent partners in these travesties. Governments issue patents, but we in turn ARE the government. We seem to have forgotten this recently, and this may cost us dearly in the end.
In the past, I’ve been critical of a number of atheists who have discouraged me from participating and expanding a broader secular movement. These “naysayers” now have a name, according to Austin Cline. These are “Uncle Tom Atheists”, and they are, apparently, a big problem.
I’d like to start by pointing out how terribly insulting that phrase is. I’m not black, but I have many friends who are, and this moniker has and dark history in America. It symbolizes a divide in the African American community that discourages integration, and suggests that there is only a strict set of behaviors that a black person should obey in order to “keep it real”. Ralph Nader called Barak Obama an Uncle Tom even before he’s taken one foot into the white house. Using the phrase is just another way of criticizing someone who will not support your cause, and whom you believe has betrayed your own values. My message to Cline is simple: stop using words you do not fully understand.
I’m not always pleased that many atheists choose appeasement with religion over confrontation, but I cannot blame them for their choice. We live in a largely religious world, and not everyone is equipped to pick up arms and ready for battle. Some just want to be left alone, and why shouldn’t they? There is nothing in the rule book of atheism that forces all card carrying member to act as representatives of the movement.
In my time managing the site and recording the radio show, I’ve talked to a number of different atheists about the future of secularism. Although many admitted that they felt that religion was getting a disproportional amount of attention and special treatment, it didn’t significantly impact their lives enough to make it an issue. One compared it to being single and working at a company with a bunch of people with families; sometimes you work late and they get to leave early because they have kids. Yeah, it’s unfair, but you still have a fucking good job, and you don’t feel like rocking the boat.
The livelihood of some can be threatened by their beliefs. That I kick up a dirt storm in a shitty blog does nothing to get them these lost opportunities back. Turning around and insulted them for choosing appeasement over segregation would add only insult to injury.
I almost feel that Austin wants a “them vs us” world, where rational discussion and worrying about the feelings and hopes of other human beings are regarded as betrayal to the cause. What cause is worth fighting for when some want to throw other members under a bus for simply not seeing atheism the same way they do?
I for one would not be fighting for atheism if it didn’t embody the principles of compassion and tolerance associated with humanism. Obviously, the fact that I do fight against the injustice of religion does not mean that I am an Uncle Tom for not wanting my healthy relationship with my religious friends to be maintained. We should fight the urge to put labels on people as easily as our theist counterparts have done in the past. I personally find Cline’s arguments divisive, insulting, and bigoted, and I urge people not to use his new nomenclature.
