Tuesday, January 08, 2008
Deep Thought of the Day
Just think: Had things gone better in Florida in 2000, we'd probably be talking about how Lieberman would be the obvious winner in New Hampshire tonight. And we'd probably be pretty depressed about it.
Monday, January 07, 2008
Taxing Woes
If I was taxed $1000 on my income, I would try to earn less income and close my business. But if I was taxed $1000 on my spending, I would try to spend less (though my business will spend even more). Sure, it may be the same $1000, but at least it would feel better. After all, it's the thought that counts. Not the money. I don't care how much I pay in taxes. I just want to make sure I pay it in the right way.
Sunday, January 06, 2008
Lessons in Cynicism
Via Talking Points, I just read a blogpost from Gary Langer, ABC News' pollster and supposedly "the first and only pollster to win a News Emmy." He writes of Hillary's chief strategist Mark Penn's memo denouncing the Des Moines Register's poll which accurately predicted Obama's win in Iowa.
As Langer wrote (emphasis added):
The criticism of DMR's work was out of line – but we didn’t learn how far out of line until this morning. On the press plane flying from Iowa to New Hampshire, our off-air reporter Eloise Harper reports, “Mark Penn admitted to knowing that the trend was shifting towards Obama this past week.”
That means that at the very moment Penn was accusing the Des Moines Register of producing unreliable data, and saying it was Clinton who had the momentum, he knew otherwise.
The lesson in all this is less about Mr. Penn, and more about political campaigns. They are focused, admirably perhaps, on winning. What they’ll say to get there needs, always, to be taken with a grain of salt. Or maybe a five-pound bag.
Is he fucking serious? This is a lesson learned? What's next? Will Langer give us the scoop on how it turns out that used car salesmen aren't entirely trustworthy, or how advertisements sometimes tout product benefits which aren't always beneficial? Somebody get this man a subscription to Consumer Reports. And what's pathetic is that this is the kind of lesson that Langer and his cohorts will keep "learning" every time they actually can prove a campaign was lying to them, and yet he'll still put some merit into what these people tell him.
And even then, this should clearly be a strong lesson about how Mark Penn is a liar and should never be trusted for a long time. I'm sorry, that is how this works. You should always be cynical regarding any unsubstantiated claim made by anyone with a vested interest, and should blacklist those who get caught in outright lies. That's just a no-brainer. If you don't like to be fooled, don't trust people whose job it is to fool you, and don't listen to people who have been caught fooling you. No wonder the Bushies were allowed to destroy our country as they have.
P.S. If you feel that you need to vomit but can't quite get the stomach acids moving upwards, I suggest reading the comment section on Mark Penn's memo. With comments like "EVERYONE KEEP BUSY, KEEP POSITIVE AND KEEP "SMILING" GO HILLARY !" it's obvious that these people believe in mystical thinking. And what's really sad is that all of those people sound like they don't really mean a word of what they're saying, and are just faking it in hopes of fooling the momentum fairies. These are the words of people who want to project positive thoughts, rather than of people who truly are positive. And why was the word "SMILING" in quotes? It's as if they're admitting that the smiles aren't real.
Even worse, I have a strong suspicion that at least a few of these comments are faked; if not all of them. Hell, I'd actually feel better about Hillary to know that her supporters aren't the complete dittoheads they sound like from those comments. Some of them sound quite unhinged in their support. So I'll assume the best of Hillary and that these were overly enthusiastic staffers and not actually people representing their real opinions. The alternative is much too frightening.
As Langer wrote (emphasis added):
The criticism of DMR's work was out of line – but we didn’t learn how far out of line until this morning. On the press plane flying from Iowa to New Hampshire, our off-air reporter Eloise Harper reports, “Mark Penn admitted to knowing that the trend was shifting towards Obama this past week.”
That means that at the very moment Penn was accusing the Des Moines Register of producing unreliable data, and saying it was Clinton who had the momentum, he knew otherwise.
The lesson in all this is less about Mr. Penn, and more about political campaigns. They are focused, admirably perhaps, on winning. What they’ll say to get there needs, always, to be taken with a grain of salt. Or maybe a five-pound bag.
Is he fucking serious? This is a lesson learned? What's next? Will Langer give us the scoop on how it turns out that used car salesmen aren't entirely trustworthy, or how advertisements sometimes tout product benefits which aren't always beneficial? Somebody get this man a subscription to Consumer Reports. And what's pathetic is that this is the kind of lesson that Langer and his cohorts will keep "learning" every time they actually can prove a campaign was lying to them, and yet he'll still put some merit into what these people tell him.
And even then, this should clearly be a strong lesson about how Mark Penn is a liar and should never be trusted for a long time. I'm sorry, that is how this works. You should always be cynical regarding any unsubstantiated claim made by anyone with a vested interest, and should blacklist those who get caught in outright lies. That's just a no-brainer. If you don't like to be fooled, don't trust people whose job it is to fool you, and don't listen to people who have been caught fooling you. No wonder the Bushies were allowed to destroy our country as they have.
P.S. If you feel that you need to vomit but can't quite get the stomach acids moving upwards, I suggest reading the comment section on Mark Penn's memo. With comments like "EVERYONE KEEP BUSY, KEEP POSITIVE AND KEEP "SMILING" GO HILLARY !" it's obvious that these people believe in mystical thinking. And what's really sad is that all of those people sound like they don't really mean a word of what they're saying, and are just faking it in hopes of fooling the momentum fairies. These are the words of people who want to project positive thoughts, rather than of people who truly are positive. And why was the word "SMILING" in quotes? It's as if they're admitting that the smiles aren't real.
Even worse, I have a strong suspicion that at least a few of these comments are faked; if not all of them. Hell, I'd actually feel better about Hillary to know that her supporters aren't the complete dittoheads they sound like from those comments. Some of them sound quite unhinged in their support. So I'll assume the best of Hillary and that these were overly enthusiastic staffers and not actually people representing their real opinions. The alternative is much too frightening.
Saturday, January 05, 2008
Power of the Media
I'm not sure how this happened, but I think I just elected Michael Bloomberg to President, while Rudy Giuliani got Cheney's position and John McCain became VP. I am so sorry. I just wanted another glass of wine. Oh well, I guess I can always fix this in four years.
Friday, January 04, 2008
Victory in Iowa
I would just like to thank all of you little people out there for making my stirring tenth place comeback surprise victory in Iowa possible. Some people said it couldn't be done, simply because I've never been to Iowa and probably couldn't locate it on a map of Iowa. But through your hard work and perseverance, I am now the clear winner of Thursday Night's Iowa Caucus. And I owe it all to you.
Sure, I might not have charted as high as some of the sixth-tier candidates like Gravel, Sharpton, and Dole, but they actually had some form of operational campaign at some point in their lives and people had heard of them. And sure, I actually did worse than the misspellings of some of the third-tier candidates like Boden and Brichardson. But the fact that I placed just a few percentage points behind some of my more esteemed colleagues, if only within my own mind, is clearly a good sign of times to come and enough for me to declare this the most lopsided victory since the Germans took Poland.
So now it's off to New Hampshire, another place I couldn't locate on a map. In fact, I'm not even sure where Old Hampshire is, or if it even exists. But no matter. Tonight's victory clearly surpassed the exceedingly low expectations I set for myself and my advisers tell me that I'm now well positioned to slingshot right passed all of my competitors and might even make it into the realm of fifth-tier candidates, like Kucinich and Nader by some time next year. Remember, politics is all about perceptions and expectation management, and sometimes, the best possible way to win is to come in dead last, even if that means you got fewer votes than a misspelling of your own name.
Update: TBN just reported that I have now dropped out of the race and have thrown my support towards Jesse "The Body" Ventura's candidacy in Honduras. Damn, and I thought my campaign was doing better than ever. Politics is hard.
Late Update: I have just received news that I have not dropped out of the race, and that TBN has not, in fact, ever heard of me. I repeat: I have not dropped out of the race. That means that all of you supporters currently in-flight to Honduras are going to have to figure out some way of getting back home. Might I suggest asking your flight attendant for parachutes and perhaps a map of the local terrain. I am completely unfamiliar with where Honduras might be, though I suspect it might be somewhere between Iowa and New Hampshire. So my advice to you would be to try facing Iowa and then turning right. The worst that can happen is that you'd be abducted by a tribe of cannibalistic sex-fiends who keep you alive while they slowly harvest your body parts and rape your orifices with fiery chili peppers covered in fire ants. But at least you'll have died for a good cause, which is more than the other Biobrain Political Martyrs can say; most of whom died from a nasty bacterial infection on the Biobrain 2008 Glorious Victory Bus when I left the mayo out all day as an object lesson in perseverance. That was just a horrible, horrible mistake that I really should have stopped repeating a lot sooner. In contrast, your deaths will be quite sensible and necessary. So at least you've got that going for you. Good luck and don't forget to tuck and roll upon landing.
Sure, I might not have charted as high as some of the sixth-tier candidates like Gravel, Sharpton, and Dole, but they actually had some form of operational campaign at some point in their lives and people had heard of them. And sure, I actually did worse than the misspellings of some of the third-tier candidates like Boden and Brichardson. But the fact that I placed just a few percentage points behind some of my more esteemed colleagues, if only within my own mind, is clearly a good sign of times to come and enough for me to declare this the most lopsided victory since the Germans took Poland.
So now it's off to New Hampshire, another place I couldn't locate on a map. In fact, I'm not even sure where Old Hampshire is, or if it even exists. But no matter. Tonight's victory clearly surpassed the exceedingly low expectations I set for myself and my advisers tell me that I'm now well positioned to slingshot right passed all of my competitors and might even make it into the realm of fifth-tier candidates, like Kucinich and Nader by some time next year. Remember, politics is all about perceptions and expectation management, and sometimes, the best possible way to win is to come in dead last, even if that means you got fewer votes than a misspelling of your own name.
Update: TBN just reported that I have now dropped out of the race and have thrown my support towards Jesse "The Body" Ventura's candidacy in Honduras. Damn, and I thought my campaign was doing better than ever. Politics is hard.
Late Update: I have just received news that I have not dropped out of the race, and that TBN has not, in fact, ever heard of me. I repeat: I have not dropped out of the race. That means that all of you supporters currently in-flight to Honduras are going to have to figure out some way of getting back home. Might I suggest asking your flight attendant for parachutes and perhaps a map of the local terrain. I am completely unfamiliar with where Honduras might be, though I suspect it might be somewhere between Iowa and New Hampshire. So my advice to you would be to try facing Iowa and then turning right. The worst that can happen is that you'd be abducted by a tribe of cannibalistic sex-fiends who keep you alive while they slowly harvest your body parts and rape your orifices with fiery chili peppers covered in fire ants. But at least you'll have died for a good cause, which is more than the other Biobrain Political Martyrs can say; most of whom died from a nasty bacterial infection on the Biobrain 2008 Glorious Victory Bus when I left the mayo out all day as an object lesson in perseverance. That was just a horrible, horrible mistake that I really should have stopped repeating a lot sooner. In contrast, your deaths will be quite sensible and necessary. So at least you've got that going for you. Good luck and don't forget to tuck and roll upon landing.
Thursday, January 03, 2008
BIOBRAIN DEFEATS IOWA
You need to disbelieve every poll you've seen thus far. Trust me when I say that I will win both the Democratic and Republican caucuses in Iowa tonight, as well as being voted Farmer of the Year. I've got the real numbers. It's a slam dunk.
Polls are for idiots; unless they're my polls.
Polls are for idiots; unless they're my polls.
Wednesday, January 02, 2008
Political Convictions
There's this idea that it is admirable for people to have strong convictions, no matter what those convictions are. An example of this (and what got me thinking about this in the first place) are liberals who say they don't agree with Ron Paul, but like that he's standing firm on his convictions. As if strong convictions are automatically a good thing.
But that's idiotic. Racists have strong convictions. Hitler and Stalin had strong convictions. The Spanish Inquisitors had strong convictions. In fact, I suspect that almost all of the worst people in history had strong convictions. So tell me, what's so admirable about any of these people? Particularly once you realize that they all thought they were doing the right thing. Hitler and Stalin didn't start killing people because it polled well. They firmly believed in what they were doing. Strong convictions didn't help these people at all. In fact, it was the strength of their convictions that got these villains in trouble in the first place. So what's so great about that?
That isn't to suggest that I think wishy-washy zombies are always preferable to those with convictions. But when it comes to a wishy-washy person versus a person with firm convictions that I strongly disagree with, I'll go for the wishy-washy person every time. To be honest, I'd sort of prefer a wishy-washy person over anyone I even mildly disagree with. Because I've got pretty strong convictions of what life's about and what we need to do to make it better; so anyone with a firm conviction to stop me is clearly going to mess me up. I'd much rather be able to persuade someone than be opposed by them. That's not to say I think it'd be good if everyone agreed with me, but...
And sure, if you're a reader of this site, you'd probably prefer a Democratic politician who stands firm with his convictions, but what about a Republican? I don't know about you, but I'd much rather see a President Romney than a President Gingrich. Because Romney will want to remain popular and will adopt whatever position he needs to do so; while Gingrich will pull a Bush and do whatever the hell he wants, popularity be damned. Heck, a President Giuliani scares me most of all. While he only has one conviction, it's that he deserves more power and attention, and nothing will dissuade him of that.
Open-Mindeder Than Thou
And the basic premise behind the people who admire strong convictions is that they're more open-minded than the rest of us, and therefore more intelligent. Because they're willing to listen to people they disagree with. But that's totally bogus. Because first off, I have no problem with listening to people I disagree with. But that doesn't mean I'll admire them. And if I think they're crazy, I'll say they're crazy, no matter how firm their convictions are.
And secondly, these people are not actually listening to these people they supposedly admire. They're just paying lip service. For as much as they pretend as if they're hoisting the message over the man, they're doing the exact opposite. They find people that they personally like, and completely ignore what the person stands for. They think this makes them high-minded, but it just makes them dopes.
This is how Bush got into office: Thanks to lots of people who disagreed with the conservative agenda but admired Bush for being a "straight-talker." But as we all know, that was a joke. Not only was he not being straight, he was always being coached on what he was going to talk about in the first place.
Beyond that, the concept of the "straight-talker" is still clearly screwed up. It's supposed to mean that you're a truth teller. But as we've seen, Republicans don't believe in truth. Not objective truth, anyway. To them, truth is whatever they want the truth to be. And you score "straight-talker" points if you're willing to say certain things that aren't considered politically correct. Yet...they keep scoring political points when they do so.
And whenever a politician says anything that is truly politically incorrect (ie, it hurts them politically), it's not called straight-talk; it's called a gaffe. In fact, I'm continually amazed at how well some people do politically by saying things that are politically "incorrect". The rule of thumb is: If it helped you win the election, it was politically correct. Or at least it should be, if these people knew what they were talking about.
Brave Flip-Floppers
And then there was the case of George Bush Sr. breaking his election pledge to not raise taxes. Politically, it was a huge mistake and might have cost him the election. But it was a good policy because we needed the money. And hindsight showed us clearly that these tax increases did not cripple the economy as we were told they were. So by breaking his promise, he took the risky action, but did the right thing.
And we see the same thing now. Bush Jr. has always stated that taxes hurt the economy, and he probably believes it. But whether or not he wanted to raise taxes, it would hurt him politically. Even now, Republicans taunt Democrats with a "tax-and-spend" label, while our national debt continues to spiral out of control. I'm not sure why people imagine that it's always brave to stand by one's convictions, but that is clearly an absurdity. Sometimes, standing by one's convictions is the cowardly thing to do. It just depends on what the convictions are.
Similarly, we wouldn't even be talking about Ron Paul if he hadn't "bravely" kept repeating the same conservative lines that most conservatives have long since abandoned. But what has this bravery cost him? People act as if his convictions are hurting his presidential aspirations; but it's the exact opposite. He'd be completely ignored were he a loyal Bushie and he wouldn't even be running for president. Sure, his "convictions" hurt him with a majority of Americans, as well as the MSM. But for the segment of the electorate he's wooing, it would destroy him to do anything different.
So what exactly is so brave about doing the thing that helps you most? Same thing with Mike Huckabee and his open references to Jesus. How are "convictions" distinguishable from political gambits when they serve the same purpose? These people have their small group of followers and they'd risk political disaster if they abandoned the "convictions" that got them those followers. Hell, that's even the same boat Bush is in. He can never gain back the 70% of people who disapprove of him, so if he abandons the war, he'll just lose everyone else.
As with these other men of conviction, Bush's convictions coincidentally also happen to help him politically. But the cynic in me says this isn't a coincidence. Bush, Huckabee, and Paul will never state convictions that go against their core followers. That's not necessarily to say there's anything wrong with what they're doing. But it's obvious that "bravery" really isn't the proper word here. As I said, the worst thing Ron Paul could do would be to start mimicking the other Republicans.
Overriding Convictions
And what's so great about a politician installing his vision on us, if it's not the vision we want? People act as if this is some sort of elective dictatorship. As if we're electing leaders who will guide us for a certain number of years. But it's not. It's a representative democracy. They're working for us. They're supposed to do what we want. They're not our leaders any more than a CEO is the leader of the shareholders who hired him.
That's not to say politicians should change their policies with every poll result (which is clearly a strawman, as even poll-driven politicians don't actually do that), but when the polls repeatedly tell them that we want something different than what they're giving us, they should give us what we want. I don't care what they promised during the election. Times change. Policies should change too.
And strong convictions can completely get in the way of that. It was good for America that George Bush I broke his promise and raised taxes, and it's horrible that George Bush II hasn't. And if I was elected president and realized that some of my liberal plans wouldn't work, I'd be a fool to not back down from them. We're hiring administrators, not fucking psychics. I don't want some dude who can accurately predict America's needs eight years into the future. I want a dude who can understand what America needs from this moment forward.
And the big question is: Will these people let their "convictions" overrule commonsense? If they start to get some sense that their policies are wrong, will they back down? Or will they continue to plow ahead in their own self-righteousness? Again, I'll take a President Romney over a President Gingrich anytime. And if a President Obama or Clinton or Edwards or whoever finds themselves in a spot where their liberal convictions prevent them from taking a wiser course of action, I want them to lose those convictions immediately.
Sure, convictions are a good thing to have, but they're not a death pact. We need to keep our options open. Again, we're hiring administrators; not dictators or psychics. It's ok for them to re-evaluate a situation and change course.
But that's idiotic. Racists have strong convictions. Hitler and Stalin had strong convictions. The Spanish Inquisitors had strong convictions. In fact, I suspect that almost all of the worst people in history had strong convictions. So tell me, what's so admirable about any of these people? Particularly once you realize that they all thought they were doing the right thing. Hitler and Stalin didn't start killing people because it polled well. They firmly believed in what they were doing. Strong convictions didn't help these people at all. In fact, it was the strength of their convictions that got these villains in trouble in the first place. So what's so great about that?
That isn't to suggest that I think wishy-washy zombies are always preferable to those with convictions. But when it comes to a wishy-washy person versus a person with firm convictions that I strongly disagree with, I'll go for the wishy-washy person every time. To be honest, I'd sort of prefer a wishy-washy person over anyone I even mildly disagree with. Because I've got pretty strong convictions of what life's about and what we need to do to make it better; so anyone with a firm conviction to stop me is clearly going to mess me up. I'd much rather be able to persuade someone than be opposed by them. That's not to say I think it'd be good if everyone agreed with me, but...
And sure, if you're a reader of this site, you'd probably prefer a Democratic politician who stands firm with his convictions, but what about a Republican? I don't know about you, but I'd much rather see a President Romney than a President Gingrich. Because Romney will want to remain popular and will adopt whatever position he needs to do so; while Gingrich will pull a Bush and do whatever the hell he wants, popularity be damned. Heck, a President Giuliani scares me most of all. While he only has one conviction, it's that he deserves more power and attention, and nothing will dissuade him of that.
Open-Mindeder Than Thou
And the basic premise behind the people who admire strong convictions is that they're more open-minded than the rest of us, and therefore more intelligent. Because they're willing to listen to people they disagree with. But that's totally bogus. Because first off, I have no problem with listening to people I disagree with. But that doesn't mean I'll admire them. And if I think they're crazy, I'll say they're crazy, no matter how firm their convictions are.
And secondly, these people are not actually listening to these people they supposedly admire. They're just paying lip service. For as much as they pretend as if they're hoisting the message over the man, they're doing the exact opposite. They find people that they personally like, and completely ignore what the person stands for. They think this makes them high-minded, but it just makes them dopes.
This is how Bush got into office: Thanks to lots of people who disagreed with the conservative agenda but admired Bush for being a "straight-talker." But as we all know, that was a joke. Not only was he not being straight, he was always being coached on what he was going to talk about in the first place.
Beyond that, the concept of the "straight-talker" is still clearly screwed up. It's supposed to mean that you're a truth teller. But as we've seen, Republicans don't believe in truth. Not objective truth, anyway. To them, truth is whatever they want the truth to be. And you score "straight-talker" points if you're willing to say certain things that aren't considered politically correct. Yet...they keep scoring political points when they do so.
And whenever a politician says anything that is truly politically incorrect (ie, it hurts them politically), it's not called straight-talk; it's called a gaffe. In fact, I'm continually amazed at how well some people do politically by saying things that are politically "incorrect". The rule of thumb is: If it helped you win the election, it was politically correct. Or at least it should be, if these people knew what they were talking about.
Brave Flip-Floppers
And then there was the case of George Bush Sr. breaking his election pledge to not raise taxes. Politically, it was a huge mistake and might have cost him the election. But it was a good policy because we needed the money. And hindsight showed us clearly that these tax increases did not cripple the economy as we were told they were. So by breaking his promise, he took the risky action, but did the right thing.
And we see the same thing now. Bush Jr. has always stated that taxes hurt the economy, and he probably believes it. But whether or not he wanted to raise taxes, it would hurt him politically. Even now, Republicans taunt Democrats with a "tax-and-spend" label, while our national debt continues to spiral out of control. I'm not sure why people imagine that it's always brave to stand by one's convictions, but that is clearly an absurdity. Sometimes, standing by one's convictions is the cowardly thing to do. It just depends on what the convictions are.
Similarly, we wouldn't even be talking about Ron Paul if he hadn't "bravely" kept repeating the same conservative lines that most conservatives have long since abandoned. But what has this bravery cost him? People act as if his convictions are hurting his presidential aspirations; but it's the exact opposite. He'd be completely ignored were he a loyal Bushie and he wouldn't even be running for president. Sure, his "convictions" hurt him with a majority of Americans, as well as the MSM. But for the segment of the electorate he's wooing, it would destroy him to do anything different.
So what exactly is so brave about doing the thing that helps you most? Same thing with Mike Huckabee and his open references to Jesus. How are "convictions" distinguishable from political gambits when they serve the same purpose? These people have their small group of followers and they'd risk political disaster if they abandoned the "convictions" that got them those followers. Hell, that's even the same boat Bush is in. He can never gain back the 70% of people who disapprove of him, so if he abandons the war, he'll just lose everyone else.
As with these other men of conviction, Bush's convictions coincidentally also happen to help him politically. But the cynic in me says this isn't a coincidence. Bush, Huckabee, and Paul will never state convictions that go against their core followers. That's not necessarily to say there's anything wrong with what they're doing. But it's obvious that "bravery" really isn't the proper word here. As I said, the worst thing Ron Paul could do would be to start mimicking the other Republicans.
Overriding Convictions
And what's so great about a politician installing his vision on us, if it's not the vision we want? People act as if this is some sort of elective dictatorship. As if we're electing leaders who will guide us for a certain number of years. But it's not. It's a representative democracy. They're working for us. They're supposed to do what we want. They're not our leaders any more than a CEO is the leader of the shareholders who hired him.
That's not to say politicians should change their policies with every poll result (which is clearly a strawman, as even poll-driven politicians don't actually do that), but when the polls repeatedly tell them that we want something different than what they're giving us, they should give us what we want. I don't care what they promised during the election. Times change. Policies should change too.
And strong convictions can completely get in the way of that. It was good for America that George Bush I broke his promise and raised taxes, and it's horrible that George Bush II hasn't. And if I was elected president and realized that some of my liberal plans wouldn't work, I'd be a fool to not back down from them. We're hiring administrators, not fucking psychics. I don't want some dude who can accurately predict America's needs eight years into the future. I want a dude who can understand what America needs from this moment forward.
And the big question is: Will these people let their "convictions" overrule commonsense? If they start to get some sense that their policies are wrong, will they back down? Or will they continue to plow ahead in their own self-righteousness? Again, I'll take a President Romney over a President Gingrich anytime. And if a President Obama or Clinton or Edwards or whoever finds themselves in a spot where their liberal convictions prevent them from taking a wiser course of action, I want them to lose those convictions immediately.
Sure, convictions are a good thing to have, but they're not a death pact. We need to keep our options open. Again, we're hiring administrators; not dictators or psychics. It's ok for them to re-evaluate a situation and change course.
Tuesday, January 01, 2008
Jay Leno in a New Year
Wow. I just happened to catch Jay Leno after the 2008 New Year festivities on NBC (I'm guessing it was pre-recorded, though I don't really know what I was watching), and I swear, he really looked drunk and fucking stupid. Or seriously drugged. Or something. He's not looking right and it looks intentional. It's as if he knows that the only one watching his show is your grandmother's aunt and it's really starting to weigh on him. I really don't think he cares anymore. It's bad enough that I'm starting to feel guilty and think I should start watching his show...if only it wasn't featuring a dude whose soul was sucked out by your grandmother's aunt. All the same, I really feel bad for him.
On a separate but related note, pop culture makes me die inside. I understand why we have it, but all the same, it's really destroying us. And even more so, it's killing Jay Leno. That dude needs a real dose of reality, pronto. Whether or not he gives a shit, he really looks like he doesn't. And if things keep going as they are, that's how everyone else will look too. So let's pray for a new year. I liked the last one alright, but we really are in desperate need for something completely different than what we've seen thus far. Perhaps one without all the idiots. A boy can dream.
On a separate but related note, pop culture makes me die inside. I understand why we have it, but all the same, it's really destroying us. And even more so, it's killing Jay Leno. That dude needs a real dose of reality, pronto. Whether or not he gives a shit, he really looks like he doesn't. And if things keep going as they are, that's how everyone else will look too. So let's pray for a new year. I liked the last one alright, but we really are in desperate need for something completely different than what we've seen thus far. Perhaps one without all the idiots. A boy can dream.
Monday, December 31, 2007
Happy New Year, Y'all
Get drunk and do something stupid. And if you're like me and will be stuck at home for the evening, then just get stupid drunk. You deserve it.
FYI: 2008 will be my year, so don't even think it.
FYI: 2008 will be my year, so don't even think it.
Saturday, December 29, 2007
Friday, December 28, 2007
Christmas Break Update
Fortunately, nothing's been happening in the news lately, so it's not such a biggie that I've been taking a few days off from my typically grueling schedule of almost daily blog posts. But don't worry. If anything important happens (ie, something that involves English-speaking people not currently running for president), you'll be the first to know. So you can go back to playing with all the cool gadgets you bought yourself after you discovered that nobody bought them for you.
Oh, and just an FYI for those of you who have been asking about it: My presidential exploratory committee is still going gangbusters and is currently polling in the top three in Iowa, New Hampshire, and half of the Super Duper Tuesday states. And so if everything goes as expected, it looks like I should be able to announce my presidential intentions some time in mid-April. Wish me luck and happy holidays!
Oh, and just an FYI for those of you who have been asking about it: My presidential exploratory committee is still going gangbusters and is currently polling in the top three in Iowa, New Hampshire, and half of the Super Duper Tuesday states. And so if everything goes as expected, it looks like I should be able to announce my presidential intentions some time in mid-April. Wish me luck and happy holidays!
Monday, December 24, 2007
Christmas: Not Just For Christians Anymore
What the heck does Christmas have to do with religion? I've never been particularly religious, even as a kid stuck going to church each Sunday; but Christmas has always been my favorite time of year. Sure, I know. The whole Jesus birthday thing. But I understand that most serious bible scholars don't think his birthday was actually in December at all. In fact, the whole nativity story is really quite suspect, and most likely was a later invention by early Christians as a way of giving a jazzed-up beginning to Jesus' otherwise inauspicious origins.
Besides, since when do you give presents to other people on someone's birthday? If it's a birthday celebration, you'd think Jesus would be the one getting all the presents. But no. On Christmas, everyone is expected to get a present, and Jesus doesn't even get a lousy t-shirt. I wonder if Yahweh sometimes regrets giving up on the whole animal sacrifice thing. Sure, getting a slaughtered goat isn't the best b-day present ever, but it's the thought that counts.
And beyond that, there are lots of civilizations that celebrate in late December. It's clearly a dreary time of year, what with the long nights and whatnot, and so people like to have something to be excited about. And that's why Christians picked Christmas time to be Christimastime. So they'd have a nice fancy holiday to get people jazzed about. I honestly find it a bit offensive that most Christians don't seem to know this. Even the ones who know this somehow keep forgetting about it.
So the idea that Christmas is somehow a religious holiday is entirely hogwash. If Christians want to celebrate Christmas as a religious holiday, that's fine by me. But it's not their holiday. Christmas is about Santa Claus and eggnog and Bing Crosby singing about his roasted chestnuts. And I don't see where religion fits in all that. Hell, they even give up the eternal damnation stuff, at least as far as scaring kids go. Santa's the chief god in December.
For the record, while Santa has always left presents and candy for my kids, we generally eschew the whole "naughty/nice" angle. After all, kids will be kids, and it's a lot more pleasant to spend Christmas Day watching them open their presents than standing in the return line at the North Pole. Come to think of it, if I'm forgiving enough to help my kids deceive Santa into giving them presents each year, how could a loving god allow me to be doomed in Hell; all due to a misunderstanding that is clearly his fault? Sorry, but I'm just not buying it.
Oh, and if you're interested, it looks like the Archbishop of Canterbury just called bull on the whole Three Wise Men story, as well as the rest of the nativity scene and the December birth. Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?
Merry Christmas, Y'all!
Besides, since when do you give presents to other people on someone's birthday? If it's a birthday celebration, you'd think Jesus would be the one getting all the presents. But no. On Christmas, everyone is expected to get a present, and Jesus doesn't even get a lousy t-shirt. I wonder if Yahweh sometimes regrets giving up on the whole animal sacrifice thing. Sure, getting a slaughtered goat isn't the best b-day present ever, but it's the thought that counts.
And beyond that, there are lots of civilizations that celebrate in late December. It's clearly a dreary time of year, what with the long nights and whatnot, and so people like to have something to be excited about. And that's why Christians picked Christmas time to be Christimastime. So they'd have a nice fancy holiday to get people jazzed about. I honestly find it a bit offensive that most Christians don't seem to know this. Even the ones who know this somehow keep forgetting about it.
So the idea that Christmas is somehow a religious holiday is entirely hogwash. If Christians want to celebrate Christmas as a religious holiday, that's fine by me. But it's not their holiday. Christmas is about Santa Claus and eggnog and Bing Crosby singing about his roasted chestnuts. And I don't see where religion fits in all that. Hell, they even give up the eternal damnation stuff, at least as far as scaring kids go. Santa's the chief god in December.
For the record, while Santa has always left presents and candy for my kids, we generally eschew the whole "naughty/nice" angle. After all, kids will be kids, and it's a lot more pleasant to spend Christmas Day watching them open their presents than standing in the return line at the North Pole. Come to think of it, if I'm forgiving enough to help my kids deceive Santa into giving them presents each year, how could a loving god allow me to be doomed in Hell; all due to a misunderstanding that is clearly his fault? Sorry, but I'm just not buying it.
Oh, and if you're interested, it looks like the Archbishop of Canterbury just called bull on the whole Three Wise Men story, as well as the rest of the nativity scene and the December birth. Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?
Merry Christmas, Y'all!
Atheist Weirdness
I had a bunch of good stuff I wanted to write regarding what I wrote in comments on this Matthew Yglesias post on religion. But that was earlier in the day and that train of thought got derailed. Oh well, it was pretty good, if I remember correctly. You can search out all the stuff I wrote, if you're interested. It was basically about how weird some atheists are towards religion. I personally find religion interesting as a thought experiment and don't understand why some people are so hostile to it.
And the thing is, the "big A" Atheism position really is faith-based. You simply cannot disprove the existence of God or even take a stab at the likelihood of his existence. It's just impossible. And as I said in comments there, science can't answer religious questions any more than religion can answer science questions. These are just two completley unrelated fields, and if science can answer the question, it's no longer a question of religion.
And it's obvious that they have a big problem with the concept of "faith," with several atheists there insisting that faith requires proof...or something like that, I just couldn't understand it. I mean, if you've got proof, then it's not faith. I don't see what's so confusing about this. But as one commenter wrote "That's neither faith nor belief. That's dilletantism." I am unfamilar with that last word.
And another weird thing is how they can insist that gods don't exist. How the hell do they know? To make a claim like that requires proof, and as they already know, you can't prove a negative. Now, in their minds, they seem to think this gets them off the hook, as if they no longer have to prove that gods don't exist and that they automatically win the debate unless Christians can prove their god exists. But they don't. In fact, it means they don't get to make those claims at all. If you can't prove your claim, then it's not fact-based. And that's particularly true if you're making a claim that can't be proven.
And that goes for belief in gods or pink unicorns or the tiny blackhole I use to clean out my fingernails. If you can't prove that something doesn't exist, you don't get to claim that it doesn't exist. It's that simple. The rules of science just can't be used in the way these people want to. And as I said, science cannot be used to answer religious questions. Science is stuck working with the things we know and can't answer the things that aren't knowable. And once you start theorizing about a being that can do anything, all bets are off.
And the worst part is that they clearly don't know what Christians really believe, and seem to believe that most Christians are fundamentalists who only accept a literal interpretation of the bible. One guy refused to believe that Catholics had accepted evolution until I quoted Pope Ratzinger saying he does; yet the Catholics accepted evolution awhile ago. These people are waging a war that they don't even understand.
Anyway, you get the idea. I had meant to write a full post on the subject, but this is the best you get. Sorry.
And the thing is, the "big A" Atheism position really is faith-based. You simply cannot disprove the existence of God or even take a stab at the likelihood of his existence. It's just impossible. And as I said in comments there, science can't answer religious questions any more than religion can answer science questions. These are just two completley unrelated fields, and if science can answer the question, it's no longer a question of religion.
And it's obvious that they have a big problem with the concept of "faith," with several atheists there insisting that faith requires proof...or something like that, I just couldn't understand it. I mean, if you've got proof, then it's not faith. I don't see what's so confusing about this. But as one commenter wrote "That's neither faith nor belief. That's dilletantism." I am unfamilar with that last word.
And another weird thing is how they can insist that gods don't exist. How the hell do they know? To make a claim like that requires proof, and as they already know, you can't prove a negative. Now, in their minds, they seem to think this gets them off the hook, as if they no longer have to prove that gods don't exist and that they automatically win the debate unless Christians can prove their god exists. But they don't. In fact, it means they don't get to make those claims at all. If you can't prove your claim, then it's not fact-based. And that's particularly true if you're making a claim that can't be proven.
And that goes for belief in gods or pink unicorns or the tiny blackhole I use to clean out my fingernails. If you can't prove that something doesn't exist, you don't get to claim that it doesn't exist. It's that simple. The rules of science just can't be used in the way these people want to. And as I said, science cannot be used to answer religious questions. Science is stuck working with the things we know and can't answer the things that aren't knowable. And once you start theorizing about a being that can do anything, all bets are off.
And the worst part is that they clearly don't know what Christians really believe, and seem to believe that most Christians are fundamentalists who only accept a literal interpretation of the bible. One guy refused to believe that Catholics had accepted evolution until I quoted Pope Ratzinger saying he does; yet the Catholics accepted evolution awhile ago. These people are waging a war that they don't even understand.
Anyway, you get the idea. I had meant to write a full post on the subject, but this is the best you get. Sorry.
Sunday, December 23, 2007
Infinite Confusion
Disclaimer: This post isn't really finished. Yes, it has a beginning, middle, and end, but I still had more to say and wasn't quite sure about what I did say. But screw it. I haven't posted in days and I'm sure my loyal readers are starting to get a bit antsy about it. But just so you know, this post is NOT backed by my 100% accuracy guarantee. Sorry.
Conservatives have this weird idea that economic prosperity is infinite and that it is possible for everyone at any given time to be rich and prosperous, if only they worked hard enough and weren’t stifled by government regulations and taxes. And if that’s the case, then the only cure is to get rid of the government, and make sure that people have plenty of incentive to work hard.
And in the long term, they’re right. Economic growth is essentially infinite, particularly if the human race never ends. Even now our economy is doing better than previous generations could imagine. In 1972, the Dow Jones Index briefly broke the 1,000 mark for the first time. In 1995, it was considered a huge event when the Dow broke the 5,000 mark. Now, it’s considered a catastrophe if it goes below 10,000. In contrast, the Dow hit a high of 381 shortly before the Great Depression, which was clearly a huge bubble about to burst.
And this is real growth. This is an expansion of the basic economic picture. In other words, the pie got bigger. That’s not to say that everyone shared that pie growth equally; but it did get bigger.
But in any given economic picture, the pie is finite. If one person has more, someone else has less. It’s that simple. There’s only so much to go around, and everyone knows it. Unless, of course, they're conservatives. Because the conservatives' "free-market" solution only makes sense if they pretend the pie is always infinite. I put “free-market” in quotes because these people don’t really believe in a free-market any more than they believe that their right to kick me in the balls is equal to my right to kick theirs. They want to kick me in the balls with impunity. That’s their definition of free-market.
Wii Woes
I was thinking about this while reading a messageboard at Amazon.com regarding the Nintendo Wii. A year after introduction and the thing is still sold-out. But part of the problem is that professionals are swooping in and buying the things to sell at outrageous rates. And for as many people as there are complaining about it, there are just as many defending the practice.
But it’s ridiculous, as the defenders insist that it’s just a simple supply and demand issue. But it’s clearly not. Because the only reason the supply of these specific Wii’s is low is due entirely to these people who buy them with the intent of extorting higher prices out of the real buyers. Because every single one of the Wii’s that these guys sell was one that someone else wanted to buy at the regular price. And so by buying them first, they’re preventing the other person from buying it, and forcing them to buy it at a higher price.
Ticket scalpers do the same thing. They’re not providing a legitimate service. They’re thieves who force other people to pay a premium because they happened to get to the tickets before the other person could have. There is a one-for-one trade-off here and the scalper provides nothing but higher prices to the consumer. Perhaps these free-market gurus can understand how adding an extra layer of middleman aids the free-market’s efficiency, but I’m just not getting it.
I mean, how is this any different than if you went into a store, bought a Wii, and then had a bully take it out of your hands in the parking lot and insist that you pay $100 to get it back? The only distinction is a timing difference; one which I find meaningless. I believe there are laws preventing people from doing this kind of thing with real estate. And can you imagine the outrage these people would stir if the government created an agency that did nothing but buy rare products and sell them for inflated costs?
Middle-Men Markets
To the defenders of this practice, this is just standard free-markets. Yet it’s obvious that this is really a huge inefficiency with the markets. Doing a quick search on eBay shows that there are 20,892 Wii’s up for auction; 1,624 used and 18,615 new. And while it’s possible that at least a few of those are stolen or fraudulent, and that this only represents about 1% of the Wii’s manufactured each month, that’s still about 18,000 machines that should be in the hands of a consumer.
(Note these numbers were as of the date I wrote this, last week. I just checked and there are now only 4745 new Wii's for sale; suggesting that these pricks already cleared out their supply for Christmas. Either that, or they found out that ol' Biobrain was writing an exposé on their dastardly practices and they put themselves out of business.)
None of this is to suggest that we can do something to prevent these assholes from stealing this money. It’s just to say that the free-markets clearly have some inefficiencies in them and that most free-market gurus haven’t the slightest clue what they’re talking about. The fact that Mercedes can charge a fortune for a car makes sense to me. The fact that some people are stuck paying a 100% mark-up on a Nintendo Wii to a guy who happened to get lucky and buy up the supply at his store just sucks.
These guys aren’t helping solve a supply issue. They’re making it worse. And I say that, not just as a amateur economist who writes about how hard it is to buy a Wii, but also as someone who wants to buy one. And that’s all I really wanted to write about. If you’ve got a Wii you want to send my way before Christmas, you’re running out of time so hurry the fuck up. Thanks.
Conservatives have this weird idea that economic prosperity is infinite and that it is possible for everyone at any given time to be rich and prosperous, if only they worked hard enough and weren’t stifled by government regulations and taxes. And if that’s the case, then the only cure is to get rid of the government, and make sure that people have plenty of incentive to work hard.
And in the long term, they’re right. Economic growth is essentially infinite, particularly if the human race never ends. Even now our economy is doing better than previous generations could imagine. In 1972, the Dow Jones Index briefly broke the 1,000 mark for the first time. In 1995, it was considered a huge event when the Dow broke the 5,000 mark. Now, it’s considered a catastrophe if it goes below 10,000. In contrast, the Dow hit a high of 381 shortly before the Great Depression, which was clearly a huge bubble about to burst.
And this is real growth. This is an expansion of the basic economic picture. In other words, the pie got bigger. That’s not to say that everyone shared that pie growth equally; but it did get bigger.
But in any given economic picture, the pie is finite. If one person has more, someone else has less. It’s that simple. There’s only so much to go around, and everyone knows it. Unless, of course, they're conservatives. Because the conservatives' "free-market" solution only makes sense if they pretend the pie is always infinite. I put “free-market” in quotes because these people don’t really believe in a free-market any more than they believe that their right to kick me in the balls is equal to my right to kick theirs. They want to kick me in the balls with impunity. That’s their definition of free-market.
Wii Woes
I was thinking about this while reading a messageboard at Amazon.com regarding the Nintendo Wii. A year after introduction and the thing is still sold-out. But part of the problem is that professionals are swooping in and buying the things to sell at outrageous rates. And for as many people as there are complaining about it, there are just as many defending the practice.
But it’s ridiculous, as the defenders insist that it’s just a simple supply and demand issue. But it’s clearly not. Because the only reason the supply of these specific Wii’s is low is due entirely to these people who buy them with the intent of extorting higher prices out of the real buyers. Because every single one of the Wii’s that these guys sell was one that someone else wanted to buy at the regular price. And so by buying them first, they’re preventing the other person from buying it, and forcing them to buy it at a higher price.
Ticket scalpers do the same thing. They’re not providing a legitimate service. They’re thieves who force other people to pay a premium because they happened to get to the tickets before the other person could have. There is a one-for-one trade-off here and the scalper provides nothing but higher prices to the consumer. Perhaps these free-market gurus can understand how adding an extra layer of middleman aids the free-market’s efficiency, but I’m just not getting it.
I mean, how is this any different than if you went into a store, bought a Wii, and then had a bully take it out of your hands in the parking lot and insist that you pay $100 to get it back? The only distinction is a timing difference; one which I find meaningless. I believe there are laws preventing people from doing this kind of thing with real estate. And can you imagine the outrage these people would stir if the government created an agency that did nothing but buy rare products and sell them for inflated costs?
Middle-Men Markets
To the defenders of this practice, this is just standard free-markets. Yet it’s obvious that this is really a huge inefficiency with the markets. Doing a quick search on eBay shows that there are 20,892 Wii’s up for auction; 1,624 used and 18,615 new. And while it’s possible that at least a few of those are stolen or fraudulent, and that this only represents about 1% of the Wii’s manufactured each month, that’s still about 18,000 machines that should be in the hands of a consumer.
(Note these numbers were as of the date I wrote this, last week. I just checked and there are now only 4745 new Wii's for sale; suggesting that these pricks already cleared out their supply for Christmas. Either that, or they found out that ol' Biobrain was writing an exposé on their dastardly practices and they put themselves out of business.)
None of this is to suggest that we can do something to prevent these assholes from stealing this money. It’s just to say that the free-markets clearly have some inefficiencies in them and that most free-market gurus haven’t the slightest clue what they’re talking about. The fact that Mercedes can charge a fortune for a car makes sense to me. The fact that some people are stuck paying a 100% mark-up on a Nintendo Wii to a guy who happened to get lucky and buy up the supply at his store just sucks.
These guys aren’t helping solve a supply issue. They’re making it worse. And I say that, not just as a amateur economist who writes about how hard it is to buy a Wii, but also as someone who wants to buy one. And that’s all I really wanted to write about. If you’ve got a Wii you want to send my way before Christmas, you’re running out of time so hurry the fuck up. Thanks.
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Ratzinger's War on Personal Control
Well it looks like the Vatican feels it hasn't done enough to help the movie Golden Compass become a success, so it decided to write an editorial slamming the movie. And as we've seen in the past, there's no better way to get people to watch a movie than for a religious figure to say they shouldn't. Unfortunately, the makers of this film weren't smart enough to include any softcore sex scenes, which surely would have brought a papal condemnation worthy of an extra $20 million in business, at least. Better luck next time, heathens.
But this line from the editorial really caught my eye:
"In Pullman's world, hope simply does not exist, because there is no salvation but only personal, individualistic capacity to control the situation and dominate events."
Really? They're going to go with that? Catholics are now taking a firm stance against people dealing with their own problems, and are basing their protest on that? Ok. I think that would have been construed as an insult if an atheist had said it, but whatever. If Pope Ratzinger is really that intent on reversing the Catholic Church's war against irrelevancy, I guess that's his deal. Better to control a handful of sheep than corral a boatload of freethinkers, I suppose. But having personally seen how my parent's church is slowly starting to resemble an old folks home, I'm not convinced this is the best of strategies.
Anti-Christmas Film
Oh, and apparently they labeled this film "the most anti-Christmas film possible," which means they still haven't gotten around to watching the copy of my film "Death in the Manger" I sent them last Christmas. It's about how the Three Kings raped and murdered Mary and Joseph before slaughtering Baby Jesus and replacing him with the second king's halfwit nephew Curtis. Curtis then grows up, does all the stuff that Jesus did, but when it comes time for him to die on the cross, he says "Ha, just joking" and they let him down and have a good laugh. He then walks off and no one sees him again.
And because of that, Christianity never forms and the Roman empire continues to expand indefinitely until it reaches our level of technological sophistication nine hundred years earlier than we did. And then on Christmas Day, exactly two thousand years after Jesus was born, they figure out how to get to Heaven and destroy God with a weapon that we can't even imagine. And then everyone on earth has a massive orgy before blowing up the entire universe while grinning manically.
The movie ends with everyone being tortured by the Devil in Hell during the closing credits. At the very end, we see Curtis on the receiving end of a particularly horrible torture. He turns to the camera and says "But you know, it was worth it. It really was." He then starts yelling some more and the film ends.
Wow. I just came up with that as a joke for this post, but it's really not a bad movie idea. Particularly not if I can count on the Vatican's opposition, which I think I can. Now if I can only find some backers, it looks like I'm good to go. Heathen Hollywood, here I come!
But this line from the editorial really caught my eye:
"In Pullman's world, hope simply does not exist, because there is no salvation but only personal, individualistic capacity to control the situation and dominate events."
Really? They're going to go with that? Catholics are now taking a firm stance against people dealing with their own problems, and are basing their protest on that? Ok. I think that would have been construed as an insult if an atheist had said it, but whatever. If Pope Ratzinger is really that intent on reversing the Catholic Church's war against irrelevancy, I guess that's his deal. Better to control a handful of sheep than corral a boatload of freethinkers, I suppose. But having personally seen how my parent's church is slowly starting to resemble an old folks home, I'm not convinced this is the best of strategies.
Anti-Christmas Film
Oh, and apparently they labeled this film "the most anti-Christmas film possible," which means they still haven't gotten around to watching the copy of my film "Death in the Manger" I sent them last Christmas. It's about how the Three Kings raped and murdered Mary and Joseph before slaughtering Baby Jesus and replacing him with the second king's halfwit nephew Curtis. Curtis then grows up, does all the stuff that Jesus did, but when it comes time for him to die on the cross, he says "Ha, just joking" and they let him down and have a good laugh. He then walks off and no one sees him again.
And because of that, Christianity never forms and the Roman empire continues to expand indefinitely until it reaches our level of technological sophistication nine hundred years earlier than we did. And then on Christmas Day, exactly two thousand years after Jesus was born, they figure out how to get to Heaven and destroy God with a weapon that we can't even imagine. And then everyone on earth has a massive orgy before blowing up the entire universe while grinning manically.
The movie ends with everyone being tortured by the Devil in Hell during the closing credits. At the very end, we see Curtis on the receiving end of a particularly horrible torture. He turns to the camera and says "But you know, it was worth it. It really was." He then starts yelling some more and the film ends.
Wow. I just came up with that as a joke for this post, but it's really not a bad movie idea. Particularly not if I can count on the Vatican's opposition, which I think I can. Now if I can only find some backers, it looks like I'm good to go. Heathen Hollywood, here I come!
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Dodd for President
I normally don't do this kind of thing, but I strongly urge you to give money to Senator Dodd's presidential campaign for the work he did opposing the telecom immunity deal. I just gave money today, and would like to give more after I've finished all my Christmas shopping (I always end up spending too much). I don't know if my meager contribution will help Dodd win the nomination, but it will certainly send a strong signal that we support what he did with his FISA filibuster.
While I haven't blogged about it, I strongly believe that this bill was absolutely nuts. Sure, it's bad policy to grant blanket amnesty for civil liberty violations that you aren't even fully aware of, but it was bad politics too. The Bush Admin's destruction of civil liberties was a horrible thing, and the best thing any Democrat can do is to call attention to what happened and to denounce it loudly. Not only will this protect civil liberties, but it will help us sink the Bushies, the Republicans who aided them, and the entire conservative movement
But...we lose all that if we give them immunity. We send a signal that we approve of what happened. We tell the telecoms that they can hand over our liberty with impunity, and that all it takes is for the government to ask, and they will give them everything they want. And that's just wrong. If the telecoms didn't do anything wrong, then they don't need immunity. But if they did something wrong, Americans have a right to know. This is our government, and those phone records were our records. Immunity is nothing but explicit acknowledgement that we don't own either.
Dodd for President
And so I strongly support Dodd's actions in filibustering that horrible bill. And now that we've had a temporary reprieve, there could be no better thing we can do to make this permanent than to show our support for what he did by giving him some green.
Money talks, and we need Washington to listen. I have no doubts that the Dems in Congress are afraid of the telecom's money. But we need to show them that we have money too. I've only given money to two political campaigns before (last one being John Kerry's general election campaign), and this is the one I think is the most important. For Dodd to receive a strong show of support will certainly help more Democrats get onto the right side of this issue by the time this comes back in January.
And beyond that, I really, really like Dodd for President. I already liked the guy, but after this issue (and before I gave him money), I started reading more about him on his website and watched some of his YouTube clips. And I liked what I saw. Right now while I'm typing this, I'm listening to a townhall meeting he gave in August, and he's really quite good. Is he perfect? No. But I really like what I hear, and think he's about 99.99% right about what he's saying. In fact, one reason I don't think his performance was perfect was because he said too much, and didn't give enough empty bumpersticker rhetoric. And while that's exactly what I like to hear, I suspect that most people prefer quickie zingers, instead of the full-bodied stuff he said.
I even agree with his Cuban policy. He mentioned how he's spoken to Castro...in Spanish(?!), and how they talked about the travel embargo we still have against Cuba. He said that Castro told him that lifting the travel ban would hurt Castro more than it hurt us, and how he agreed with that and insisted that the travel ban has helped keep Castro in office all these years. And that's exactly what I've been saying, yet is rare to hear from a presidential candidate (though Obama has said something similar).
His other answers were quite good too. I've posted the clip below. If you're not sure about Dodd, check it out. Again, it's not rockstar stuff, but it's a solid townhall meeting.
Dodd for President
Before now, I've basically stayed out of the nomination battle. I'm quite certain that any Democrat will whoop any Republican in the general election, and that any of them would be better than a Republican. Having heard enough from Dodd, I now give him my full endorsement.
I not only believe that he's the best choice out of several good choices, I think he'll be the best in the general election. I don't know why he's not polling better than he is, though I suspect that it's because the Kewl Kids in Washington don't like what he has to say. Or perhaps they don't think he gives them enough respect, I don't know. All I know is that this guy is good, he'll be a good president, he'll do well in the general election, and he'll be tough for Republicans to oppose as president. And having studied how things went in 2004, I see no reason why he can't win the nomination.
Plus, he was the only candidate who really stood up for this FISA bill; and he didn't have to. But it was a very smart move, he did it well, and I like that he had the confidence to go through with it. This guy is good. If you don't agree, go to his site and you'll see what I mean. I don't think he's the perfect candidate, but he's the best we've got out of a fairly good group.
And if you already agree, give him some money. It doesn't have to be much. $5 will help. It will send a message. And best of all, it will give him positive buzz that will show people that Dodd is a real candidate and has our support. I won't cry if he doesn't get the nomination, but I think it'll be for the best if he did.
While I haven't blogged about it, I strongly believe that this bill was absolutely nuts. Sure, it's bad policy to grant blanket amnesty for civil liberty violations that you aren't even fully aware of, but it was bad politics too. The Bush Admin's destruction of civil liberties was a horrible thing, and the best thing any Democrat can do is to call attention to what happened and to denounce it loudly. Not only will this protect civil liberties, but it will help us sink the Bushies, the Republicans who aided them, and the entire conservative movement
But...we lose all that if we give them immunity. We send a signal that we approve of what happened. We tell the telecoms that they can hand over our liberty with impunity, and that all it takes is for the government to ask, and they will give them everything they want. And that's just wrong. If the telecoms didn't do anything wrong, then they don't need immunity. But if they did something wrong, Americans have a right to know. This is our government, and those phone records were our records. Immunity is nothing but explicit acknowledgement that we don't own either.
Dodd for President
And so I strongly support Dodd's actions in filibustering that horrible bill. And now that we've had a temporary reprieve, there could be no better thing we can do to make this permanent than to show our support for what he did by giving him some green.
Money talks, and we need Washington to listen. I have no doubts that the Dems in Congress are afraid of the telecom's money. But we need to show them that we have money too. I've only given money to two political campaigns before (last one being John Kerry's general election campaign), and this is the one I think is the most important. For Dodd to receive a strong show of support will certainly help more Democrats get onto the right side of this issue by the time this comes back in January.
And beyond that, I really, really like Dodd for President. I already liked the guy, but after this issue (and before I gave him money), I started reading more about him on his website and watched some of his YouTube clips. And I liked what I saw. Right now while I'm typing this, I'm listening to a townhall meeting he gave in August, and he's really quite good. Is he perfect? No. But I really like what I hear, and think he's about 99.99% right about what he's saying. In fact, one reason I don't think his performance was perfect was because he said too much, and didn't give enough empty bumpersticker rhetoric. And while that's exactly what I like to hear, I suspect that most people prefer quickie zingers, instead of the full-bodied stuff he said.
I even agree with his Cuban policy. He mentioned how he's spoken to Castro...in Spanish(?!), and how they talked about the travel embargo we still have against Cuba. He said that Castro told him that lifting the travel ban would hurt Castro more than it hurt us, and how he agreed with that and insisted that the travel ban has helped keep Castro in office all these years. And that's exactly what I've been saying, yet is rare to hear from a presidential candidate (though Obama has said something similar).
His other answers were quite good too. I've posted the clip below. If you're not sure about Dodd, check it out. Again, it's not rockstar stuff, but it's a solid townhall meeting.
Dodd for President
Before now, I've basically stayed out of the nomination battle. I'm quite certain that any Democrat will whoop any Republican in the general election, and that any of them would be better than a Republican. Having heard enough from Dodd, I now give him my full endorsement.
I not only believe that he's the best choice out of several good choices, I think he'll be the best in the general election. I don't know why he's not polling better than he is, though I suspect that it's because the Kewl Kids in Washington don't like what he has to say. Or perhaps they don't think he gives them enough respect, I don't know. All I know is that this guy is good, he'll be a good president, he'll do well in the general election, and he'll be tough for Republicans to oppose as president. And having studied how things went in 2004, I see no reason why he can't win the nomination.
Plus, he was the only candidate who really stood up for this FISA bill; and he didn't have to. But it was a very smart move, he did it well, and I like that he had the confidence to go through with it. This guy is good. If you don't agree, go to his site and you'll see what I mean. I don't think he's the perfect candidate, but he's the best we've got out of a fairly good group.
And if you already agree, give him some money. It doesn't have to be much. $5 will help. It will send a message. And best of all, it will give him positive buzz that will show people that Dodd is a real candidate and has our support. I won't cry if he doesn't get the nomination, but I think it'll be for the best if he did.
Sunday, December 16, 2007
Managerial Jail Rape Probabilities
Here's a story about how they're trying to reform the juvenile prison system here in my home state of Texas. But that some people don't think they've done enough. Here's a quote from one of the state legislators who has worked to reform the system and thinks they've seen progress:
"We probably don't have management raping kids now," said state Rep. Jerry Madden.
Wow, that is progress...probably. He also says:
"I'm beginning to have a little confidence that improvements are being made. But we need to see results."
Uhm, did he mean to say that he's starting to have confidence, even though we haven't seen results? But...but...but, we probably don't have management raping kids. and that's a kind of result, isn't it?
I honestly have no idea why some people think treating someone like shit will get them to start treating others with respect, but I'd sure like to see a bigger push on rehabilitation instead of punishment.
Sure, some people are beyond redemption, and it's possible that punishment makes some people reform. But for the most part, people who get treated like shit will eventually want to treat someone else like shit to compensate. It's just human nature, particularly among people with violent natures and lower IQ's; ie, many of the people who go to jail. Payback might make you feel better, but it does little to help others.
"We probably don't have management raping kids now," said state Rep. Jerry Madden.
Wow, that is progress...probably. He also says:
"I'm beginning to have a little confidence that improvements are being made. But we need to see results."
Uhm, did he mean to say that he's starting to have confidence, even though we haven't seen results? But...but...but, we probably don't have management raping kids. and that's a kind of result, isn't it?
I honestly have no idea why some people think treating someone like shit will get them to start treating others with respect, but I'd sure like to see a bigger push on rehabilitation instead of punishment.
Sure, some people are beyond redemption, and it's possible that punishment makes some people reform. But for the most part, people who get treated like shit will eventually want to treat someone else like shit to compensate. It's just human nature, particularly among people with violent natures and lower IQ's; ie, many of the people who go to jail. Payback might make you feel better, but it does little to help others.
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Perdido en Traducción
I can't speak a foreign language. I took two years of French in high school that I did absolutely horrible in (though good enough to pass both classes...barely), and I took two semesters of German in college that I did quite well in (thanks to my linguistically-abled wife). But I still can't speak more than a few mumbling phrases and can't understand a word of it. I'm just hopeless when it comes to foreign languages. Hell, any grammarian will tell you that even my English ain't so great. Language just isn't my thing.
And that's why I find the "English-only" issue to be so offensively stupid. How many of the people who push this stuff are bi-lingual? And while many of them are unlikely to go to foreign countries, you can bet they'll expect those foreigners to be able to speak English even better than they do. I've only been out of the country twice, both times to Mexican bordertowns for drinking purposes. And let me tell you, while I do know the word "cerveza", I still ordered "beer". After all, they were bordertowns and I wouldn't have been fooling anyone with my feeble attempt at Spanish. And I have no problem with that and neither did they. They understood that I didn't speak Spanish and were cool with it.
Now that's not to suggest that people living in our country shouldn't learn Spanish. Of course they should, but only for their own benefit. After all, they might have to talk to me, and I can't speak non-English. One time I was at one of my client's offices when some guy came in who didn't speak English and looked like he might have been drunk. And no matter how many times I tried to explain that I didn't speak Spanish, he persisted to ask me questions I couldn't possibly fathom. He either didn't know the English words "I don't speak Spanish" or was too drunk to understand. But either way, that guy really should learn a little more English.
But what's the point of getting angry about it? I was embarrassed, not mad. Sure, I couldn't help him, but that was his loss (I later learned from a bi-lingual employee that he wanted some temp work for cash.) But as we all know, this isn't about language. This is about being assholes. Because you can rest assured in knowing that these same people will always expect everyone to learn our language and culture, and don't give a shit about anyone else's no matter whose country they're in. This is just a powerplay, to force non-Americans to acknowledge our superiority.
When in Rome, Speak English
I'm writing about this after reading a story of a restaurant in Philadelphia which posted two signs saying: "This is AMERICA: WHEN ORDERING PLEASE 'SPEAK ENGLISH.'" And how the business is now being sued for discrimination.
Their lawyer insisted that this wasn't discriminatory, but merely an attempt to not let the line slow down due to people speaking in other languages; which is about as believable as my Spanish is. Because sure, I could see how that might slow things down, but it's obvious that the sign was meant to offend. Can you imagine going into a bar in Nuevo Laredo that had signs saying "Esto es MEXICO: AL ORDENAR POR FAVOR 'HABLA ESPAÑOL'" Even if you don't understand Spanish, you'd understand what they were trying to tell you with that sign and you'd know you didn't belong there. (And yes, I used a translation website to write that message.)
And if this was merely about translations, there'd be ways around it. Like a Spanish language menu with a number system or something. Hell, that's my preferred method of ordering at many of the Tex-Mex places around here, and they speak English. Or at least a sign that was more apologetic, and didn't act as if there was some expectation that the geographical location precluded people from speaking other languages. Or assuming the article quoted that correctly, perhaps if they just dropped the ALL-CAPS and "quotes" around 'SPEAK ENGLISH" it might help. But as is, it's obvious that the owner has a problem with immigrants and foreigners.
Cart Before Horse
And have I been missing all the free English as a Second Language programs that these people are pushing? You'd think if this was just a language issue that they'd want to do more to teach people to speak English. But as usual with these people, this isn't really about language at all.
Similarly, they'll insist that affirmative action programs should be replaced with better education systems for minorities, though they insist that we get rid of affirmative action first and make no promise about improving anyone's education. Or they'll insist that they oppose illegal aliens because they're illegal, but have no intention of establishing a better way for them to come here legally.
The truth is that they don't want Mexicans to speak English. They don't want them assimilated into our culture. And they don't want them educated and getting paid union wages. They want them gone. The language issue is just a shorthand way of discriminating while convincing themselves and others that they're not such bad guys for doing so. And it looks like this guy got caught. Again, if language was the issue, there are solutions for that. But if his problems are with Mexicans, then he's in trouble.
In fact, every problem I've seen associated with illegal aliens has to do with the fact that we're not doing more to get them here legally and assimilated into our system. From language issues, to border crossings, to low wages, to taxation issues; all of this could be solved if we allowed them in legally and educated them better. So while they blame illegal immigration for all these problems, it's obvious that the real problem lies entirely with their racism.
And so it is with most issues. The only solution conservatives will accept is the thing causing the biggest problems. We see this with anti-American terrorism, out of control deficits, healthcare, recessions, the Social Security "crisis", and now immigration; the Republican "cure" is one of the main causes of the disease.
And that's why I find the "English-only" issue to be so offensively stupid. How many of the people who push this stuff are bi-lingual? And while many of them are unlikely to go to foreign countries, you can bet they'll expect those foreigners to be able to speak English even better than they do. I've only been out of the country twice, both times to Mexican bordertowns for drinking purposes. And let me tell you, while I do know the word "cerveza", I still ordered "beer". After all, they were bordertowns and I wouldn't have been fooling anyone with my feeble attempt at Spanish. And I have no problem with that and neither did they. They understood that I didn't speak Spanish and were cool with it.
Now that's not to suggest that people living in our country shouldn't learn Spanish. Of course they should, but only for their own benefit. After all, they might have to talk to me, and I can't speak non-English. One time I was at one of my client's offices when some guy came in who didn't speak English and looked like he might have been drunk. And no matter how many times I tried to explain that I didn't speak Spanish, he persisted to ask me questions I couldn't possibly fathom. He either didn't know the English words "I don't speak Spanish" or was too drunk to understand. But either way, that guy really should learn a little more English.
But what's the point of getting angry about it? I was embarrassed, not mad. Sure, I couldn't help him, but that was his loss (I later learned from a bi-lingual employee that he wanted some temp work for cash.) But as we all know, this isn't about language. This is about being assholes. Because you can rest assured in knowing that these same people will always expect everyone to learn our language and culture, and don't give a shit about anyone else's no matter whose country they're in. This is just a powerplay, to force non-Americans to acknowledge our superiority.
When in Rome, Speak English
I'm writing about this after reading a story of a restaurant in Philadelphia which posted two signs saying: "This is AMERICA: WHEN ORDERING PLEASE 'SPEAK ENGLISH.'" And how the business is now being sued for discrimination.
Their lawyer insisted that this wasn't discriminatory, but merely an attempt to not let the line slow down due to people speaking in other languages; which is about as believable as my Spanish is. Because sure, I could see how that might slow things down, but it's obvious that the sign was meant to offend. Can you imagine going into a bar in Nuevo Laredo that had signs saying "Esto es MEXICO: AL ORDENAR POR FAVOR 'HABLA ESPAÑOL'" Even if you don't understand Spanish, you'd understand what they were trying to tell you with that sign and you'd know you didn't belong there. (And yes, I used a translation website to write that message.)
And if this was merely about translations, there'd be ways around it. Like a Spanish language menu with a number system or something. Hell, that's my preferred method of ordering at many of the Tex-Mex places around here, and they speak English. Or at least a sign that was more apologetic, and didn't act as if there was some expectation that the geographical location precluded people from speaking other languages. Or assuming the article quoted that correctly, perhaps if they just dropped the ALL-CAPS and "quotes" around 'SPEAK ENGLISH" it might help. But as is, it's obvious that the owner has a problem with immigrants and foreigners.
Cart Before Horse
And have I been missing all the free English as a Second Language programs that these people are pushing? You'd think if this was just a language issue that they'd want to do more to teach people to speak English. But as usual with these people, this isn't really about language at all.
Similarly, they'll insist that affirmative action programs should be replaced with better education systems for minorities, though they insist that we get rid of affirmative action first and make no promise about improving anyone's education. Or they'll insist that they oppose illegal aliens because they're illegal, but have no intention of establishing a better way for them to come here legally.
The truth is that they don't want Mexicans to speak English. They don't want them assimilated into our culture. And they don't want them educated and getting paid union wages. They want them gone. The language issue is just a shorthand way of discriminating while convincing themselves and others that they're not such bad guys for doing so. And it looks like this guy got caught. Again, if language was the issue, there are solutions for that. But if his problems are with Mexicans, then he's in trouble.
In fact, every problem I've seen associated with illegal aliens has to do with the fact that we're not doing more to get them here legally and assimilated into our system. From language issues, to border crossings, to low wages, to taxation issues; all of this could be solved if we allowed them in legally and educated them better. So while they blame illegal immigration for all these problems, it's obvious that the real problem lies entirely with their racism.
And so it is with most issues. The only solution conservatives will accept is the thing causing the biggest problems. We see this with anti-American terrorism, out of control deficits, healthcare, recessions, the Social Security "crisis", and now immigration; the Republican "cure" is one of the main causes of the disease.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Living in a Secular World
It’s obvious that most of the people who rail against secularism don’t understand what the term means. Because, despite their constant haranguing against secularists, most of their lives are involved in the secular world. When they’re shopping, or going to work, or attending a football game, they’re in the secular world. And it doesn’t even matter if they’re shopping at a Christian bookstore or if they pray during the football game or if they carry a bible around with them at all times; they’re still in the secular world.
Even working for a church counts as a secular job, unless they’re priests, or nuns, or engaging in some other sort of specific god-related activity. And without a doubt, a church bookkeeper is a secular position. They might be aiding those who do God’s work, but they’re paying secular vendors, reconciling Mammon’s bank accounts, and filling out heathen tax forms, just like every other bookkeeper. Hell, some of my clients consider me to be a miracle worker, so if anything, you'd think I'd get some heavenly credit for that.
For most Christians, the only time they’re not engaged in secular activities is when they’re in church. And even then, I suspect that they’re often thinking of the secular world. They’re praying that their boss gives them a promotion or that a particular boy asks them out to the dance. Rather than these people living a godly life, they’re secularists who take a brief vacation in the World of God every once in a while. And even then, it's usually out of a sense of obligation or a selfish fear of eternal damnation; neither of which sounds particularly holy in my humble opinion. I'm not sure why they imagine that an all-knowing creator could be so easily duped, but I don't think it's working.
What Jesus Wouldn’t Do
And without a doubt, the New Testament doesn’t have such a great opinion about what these people are doing. WWJD was a cute phrase that was entirely meaningless. What would Jesus do? He’d quit his damn job and start evangelizing; relying upon the kindness of strangers to provide his meager sustenance, which is what he expected his followers to do. But most Christians have a different term for that kind of person: Bum. Crazy Bum. And they’d rather spit on such people than to listen to them.
Jesus wouldn’t have to make decisions on whether to be nice to a rude co-worker, or how to treat someone who stole the Tickle Me Elmo doll out of their hands during the big Christmas sale. Because he believed that our lives were merely a trifle, and that our short time on this world should be devoted entirely to preparing for the next one. And while I’ve met a few high-minded people who look past the daily fantasyworld most people consider "reality", very few of them were Christian and none of them were the type who consider the terms “secularist” and “atheist” to be synonymous.
And so these people are no different than the people they derisively label “secularists”. And if anything, they’re a disgrace to the god they profess belief in. It’s all just a sham. Something to make themselves feel superior to others, based upon bible passages and sermons that they barely comprehend. And let's face it, anyone who reads the New Testament with an open mind understands that the people involved clearly thought the end was near and that they'd soon be joining Jesus in Heaven. But after a thousand or so years passed with no end in sight, it was only natural that people would get a little restless and want to get back to taking care of the earthly world they spend so much time in.
And this isn't even an issue of semantics. Because "secularist" isn't just some shorthand for atheist. These people are not living the Christian lives they're supposed to. Heck, even most Christians think that the people who actually live the real Christian life are a bit batty. Because these people aren't living a life that different from atheists. The only difference is that they think they can hedge their bets by doing as little as possible to stay on God's good side, while otherwise living life the same as non-believers do.
And if anything, I would think that their god would be more annoyed with them than me. I'm not sure why they think that spending one hour a week in God's House is enough to avoid eternal damnation, but I don't think it's helping them get that promotion.
Your Gospel Reading
I'll leave you with a little Gospel. Here's Jesus speaking, Luke 6:27-35 (emphasis in the original):
Listen, all of you. Love your enemies. Do good to those who hate you. Pray for the happiness of those who curse you; implore God's blessing on those who hurt you.
If someone slaps you on the cheek, let him slap the other too! If someone demands your coat, give him your shirt besides. Give what you have to anyone who asks you for it; and when things are taken away from you, don't worry about getting them back. Treat others as you want them to treat you.
Do you think you deserve credit for merely loving those who love you? Even the godless do that! And if you do good only to those who do you good - is that so wonderful? Even sinners do that much! And if you lend money only to those who can repay you, what good is that? Even the most wicked will lend to their own kind for full return!
Love your enemies! Do good to them! Lend to them! And don't be concerned about the fact that they won't repay. Then your reward from heaven will be very great, and you will truly be acting as sons of God: for he is kind to the unthankful and to those who are very wicked.
I'm not sure if I have ever met a Christian who actually follows this advice; yet this is how one would act if they were more concerned with the next world than this one. Instead, these people continue to act as if this life is too important to ignore and are amazed when any priest, preacher, or monk can follow any of this advice. And no one would expect a priest to give away all his possessions to anyone who asked. They might have a vow of poverty, but I guess even the poor have expectations of owning Lincoln Towncars these days.
At best, they'll pay lip service to being kind to the wicked, as an excuse for why they're being so cruel. And while the current mortgage crisis might indicate that the banks didn't care about being repaid, I suspect it wasn't this bible passage that told them to do this. Again, most Christians have a term for people who act as Jesus says they should: Bums. Crazy bums.
As usual, the passage above is from my Catholic Living Bible, which has my name on the cover.
Even working for a church counts as a secular job, unless they’re priests, or nuns, or engaging in some other sort of specific god-related activity. And without a doubt, a church bookkeeper is a secular position. They might be aiding those who do God’s work, but they’re paying secular vendors, reconciling Mammon’s bank accounts, and filling out heathen tax forms, just like every other bookkeeper. Hell, some of my clients consider me to be a miracle worker, so if anything, you'd think I'd get some heavenly credit for that.
For most Christians, the only time they’re not engaged in secular activities is when they’re in church. And even then, I suspect that they’re often thinking of the secular world. They’re praying that their boss gives them a promotion or that a particular boy asks them out to the dance. Rather than these people living a godly life, they’re secularists who take a brief vacation in the World of God every once in a while. And even then, it's usually out of a sense of obligation or a selfish fear of eternal damnation; neither of which sounds particularly holy in my humble opinion. I'm not sure why they imagine that an all-knowing creator could be so easily duped, but I don't think it's working.
What Jesus Wouldn’t Do
And without a doubt, the New Testament doesn’t have such a great opinion about what these people are doing. WWJD was a cute phrase that was entirely meaningless. What would Jesus do? He’d quit his damn job and start evangelizing; relying upon the kindness of strangers to provide his meager sustenance, which is what he expected his followers to do. But most Christians have a different term for that kind of person: Bum. Crazy Bum. And they’d rather spit on such people than to listen to them.
Jesus wouldn’t have to make decisions on whether to be nice to a rude co-worker, or how to treat someone who stole the Tickle Me Elmo doll out of their hands during the big Christmas sale. Because he believed that our lives were merely a trifle, and that our short time on this world should be devoted entirely to preparing for the next one. And while I’ve met a few high-minded people who look past the daily fantasyworld most people consider "reality", very few of them were Christian and none of them were the type who consider the terms “secularist” and “atheist” to be synonymous.
And so these people are no different than the people they derisively label “secularists”. And if anything, they’re a disgrace to the god they profess belief in. It’s all just a sham. Something to make themselves feel superior to others, based upon bible passages and sermons that they barely comprehend. And let's face it, anyone who reads the New Testament with an open mind understands that the people involved clearly thought the end was near and that they'd soon be joining Jesus in Heaven. But after a thousand or so years passed with no end in sight, it was only natural that people would get a little restless and want to get back to taking care of the earthly world they spend so much time in.
And this isn't even an issue of semantics. Because "secularist" isn't just some shorthand for atheist. These people are not living the Christian lives they're supposed to. Heck, even most Christians think that the people who actually live the real Christian life are a bit batty. Because these people aren't living a life that different from atheists. The only difference is that they think they can hedge their bets by doing as little as possible to stay on God's good side, while otherwise living life the same as non-believers do.
And if anything, I would think that their god would be more annoyed with them than me. I'm not sure why they think that spending one hour a week in God's House is enough to avoid eternal damnation, but I don't think it's helping them get that promotion.
Your Gospel Reading
I'll leave you with a little Gospel. Here's Jesus speaking, Luke 6:27-35 (emphasis in the original):
Listen, all of you. Love your enemies. Do good to those who hate you. Pray for the happiness of those who curse you; implore God's blessing on those who hurt you.
If someone slaps you on the cheek, let him slap the other too! If someone demands your coat, give him your shirt besides. Give what you have to anyone who asks you for it; and when things are taken away from you, don't worry about getting them back. Treat others as you want them to treat you.
Do you think you deserve credit for merely loving those who love you? Even the godless do that! And if you do good only to those who do you good - is that so wonderful? Even sinners do that much! And if you lend money only to those who can repay you, what good is that? Even the most wicked will lend to their own kind for full return!
Love your enemies! Do good to them! Lend to them! And don't be concerned about the fact that they won't repay. Then your reward from heaven will be very great, and you will truly be acting as sons of God: for he is kind to the unthankful and to those who are very wicked.
I'm not sure if I have ever met a Christian who actually follows this advice; yet this is how one would act if they were more concerned with the next world than this one. Instead, these people continue to act as if this life is too important to ignore and are amazed when any priest, preacher, or monk can follow any of this advice. And no one would expect a priest to give away all his possessions to anyone who asked. They might have a vow of poverty, but I guess even the poor have expectations of owning Lincoln Towncars these days.
At best, they'll pay lip service to being kind to the wicked, as an excuse for why they're being so cruel. And while the current mortgage crisis might indicate that the banks didn't care about being repaid, I suspect it wasn't this bible passage that told them to do this. Again, most Christians have a term for people who act as Jesus says they should: Bums. Crazy bums.
As usual, the passage above is from my Catholic Living Bible, which has my name on the cover.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
The Church Thing
I'm continually amazed whenever I find out that someone I know actually goes to church. I guess I just like sleeping in on Sundays too much, but imagine that, even if I were a believer, I still wouldn't go to church. Even more amazing is the number of people I know who assume that I go to church, just because I act like a decent person. I just don't get it.
I've always disliked going to church. And having read the bible, I'm still unclear on why church is necessary. If anything, I find that going to church would be more offensive to God than not going to church. Because it's as if going to church is considered a substitute for actually being good. It's like Saturday School. One of my kids had to go to school on Saturday to make up for having too many tardies. But he didn't have to do anything. They go in earlier than a normal school day, but can read books, listen to iPods, or even chat with friends. The teacher doesn't care. Just as long as they show up on time and don't leave early. And that makes everything better.
That's what church seems like to me. Like it's for people who want to do good, but can't. So they're allowed to pretend to be good for one hour a week and it makes everything better. I understand religion, but I don't understand church. It's like they go just because they think they're supposed to go. My son recently went to Saturday School because his new girlfriend had to go to Saturday School and he wanted to keep her company. Again, sounds like church to me.
I even know one guy who seriously suggested that I start going to church because it would be good for networking. He didn't even care if I believed in God. He just thought it'd be good for business. And I agree with that. While I doubt that going to church would do any good for my soul, it'd probably be good for my business. And to think, I'm the one considered the heretic.
These people really don't know what they're talking about. And I'm much too nice a guy to tell that to them. I guess that's why they assume I go to church. Because they can't imagine that anyone would actually want to be good unless they had to. And I guess that's probably why they go to church. Because they wouldn't be good people otherwise.
I've always disliked going to church. And having read the bible, I'm still unclear on why church is necessary. If anything, I find that going to church would be more offensive to God than not going to church. Because it's as if going to church is considered a substitute for actually being good. It's like Saturday School. One of my kids had to go to school on Saturday to make up for having too many tardies. But he didn't have to do anything. They go in earlier than a normal school day, but can read books, listen to iPods, or even chat with friends. The teacher doesn't care. Just as long as they show up on time and don't leave early. And that makes everything better.
That's what church seems like to me. Like it's for people who want to do good, but can't. So they're allowed to pretend to be good for one hour a week and it makes everything better. I understand religion, but I don't understand church. It's like they go just because they think they're supposed to go. My son recently went to Saturday School because his new girlfriend had to go to Saturday School and he wanted to keep her company. Again, sounds like church to me.
I even know one guy who seriously suggested that I start going to church because it would be good for networking. He didn't even care if I believed in God. He just thought it'd be good for business. And I agree with that. While I doubt that going to church would do any good for my soul, it'd probably be good for my business. And to think, I'm the one considered the heretic.
These people really don't know what they're talking about. And I'm much too nice a guy to tell that to them. I guess that's why they assume I go to church. Because they can't imagine that anyone would actually want to be good unless they had to. And I guess that's probably why they go to church. Because they wouldn't be good people otherwise.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
