tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-92206784217176936812024-02-20T07:03:02.613-05:00The Words in the StoneKevinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15678475752435111481noreply@blogger.comBlogger33125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9220678421717693681.post-23600197005859728742012-04-30T10:06:00.000-04:002012-04-30T10:06:03.651-04:00Audience of one<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
If you are one of the people who checks this blog regularly looking for an update, you may be a little disappointed in today's post, because it's really directed at one individual. You may still find it interesting, though.<br />
<div>
This is directed at an individual who I will only refer to as "R". I don't think he would care if I put his full name up since he put his e-mail in a comment that I could potentially put up for everyone to see, but I think I'd rather handle it this way.</div>
<div>
R has posted a couple of "comments" on my blog. I put comments in quotes because they are actually inquiries about buying my Twitter name @WordsInTheStone.<br />
R, I checked out your info (what little there is of it) on the student directory of your university. It's a state university. There's no indication that you are a member of the football, baseball, or basketball team. Your major isn't one that I would consider to have huge earning potential.<br />
In other words, R, there's nothing to indicate that you have, or will have in the future, any money. I don't see any way for you to buy my Twitter name. Of course, I could be wrong. You could actually be an undergrad pursuing a liberal arts degree at a public university who happens to have some money stashed away. <br />
It could be the case that you're just going to college because you're interested in education for its' own sake and not because you want a degree to help land you a job and you didn't want to go to some stuffy elite private university, so you went to the public one instead, but I doubt it. If I'm wrong, please feel free to make an offer. Keep in mind, for me to even think about it, the minimum would be in the five figure range. If you were thinking a couple hundred bucks would do it, please don't waste my time or yours asking about it again.</div>
</div>Kevinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15678475752435111481noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9220678421717693681.post-34574273812411614872012-01-31T11:32:00.002-05:002012-01-31T11:32:34.116-05:00F the JREF<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
As anyone who has been reading this blog regularly knows, last year, the JREF was asking for submissions for guest posts and I submitted one which was rejected. I posted it on this blog (Comfortable Accommodations - 2/26/11). I didn't totally buy the reasoning behind the rejection and the more I looked at it, the more I thought I was sure of what the real reason was and I blogged about it (Burning Bridges - 4/20/11). This past Thursday, I saw something that seemed to me to be more evidence that the reason I was given for my post being rejected was BS. On that day (1/26), the JREF put up a post entitled "Loving A Conspiracy Theorist". It was about the author's relationship with his girlfriend who is a conspiracy theorist and his willingness to live with that and his overall attitude that it's ok for non-believers to have relationships with believers. Sound familiar?<br />
I'm not going to go over my whole argument again about why I think my post was rejected. You can read the "Burning Bridges" post if you're interested in that. All I'll say now is that I find the fact that this post (written by one of their research fellows) was put up while mine was rejected to be further proof that I'm right. Accommodation is ok with the JREF.......but only towards certain people. Screw them.</div>Kevinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15678475752435111481noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9220678421717693681.post-13535409198244747812011-12-01T14:46:00.001-05:002011-12-01T15:14:33.350-05:00Posts to come<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
First, I want to say hello to the person or persons in Russia who keep checking in with this blog. I also want to say a special hello to the person who is going through Facebook to check out the blog. 2 of the 4 people I know for sure have checked out this blog are friends with me on Facebook. One has told me she goes to the blog directly and the other is following me on Blogger, so she wouldn't need to go through Facebook. Makes me curious as to who it is that I'm friends with on Facebook that keeps checking in with my blog, but not saying anything to me about it. <br />
Now to the subject of this blog. I am going to start blogging again. I'm not planning on doing it. I'm going to do it. Either that or I'm going to delete the whole thing.<br />
For now, at least, the posts will probably be shorter. This should allow me to post a little more often since I won't be spending as much time putting a long post together. If I actually start getting some responses from people, maybe I'll put up a few longer posts. We'll see how it goes.<br />
It may be a few months before the frequency of my posts really picks up. The holidays are coming up, I have a baby on the way, and I'm planning to spend some time writing stuff that I can hopefully get paid for. So, needless to say (but I'm saying it anyway), writing posts for a blog I get nothing for, not even feedback, is not my highest priority.<br />
While the posts may be shorter and other things may change, one thing that is not going to change is that I'm not going to start having a theme to this blog. I considered it briefly, but decided against it. I don't want to limit what I can talk about. And, as I think I may have mentioned before, I think good writing is good writing. If I'm writing well enough, then it shouldn't matter what the topic is.<br />
That's it for now. More soon.<br />
</div>Kevinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15678475752435111481noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9220678421717693681.post-41657826072798273622011-05-06T12:28:00.001-04:002011-05-06T13:44:34.842-04:00First the "birthers", now the "deathers"<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"> This is the next conspiracy theory the right wing has grabbed onto, that Osama bin Laden is not dead. Now, I can kind of see where people might think the whole burial at sea and the changing stories about what went down can seem a little hinky. However, if you think about it, the explanations that have been given about not wanting to incite the extremists with photos that they could use as recruitment tools or have a burial site for them to flock to, basically to avoid making him a martyr as much possible, makes sense.<br />
If there's anything that they might be trying to hide, it's exactly how he died. It's entirely possible that it wasn't a quick kill shot, boom, end of story. If they roughed him up a little before killing him, they might want to hide that. To be clear, I'm not saying that they did (and I wouldn't have a problem with it if they did), I'm just saying it's a plausible reason to not produce the body or photos of it.<br />
What's not plausible is the idea that Obama is just saying that bin Laden was killed to boost his popularity and win re-election. First of all, while everybody is thrilled about bin Laden's death, I don't think that's enough to ensure victory for Obama in 2012. But, more importantly, it would be incredibly stupid. All that would have to happen is for an audio or video of bin Laden to come out that was clearly taped after his supposed death. Obama would have to be a complete idiot to claim to have killed bin Laden if he didn't actually do it and I don't care what your politics are, there's no way you can say Obama is an idiot (unlike his predecessor).<br />
One other thing about this, there is some question about the legality of the operation. First of all, Pakistan can just shut the hell up about us conducting this operation in their country without their permission. You can't tell me the government didn't know he was there. If we had asked their permission, he would have been gone by the time we got there, assuming they even gave permission. As for the legality of killing him, this is definitely one instance where I don't give a damn whether something the government did was legal or not. This SOB was responsible for the death of thousands of innocent men women, and children. I don't care if they beat him up. I don't care if they tortured him. Hell, I would have helped them do it if I were there. This guy was the scum of the earth and whether or not his killing was legal matters not one damn bit to me. Good riddance. I only wish I believed in Hell, so I could have the satisfaction of knowing he'll be suffering there through eternity.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
</div>Kevinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15678475752435111481noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9220678421717693681.post-31509423661161831882011-04-20T14:15:00.004-04:002011-04-30T21:32:24.171-04:00Burning Bridges<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"> As it says in the title, I may be burning some bridges today. The first possible bridge to be burned is with the JREF (and maybe other members of the skeptical community who are fans of it). Back in February, I responded to their call for open submissions with a post that I thought fit at least one of their criteria (either a topic that hasn't been covered much or a fresh take on a topic). It was about being a non-believer married to a believer and my thoughts on the "accommodation vs. confrontation" debate. I thought it provided a fresh viewpoint because I think it's safe to say that most non-believers married to believers (and probably all of the ones who read the JREF blog) are married to believers in more "mainstream" religions. I happen to be married to a Christian Scientist. The post was rejected.<br />
This is the reason I was given in the e-mail : "As for your piece, it does a good job of explaining your position and it's one that a lot of people share. However we have to decline it because it's not really what we're looking for right now. The accommodationist/confrontationalist debate is an important one but we're looking for more fresh perspectives on the debate as a whole rather than posts that advocate for one side or the other."<br />
I thought I had provided a fresh perspective and as I said when I put the post up here ("Comfortable Accommodations", posted on 2/26), I don't quite see how you could post on the topic and be totally neutral about it. I just let it go at that, even though I had the thought that the reason I was given might not be the real one. Now, after some time and looking at what has been posted on the JREF blog since then, I feel like I have to express my real thoughts on the matter.<br />
I want to point out that the person who indicated that the post didn't work because it advocated for a certain side had recently put up a series of posts on her own blog where she and someone else had debated the topic and had asked for reader input. Granted, she did tell me that she had recently posted about the topic and directed me to her blog, so it's not as if she hid the fact. Still, I find it odd that it was ok for her to put up several blogs advocating for one side or the other on her blog, but not for mine to go up on the JREF blog. I'm not trying to throw this person under the bus. I'm sure it wasn't totally her decision not to accept the post, just saying that there seems to be some inconsistency there.<br />
Also, just a couple of weeks ago, the JREF blog had a post about ear candling. Ear candling ! Yeah, that's a topic that hasn't been written about much. Maybe they'll cover the barely trodden area of homeopathy next.<br />
So, if it wasn't rejected because I didn't provide a fresh perspective or cover a topic that hasn't been written about much, then why was it rejected ? Was it because the writing sucked ? I don't think so, based on the quote from above and the fact that I was encouraged to submit again. I was hoping by now to have another piece of evidence, but I don't. That's something that will be talked about when I get to burning another possible bridge later.<br />
Is it because they don't need that many guest posts ? In March, I put up 5 posts. Yes, I know, I suck at updating regularly, we'll get to that shortly. There were 16 posts on the JREF blog in March. It looked like 8 of those posts were written by guest bloggers, which means that only 8 of the posts were written by people directly associated with the JREF, only 3 more then I posted in that month and as I've noted, so far, I've sucked at updating regularly. Seems to me that they definitely need as many guest posts as they can get.<br />
What is the real reason then ? I suspect that it's because of the specific religion of the woman I'm married to and the positive light I presented her and her family and friends in. I think it might have been ok if she were Catholic or Jewish or something like that. But a Christian Scientist ? I think in their eyes, I might have just as well said I was married to a "psychic". Think that it might have been just a little too much "woo" for them. To portray the people who are believers in that religion in any kind of positive way might have been more than they could stomach.<br />
Of course, I could be wrong about this. It would be nice if I could point to the responses I got when I put the rejected post up here. But, unfortunately, I don't have any responses for to that post. Which brings me to the other bridge I may be burning today, the one between me and you, the reader.<br />
You see, I can't point to the responses I got from this post on my own blog to show that it would have been worth putting up on the JREF blog, because I didn't get any responses. I almost never get any responses. Hell, I set it up so there are now Like/Dislike buttons at the end of each post. It's something that would take less then a second, just click on a button and you're done. You don't have to sign in and we're not talking about writing some well thought out response or criticism, just clicking a button. And yet nobody even does that. Either, the stuff I write is so boring or so poorly written that it inspires nothing but apathy or it's just too much to ask for people to even click a button.<br />
Either way, it means I will no longer get upset with myself if there's a long time between my posts. It used to really bother me. Yes, you can add this blog to your Google Reader (or something like it) and it will let you know when there's a new post, so you don't have come back to this site every day to check. Still, it bothered me. I kind of felt like I might be letting people down in some way. The more I've thought about it, though, the more I think, well, if people don't care enough about what I'm writing to even click on a button, then why am I going to care about how often I put something up ? Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying I'm not going to post any more or that I'm not going to make an effort to do it more regularly. I'm just saying I'm not going to beat myself up when there's a long time between posts, unless and until I'm given some reason to feel I should be more diligent in posting.</div>Kevinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15678475752435111481noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9220678421717693681.post-53312958121246583972011-03-17T12:38:00.001-04:002011-03-17T12:45:31.298-04:00Jodie Foster is scum<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"> Yes, I know that's a pretty provocative headline there. But I think it's justified based on this interview with her in The Hollywood Reporter :<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/jodie-foster-mel-gibson-i-167894">http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/jodie-foster-mel-gibson-i-167894</a><br />
<br />
Of course, the fact that she continues to defend Mel Gibson becomes less surprising, when you consider she just finished working on a film with Roman Polanski, another waste of human flesh. What was her response when the fact was brought up that this man had drugged and raped a 13 year old girl ? <br />
<br />
From the article : "As for Polanski’s complicated character and the resurrection of his rape charge in the U.S., “That’s not my business,” she says."<br />
<br />
Really, Jodie ? That's not your business ? You didn't have to go to Paris to work with him because production costs are cheaper there or he wanted authentic shots of the Paris skyline. You had to go there because France is where he ran to after sexually assaulting a child !! Tell me, Jodie, if one of your sons was raped by a famous director, would you still work with that director ? Or is it only ok as long as it's someone else's child ?<br />
<br />
You disgust me, Jodie. I don't believe in an afterlife, but if I'm wrong, when you and Roman die, I hope you end up sharing a room in Hell. <br />
<br />
</div>Kevinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15678475752435111481noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9220678421717693681.post-67151138953716469262011-03-09T12:37:00.000-05:002011-03-09T12:37:28.127-05:00New name, same lousy service<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><div style="text-align: left;"> Today, I'm just going to do a little bitching about one of my least favorite companies, Comcast, or as they're trying to re-brand themselves now, Xfinity. They apparently think people are so stupid that they won't realize that the only thing that's changed is the name and they're still the same awful company. I can't stand them. I can't count how many times my internet service or TV service has gone out or I've had certain TV channels go dark for several hours for no apparent reason. And then, of course, there's the fact that they have over the last couple of years taken channels out of the package I was paying for without any warning and, of course, without reducing what I was paying even though I was getting fewer channels. In fact, I believe what I pay has gone up at least three times in the last couple of years. And for what, more content, better service ? HA !</div><div style="text-align: left;"> Anyway, for the last couple of months, at least once a week, it seemed, I had been getting mail from Comcast telling me that I could switch from the Expanded Basic package I had now to Digital Starter for no extra cost. I was not interested. At the last place I lived, I had a problem when I moved out and canceled the service. I had bought my own cable modem and had been using that, yet Comcast tried to say that I had been using one of their modems and that I had to return it or pay them for it. So, the last thing I wanted to do was have any equipment I would have to give back to Comcast when I move (or as I keep hoping for, when Verizon comes to my area. I don't know anyone who's switched from Verizon to Comcast who isn't extremely happy they did.) </div><div style="text-align: left;"> My wife said that they might force us to switch to digital at some point, that they had done that to someone she worked with. Sure enough, last week, I got something in the mail saying that as of March 22, they would be changing their signal and if you didn't have a digital converter box or digital adapter hooked up to your TV, you wouldn't be able to get your channels anymore. So, yesterday, I went online and ordered the necessary equipment. I chose the option of picking the equipment up. I didn't want to have it mailed to my house and be sitting on my front porch for somebody to take and Comcast wanted to charge to have someone come hook this stuff up that we had no choice about getting. After work, I went by one of their locations and after standing in line for half an hour, I picked up a converter box and two adapters. </div><div style="text-align: left;"> I got home and hooked up the converter box. At first, it seemed to be working, until I tried to turn on ESPN2. At which point, I got a message saying that I wasn't authorized to receive that channel (keep in mind, with this "digital upgrade", I was supposed to still have all the channels I had before "and more") followed a few seconds later by a message saying that I wasn't authorized to use the set top box I had just picked up !!</div><div style="text-align: left;"> I called the number on the screen and after going through 5 or 6 menus, I finally got to speak to a real person who was able to send a signal through and get the box working and all my channels to come up. I was still getting a message that I wasn't authorized for On Demand, which was also supposed to be part of this "digital upgrade". I mentioned this to the guy on the phone and he said it might take a little longer for that to come up.</div><div style="text-align: left;"> This morning, when I got up, I checked and found that I was getting the same message. Figuring that 12 hours was more then long enough to wait for the On Demand to be there, I called Comcast again. Now, if you've seen some of the commercials they've been running lately, they've been trying to indicate that they're all about the customer, they want the customer to be happy. Bullshit. They never have before and they're not starting now. But they're sure trying to sell that idea. When the woman I spoke to this morning answered the phone, it wasn't just "Thanks for calling Comcast". It was at least a 5 second spiel (wish I could remember the exact words) that basically came down to "We sure love the customer here at Comcast, please don't switch to Verizon despite all the good things your friends tell you about it.") </div><div style="text-align: left;"> She told me that the reason I wasn't getting On Demand was that nobody had switched the "code" in my account to indicate that I was now supposed to have Digital Starter service. So, let's review, I went to the site they included in the mail they sent me about this "upgrade", logged in with my account and ordered the equipment. Then I spoke to someone face to face who pulled up my account before handing over the equipment to me. Finally, I spoke on the phone to someone about issues I was having with this new equipment and, at no time, did anyone bother to make the necessary changes to my account. I might understand it not being automatically changed when I ordered the stuff online, but the guy who gave me the equipment doesn't think to do it ? Certainly, you would think the guy on the phone who knew I was having a problem might have picked up on it. But, of course, this is Comcast we're talking about, so expecting competent service is really too much to ask. I HATE Comcast and I will be so glad when I'm able to switch to Verizon and tell Comcast goodbye forever.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div></div>Kevinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15678475752435111481noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9220678421717693681.post-4245167114392031172011-03-07T16:27:00.000-05:002011-03-07T16:27:12.745-05:00Update on "They just keep giving"Apparently, I was right. <br />
<br />
http://mediamatters.org/research/201103070026Kevinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15678475752435111481noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9220678421717693681.post-27756142076330859502011-03-07T14:30:00.028-05:002011-03-07T14:46:28.662-05:00They just keep giving I'm beginning to think that I could just watch Fox "News" every morning and I would never have to worry again about having something to post here. This morning, the BHBB on "Fox and Fools" was interviewing Dr. Brian Weiss about his book, "Many Lives, Many Masters". It's a book about past lives and using past life "regression" to fix problems people have in their lives. One example he gave (and I'm not making this up) was if you had neck pain that it may be that you were hanged in a past life and by helping you "remember" that, you can cure the pain. ARE YOU KIDDING ME? This is what FOX considers news, some quack peddling nonsense? It's bad enough that they put their own slant on real news stories, including flat out lying about things. But this, really? I admit it's not as if Fox "News" had any credibility before anyway. If they ever did, though, this got rid of it for sure.<br />
Sorry, folks, but you didn't have any past lives and you're not going to have any future ones. Just look at it from a strictly mathematical standpoint. There are MANY (we're talking literally billions) more people who are living today than lived in the past. Are there some people who have lived before and other people who are new souls? If that's the case, how is it that every person who goes to a quack like this Dr. Weiss is told that they had a past life? You would think once in a while they'd come across someone who didn't have any past lives. In fact, the difference between the amount of people living before and those living now would make it likely that most of the people they "treat" would NOT have had a past life, but that never seems to be the case. And, always, at least one of the individual's past lives was as somebody famous, again something the odds would be against. Why then, is this always the case? Oh, that's right, because the whole thing is BS.<br />
Oh, and let me ask you this. If someone opens fire on a group of people killing some and wounding others, what would you call that? I ask this because right after the BHBB's ridiculous interview, she mentioned the stories (and, really, if there's ever a time where that is the appropriate word for news, it's when it's something on FOX) was going to be about how President Obama won't use the word terrorism in reference to the shooting of U.S. airmen in Germany. We've heard this before from them. Obama never uses the word terrorism (which isn't true) and of course, this means he is really on the side of the terrorists (at least, that's what FOX tries to imply). You know, I don't watch FOX "News" that much, so maybe I missed it when they covered the story on TV, but I did a search on their website using quite a few combinations of "Arizona" and "terrorism" or "terorrist". Based on the results I got, it doesn't seem that they referred to the shootings in Arizona as terrorism even though it was very similar to what happened in Germany. Hmmm, why would that be? Maybe this table will help :<br />
<br />
<u><b>Germany shootings</b></u> <u><b>Arizona shootings</b></u><br />
<br />
Lone gunman Lone gunman<br />
<br />
Attack on U.S. citizens in public Attack on U.S. citizens in public<br />
<br />
Multiple deaths Multiple deaths<br />
<br />
Shooter was not a U.S. citizen Shooter was a U.S. citizen<br />
<br />
Shooter influenced by violent Shooter influenced by violent<br />
rhetoric of Islamic extremists rhetoric of right wing politicians<br />
given airtime on FOX<br />
<br />
Gee, what are the differences that might be causing them to label one as a terrorist attack and not the other? As I said, I could be wrong. Maybe when the Arizona shootings happened, they reported it as a terrorist attack and they just don't refer to it as such on their website, right? Yeah....right.<br />
FOX "News", the gift that keeps on giving.Kevinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15678475752435111481noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9220678421717693681.post-71803888179117067172011-03-03T13:19:00.000-05:002011-03-03T13:19:36.102-05:00Said I wouldn't do this, but.... ....I have a little bit of a new audience. I posted a comment on another blog and according to my stats, some people (not a lot , but a few) clicked on the link I included and checked out my blog. If any of those people are still coming back to check the blog out, I'm asking for any comments you have. It can be about a specific post or about the blog in general, what you like about it, what you don't, that kind of thing. I know I said recently that I wasn't going to solicit comments. But if I've got some people checking this blog out, maybe some of them might not be lurkers and would be willing to speak up. I think it's time to admit, to myself and anyone reading this, I would like people to read what I have to say. I wish I could say that I'm writing just to write, but let's be honest, if you're writing something and putting it out there and nobody's reading it, what's the point ? If you're going to write just for yourself, you should just keep a diary, not have a blog. I think feedback may help me get an idea of what's working and what isn't and allow me to do things that will get more people reading.<br />
Of course, I've already heard (and have successfully made use of the suggestion) that I should comment on blogs I read. And, yes, I know, posting a little more often would help. I'm working on it. I'm mainly looking for ideas about the writing, the layout, the about me page, etc, basically anything about the blog itself that I could tweak.<br />
Kevinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15678475752435111481noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9220678421717693681.post-497605002356174312011-02-26T15:49:00.000-05:002011-02-26T15:49:25.528-05:00Comfortable Accommodations As I mentioned in my last post, I recently sent a post to a site calling for submissions. The site in question is the site of the JREF (James Randi Educational Foundation). They rejected it (although they did ask me to send other articles in the future) because they said they were looking for a fresh perspective on the accommodationist/confrontationalist debate as a whole,rather than a piece that advocates for one side or the other. As I said in my reply e-mail to them, I'm not sure how any post on the debate isn't going to come down on one side or the other. Anyway, since they decided they didn't they want it, I'm posting it here. <br />
<br />
There are two major factions among atheists. One side thinks a confrontational approach towards religion is needed. It isn't enough to get religious individuals to accept things like evolution while holding onto their religious beliefs. These "New Atheists" think it's necessary to destroy those beliefs, to get everyone to accept that there is no God. They say and write things that indicate that anyone who holds any sort of belief in a supreme being or an afterlife is an idiot. On the other side are the "accommodationists". They're ok with people having religious beliefs as long as they don't try to impose those beliefs on others or try to impede scientific progress and education because of their beliefs.<br />
I'm an agnostic. I'm also an accommodationist. I'm so accommodating, in fact, that I married a Christian Scientist. <br />
Let's be clear about a couple of things :<br />
1) Christian Scientists are not these extreme fundamentalist Christians who you've read the horrible stories about, stories where a child dies a slow, painful death from say, an easily treated ear infection, while the parents refuse medical treatment in favor of prayer. Based on my personal experience, they're more like the typical male, religious or not. They don't go to doctors for regular check-ups, but they won't hesitate to dial 911 if someone's in distress. I have visited Christian Scientists in the hospital and there isn't a Christian Scientist I've met who I believe would see a child suffering and do nothing but pray.<br />
2) While I won't say that there is definitely no God, I will definitely say that I think if God exists, he/she/it definitely isn't the God envisioned by Christian Science (if there is a God, I think the best case scenario based on the evidence is the Deist view of God expressed by many of the Founding Fathers that God made the Universe and then stepped out of the picture) and if I have a bad cold, I use Nyquil to get a good night's sleep, not prayer.<br />
My wife knows my thoughts on God in general and Christian Science in particular, yet it causes no problems. My in-laws, who are also Christian Scientists, know as well and they have no problem with it. In fact, my mother-in-law treats me like I'm her own son. And all of the Christian Scientists I've met at her church have accepted me even though they know I'm not a believer. Yes, I go to church with her. She likes having me go with her, it's not that early in the morning and I often get a nice little nap out of it. If you have a problem with that, well, I think you'd be amazed at how little I care.<br />
I realize that a non-religious person marrying a religious person isn't a unique situation, even if one of those people is an agnostic, skeptical cynic who wanted to be a doctor when he was a kid and the other is a member of a religion that believes the physical world is an illusion and that sickness can be healed through prayer.<br />
I also know that when it comes to religious people, Christian Scientists (at least in my experience) don't compare to Christian fundamentalists when it comes to ignorance (willful or otherwise) and intolerance. They don't seem to have any problem with the Big Bang, the age of the universe and Earth, evolution, etc. Where science is concerned, their only blind spot seems to be in the area of medicine. They don't aggressively proselytize. They won't tell you that if you don't believe what they do, you'll go to Hell for all eternity. They don't believe in Hell. And they are not hard-headed when it comes to science. A while back, I overheard a friend of my wife's family who's a Christian Scientist talking to my mother-in-law about seeing a TV appearance by Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey where they were spewing their anti-vax nonsense. When she saw me rolling my eyes, she asked for my input. I told her that I wouldn't be inclined to take medical advice from a woman who's famous for getting naked and a man whose breakout film role involved him making his butt pretend to talk. A few days later, I offered her an article from Skeptic magazine about the anti-vax movement and how it was based on fraudulent, unethical "research" conducted by someone who was hoping to push their own alternative vaccine. She eagerly accepted it. I confess, I never asked her what effect it had on her opinion about it, but at least she was willing to look at it with an open mind.<br />
Still, we are talking about people who have what would probably be considered wacky beliefs by your average Christian. Even Creationists go to the doctor. When I was dating my wife and I found out about her beliefs, I could have just said "You're crazy, lady!" and ended it. That would have been a huge mistake. She is the best thing that has ever happened to me. We have a happy home where the mailman delivers the Christian Science Sentinel and the Christian Science Journal along with Skeptical Inquirer and Free Inquiry. Granted, there are no kids in the picture yet and even though we discussed how we would handle religion with them before we were married, I'm sure issues will still come up, but I'm also sure we'll be able to handle them.<br />
If we can make our marriage work, I think non-religious people can make things work with those who have religious beliefs. It means being willing to be tolerant of those beliefs (within certain limits). It means not thinking that everyone who's religious is stupid. My wife isn't stupid. Her family isn't stupid and her friends at church aren't stupid. Constantly belittling the religious isn't going to allow you to make much progress in changing their minds about things. Not only are people not going to listen to someone who insults them, but people tend to be stubborn about these things. If you constantly tell someone that a long held, cherished belief is totally wrong, they're just going to hold on to that belief even stronger. You may say, "So what, I don't care if I change their minds as long as I'm able to make sure religion stays out of the schools, doesn't shape public policy, etc." The problem is, as with pretty much any other issue, you're always going to have people who are somewhere in the middle whose help you're going to need to accomplish your goals and they're not going to be very sympathetic towards you if you act like a complete asshole. If you're one of these hardcore, religion must be destroyed atheists, I really think you should consider changing your tactics and following the example of Americans United for Separation of Church and State (of which I'm a member) and reach out to the religious moderates. Being willing to be just a little accommodating could yield some pretty big benefits. It has for me.Kevinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15678475752435111481noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9220678421717693681.post-17685490962404183122011-02-15T21:39:00.000-05:002011-02-15T21:39:45.276-05:00Quick note Just an FYI, the amount of time between posts hasn't been due to me slacking off on posting again. I've been on a cruise and I wasn't paying the outrageous price to use their Wi-Fi connection. I sent a new post a few minutes ago to a site calling for submissions. If they accept it and post it, I will post a link to it so you can read it. If they don't accept it, I'll just post it here.<br />
Of course, looking at my stats, I'm not sure if it wouldn't be better to just post something about Lady Gaga arriving to the Grammys in a giant egg. My most viewed post, with 30 page views, is "Free Speech Limits". The second most ? "Mark Harris and Ricky Gervais" with 17 page views. Not only that, but the free speech one was posted last July. The Ricky Gervais one was just posted last month, yet it already has over twice as many page views as the free speech one. Of course, as my wife pointed out, it could be because of the tags it has causing it to pop up in people's search engines. I've added some tags to the free speech one (it didn't have any before). We'll see what happens.Kevinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15678475752435111481noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9220678421717693681.post-41390272742378596512011-01-31T15:27:00.000-05:002011-01-31T15:27:19.272-05:00Pro Bowl quarterbacks of the future?"http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2011/01/31/cat-set-on-fire-in-baltimore-city/ Looks like someone has taken the first step towards becoming an All Pro QB #AnimalCruelty #MichaelVickIsAScumbag"<br />
<br />
The above was what I put on Twitter this morning. The day after everyone is cheering for that waste of human flesh Michael Vick in the Pro Bowl, this story was all over the news in Baltimore. What's described in this story isn't that far off from what he did. The only difference is these scumbags only got sick amusement out of it. Vick got sick amusement AND money.<br />
This is the kind of person so many you have forgiven. The person many of you have managed to forgive because he's a really good football player. It's this mentality that is the reason people like Ray Lewis and Donte Stallworth are playing for the Ravens. Just like Michael Vick, it doesn't matter what you've done. If you've got skills, people will forgive and forget anything. Refuse to help the police in the investigation of a double homicide? No problem if you're a great defensive player. Kill someone while driving drunk? Well, can you catch a football? If so, no problem. Did you torture and kill dogs? Did you have them tear each other apart for your amusement and profit? That's ok, if you can throw a football really well. Heck, you might even get your teammates to unanimously vote for you for the Ed Block courage award (because it takes so much courage to commit animal cruelty and then come back to the job that gives you fame and fortune) and be voted into the Pro Bowl.<br />
Michael Vick is scum. I don't care what that sanctimonious jackass Tony Dungy says. I don't care what that fat piece of crap Andy Reid says. Vick is scum and anyone who roots for him is too.Kevinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15678475752435111481noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9220678421717693681.post-65957898629647464352011-01-21T10:18:00.000-05:002011-01-21T10:18:32.826-05:00Mark Harris and Ricky Gervais Some people might consider today's post a bit of a cheat because once again, it is partly a letter to the editor of a magazine, but oh well, deal. <br />
This whole so-called "controversy" over the jokes Ricky Gervais made while hosting the Golden Globes really bugs me. They were JOKES, people. And, you know, sometimes jokes aren't nice. In fact, they almost always aren't. Someone or something is usually the butt of the joke. I'll admit that comedians can sometimes go beyond what some people consider good taste. But a joke pointing out what everyone knows about what a farce the Golden Globes are ? A joke about Robert Downey Jr. having been a drug addict ? These are horrible ? Please ! <br />
What makes it worse is we're supposed to feel sorry for these movie stars. "Oh no, Ricky Gervais made a joke about me, nobody's ever done THAT before. I'm going to go home to my mansion and wipe my tears with $100 bills." To any movie star who got their feelings hurt, why you don't go talk to some of the people who have lost their jobs and homes and tell them how rough you have it and how much you suffered that night.<br />
Anyway, today, I was reading the latest issue of Entertainment Weekly (1/28/11). And before you say anything, I have never claimed that everything I read is of the highest intellectual caliber, ok ? It's not surprising to find celebrity ass-kissing and poor judgment in this magazine. In the same issue, they had a page devoted to "Under-rated movies". One of the movies included ? "Joe Vs. The Volcano". That movie isn't under-rated, it is a total and complete piece of garbage. Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan are lucky that people haven't sued them for compensation for that 102 minutes of their life they'll never get back. A regular columnist for the magazine, Mark Harris wrote a column in this issue basically whining about how mean Ricky Gervais was. I wrote the following letter in response, I meant to include a comment similar to the one in the paragraph above commenting on the stars' "suffering" vs real suffering, but I forgot. I think this still works, though. Hope you enjoy it.<br />
<br />
I have to thank Mark Harris for opening my eyes with his latest column ("Icky Ricky", 1/28/11). Sure, the Golden Globes only exist so that members of the HFPA can mingle with movie stars and, yes, those stars tend to be spoiled, pampered multi-millionaires who attend this event knowing full well they usually haven't done anything to deserve any kind of award and, all right, NBC did run promos where Ricky Gervais said he was going to do exactly what he did that evening. But, hey, he was just such a big meanie, right Mark ? <br />
Maybe next year they can just have someone get up there and tell knock knock jokes. Heck, maybe Mark Harris could do it himself, that is if he can pry his lips away from the nearest celebrity's ass long enough.Kevinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15678475752435111481noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9220678421717693681.post-65732455555927314092011-01-12T16:44:00.001-05:002011-01-13T16:45:03.158-05:00Just when you think she can't get any stupider Well, Sarah Palin has once again shown what a complete and utter moron she is. She posted a video on her Facebook page about the shooting rampage in Arizona that wounded Rep. Giffords and killed 6 other people (On a side note about that, if you want to know one of the reasons I have problems with organized religion, three words :Westboro Baptist Church) After the shooting, many people were quick to blame her and others like her for the tragedy and this video was obviously her response to that.<br />
She had an opportunity to address the vile, hateful, VIOLENT rhetoric that she and others like her spew out. She could have suggested that while she doesn't feel that her words and her map with the targets caused this tragedy that she understands that maybe things have become a little too polarized in this country and that it might be time for a return to something approaching civil discourse.<br />
But she's not smart enough for that. Instead, she basically denied that political rhetoric is any more heated now than it has been in the past. That would be bad enough, because it would just be more evidence of how stupid, clueless/dishonest she is, but she wouldn't be Sarah "Death Panel" Palin if she didn't take the opportunity to stick her foot so far in her mouth that she could feel her toes in the back of her throat.<br />
So, she delivered this quote:<br />
<br />
“Especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn,” she said. “That is reprehensible.”<br />
<br />
For those of you don't know what blood libel is, here's the deifinition :<br />
<br />
The accusation that Jews murder non-Jews to obtain blood for Passover rituals. This accusation was repeated in many places in the Middle Ages and was the cause of anti-Jewish riots and massacres. It was a regular motif in anti-Semitic propaganda until the Second World War.<br />
<br />
Sarah Palin compared what was being said about her by some people to blood libel. The cherry on top ? Gabrielle Giffords is Jewish. I've said it before and I will say it again. Sarah Palin is one of the biggest idiots ever to enter politics (and that's really saying something). I will hate John McCain until my dying day for bringing this woman to national prominence and inflicting her on all of us.<br />
I would like to believe that maybe this would put an end to her political life, not because I'm worried that she might ever be elected President, which you know she wants, but because I just want her to shut up and go away. Unfortunately, most of the people who are fans of hers aren't the kind of people who are going to see anything wrong with what she said. So, we'll probably still be hearing from her for years to come. Luckily, it will mostly be on Fox "News" (ha!) and never from the Oval Office.Kevinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15678475752435111481noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9220678421717693681.post-39429382386058729612011-01-06T14:45:00.001-05:002011-01-07T10:38:17.866-05:00A Few Thank YousI want to say thanks to a few people :<br />
<br />
First, I want to say thanks to Agent Orange and the rest of the Republicans in control of the House now. While our economy is still in the toilet, people are still losing houses and can't find work and we still have men and women in harm's way in Iraq and Afghanistan, what's your first priority ? Reading the Constitution on the floor of the House (which I haven't seen or heard any of, did they skip Article VI, paragraph 3 which says that religious tests for office aren't allowed and did they skip the first clause in the 1st Amendment saying that the government can't make a law respecting the establishment of religion because I would think that would cause the explosion of the heads of the ultra-religious right wing nutjobs who seem to make up the Republican Party these days who insist this is a Christian nation) and making a show of trying to repeal health care (actually health insurance) reform. In two years, I'm sure voters will really appreciate that you tried to repeal an act that will, at that point, have given them all these benefits-<br />
http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/keyprovisions.html - for two years and will be thrilled you considered that (and reading the Constitution) to be the thing that was most important to do as soon as you got into office. Thank you for ensuring that the Democrats will have control of the House back in 2012.<br />
<br />
Second, I would like to issue a pre-emptive thank you to all the idiots who believe that the world is going to end on either May 21, 2011 or December 21, 2012. If you could do me a huge favor and just kill yourselves now, that would be great. Just yourselves, though. Don't take anyone else with you which is what I'm afraid some of you may end up doing since you're so convinced the world is going to end. Just kill yourselves without taking anyone with you and you will have my eternal gratitude.<br />
<br />
On a less serious note, I would like to thank Katy Perry for the amusement she provided me last night. Before I do that, since some people may say I'm being a little mean here, I want to say I actually do like her music and she does (from what I've read) actually write or co-write most, if not all of her songs which is more then you can say for some "artists" out there. That being said, after seeing this last night, I knew I had to write about it. Flipping through the channels, I came across the People's Choice Awards just as they were about to give out the award for Favorite Female Artist. When they announced her name, she seemed to me like she was trying to look surprised that she won, even though we all know the winners know ahead of time. Hell, they had her sitting right in the front row before they announced it. Then she gets on stage and for some reason, they hand her two awards. She bends down to the microphone until she's almost at a 90 degree angle showing off the thing (or I guess I should say things) that I'm sure played a large part (no pun intended) in her winning the award and she says "I have two of them" and then, even better, "These are heavy, I wish you could feel them !" I don't know if she was aware how that sounded with her practically shoving her boobs into the camera, but it was amusing. I'm inclined to think she may not be that quick-witted though, since she followed that up by doing what they all do at this show, saying how this award means more to them than any other because it's voted on by "The People". Except what she said, and I'm sorry I don't remember the exact quote, was that it meant so much to her because it was voted on by people, not by "The People", but by people ... and that's where she seemed to realize the corner she'd painted herself into (seeing as how all the awards are voted on by people) and said (after a second or two, kind of trailing off)...instead of a computer or something. Brilliant. Thanks, Katy !Kevinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15678475752435111481noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9220678421717693681.post-44076727418307068702011-01-02T21:41:00.000-05:002011-01-02T21:41:36.577-05:00Twittering and 2011 A new year, another attempt at making this blog something I actually update regularly. I plan to do so, which may be good news or bad news for those who were reading it regularly before. The good news is my posting should be done more frequently. The bad news, possibly, is that part of posting more frequently will be due to the fact that the posts will not all be the politically/socially themed rants that a lot of them have been. I will still comment on news and social issues, but I'm going to write about other things as well. The fact of the matter is that the infrequency of posts before came from me tending to focus on writing those types of posts, which involved a bit of research because if I'm going to make an argument about something, I want to be sure no one can point out an obvious mistake I've made. Doing that research takes time, as does actually writing the post and then editing it before posting and frankly, I have other responsibilities that take precedence. If I ever turn my hobby of writing into a job, then I can devote more time to this, but not right now.<br />
So I'm going to do something that goes against some of the common wisdom about writing blogs, I'm NOT going to have a particular theme to this blog. A definite point of view, yes, but a theme, no. If you were reading this blog before just to see who I would be tearing a new one this time, you may be disappointed. I hope not. I hope that whatever I decide to write about will be written well enough that you will want to read it no matter what it is.<br />
Also, I am no longer going to ask people to comment so that I know you're reading. Of course, I do encourage you to comment, but I can just look at the stats to see how many people are reading, so if you want to lurk, go right ahead. I will just say one thing, though. If you're not commenting because you're worried about me unleashing the same vitriol on you that I unleash on some of the subjects of my posts, I assure you I won't do that (unless of course, you write something really ignorant that deserves scorn heaped upon it).<br />
I also want to let you know that I'm on Twitter as well. My name (or whatever the specific term is for it on Twitter) is @WordsInTheStone. (No "The" at the beginning). You don't have to sign up for Twitter to read my "tweets", just do a search for @WordsInTheStone on the home page. Speaking of Twitter, I have 4 followers, 3 of which I'm not sure where they came from. Only one of them follows someone that I do. I've never commented on the tweets of the mutual person we follow and I doubt my follower looked through our mutual person's over 1,000,000 followers and decided to follow me. The other two, who I just picked up within the last few hours don't even share one person in common with me. The two of them seem to follow a lot of the same people though and neither one has done any tweeting of their own yet, which makes me even more confused. I've had a few "followers" who were obviously either some type of performer who was obviously following as many people as possible in the hopes they would be followed back and be able to talk about how many followers they have. Others have obviously been spam. But these don't seem to fit into either of those categories, so I'm wondering if they read the blog and decided to see if I was on Twitter as well. If you're one of those 3 people and that's how you found me, let me know. If you don't follow me on Twitter now, but you decide to, send me a "tweet" to let me know you found me through the blog. I know I said I'm not worried about comments any more, but if you find my blog interesting enough that you want to read my "tweets" as well, I'd really like to know that. Besides, if you want me to follow you back, that is the best way to make it happen. I'm not inclined to follow people who seem to be following me at random in the hopes that I'll follow them back and boost their numbers.Kevinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15678475752435111481noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9220678421717693681.post-29924939475997763152010-07-07T16:29:00.002-04:002011-02-15T21:31:51.382-05:00Free speech limits Today's blog is a letter that I just wrote to the editors of The Nation, a news magazine that is firmly in the liberal camp, a magazine to which I subscribe (Shocker !). It is my response to something that was written in their "Noted" section in the July 12 issue. The author was attempting to paint the recent Supreme Court ruling in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project as something that will result in people being locked up simply for advocating peace. I wish I could post the whole thing here, but I think that doing so would go beyond what is considered "fair use". I also don't think I can post a link to the piece online since it is only supposed to be available to subscribers. I think the quotes from the piece that I included in my letter should make it pretty clear where this guy is coming from, though.<br />
You may ask, why am I posting this letter in my blog (besides allowing me to post a blog that requires minimal effort) ? I do it for two reasons. <br />
1) It's the kind of thing that would normally get my dander up enough to blog about. Certainly, it bothered me enough to write a letter to the editors of a magazine, only the second time I've done so. The first time was a few weeks back. I wrote a letter to the editors of The Hockey News letting them know of my disappointment at them for not just including the owner of the San Jose Sharks (an evolution denier) in their "Genius" issue, but presenting a comment from him in support of creationism in a way that seemed to me to suggest the author's support for his views.<br />
2) I think it offers some evidence that despite what some people may think, and as I have said before, I am not a "bleeding heart" liberal who automatically skews way to the left on any issue. <br />
So here it is :<br />
<br />
While I share David Cole's desire to uphold the First Amendment and his outrage at the Citizens United decision, I have to take issue with his obvious attempt to distort the meaning of the ruling in this case. ("Noted", July 12) <br />
<br />
<br />
Over and over, he implies that people are no longer allowed to advocate for peace, "Human rights activists can be sent to jail.....merely for advocating for peace and human rights", "Six justices ruled......that Congress can make it a crime to advocate for wholly lawful, nonviolent ends", "(The Court) reasoned that the mere possibility....that human rights advocacy might somehow advance a designated group's illegal ends was enough to justify prosecuting human rights advocates as "terrorists" for their speech", ".....a human rights activist can be sent to jail for pursuing peace".<br />
<br />
Sounds pretty scary, right ? That is, as long as you ignore the fact that the ruling makes it clear that you can't advocate for a designated terrorist group or write or publish anything in support of them if you are doing so in conjunction with them or under their direction. In other words, Mr. Cole and others are still perfectly free to advocate for peace. They can still write articles, place ads on TV or the radio, hold rallies, have parades, etc, etc, promoting peace and advocating on behalf of any designated terrorist group they like. They simply can't do it in concert with or at the behest of those groups.<br />
<br />
The First Amendment is arguably our most tenuous right. It needs to be constantly defended from those who attempt to chip away at it, but mounting that defense using a distortion of the facts is not the way to go about it.Kevinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15678475752435111481noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9220678421717693681.post-49303913135303419082010-06-04T12:43:00.001-04:002010-06-04T12:44:38.341-04:00Offensive speechSo this morning, I did something that I do occasionally even though I know it's just going to annoy me. While flipping through the channels on TV, I stopped on Fox "News". Steve Douchey (yes, I know that's not how it's spelled, but it should be) and the bubble-headed bleach blonde (tip of the cap to Don Henley) were talking to a curator of a museum in Oklahoma. Right now, the museum she works for is displaying paintings that show the Virgin Mary holding weapons. For instance, in one painting, she is holding what looks like a sub-machine gun. She isn't using the weapons or even pointing them at anyone, just holding them. Now I didn't find this particularly offensive, (I wasn't particularly impressed with the artwork, in my opinion, it was competent, but nothing special) but then again, I don't believe in the whole Virgin Mary story anyway, so that's not surprising. It also wasn't surprising that Fox actually considers this news or that the whole point of having this woman on was to give her grief (as opposed to taking a "Fair and Balanced" look at the situation)and get Fox viewers riled up about this awful thing that's going on, even though no one's forcing any of them to go to Oklahoma and look at this stuff. <br />
<br />
But the point of this post isn't to point out what everyone knows, which is that Fox "News" is not a news organization. I just want to comment on something the BBB said. I don't remember the exact quote, but I think this is close enough to it to make the point, "I understand the whole free speech thing, but, still, a lot of people would probably find this offensive". The second half of that statement makes it clear that the first half of it isn't true. The whole point of freedom of speech is to protect unpopular speech. Popular speech, by its' very nature, doesn't need protecting. If I say something like, "Puppies and kittens are cute", I don't have to worry too much about upsetting people. But if I say something like, "I think if Christ did exist, he was just a guy with some good ideas, that's it, he certainly wasn't the son of God", there are quite a few people who would be ticked off. Does that mean I shouldn't have the right to say that ? Before you answer, think about this, would you want to live in Iran ? In that country, religion IS the law and woe on anyone who would dare to say anything against it. Some of the right wing nuts who think Obama's a nazi have drawn pictures of him with a Hitler mustache and Nazi uniform and displayed them at rallies. I personally find this offensive (and, frankly, I think most Jews or pretty much anybody who knows anything about history should). To compare anything Obama has done, no matter how much it has ticked you off, to what Hitler did is incredibly offensive and the people who do it just display how ignorant of history they are (and in general). Still, I would never say they weren't allowed to do it. Of course, during the Dubya administration (the Dark Years), any piece of artwork that made such an offensive implication about Dubya would have sparked outrage among these same people.<br />
<br />
Bottom line, freedom of speech is not there to protect speech everybody likes. It's there to protect speech many people won't like, maybe even you. And like the right wingers who said that criticizing Dubya was disloyal and that we should always support our president no matter what who are now carrying those Obama is Hitler signs, the speech you find offensive today might be the kind of thing you want to say tomorrow. It's very easy for the tables to be turned. If you really love this country, like so many on the right claim to (and imply that those on the left don't), then you should support the First Amendment (and the rest of the Constitution) and just don't listen to, watch, etc. anything you don't like. Otherwise, one day you may find that you're the one being silenced.Kevinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15678475752435111481noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9220678421717693681.post-73261702950821220432010-05-31T17:01:00.000-04:002010-05-31T17:01:04.168-04:00Memorial DayJust want to express my gratitude to all those who fought and died for my freedom. That's what this holiday is about, not getting a three day weekend, not big sales at stores, not going to the beach. Today is intended to honor those who gave their lives to defend this country. Please keep that in mind today.Kevinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15678475752435111481noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9220678421717693681.post-31841190889557261202010-05-28T17:30:00.002-04:002010-05-28T20:45:02.070-04:00ProgressThis is going to be a short post today. Just want to say that I'm really happy that the House of Representatives voted to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". I hope that the Senate will do the same. The next thing they need to do is repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. It's bad enough that some states still persist in their commitment to prejudice and intolerance and won't allow homosexuals to marry. For the Federal government to help perpetuate this by allowing those ignorant, backwards states to refuse to recognize homosexual marriages performed in other states in violation of the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution is inexcusable.Kevinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15678475752435111481noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9220678421717693681.post-71799403749765035282010-02-22T16:08:00.001-05:002010-11-08T13:06:31.975-05:00Unpleasant surprisesLately, I've been thinking about the whole idea of blogging and internet actions with others in general and it made me think of some recent unpleasant experiences on FaceBook.<br />
<br />
A few months back, I was cleaning up some stuff and I came across my 6th grade yearbook. Unlike the people I went to middle and high school with who I wouldn't want to have anything to do with even if I could remember their names, I actually liked the kids I went to elementary school with, this school in particular. I went to 1st grade at one school, then I think 2nd through 4th at another, and 5th and 6th grade at the last one. I thought it might be interesting to see if I could find some of the kids from the last school on FaceBook. Big mistake.<br />
<br />
One of them turned out to be a hard core right winger, which would have been hard enough to deal with, but she was a Jesus freak too. She posted something in her status about people having a Merry CHRIST-mas and about the reason for the season (which, as I've mentioned before, isn't what people think it is) and so on. I replied back that while I didn't agree with the religious part of the celebration, I could get behind the rest of the good things about it she mentioned. This initiated a back and forth that involved some of her friends, one of whom posted a comment about how God had put this "challenge" in front of her and that this person would be praying for her to which I replied to her friend that she should save her prayers for all the starving children, the women who are being abused, etc, etc, all the things that her great savior Jesus hadn't gotten around to taking care of yet (and, yes, that's how I put it) to which her friend replied and I quote "MAY GOD BLESS YOU !!!!!!!!" which, of course, is the Christian way of saying F.U. Basically, it was clear that she and her friends considered anyone who wasn't Christian Un-American and that they needed to be "saved", etc.etc., so I unfriended and blocked her.<br />
<br />
Before that, there was another woman who I knew back then who put up a status post saying that we needed to get God (specifically Christ) back in this country. I commented that I didn't realize he had left and wondered if she was saying that Jews, Buddhists, and other non-Christians should NOT be in this country and pointed out that we don't live in a theocracy. She responded by saying that wasn't what she was saying at all. But it became obvious through my back and forth with her that it was EXACTLY what she meant. She's one of these people who believes that if you don't accept Christ as your savior, you're not getting into Heaven, one of these people who believe a man who spends his life raping little boys would be allowed into Heaven if he accepted Christ on his deathbed and asked forgiveness while a man who lived a pure life, went out of his way to do good, never even had an impure thought, but didn't accept the divinity of Christ would go to Hell. Needless to say, she got the "unfriend and block" treatment as well.<br />
<br />
It goes on (although without the drama, so far). There's a guy who I remember liked wearing an AC/DC "Highway to Hell" T-shirt who, according to his profile, is a Baptist. There's another guy who joined one of the "Causes" on FaceBook, this one intending to keep the phrase "Under God" in the pledge of allegiance. I've had to resist the urge to point out to him that those words were only added in the 50s at the height of the "Red Scare" as a way to distinguish us from the "godless Communists", that it's ridiculous for a democracy to have a "Loyalty Oath" at all (it's something they have in dictatorships and other repressive regimes), and that again, this is not a theocracy.<br />
<br />
The ultimate irony is that, based on the pages listed in her profile and the FaceBook groups she belongs to, the one person from back then who seems to share my political and possibly my religious views is the one person from back then who REALLY didn't like me. Of course, the reason she didn't like me is really silly. I won't go into it here, but if anyone is interested, I'd be willing to share. I tried to be the bigger person, sent her a message on FaceBook, said that I had never really had a problem with HER and that it was a long, long time ago and I thought it would be nice to be able to talk to somebody from back then who hadn't turned into a right wing, ultra-religious individual. Never heard back from her. I've thought about trying again. The thing is, in the e-mail, I told her if she wasn't interested, that she didn't have to write back and I wouldn't bother her again, but , of course, without a response from her, I don't know if she read it at all, so maybe I should.<br />
<br />
Bottom line, if you're thinking that it might be fun to look up someone on FaceBook who you haven't been in contact with for awhile, remember the words of Dr. Zaius, "You may not like what you find."Kevinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15678475752435111481noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9220678421717693681.post-66916254448835475612010-02-15T13:56:00.000-05:002010-02-15T13:56:45.303-05:00Hey, Dick !First of all, I want to say that I appreciate Dick Cheney supporting repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"<br />
<br />
As for the other stuff he said this weekend :<br />
<br />
1) I'm really tired of pundits on the Right forgetting their history. The "Underwear Bomber" hasn't been treated any differently than the "Shoe Bomber" was under the Bush administration, so either Obama is right for the way he's handling it now or you were wrong then. Which is it ?<br />
<br />
2) Refusing to torture people doesn't make Obama weak on terror. It would be nice if things worked in the real world the way they do on "24", but they don't. In real life, innocent people are tortured. And it's not as if torturing those who aren't innocent accomplishes anything. Someone who is being tortured will say anything to get the torture to stop. Most importantly, regardless of the effectiveness of torture, America is supposed to be better than that. It makes it hard for us to hold ourselves up as an example for the rest of the world if we torture. Even worse, it makes it pretty much impossible for us to complain if any of our citizens are tortured overseas. Torture is wrong, period. Furthermore, even if you sincerely believe that this administration is weak on terror, do you really think broadcasting that to all the potential terrorists out there is a good thing ? <br />
<br />
Frankly, Mr. Cheney, if you're this interested in still being involved in politics, I wish you would go about it the same way you did while you were Vice-President. Go to your "undisclosed secure location" and SHUT THE HELL UP !Kevinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15678475752435111481noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9220678421717693681.post-78551257644666661692010-02-12T16:45:00.000-05:002010-02-12T16:45:38.285-05:00Darwin DayJust a short note to point out that Charles Darwin was born on this day 201 years ago. There are those who think today should be a national holiday. I support this idea myself, but frankly, I would be happy just to have this not be the sad state our country is in :<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6173399/Charles-Darwin-film-too-controversial-for-religious-America.html">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6173399/Charles-Darwin-film-too-controversial-for-religious-America.html</a><br />
<br />
It both saddens and infuriates me that this country lags so far behind Japan and most European countries in acceptance of the Theory of Evolution. The Theory of Gravity, The Theory of Relativity, The Germ Theory of Disease, these are all Theories. For those who don't know, a Theory is not a guess or an opinion. When something is given the designation of Theory, that means it's been tested over and over again and found to be true, so when you hear people dismissing Evolution by saying it's "just a theory", you should know that they're hoping you don't know the difference between a Theory and a hypothesis (which is an idea that either hasn't been tested or hasn't been tested enough to reach the level of Theory). 99.99 % of the population have no problem with those other Theories, but The Theory of Evolution is different. It seems that people are willing to accept scientific facts as long they don't conflict with their religious beliefs. There is some good news. Recent polls show the number of people who don't belong to any particular religion (or, in some cases, aren't religious at all) is growing. So hopefully, at some point in the future, we won't be the laughingstock of the civilized world due to the willingness of a large segment of our nation's population to give more credence to a book full of fairy tales than to scientific facts.Kevinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15678475752435111481noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9220678421717693681.post-29286642414611558962010-02-02T14:17:00.002-05:002010-11-08T13:03:59.146-05:00A few TV notesWant to make another science on TV comment. This time it's not about shows that are presented as fact, but that are nothing but BS. This time, it's something that a lot of dramas on TV (and some movies as well) do, which is to take liberties with science in service of the plot, either because a writer isn't skilled enough to work with the facts or is just too lazy. It's on my mind now because I am watching the 1st season of Dexter on DVD and I recently watched the next to last episode of the season. Near the end of this episode, Dexter is trying to confirm that the guy he thinks may be a serial killer really is by comparing a couple of blood samples. He gives them to a lab tech, tells her it's a rush job. In less then an hour, she tells him that these two blood samples are definitely from the same person. The problem in that in less than an hour, you could determine if the blood types are the same (heck, you could do that within a couple of minutes), but you couldn't do a DNA test, and just because two samples have the same blood type doesn't mean they're from the same person. But, of course, someone Dexter cares about (if that's the right term to use when talking about him) is in danger and if he had to wait until the next day, it might be too late to save this person, so the show did what a lot of them do and presented a DNA test as taking a lot less time them it does. The mangling of science happens in the movies too. The movie "Alien Resurrection" is enjoyable as a horror/action flick (though nowhere near as good as the first two movies). At least it is if you don't know anything about cloning. The movie makes it very clear that a character in the movie who is a clone has the memories of the person she was cloned from. People, cloning doesn't involve putting someone in a copier and pushing "Start". DNA from the person to be cloned is put into an egg which develops normally (hopefully) just like any other. The person who is eventually born is a whole new person with no memories at all, much less the memories of the person they have been cloned from. This kind of thing bothers me because A) Since I know something about this stuff, it takes me out of the show (or movie). It's as if they flashed the words "YOU"RE WATCHING A SHOW" on the screen. and B) because science knowledge in this country sucks enough as it is. I really wish there would be more of an effort to portray science as it really is.<br />
<br />
Finally, I don't know if this totally fits into the whole TV theme, but I just want to say that I really wish that we could do away with weather forecasters. Certainly, there should be people monitoring the weather and letting you know if a major storm or a tornado or something like that is in or getting near the area where you live. But the regular forecasts should be done away with. All the meteorologists should just admit that weather is a chaotic system and that it's pretty much impossible to know what it will be like a few hours from now, much less a few days. I bring this up because in the area where I live, this past weekend, we had a snow storm, probably got 3-4 inches. This was after being told that very morning that we weren't going to get any snow at all ! Again today, all the forecasters were saying this morning that we would get maybe an inch, two at the most this evening. Just a couple of hours ago, a Winter Storm Warning was issued for the state and they're now calling for 3-6 inches ! It's just ridiculous. I think they should get rid of the weather forecasts in news broadcasts, and maybe use that time to delve a little deeper into the stories they cover in such a shallow way now, which is a potential topic for another post in the future.Kevinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15678475752435111481noreply@blogger.com0