This is almost too surreal to watch. I've seen some audacious things come out of the Religious Right but this video takes the cake.
The video begins by introducing the environmental movement as one of the greatest deceptions of our day. Funny how the most notorious brainwashers can accuse anyone of deception.
They have the nerve to make the following statements:
"Environmentalists have a long history of believing and promoting exaggerations and myths."
"Exaggeration, myths and outright lies are commonplace in the environmental movement."
The Chief Myth Makers are accusing science of promoting myths and lies? How do people like this live with themselves? What is it like to teach fairy tales to children and intentionally and deceitfully drive them away from facts and the truth? I have to know what that is like.
Scaring little children? You mean telling them to believe in stories and imaginary friends or else suffer by being tortured forever?
The war on the poor? Who will suffer the most when our environmentally unsound culture finally catches up to us? The Poor. The Religious Right needs the poor to justify their existence through charity under false pretenses.
Its time to step up the efforts and educate the young. My mission in life is now to stop this bullshit and eradicate religion by teaching my own children to dismiss religious mythmakers and liars and steer them towards reason and science. They will in turn pass that down on to their own offspring and we'll propagate religion out of existence.
I vowed to never lie to my children which is why we are a completely secular family. This is war, and our primary weapon used against our enemy will be information. The religious can only run from the truth for so long.
Monday, December 20, 2010
King Missile
I couldn't agree more. I can only imagine how much better my life would be today if the Son Of Man was playing on the Giants punt coverage team yesterday afternoon.
I've Always Hated HP Printers
This is why I buy Canon Printers, but then again I have never utilized their tech support. The best part of the video clip is the voice at the very end...
Friday, December 17, 2010
We Call It Football
OK, I'm getting tired of the whole "we-call-it-Football", "its-not-Football-its-Handegg-proper-Football-is-played-with-the-feet" controversy.
Here's the dilly: Amongst ourselves, we call it "Football" and the foot game "Soccer." When we're around others from elsewhere we'll call our game "American Football" so you won't get it mixed up with what you call "Football." OK?
Fair enough.
I don't know why a game with more resemblance to Rugby was allowed to use the name "Football" without considerable ridicule but that's the name the inventors gave it. They should have called it "American Rugby" but they didn't.
"Soccer" and "Football" can be used to describe the same thing just as "toilet" and "shitter" can be used to describe the same thing in different regions. Here's another example: picture a sandwich that's on a 12'' long roll with meats and cheeses, lettuce, tomato, onions, oil and vinegar, oregano, salt and pepper. In New York City they call it a "Sub." in Philadelphia its a "Hoagie." Same sandwich, different regions, different names.
Conversely there can be two different things with the same name. I don't feel like thinking up any examples. Use your imagination.
Unlike most Americans I have no problem using the "Football / American Football" differentiation because it helps avoid confusion. Just don't give me that shit about American Football being a sissy game because its a goddamn dangerous game.
Ask any wide receiver how safe it is leaping into the air to make a catch, and before he regains control of his body some psychopath like Asante Samuels barrels into him with full force leading with his helmet and he falls to the ground like a broken limp dick with stars circling his head and church bells ringing in his ears.
Google "Joe Thiesman Broken Leg Video." and report back. I once watched while a player with a broken neck had to be given CPR on the field.
This is not to take anything away from Soccer (Football) where players are unprotected running up and down the field (pitch) and collide with full force where any number of injuries can occur. My wife's cousin is a fantastic Soccer (Football) player and has had several concussions.
I love the way Soccer (Football) players have to be forced to leave the game when there's blood pouring from their heads. That's tough. That's dedication. That's fucking sports (sport). It's the mark of a champion and I freakin' love it.
Both are great games, both have unique characteristics, both are equally dangerous to the players, complete with concussions and broken bones. We all have to concede that point.
Any American who claims that Soccer (Football) isn't a sport, or is a sissy game is an ignroant douchebag. It's a fantastic game, thrilling to watch and has plenty of injuries to satisfy one's blood lust. Just because you never played it or don't understand it doesn't mean that it sucks. If you don't like it, fine, but on behalf of 99% of the sports fans in the world, maybe you should broaden your horizons a little.
And occasionally in Football (American Football) the ball is kicked.
Football.
Go Giants.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Monday, December 13, 2010
Fw: Fw: Fw: The most incredibly important thing ever! Share with everyone you know!
Think of all of the things you can learn from the emails that your grandfathers or great aunts send you. What a crazy world we live in, eh? That Nancy Pelosi, she's such a witch! Funny how the mainstream media never reports on this stuff. Especially because 99.9% of it is total bunk. But not for certain folks who continue to spread and recycle the same messages for years.
I still maintain that there is a think tank for this stuff somewhere in an underground bunker 1,000 miles below Dick Cheney's house. It just HAS to be. Who makes all of this stuff up?
I've been actively using email at various jobs since the mid-90's and have found similar characteristics in email forwards that have remained consistent from about 1997 until present day:
1) almost all of them fail to produce a single element of truth. The sources for verification are readily available on the "internets," yet the sender almost never avails him or herself of these resources. Some of them are even brazen enough to list a source that if you actually take the time to visit it, will show how the claims in the email are wrong. I guess they assume if the link is there it will APPEAR to have been verified by someone along the way, and therefore is true.
2) the sender is always over the age of 50
3) the sender is from the conservative side of the political spectrum. I find this attribute to be the most interesting and revealing.
3) there has been one, repeat ONE email forward that I received with a political angle that was a liberal point of view. Since 1997 I have been receiving email forwards from various elders and ALL BUT ONE has been politically biased against the left. ONE. It was about IQ's of recent US Presidents and it tried to show that George W. Bush was stupid and Bill Clinton and Al Gore were geniuses. It was bogus.
I have tried and tried and tried to educate these people. I have occasionally debunked the claims by showing them from actual sources (not just Snopes.com) how the subject of the email is untrue and I have chastised them for passing along lies and falsehoods without verifying the claims for themselves. They continue to pass them along anyway. I give up.
I will begin occasionally posting them to vent my frustration to my imaginary audience. Here's text from a recent example. Its fucking funny as shit, or scary, depending on what you glean from it:
Fw: Military Pay
CINDY WILLIAMS was appointed by Obama as an Assistant Director for NATIONAL SECURITY in the Congressional Budget Office..... Military Pay
This is an Airman's response to Cindy Williams' editorial piece in the Washington Times about MILITARY PAY, it should be printed in all newspapers across America .
Ms. Cindy William wrote a piece for the Washington Times denouncing the pay raise(s) coming service members' way this year citing that she stated a 13% wageincrease was more than they deserve.
A young airman from Hill AFB responds to her article below. He ought to get a bonus for this.
"Ms Williams: I just had the pleasure of reading your column, "Our GI's earn enough" and I am a bit confused. Frankly, I'm wondering where this vaunted overpayment is going, because as far as I can tell, it disappears every month between DFAS (The Defense Finance and Accounting Service) and my bank account. Checking my latest earnings statement I see that I make $1,117.80 before taxes per month. After taxes, I take home $874.20. When I run that through the calculator, I come up with an annual salary of $13,413.60 before taxes, and $10,490.40 after.
I work in the Air Force Network Control Center where I am part of the team responsible for a 5,000 host computer network. I am involved with infrastructure segments, specifically with Cisco Systems equipment. A quick check under jobs for "Network Technicians" in the Washington , D.C. area reveals a position in my career field, requiring three years’ experience in my job. Amazingly, this job does NOT pay $13,413.60 a year. No, this job is being offered at $70,000 to $80,000 per annum............ I'm sure you can draw the obvious conclusions.
Given the tenor of your column, I would assume that you NEVER had the pleasure of serving your country in her armed forces.
Before you take it upon yourself to once more castigate congressional and DOD leadership for attempting to get the families in the military's lowest pay brackets off of WIC and food stamps, I suggest that you join a group of deploying soldiers headed for AFGHANISTAN ; I leave the choice of service branch up to you. Whatever choice you make though, opt for the SIX month rotation: it will guarantee you the longest possible time away from your family and friends, thus giving you full "deployment experience."
As your group prepares to board the plane, make sure to note the spouses and children who are saying good-bye to their loved ones. Also take care to note that several families are still unsure of how they'll be able to make ends meet while the primary breadwinner is gone. Obviously they've been squandering the "vast" piles of cash the government has been giving them.
Try to deploy over a major holiday; Christmas and Thanksgiving are perennial favorites. And when you're actually over there, sitting in a foxhole, shivering against the cold desert night, and the flight sergeant tells you that there aren't enough people on shift to relieve you for chow, remember this: trade whatever MRE's (meal-ready-to-eat) you manage to get for the tuna noodle casserole or cheese tortellini, and add Tabasco to everything. This gives some flavor.
Talk to your loved ones as often as you are permitted; it won't be nearly long enough or often enough, but take what you can get and be thankful for it. You may have picked up on the fact that I disagree with most of the points you present in your open piece.
But, tomorrow from KABUL , I will defend to the death your right to say it.
You see, I am an American fighting man, a guarantor of your First Amendment right and every other right you cherish...On a daily basis, my brother and sister soldiers worldwide ensure that you and people like you can thumb your collective noses at us, all on a salary that is nothing short of pitiful and under conditions that would make most people cringe. We hemorrhage our best and brightest into the private sector because we can't offer the stability and pay of civilian companies.
And you, Ms. Williams, have the gall to say that we make more than we deserve?
A1C Michael Bragg, Hill AFB AFNCC
IF YOU AGREE, PLEASE PASS THIS ALONG TO AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE AND SHOW YOUR SUPPORT OF THE AMERICAN FIGHTING MEN AND WOMEN. THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!
NEXT WEEK: an email about how Hillary Clinton likes to rape dogs
I still maintain that there is a think tank for this stuff somewhere in an underground bunker 1,000 miles below Dick Cheney's house. It just HAS to be. Who makes all of this stuff up?
I've been actively using email at various jobs since the mid-90's and have found similar characteristics in email forwards that have remained consistent from about 1997 until present day:
1) almost all of them fail to produce a single element of truth. The sources for verification are readily available on the "internets," yet the sender almost never avails him or herself of these resources. Some of them are even brazen enough to list a source that if you actually take the time to visit it, will show how the claims in the email are wrong. I guess they assume if the link is there it will APPEAR to have been verified by someone along the way, and therefore is true.
2) the sender is always over the age of 50
3) the sender is from the conservative side of the political spectrum. I find this attribute to be the most interesting and revealing.
3) there has been one, repeat ONE email forward that I received with a political angle that was a liberal point of view. Since 1997 I have been receiving email forwards from various elders and ALL BUT ONE has been politically biased against the left. ONE. It was about IQ's of recent US Presidents and it tried to show that George W. Bush was stupid and Bill Clinton and Al Gore were geniuses. It was bogus.
I have tried and tried and tried to educate these people. I have occasionally debunked the claims by showing them from actual sources (not just Snopes.com) how the subject of the email is untrue and I have chastised them for passing along lies and falsehoods without verifying the claims for themselves. They continue to pass them along anyway. I give up.
I will begin occasionally posting them to vent my frustration to my imaginary audience. Here's text from a recent example. Its fucking funny as shit, or scary, depending on what you glean from it:
Fw: Military Pay
CINDY WILLIAMS was appointed by Obama as an Assistant Director for NATIONAL SECURITY in the Congressional Budget Office..... Military Pay
This is an Airman's response to Cindy Williams' editorial piece in the Washington Times about MILITARY PAY, it should be printed in all newspapers across America .
Ms. Cindy William wrote a piece for the Washington Times denouncing the pay raise(s) coming service members' way this year citing that she stated a 13% wageincrease was more than they deserve.
A young airman from Hill AFB responds to her article below. He ought to get a bonus for this.
"Ms Williams: I just had the pleasure of reading your column, "Our GI's earn enough" and I am a bit confused. Frankly, I'm wondering where this vaunted overpayment is going, because as far as I can tell, it disappears every month between DFAS (The Defense Finance and Accounting Service) and my bank account. Checking my latest earnings statement I see that I make $1,117.80 before taxes per month. After taxes, I take home $874.20. When I run that through the calculator, I come up with an annual salary of $13,413.60 before taxes, and $10,490.40 after.
I work in the Air Force Network Control Center where I am part of the team responsible for a 5,000 host computer network. I am involved with infrastructure segments, specifically with Cisco Systems equipment. A quick check under jobs for "Network Technicians" in the Washington , D.C. area reveals a position in my career field, requiring three years’ experience in my job. Amazingly, this job does NOT pay $13,413.60 a year. No, this job is being offered at $70,000 to $80,000 per annum............ I'm sure you can draw the obvious conclusions.
Given the tenor of your column, I would assume that you NEVER had the pleasure of serving your country in her armed forces.
Before you take it upon yourself to once more castigate congressional and DOD leadership for attempting to get the families in the military's lowest pay brackets off of WIC and food stamps, I suggest that you join a group of deploying soldiers headed for AFGHANISTAN ; I leave the choice of service branch up to you. Whatever choice you make though, opt for the SIX month rotation: it will guarantee you the longest possible time away from your family and friends, thus giving you full "deployment experience."
As your group prepares to board the plane, make sure to note the spouses and children who are saying good-bye to their loved ones. Also take care to note that several families are still unsure of how they'll be able to make ends meet while the primary breadwinner is gone. Obviously they've been squandering the "vast" piles of cash the government has been giving them.
Try to deploy over a major holiday; Christmas and Thanksgiving are perennial favorites. And when you're actually over there, sitting in a foxhole, shivering against the cold desert night, and the flight sergeant tells you that there aren't enough people on shift to relieve you for chow, remember this: trade whatever MRE's (meal-ready-to-eat) you manage to get for the tuna noodle casserole or cheese tortellini, and add Tabasco to everything. This gives some flavor.
Talk to your loved ones as often as you are permitted; it won't be nearly long enough or often enough, but take what you can get and be thankful for it. You may have picked up on the fact that I disagree with most of the points you present in your open piece.
But, tomorrow from KABUL , I will defend to the death your right to say it.
You see, I am an American fighting man, a guarantor of your First Amendment right and every other right you cherish...On a daily basis, my brother and sister soldiers worldwide ensure that you and people like you can thumb your collective noses at us, all on a salary that is nothing short of pitiful and under conditions that would make most people cringe. We hemorrhage our best and brightest into the private sector because we can't offer the stability and pay of civilian companies.
And you, Ms. Williams, have the gall to say that we make more than we deserve?
A1C Michael Bragg, Hill AFB AFNCC
IF YOU AGREE, PLEASE PASS THIS ALONG TO AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE AND SHOW YOUR SUPPORT OF THE AMERICAN FIGHTING MEN AND WOMEN. THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!
NEXT WEEK: an email about how Hillary Clinton likes to rape dogs
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Kentucky Bellwether
According to an article in Salon.com, The World Economic Forum ranked the US at "a mediocre 52nd among 139 nations in the quality of its university math and science instruction in 2010."
The article, How America will collapse (by 2025), lays out several scenarios in which the role of United States as a world superpower will diminish in the coming decades. While gigantic economic and foreign policy missteps may be the most to blame, the growth of technology in developing nations such as India and China are seen as contributing factors, exacerbated by the astonishingly poor quality of the American education system.
Support for legitimate science education seems to be waning, with a growing concern that a certain "alternate worldview" as it is sometimes called, is not given adequate attention in schools. This worldview (I won't name it, as I'm sure you can infer for yourselves what it is) is often said to be the victim of suppression by the "scientific elite" or "liberal-drive-by-gotcha media," or whatever sinister reality-based influence responsible for attempting to properly inform the public and our children, that is tantamount to a violation of the First Amendment.
Fear not.
The state of Kentucky has given its blessing for the construction of a new attraction that will help enlighten the public and stimulate their quest for knowledge. As reported in the New York Times, the Ark Experience, a Noah's Ark theme park is in the planning stages.
In the NY Times article Mike Zovath, a senior vice president of Answers in Genesis, one of the organizations responsible for this wellspring of wisdom, is quoted as saying “it’s our opportunity to present accurate, factual biblical information to people about a subject that they’re really interested in.”
Constitutionality of state support for this park is already in question but the problem runs much deeper than that. What's most worrisome is that this park is being given serious consideration as a means to educate.
When you take a good hard look at this project and the organizations behind it, and discover how well-organized their campaign is, you won't have too much difficulty drawing the line between this and the larger crisis we face as a society that is in a very obvious decline.
Wouldn't it make more sense to empower our citizens with real knowledge rather than teaching ancient mythology as fact? Shouldn't we be giving our children real tools to help them compete and succeed rather then replacing truth with fairy tales and stories of magic?
This should be a wake-up call for anyone raising a family. I'm worried that one day we may all wake up and realize that we are being led by people who ACTUALLY believe that the world was created by an old man in the sky 4,000 years ago in only 6 days.
Ummmmmmm....
hmm...
Nahhh.... people aren't that stupid, are they?
The link for the Salon.com article is here...
http://www.salon.com/news/us_economy/index.html?story=/news/feature/2010/12/06/america_collapse_2025
and the NY Times article is here...
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/06/us/06ark.html?_r=1
The article, How America will collapse (by 2025), lays out several scenarios in which the role of United States as a world superpower will diminish in the coming decades. While gigantic economic and foreign policy missteps may be the most to blame, the growth of technology in developing nations such as India and China are seen as contributing factors, exacerbated by the astonishingly poor quality of the American education system.
Support for legitimate science education seems to be waning, with a growing concern that a certain "alternate worldview" as it is sometimes called, is not given adequate attention in schools. This worldview (I won't name it, as I'm sure you can infer for yourselves what it is) is often said to be the victim of suppression by the "scientific elite" or "liberal-drive-by-gotcha media," or whatever sinister reality-based influence responsible for attempting to properly inform the public and our children, that is tantamount to a violation of the First Amendment.
Fear not.
The state of Kentucky has given its blessing for the construction of a new attraction that will help enlighten the public and stimulate their quest for knowledge. As reported in the New York Times, the Ark Experience, a Noah's Ark theme park is in the planning stages.
In the NY Times article Mike Zovath, a senior vice president of Answers in Genesis, one of the organizations responsible for this wellspring of wisdom, is quoted as saying “it’s our opportunity to present accurate, factual biblical information to people about a subject that they’re really interested in.”
Constitutionality of state support for this park is already in question but the problem runs much deeper than that. What's most worrisome is that this park is being given serious consideration as a means to educate.
When you take a good hard look at this project and the organizations behind it, and discover how well-organized their campaign is, you won't have too much difficulty drawing the line between this and the larger crisis we face as a society that is in a very obvious decline.
Wouldn't it make more sense to empower our citizens with real knowledge rather than teaching ancient mythology as fact? Shouldn't we be giving our children real tools to help them compete and succeed rather then replacing truth with fairy tales and stories of magic?
This should be a wake-up call for anyone raising a family. I'm worried that one day we may all wake up and realize that we are being led by people who ACTUALLY believe that the world was created by an old man in the sky 4,000 years ago in only 6 days.
Ummmmmmm....
hmm...
Nahhh.... people aren't that stupid, are they?
The link for the Salon.com article is here...
http://www.salon.com/news/us_economy/index.html?story=/news/feature/2010/12/06/america_collapse_2025
and the NY Times article is here...
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/06/us/06ark.html?_r=1
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Old Dirt Road
Holy Jesus Fucking Christ I love John Lennon:
Ain't no people on the old dirt road / No more weather on the old dirt road / It's better than a mudslide mamma when the dry spell come, yeah / Oh oh oh old dirt road / Ain't no difference on the old dirt road / Tarred and feathered on the old dirt road / Trying to shovel smoke with a pitchfork in the wind, yeah yeah yeah / Breezing thru the deadwood on a hot summer day / I saw a human being lazybonin' out in the hay / I said uh, hey Mr. Human can ya rainmaker too? / He said I guess it's O.K. ya know the only thing we need is water / Cool, clear water, water / Ain't no people on the old dirt road / No more weather on the old dirt road / Better than a mudslide mamma when the morning comes, yeah / Oh oh oh oh old dirt road / Keep on keeping on / Keep on keeping on / So long, so long / Bye bye
Such deep imagery in lyrics so magnificently simple. Makes me thirsty.
Ain't no people on the old dirt road / No more weather on the old dirt road / It's better than a mudslide mamma when the dry spell come, yeah / Oh oh oh old dirt road / Ain't no difference on the old dirt road / Tarred and feathered on the old dirt road / Trying to shovel smoke with a pitchfork in the wind, yeah yeah yeah / Breezing thru the deadwood on a hot summer day / I saw a human being lazybonin' out in the hay / I said uh, hey Mr. Human can ya rainmaker too? / He said I guess it's O.K. ya know the only thing we need is water / Cool, clear water, water / Ain't no people on the old dirt road / No more weather on the old dirt road / Better than a mudslide mamma when the morning comes, yeah / Oh oh oh oh old dirt road / Keep on keeping on / Keep on keeping on / So long, so long / Bye bye
Such deep imagery in lyrics so magnificently simple. Makes me thirsty.
Monday, November 15, 2010
Namesake...
I thought it was about time I made this connection.
When I leave this joint for some further point, the same coal-black sea, will it be waiting?
When I leave this joint for some further point, the same coal-black sea, will it be waiting?
Gimme Gimme Gimme Your Precious Love
When a man is in love, he'll go to great lengths, most of which make no sense or are of no real value, bordering on the edge of capricious as they might be, but straight from the heart nevertheless, just to hear one little tiny "breathless" word: yes.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Dirty Franks Bar May Be The Happiest Place On Earth
Fuck Disney. The staff and patrons of Dirty Franks leave you with a feeling of hope for humanity. They may not serve food or let you smoke inside but they let you be yourself and no one is too weird or unacceptable. Folks from all walks of life check in and find a comfortable environment among the dinge and the shab of the most notorious dive bar in the City Of Brotherly Love. If you're in Philadelphia, its at the corner of 13th and Pine, diagonally across from The Last Drop coffee house (which serves a great cup, Cafe Dumonde coffee). There's no sign on the building, just pictures of various "Franks" on the exterior and an unmarked door with a tiny red sign informing possible entrants that they must be 21 or older to enter. There's only 1 TV and a very limited selection of beer, but the bloody marys on sunday are legendary and they always have the kamikazes mixed up by the pitcher. There's pinball and darts and they used to have a softball team. There are plenty of menus available to various take-out restaurants that will deliver to the bar, more than making up for the lack of food service. Be forewarned: if you enter during the daylight hours, you'll find yourself not leaving until last call. Did I mention that they have a powerful tractor beam that attracts anyone who likes to drink? You cannot escape until closing time no matter how hard you try. And they show art. What can be better? Go there during the day, when its relatively quiet and watch the History Channel or AMC and grab a random stranger and engage in a conversation. You'll never want to leave.
Dirty Franks Bar May Be The Happiest Place On Earth
Fuck Disney. The staff and patrons of Dirty Franks leave you with a feeling of hope for humanity. They may not serve food there but they let you be yourself and no one is too weird or unacceptable. Folks from all walks of life check in there and find a comfortable environment among the dinge and the shab of the most notorious dive bar in the City Of Brotherly Love. If you're in Philadelphia, its at the corner of 13th and Pine, diagonally across from The Last Drop coffee house (which serves a great cup, Cafe Dumonde coffee). There's no sign, just pictures of various "Franks" on the exterior and an unmarked door with a tiny red sign informing possible entrants that they must be 21 or older to enter. There's only 1 TV and a very limited selection of beer, but the bloody marys on sunday are legendary and they always have the kamikazes mixed up by the pitcher. There's pinball and darts and they used to have a softball team. There are plenty of menus available to various take-out restaurants that will deliver to the bar, more than making up for the lack of food service. Be forewarned: if you enter during the daylight hours, you will find yourself not leaving until last call. Did I mention that they have a powerful tractor beam that attracts anyone who likes to drink? You cannot escape until closing time. And they show art. What can be better? Go there during the day, when its relatively quiet and watch the History channel or AMC and grab a random stranger and engage in a conversation. You'll never want to leave.
Music Thyme
For those of you out there who think I'm just a big asshole, here's some freakin' music. Enjoy!
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Panic Time
What do you do when a viral campaign fails miserably? Do you pretend everything is OK and carry on, or do you re-tool your strategy towards more focused targeting instead of the whimsy of madmen? I made a capricious and half-baked attempt at spreading some ill-formed tentacles across the World Wide Web and its all gone horribly wrong.
Those of you who are new to this blog may not understand what is going on here but you'll soon get caught up to speed. I've never done this before (fail). I'm usually good at this (I'm successful AND rich AND I drive a really nice car). Worse yet, I've let someone down in a way bordering on catastrophic.
A relatively unknown painter in the Philadelphia area named Matthew Green asked me to help him get his message out using the latest tricks of the cybersphere and create a vast network to spread the word about his project Five Miles From Times Square, a painting study and research project about the New Jersey Meadowlands, the very same place where Jimmy Hoffa was allegedly laid to rest, and the site of the infamous Miracle At The Meadowlands in the late 70's.
This fabulous project is being seen all over the world and what are people doing with this new found knowledge? Nothing. Nada. They're wasting my time.
I hate to admit when I'm wrong, but we went about this with no regard as to whether or not we were pushing the right buttons or stoking the most viable fires.
You're never 100% right on these things but the campaign's deficiencies can be traced back to inexperience and breakdowns in the following areas:
1) wrong audience/demographics of the worst kind
2) too many loose ends not sufficiently fleshed out
3) random networking connection threads with no logical endpoints
4) really shitty videos
5) indecent exposure
I have only myself to blame for dropping this Hot Potato. I was so upset over this that I almost wrecked my car on the Ben Franklin Bridge this morning. It didn't help that most of this was written via voice memo while driving, nothing but randomly strung together thoughts that make no sense and utilize very poor grammar. Fuck it. It is what it is. There will be time to sing and dance later. For now I gotta right this ship before it gets dashed to bits on the sharp rocks of failure.
On a side note, Green is submitting his latest painting from the project, Muddy Little Secrets #1 to a juried show in Dirty Franks Bar in December. Write a nasty letter to those creeps and tell them to include this wonderful new painting in the show.
–LM
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
What A Dick
"My goal in life is to achieve fame and fortune, but I'm willing to settle for infamy."
– Matthew Green
Jesus what a dickhead. What a philistine. He's like the Andy Kaufman of the art world.
– Matthew Green
Jesus what a dickhead. What a philistine. He's like the Andy Kaufman of the art world.
Monday, November 1, 2010
Matthew Green's Muddy Little Secret
Matthew Green, Muddy Little Secrets I, 30" x 48", oil on canvas, 2010
All is lost. He's gone into the abyss, exploring the deepest, darkest corners of his empty little soul. Nothing's gonna save him now. Not even the squib kick.
All is lost. He's gone into the abyss, exploring the deepest, darkest corners of his empty little soul. Nothing's gonna save him now. Not even the squib kick.
Friday, October 29, 2010
Baseball
I love baseball. I really, really do. I'll be sad when the world series is over. But then again there's (American) football, specifically the New York Giants. If they break another quarterback I'll fucking flip out.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Religion Equals Art?
"I have come to believe, in my own journey of faith, that God lives in the questions."
What does that even mean?
"I believe that faith is the frontier beyond the limits of knowledge."
Huh?
The above quotes sound like the abstract mental masturbation of an artist on mushrooms but they're not. They're the words of someone named Susan Andrews who was writing about god and evolution in the Clergy Letter project.
Religion, science and philosophy are generally considered three basic schools of thought through which people search for truth.
Notice I say "search for truth." That truth is the carrot on the stick is a concept from which science does not shy away. In fact, science generally acknowledges that it is constantly searching for truth and that what it learns along the way can change as new knowledge is gained.
I'm not sure where philosophy stands in all of this, and frankly I question its legitimacy and purpose. Are people paid to be philosophers? If I started a company would I ever have a position open for a philosopher? They think, therefore they are unemployable. I tend to consider people who philosophize as not much more than glorified editorial writers.
Religion pretty much swings and misses each and every time when it comes to explaining how the universe works. Its more content with chasing the visions of age-old myth makers and trying to convince followers that fictional stories actually happened and if we don't believe them we're going to hell than it is with making new discoveries.
So what about art? James Cameron is an artist. So is George Lucas, George Eliot, Stephen King, Carole King, Edgar Allan Poe, Isaac Asimov, and so on. Homer's Odyssey (not the one about the cat) is a work of art. Myths, legends, fantastic stories, well developed characters, drama, sex, action, adventure, magic, wizardry. Great stories that we consider to be works of art contain some or all of these features and more. By these standards the writers of the Bible were artists and their stories were works of art. People who talk about or write about religion make reference to these stories, apply them to their own lives, reinterpret them, reinvent them and even create their own versions of them. So what?
So, artists communicate superlatively, fantastically, symbolically and metaphorically. If they have a message, it generally takes on the form of a fable or parable, where fictional characters act out the ideas which are then relayed to the audience as a lesson to be learned. Sound familiar?
What is the usefulness of art? Are there things art does that cannot be done in another, more practical way? Are there things holy books teach that cannot be learned in another, more practical way? Art adds color to our lives. It hangs above our sofas and ties a room together. It fills otherwise boring friday nights or rainy afternoons. Art cannot open cans, make electricity, rescue people from burning buildings or study the universe. It keeps our minds occupied, and people wouldn't necessarily miss it if it went away.
Andy Warhol is not god incarnate. William Shakespeare didn't give us anything that we could really use, such as irrigation or solar energy or weapons to fight the Nazis. Moses has had his likeness made into an action figure and the original author's family gets no royalties. Confucius was an artist. Buddha was a fictional character. Jesus and Luke Skywalker have much more in common than you think.
Much, much more.
What does that even mean?
"I believe that faith is the frontier beyond the limits of knowledge."
Huh?
The above quotes sound like the abstract mental masturbation of an artist on mushrooms but they're not. They're the words of someone named Susan Andrews who was writing about god and evolution in the Clergy Letter project.
Religion, science and philosophy are generally considered three basic schools of thought through which people search for truth.
Notice I say "search for truth." That truth is the carrot on the stick is a concept from which science does not shy away. In fact, science generally acknowledges that it is constantly searching for truth and that what it learns along the way can change as new knowledge is gained.
I'm not sure where philosophy stands in all of this, and frankly I question its legitimacy and purpose. Are people paid to be philosophers? If I started a company would I ever have a position open for a philosopher? They think, therefore they are unemployable. I tend to consider people who philosophize as not much more than glorified editorial writers.
Religion pretty much swings and misses each and every time when it comes to explaining how the universe works. Its more content with chasing the visions of age-old myth makers and trying to convince followers that fictional stories actually happened and if we don't believe them we're going to hell than it is with making new discoveries.
So what about art? James Cameron is an artist. So is George Lucas, George Eliot, Stephen King, Carole King, Edgar Allan Poe, Isaac Asimov, and so on. Homer's Odyssey (not the one about the cat) is a work of art. Myths, legends, fantastic stories, well developed characters, drama, sex, action, adventure, magic, wizardry. Great stories that we consider to be works of art contain some or all of these features and more. By these standards the writers of the Bible were artists and their stories were works of art. People who talk about or write about religion make reference to these stories, apply them to their own lives, reinterpret them, reinvent them and even create their own versions of them. So what?
So, artists communicate superlatively, fantastically, symbolically and metaphorically. If they have a message, it generally takes on the form of a fable or parable, where fictional characters act out the ideas which are then relayed to the audience as a lesson to be learned. Sound familiar?
What is the usefulness of art? Are there things art does that cannot be done in another, more practical way? Are there things holy books teach that cannot be learned in another, more practical way? Art adds color to our lives. It hangs above our sofas and ties a room together. It fills otherwise boring friday nights or rainy afternoons. Art cannot open cans, make electricity, rescue people from burning buildings or study the universe. It keeps our minds occupied, and people wouldn't necessarily miss it if it went away.
Andy Warhol is not god incarnate. William Shakespeare didn't give us anything that we could really use, such as irrigation or solar energy or weapons to fight the Nazis. Moses has had his likeness made into an action figure and the original author's family gets no royalties. Confucius was an artist. Buddha was a fictional character. Jesus and Luke Skywalker have much more in common than you think.
Much, much more.
Friday, October 22, 2010
Christine O'Donnell: One Of The Cool Kids Now
According to her background, Christine O'Donnell wasn't the popular girl in school, but it seems that perhaps her ambition was to have been part of the "in" crowd.
When I was in school (pre-college), being smart would often get kids in trouble. Being good at school and getting good grades usually meant being picked on, being forced to give answers on a test, having your lunch stolen or being shoved into a locker.
Today being smart means that you're part of a government takeover. That's the position of a new arm of conservatives who are trying to encourage people to live like dunces, afraid that the government wants to force them to believe things. The cool kid kool-aid never tasted sweeter, and the Cool Kid Army is scoring some significant victories thanks to mainstream dummies and people like O'Donnell.
Christine O'Donnell is a stain on this republic. Her attempts at mainstreaming ignorance threaten the survival of our society. She represents, along with certain other political figures and mainstream media pundits (you can easily guess who I mean), an attempt to satiate a lazy constituency, a large segment of the population who would rather sit on their asses than educate themselves. Her accusations relating the teaching of proven scientific facts and the suppression of mythology in the classrooms to violations of the constitution are reprehensible. It's a pathetic appeal to a citizenry who is already confused over whom to trust, and who is genuinely fearful of restrictions on their freedom.
If the general public doesn't believe in the theory of evolution, it doesn't take away from its validity. True is true, whether you buy it or not. The evidence is there. Just because it isn't popular doesn't mean that it's "just a theory." You can't take a vote on the facts.
One trick she pulls in debates is to fan the flames of patriotism by mentioning the constitution. She says to her opponent, when discussing whether or not intelligent design should or should not be taught in schools, "talk about imposing your beliefs on the local school" and "you will impose your will on the local school district and that is a blatant violation of our constititution." She even tosses in a "limited government and lower taxes." for good measure.
Conversations like this these can usually be transcribed as follows: "Blah blah blah blah constitution blah blah blah freedom blah blah blah constitution blah blah blah founding fathers blah blah blah blah constitution freedom freedom blah blah blah."
(cue applause from the peanut gallery)
She further declares that public schools set their own agendas and have the right to teach intelligent design if they so choose, that it's their right to do so.
Sorry, but Ms. O'Donnell is wrong. She is very wrong and people who know better are very angry about what she says. It's not a right for a public school to teach ideas that are not facts. Intelligent design is not fact. It does not have a shred of evidence, or data, or research to support it. To teach that in a science class is as dishonest as teaching alchemy to chemistry students. Teaching mythology as fact is the same as lying. Lying to children is immoral. If Christine O'Donnell thinks this is OK than she is immoral and has no business running for public office.
Unfortunately, she IS running for public office and she's not the only one. Furthermore, like-minded people already hold public offices, or have high-profile jobs in broadcast media. The cool kids are getting way too successful, and now we have a problem on our hands.
This is not a coincidence. This is well-engineered. An ignorant public is easily taken advantage of by political and corporate machines seeking power and control. People like Christine O'Donnell are working on behalf of interests who need the general public to be among the cool kids. When Glenn Beck speaks about evolution and global warming as being "forced down our throats," he is helping to fuel a culture of paranoia and confusion about real scientific facts and wrongly equating them with government conspiracies and the "Establishment." The public, being uninformed, easily buys into these ideas. How convenient for those whose ambitions depend on a society of mindless drones who would easily fear government and believe mythology and pretend that our problems can magically go away with prayer, consumer products and Dancing With The Stars. After all, that's what all the cool kids are doing.
And finally, to further clarify something that bugs the living shit out of me: evolution is not "just a theory," it IS a theory. It's a theory supported by volumes of evidence and decades of research. Intelligent design is NOT a theory. It's not consistent with anything in nature. It's implausible and utterly preposterous. It's a myth, and mythology isn't science.
Being the voice of the people doesn't mean you have to be cool and hope they like you. It doesn't mean you have to pander to or enable their ignorance because that's what's popular. It means being a leader. It means inspiring them to better themselves and to strive toward greatness. Doesn't Christine know that being smart is sexy, and being dumb is, well... dumb?
When I was in school (pre-college), being smart would often get kids in trouble. Being good at school and getting good grades usually meant being picked on, being forced to give answers on a test, having your lunch stolen or being shoved into a locker.
Today being smart means that you're part of a government takeover. That's the position of a new arm of conservatives who are trying to encourage people to live like dunces, afraid that the government wants to force them to believe things. The cool kid kool-aid never tasted sweeter, and the Cool Kid Army is scoring some significant victories thanks to mainstream dummies and people like O'Donnell.
Christine O'Donnell is a stain on this republic. Her attempts at mainstreaming ignorance threaten the survival of our society. She represents, along with certain other political figures and mainstream media pundits (you can easily guess who I mean), an attempt to satiate a lazy constituency, a large segment of the population who would rather sit on their asses than educate themselves. Her accusations relating the teaching of proven scientific facts and the suppression of mythology in the classrooms to violations of the constitution are reprehensible. It's a pathetic appeal to a citizenry who is already confused over whom to trust, and who is genuinely fearful of restrictions on their freedom.
If the general public doesn't believe in the theory of evolution, it doesn't take away from its validity. True is true, whether you buy it or not. The evidence is there. Just because it isn't popular doesn't mean that it's "just a theory." You can't take a vote on the facts.
One trick she pulls in debates is to fan the flames of patriotism by mentioning the constitution. She says to her opponent, when discussing whether or not intelligent design should or should not be taught in schools, "talk about imposing your beliefs on the local school" and "you will impose your will on the local school district and that is a blatant violation of our constititution." She even tosses in a "limited government and lower taxes." for good measure.
Conversations like this these can usually be transcribed as follows: "Blah blah blah blah constitution blah blah blah freedom blah blah blah constitution blah blah blah founding fathers blah blah blah blah constitution freedom freedom blah blah blah."
(cue applause from the peanut gallery)
She further declares that public schools set their own agendas and have the right to teach intelligent design if they so choose, that it's their right to do so.
Sorry, but Ms. O'Donnell is wrong. She is very wrong and people who know better are very angry about what she says. It's not a right for a public school to teach ideas that are not facts. Intelligent design is not fact. It does not have a shred of evidence, or data, or research to support it. To teach that in a science class is as dishonest as teaching alchemy to chemistry students. Teaching mythology as fact is the same as lying. Lying to children is immoral. If Christine O'Donnell thinks this is OK than she is immoral and has no business running for public office.
Unfortunately, she IS running for public office and she's not the only one. Furthermore, like-minded people already hold public offices, or have high-profile jobs in broadcast media. The cool kids are getting way too successful, and now we have a problem on our hands.
This is not a coincidence. This is well-engineered. An ignorant public is easily taken advantage of by political and corporate machines seeking power and control. People like Christine O'Donnell are working on behalf of interests who need the general public to be among the cool kids. When Glenn Beck speaks about evolution and global warming as being "forced down our throats," he is helping to fuel a culture of paranoia and confusion about real scientific facts and wrongly equating them with government conspiracies and the "Establishment." The public, being uninformed, easily buys into these ideas. How convenient for those whose ambitions depend on a society of mindless drones who would easily fear government and believe mythology and pretend that our problems can magically go away with prayer, consumer products and Dancing With The Stars. After all, that's what all the cool kids are doing.
And finally, to further clarify something that bugs the living shit out of me: evolution is not "just a theory," it IS a theory. It's a theory supported by volumes of evidence and decades of research. Intelligent design is NOT a theory. It's not consistent with anything in nature. It's implausible and utterly preposterous. It's a myth, and mythology isn't science.
Being the voice of the people doesn't mean you have to be cool and hope they like you. It doesn't mean you have to pander to or enable their ignorance because that's what's popular. It means being a leader. It means inspiring them to better themselves and to strive toward greatness. Doesn't Christine know that being smart is sexy, and being dumb is, well... dumb?
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Christine O'Donnell: The Whole World Is Laughing
Oh no, she did-ent!!!!!!!!
What does it mean when a candidate for public office is laughed at during a debate? Is "ignoramus" one of the criteria for being in the Tea Party? Did she really say what I think she said? In case she forgot, here's the first amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The phrase, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." is otherwise known as the "establishment clause" or more commonly referred to as "separation of church and state."
And evolution isn't "just a theory" it IS a theory. It is scientific fact supported by volumes of evidence. Creationism and "intelligent" design are religions doctrine, not science and they are not supported by any evidence. They do not belong in public schools. That would violate the First Amendment.
Also, she has no idea that the 14th amendment has nothing to do with illegal immigration. It protects the rights of citizens, born or naturalized from any law which may deprive them of life liberty or property without due process and it guarantees equal protection for citizens. It was written after the abolition of slavery to prevent unequal treatment by federal or state governments. There are 4 more sections of related issues, but immigrants or any other foreign born citizen is not mentioned.
I wonder if she is as much of a "grammer" wizard as she is a constitutional "skollar." I do hope to see her daughter one day on dancing with the stars. To LBJ they said "the whole world is watching." To her and others like her I say "the whole world is laughing."
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Ha!
What does it mean when a candidate for public office is laughed at during a debate? Is "ignoramus" one of the criteria for being in the Tea Party? Did she really say what I think she said? In case she forgot, here's the first amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The phrase, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." is otherwise known as the "establishment clause" or more commonly referred to as "separation of church and state."
And evolution isn't "just a theory" it IS a theory. It is scientific fact supported by volumes of evidence. Creationism and "intelligent" design are religions doctrine, not science and they are not supported by any evidence. They do not belong in public schools. That would violate the First Amendment.
Also, she has no idea that the 14th amendment has nothing to do with illegal immigration. It protects the rights of citizens, born or naturalized from any law which may deprive them of life liberty or property without due process and it guarantees equal protection for citizens. It was written after the abolition of slavery to prevent unequal treatment by federal or state governments. There are 4 more sections of related issues, but immigrants or any other foreign born citizen is not mentioned.
I wonder if she is as much of a "grammer" wizard as she is a constitutional "skollar." I do hope to see her daughter one day on dancing with the stars. To LBJ they said "the whole world is watching." To her and others like her I say "the whole world is laughing."
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Ha!
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Give A Man A Fish
Give a man a fish he'll eat for a day. Give a man a religion and he'll starve to death praying for a fish. There's a very blurred line between faith and stubbornness. Here's your quote of the day:
"...the god hypothesis is incoherent, causally inadequate, unsupported by any other line of evidence, inconsistent with what we do know about how the universe works, and also internally inconsistent in all religions. Gods are simply bad ideas that don't even deserve the dignity of being treated as an alternative explanation for anything."
— PZ Myers
"...the god hypothesis is incoherent, causally inadequate, unsupported by any other line of evidence, inconsistent with what we do know about how the universe works, and also internally inconsistent in all religions. Gods are simply bad ideas that don't even deserve the dignity of being treated as an alternative explanation for anything."
— PZ Myers
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Matthew Green's Big Meadow
The painting pictured below is finally home after spending the first 5 weeks if its life on exhibit at the A-Space in West Philadelphia. It's now in its new place of glory on the far wall of the Green family's dining room. A good portion of this painting's creation was captured on video by Green and I for the series How To Paint A Masterpiece on my YouTube channel. It's the first in a series by Matthew Green for his project, Five Miles From Times Square. You can read more about this project on the project blog page or on Green's website. The website has the project proposal available for download.
Matthew Green, Big Meadow, 48" x 72", oil on canvas, 2010.
Matthew Green, Big Meadow, 48" x 72", oil on canvas, 2010.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Matt Green or Matt Greene?
To "e" or not to "e"?
Artist Matthew Green, having a fairly common name, has noticed that he has been confused on more than one occasion with Matthew Greene, another artist who's probably getting kind of perturbed himself over the mixup. Green's work is strikingly different from Greene's work, the "minus-e" Green working primarily in realist, stark, sublime urban landscapes, and Greene's being an abstract, expressionistic urban/pop style.
I know Green very well and understand his work and his vision more than most. He has not achieved quite the level of success as Greene, but in my opinion has developed a maturity and focus in recent years that puts his work on a level playing field with Greene, as well as many other of his contemporaries.
The pics below are new works in progress from Green's new project on the New Jersey Meadowlands, Five Miles From Times Square. His work seems to be taking a slightly new direction lately, and I'm hoping he challenges himself a little.
Below are: Muddy Little Secrets I, II and III
Artist Matthew Green, having a fairly common name, has noticed that he has been confused on more than one occasion with Matthew Greene, another artist who's probably getting kind of perturbed himself over the mixup. Green's work is strikingly different from Greene's work, the "minus-e" Green working primarily in realist, stark, sublime urban landscapes, and Greene's being an abstract, expressionistic urban/pop style.
I know Green very well and understand his work and his vision more than most. He has not achieved quite the level of success as Greene, but in my opinion has developed a maturity and focus in recent years that puts his work on a level playing field with Greene, as well as many other of his contemporaries.
The pics below are new works in progress from Green's new project on the New Jersey Meadowlands, Five Miles From Times Square. His work seems to be taking a slightly new direction lately, and I'm hoping he challenges himself a little.
Below are: Muddy Little Secrets I, II and III
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Philadelphia Sounds Good This Time Of Year
The poem below is from Matthew Green's Controlled Demolition Vol 1. It's a charming ditty about the non-tourist side of the city of brotherly love, posted without the author's permission. If he sues I'll steal his car...
Philadelphia Sounds Good This Time Of Year
Between stiff winter gusts and the
“Hey-you-motha-fucka,”
Philadelphia sounds good this time of year.
Lost my way in the great Northeast.
It’s not high fashion like New York City.
It’s oil drums and church steeples.
It’s not all Billy Penn.
Southwest is the setting sun.
I can almost see it touch the Earth.
East sandy beaches emerge in summer
From dreams of boardwalk and funnel cake.
Northern lights shimmer in the night,
And from my window see domes and needles,
Junkies and drifters living under trestle.
In the diner is warm and dry,
Hot coffee always full and bacon greasy.
Outside is the cold and rain.
Soaking through is the homeless overcoat,
Hypothermic.
Philadelphia certainly sounds good this time of year.
Like a soft truck or rattling motor.
Like a word of friendly from the lady upstairs,
Or a “where you at?”
Like a jet plane skimming space needles of red, white and blue.
Like the song from dirty flute under dripping-wet overpass.
Like the network of cars on the river Vine.
Like the stiff winter gusts and the
“Hey-you-motha-fucka,”
It all blends together in a quiet gray hum,
And it all sounds good this time of year.
From under el tracks emerge shamrocks,
From under shamrocks emerge the sodden and drunk
Who stagger home to wives and children.
While they sleep they dream of warm sandy beaches,
But awake to rusty metal, steam and punchclocks,
Or drywall, mud and tape,
Or motor oil, tranny and axle grease,
And it all sounds good, every day, all year.
The crack of the liberty bell and the clop of
Horse hooves on cobblestone tell no one of how
Good Philadelphia sounds on any given day.
Try not to miss
The silent scurry of cockroach and field mouse,
The pitter-patter of flaking lead paint,
The “phist” of Budweiser cans with dinner,
The “ding” of microwave for macaroni and cheese.
Try not to miss oil drum and
church steeple skyline.
Try not to miss rainbows in puddles.
Try not to miss the
“hey-you-motha-fucka.”
Beneath dripping-wet overpass, It’s not all Billy Penn.
Philadelphia Sounds Good This Time Of Year
Between stiff winter gusts and the
“Hey-you-motha-fucka,”
Philadelphia sounds good this time of year.
Lost my way in the great Northeast.
It’s not high fashion like New York City.
It’s oil drums and church steeples.
It’s not all Billy Penn.
Southwest is the setting sun.
I can almost see it touch the Earth.
East sandy beaches emerge in summer
From dreams of boardwalk and funnel cake.
Northern lights shimmer in the night,
And from my window see domes and needles,
Junkies and drifters living under trestle.
In the diner is warm and dry,
Hot coffee always full and bacon greasy.
Outside is the cold and rain.
Soaking through is the homeless overcoat,
Hypothermic.
Philadelphia certainly sounds good this time of year.
Like a soft truck or rattling motor.
Like a word of friendly from the lady upstairs,
Or a “where you at?”
Like a jet plane skimming space needles of red, white and blue.
Like the song from dirty flute under dripping-wet overpass.
Like the network of cars on the river Vine.
Like the stiff winter gusts and the
“Hey-you-motha-fucka,”
It all blends together in a quiet gray hum,
And it all sounds good this time of year.
From under el tracks emerge shamrocks,
From under shamrocks emerge the sodden and drunk
Who stagger home to wives and children.
While they sleep they dream of warm sandy beaches,
But awake to rusty metal, steam and punchclocks,
Or drywall, mud and tape,
Or motor oil, tranny and axle grease,
And it all sounds good, every day, all year.
The crack of the liberty bell and the clop of
Horse hooves on cobblestone tell no one of how
Good Philadelphia sounds on any given day.
Try not to miss
The silent scurry of cockroach and field mouse,
The pitter-patter of flaking lead paint,
The “phist” of Budweiser cans with dinner,
The “ding” of microwave for macaroni and cheese.
Try not to miss oil drum and
church steeple skyline.
Try not to miss rainbows in puddles.
Try not to miss the
“hey-you-motha-fucka.”
Beneath dripping-wet overpass, It’s not all Billy Penn.
Monday, October 4, 2010
Attention Whore
I am an attention whore. If you're reading this blog, chances are it is because of deliberate moves I made in helping to connecting you, the reader, with me, the writer, marketer and videographer. I will not disclose exactly what techniques I employ to direct viewers to this site. Just trust the facts here. I have the statistics, I know where the majority of my traffic comes from. And I know that wherever you come from, odds are it is because I led you here on purpose. The reason for this, and it goes back to the attention whore thing, is that I need to be loved.
I have been in partnership now for the better part of a year with an artist and very dear friend of mine who has graciously allowed me to hijack his blog site for my personal indulgence and to satisfy my need for attention. I have a very fragile ego and if my lack of blogging success continued for too much longer I would have slipped into a severe state of depression and not left my apartment for days on end except to go up to the corner deli to get smokes and Suzy-Q's.
All of the thoughts, opinions, factoids and diatribes that I post here are 100% sincere. However, the little bits of outreach that precipitated your visit (unless you found it by chance, which is statistically improbable based on the data I have) may be a little dubious. I do not apologize for this. Welcome to the coal-black sea.
If you're reading this blog then you've found it. If you've found it, read it, enjoy it, hate it. I don't care. I don't work for a corporation and your data is not being collected for commercial purposes. I'm just an attention whore.
I have been in partnership now for the better part of a year with an artist and very dear friend of mine who has graciously allowed me to hijack his blog site for my personal indulgence and to satisfy my need for attention. I have a very fragile ego and if my lack of blogging success continued for too much longer I would have slipped into a severe state of depression and not left my apartment for days on end except to go up to the corner deli to get smokes and Suzy-Q's.
All of the thoughts, opinions, factoids and diatribes that I post here are 100% sincere. However, the little bits of outreach that precipitated your visit (unless you found it by chance, which is statistically improbable based on the data I have) may be a little dubious. I do not apologize for this. Welcome to the coal-black sea.
If you're reading this blog then you've found it. If you've found it, read it, enjoy it, hate it. I don't care. I don't work for a corporation and your data is not being collected for commercial purposes. I'm just an attention whore.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Emma Goldman
A wonderful quote from a brave and committed woman:
"Anarchism really stands for the liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion; the liberation of the human body from the dominion of property; liberation from the shackles and restraint of government; it stands for a social order based on the free grouping of individuals."
"Anarchism really stands for the liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion; the liberation of the human body from the dominion of property; liberation from the shackles and restraint of government; it stands for a social order based on the free grouping of individuals."
Freedom Is Free
We have all heard the statement, "freedom is not free." I vehemently disagree with this idea. Freedom is free. We are all born free. All living things are born free. No one has the right to take that away. It is a basic human right, and a basic right for all living things. We have the right to live free whether or not we take up arms, whether or not we support our government or our troops. If someone tries to take away that freedom, we have an obligation to ourselves to fight back. If we choose not to fight back, we have no right to complain.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Alex's Lemonade Stand
My son's daycare was very proud that they raised $300 for Alex's Lemonade Stand. It's funny how we're so conditioned that we find it acceptable for governments to get billions and billions of dollars for weapons that destroy life, and to bail out bankers, but we have to send out two-year olds and three-year olds out onto street corners to sell lemonade to help fight cancer and save lives.
Police State
Instead of seriously addressing the problem of people committing random mass killings in public places, the government is satisfied with creating a condition of permanent lockdown. They ignore the conditions that create alienation and despair which foster pressures that lead individuals to crack and wantonly destroy life. They also ignore the wanton destruction of life by corporations that are considered nothing more than "business as usual". The typical response by the public to this oppression is acceptance, which they are inclined to feel after generations of careful conditioning by authorities to create a docile middle class that is enslaved by civilization.
I live on the east coast, so maybe I don't fully understand the paranoia running rampant in western suburbia, but the following quote from a friend of mine from New Jersey who now lives out west speaks volumes:
"I think the one thing that impressed (...) the most in New Jersey was when she visited the schools I went to. All she could keep saying was 'There aren't any fences' and 'You guys weren't locked in like we are'".
Every day, the walls move in a little more.
I live on the east coast, so maybe I don't fully understand the paranoia running rampant in western suburbia, but the following quote from a friend of mine from New Jersey who now lives out west speaks volumes:
"I think the one thing that impressed (...) the most in New Jersey was when she visited the schools I went to. All she could keep saying was 'There aren't any fences' and 'You guys weren't locked in like we are'".
Every day, the walls move in a little more.
Friday, August 6, 2010
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Opposite Sides Of The Fence
"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
– George H.W. Bush, 1987
"Its time to stop being so damned polite"
– Richard Dawkins, 2002
– George H.W. Bush, 1987
"Its time to stop being so damned polite"
– Richard Dawkins, 2002
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Uniformity and Conformity
"We have found out that we cannot trust some people who are non-conformists. We will make conformists out of them in a hurry. The organization cannot trust the individual, the individual must trust the organization."
– Ray Kroc
– Ray Kroc
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Thoughts On viridian1
I thought you were my friend you degenerate creep. I didn't realize that I was taking advantage of your generosity when you agreed to let me use your blog space in order to protect my professional identity at the expense of yours. You've said some pretty nasty things about my work and now I'm paying you back with public slander. I hope you drown in obscurity and spend the rest of your life like one of those art directors we used to work with all the time who say "yeah, I used to paint. I should really get back into it." Enjoy your boring life in the suburbs. Go mow your lawn. Go barbecue hamburgers from SuperFresh in your backyard and take sunday trips to the beach. The rest of us real artists will be living high and dying in the streets. We'll be making poetry with our lives instead of saving for retirement and an RV. Enjoy your imaginary friends. Your real (ex)friends will be whooping it up at Ray's Happy Birthday Bar with the cool people, smoking, drinking, being evil till last call. What movie you gonna on-demand tonight? Maybe you can be bad and have a beer. Don't let the paperboy hit you in the balls with your Sunday Times when you step out on your porch with your morning coffee. Keep it real.
–LM
–LM
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Plastics, Or 13 Is Greater Than 2
According to a 2008 report issued by the American Chemistry Council's Plastics Industry Producers' Statistics Group, The Grand Total amount of Thermoplastic Resins produced in North America for the year-to-date period ending in March 2008 (January – March 2008) was 19,820,361 thousands of pounds, or 19,820,361,000 pounds, or 9,910,180.5 Standard tons.
This is the amount of plastic resin made from petroleum-based sources for the first quarter of 2008. Multiply by 4 and we have 39,640,722 for one year of production. Lets be generous and round that down to 30,000,000 tons.
Now lets try to replace Thermoplastic Resin with Polylactic Acid, or PLA, a plant-based resin that is said to be greener, compostable, and made from plant sources, most commonly corn.
Polylactic Acid (PLA)
2.5 kg of corn needed to produce 1 kg of (PLA)
1 standard ton = approx 907 kg, so 1 ton of PLA requires 2,267.5 tons of corn
A dry bushel of corn weighs 56 pounds. 1 standard ton of corn is equal to 35.7 bushels of dry corn. Thus 1 standard ton of PLA needs approx 80,950 dry bushels of corn.
According to the Iowa Corn Growers Association, the average yield of corn per acre is 183 dry bushels. Thus 1 standard ton of PLA needs approx 442 acres of cornfield.
30,000,000 standard tons of plastic resin made with corn-based PLA would require...
13,260,000,000 acres of cornfield
In 2007 the total acreage of farmland in the US was 2,262,000,000. That number is smaller now.
13 > 2.
This is the amount of plastic resin made from petroleum-based sources for the first quarter of 2008. Multiply by 4 and we have 39,640,722 for one year of production. Lets be generous and round that down to 30,000,000 tons.
Now lets try to replace Thermoplastic Resin with Polylactic Acid, or PLA, a plant-based resin that is said to be greener, compostable, and made from plant sources, most commonly corn.
Polylactic Acid (PLA)
2.5 kg of corn needed to produce 1 kg of (PLA)
1 standard ton = approx 907 kg, so 1 ton of PLA requires 2,267.5 tons of corn
A dry bushel of corn weighs 56 pounds. 1 standard ton of corn is equal to 35.7 bushels of dry corn. Thus 1 standard ton of PLA needs approx 80,950 dry bushels of corn.
According to the Iowa Corn Growers Association, the average yield of corn per acre is 183 dry bushels. Thus 1 standard ton of PLA needs approx 442 acres of cornfield.
30,000,000 standard tons of plastic resin made with corn-based PLA would require...
13,260,000,000 acres of cornfield
In 2007 the total acreage of farmland in the US was 2,262,000,000. That number is smaller now.
13 > 2.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Peak Oil
When the oil runs out, what will we run on? Ethanol has been dead in the water since Bush left town, but just to put in perspective what are needs are, here are some important numbers to crunch:
86,000,000 acres of corn in US by 2008 numbers
1 sq mi = 640 acres
86,000,000 / 640 = 134,375 sq miles of corn in US
US = 3.79 million sq miles, 3.5% used to grow corn
1 acre of corn = 328 gallons of ethanol
1 gallon of ethanol requires approx .003 acres
137,800,000,000 gallons of gasoline burned in 2008
137,800,000,000 gallons x .003 acres = 413,400,000 acres needed to supply enough ethanol to meet the demand for gasoline by 2008 standards.
that's 4.8 times more land needed to grow corn (but not for food)
16.8% of US land would be needed to grow enough corn to meet US gasoline demands by 2008 standards
2007 total acres of farmland approx 2,261,000,000 acres
about 18% of total US farmland used to grow food by 2007 numbers (the numbers have fallen since) would be needed to supply the amount of ethanol to meet the demands of consumption based on what was used in 2008 (that number has increased since).
No oil = fucked, but then again, we do have atomic weapons and other means of coercing the third world to hand over their land. Is there any surprise that the US is sending forces to Costa Rica to practice war games (46 warships, 200 helicopters)? New Axis of Evil. Hey man, we gotta grow corn somewhere...
Ethanol = fairy dust and unicorns, but we always have the tar sands, right?
This, of course is only considering motor fuels. We still haven't talked about plastics (and high fructose corn syrup).
Eat well tonight.
86,000,000 acres of corn in US by 2008 numbers
1 sq mi = 640 acres
86,000,000 / 640 = 134,375 sq miles of corn in US
US = 3.79 million sq miles, 3.5% used to grow corn
1 acre of corn = 328 gallons of ethanol
1 gallon of ethanol requires approx .003 acres
137,800,000,000 gallons of gasoline burned in 2008
137,800,000,000 gallons x .003 acres = 413,400,000 acres needed to supply enough ethanol to meet the demand for gasoline by 2008 standards.
that's 4.8 times more land needed to grow corn (but not for food)
16.8% of US land would be needed to grow enough corn to meet US gasoline demands by 2008 standards
2007 total acres of farmland approx 2,261,000,000 acres
about 18% of total US farmland used to grow food by 2007 numbers (the numbers have fallen since) would be needed to supply the amount of ethanol to meet the demands of consumption based on what was used in 2008 (that number has increased since).
No oil = fucked, but then again, we do have atomic weapons and other means of coercing the third world to hand over their land. Is there any surprise that the US is sending forces to Costa Rica to practice war games (46 warships, 200 helicopters)? New Axis of Evil. Hey man, we gotta grow corn somewhere...
Ethanol = fairy dust and unicorns, but we always have the tar sands, right?
This, of course is only considering motor fuels. We still haven't talked about plastics (and high fructose corn syrup).
Eat well tonight.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
United Nothing
Forget the notion of rewriting history. Lets talk about hand-crafting reality. In 1990 United Nations resolution #660 condemned the invasion of Kuwait by Saddam Hussein. There were numerous other resolutions passed which included economic sanctions, naval blockades, authorizations for the use of force, and formation of military coalitions. In addition to this invasion and the siege of the Kuwaiti people, Saddam murdered many of his own people which included the use of chemical weapons.
This same United Nations officially recognized Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge as the rightful government of Cambodia until 1997. Under this regime between 1975 and 1979 over 2 million Cambodians died, most killed during the "cleansing", and many more from starvation and disease in Pol Pot's agrarian revolution.
Both Saddam and Pol Pot were psychopaths. Both men were guilty of mass murder and unspeakable crimes against humanity. One was protected by the UN through "official recognition" and one had two wars waged against him by UN sanctioned coalitions in which hundreds of thousands of people died, was eventually removed from power, convicted for his crimes in an international dog-and-pony show trial, and executed.
We've heard the official story justifying the use of force against Saddam as a fight for freedom of an oppressed people and the disposition of an evil and dangerous tyrant. I'm fairly certain that no one knows the official story justifying the official recognition of Pol Pot who is responsible for atrocities so heinous as to be described as the incarnation of Hell on Earth.
Based on these two examples and the inconsistent application of power and interest in human rights, one must ask what the function is of the United Nations? To whom do they answer and who do they serve? Whose agendas do they support? Who holds them accountable? What about the accountability of governments that misuse UN authority to pursue their own agendas?
Maybe its time to pass People's Resolution #1.
This same United Nations officially recognized Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge as the rightful government of Cambodia until 1997. Under this regime between 1975 and 1979 over 2 million Cambodians died, most killed during the "cleansing", and many more from starvation and disease in Pol Pot's agrarian revolution.
Both Saddam and Pol Pot were psychopaths. Both men were guilty of mass murder and unspeakable crimes against humanity. One was protected by the UN through "official recognition" and one had two wars waged against him by UN sanctioned coalitions in which hundreds of thousands of people died, was eventually removed from power, convicted for his crimes in an international dog-and-pony show trial, and executed.
We've heard the official story justifying the use of force against Saddam as a fight for freedom of an oppressed people and the disposition of an evil and dangerous tyrant. I'm fairly certain that no one knows the official story justifying the official recognition of Pol Pot who is responsible for atrocities so heinous as to be described as the incarnation of Hell on Earth.
Based on these two examples and the inconsistent application of power and interest in human rights, one must ask what the function is of the United Nations? To whom do they answer and who do they serve? Whose agendas do they support? Who holds them accountable? What about the accountability of governments that misuse UN authority to pursue their own agendas?
Maybe its time to pass People's Resolution #1.
Monday, July 12, 2010
Howard Zinn
You know, its funny, the little picture of Howard Zinn on the back of my copy of A People's History of the United States kind of reminds me of this guy I see sitting by the lake near my house. He's there every day. He parks his car in the same spot, on a curve in the street where its close to the path that goes around the lake. He has his mesh folding chair, a cup of coffee, his cigarettes and a book. I imagine that his wife likes that he gets out of her way every day to do his alone thing, and that she has her alone thing. He's an old guy, and a smoker, and I picture him living in a cluttered old house that smells heavily of very old cigarette smoke. I've been seeing him for years and I've had these images of him for a long time.
When I bought A People's History, it ordered it slightly used from half.com. When it arrived, it had the same old cigarette smoke smell that I imagined guy by the lake's house to have. It still has it, and I often bury my nose in the pages to smell it. For some reason, since the picture of Zinn on the book jacket looks like guy by the lake, and since it smells the way I imagine his house to smell, I can't seem to get past this feeling that it came from his house, that it was his, or that he's Howard Zinn. I suppose that I'll always have this association between A People's History and the guy by the lake, even when I'm an old man and my wife looks forward to me taking my alone time.
The most important passage in the book comes in its final pages. Zinn declares: "As we pass from one century to another, one millennium to another, we would like to think that history itself is transformed as dramatically as the calendar. However, it rushes on, as it always did, with two forces racing toward the future, one splendidly uniformed, the other ragged but inspired."
I wonder if his wife let him have his alone time every day.
When I bought A People's History, it ordered it slightly used from half.com. When it arrived, it had the same old cigarette smoke smell that I imagined guy by the lake's house to have. It still has it, and I often bury my nose in the pages to smell it. For some reason, since the picture of Zinn on the book jacket looks like guy by the lake, and since it smells the way I imagine his house to smell, I can't seem to get past this feeling that it came from his house, that it was his, or that he's Howard Zinn. I suppose that I'll always have this association between A People's History and the guy by the lake, even when I'm an old man and my wife looks forward to me taking my alone time.
The most important passage in the book comes in its final pages. Zinn declares: "As we pass from one century to another, one millennium to another, we would like to think that history itself is transformed as dramatically as the calendar. However, it rushes on, as it always did, with two forces racing toward the future, one splendidly uniformed, the other ragged but inspired."
I wonder if his wife let him have his alone time every day.
Friday, July 9, 2010
Human Morality
Most people assume that you need both religion and government in order for there to be any kind of moral code in society. This idea cannot be any more misguided. In fact, it is ironic to turn to these sources for moral guidance, given the fact that both have a very poor moral track record. The immorality of government is plainly obvious, and if you ask most people, they would say that governments are corrupt and operate outside the supposed law and order that they implement. Religion has been the source of countless numbers of egregious violations of human rights, including genocide and other atrocities over the course of history. The faithful have gone as far as cherry-picking their religious texts in order for their beliefs to correctly correspond with what humans already know about right and wrong. Thus both systems have been proven by human behavior to be contradictions of the moral codes they seek to reinforce. It is only through thousands of years of conditioning that we still maintain the belief that humans are incapable of deciding for themselves what is moral and what is not without divine or government help.
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Is The Universe Deterministic?
To answer this one must also ask whether or not the universe was created with us in mind.
If a butterfly flaps its wings, could it create a chain reaction of events that 4,000,000 years later would cause us to misplace out car keys, and in doing so, cause us to leave the house 30 seconds later than we would have, thus allowing us to miss the fatal car crash we would have otherwise be involved in? If it did, was our life meaningful enough to the universe as to determine our outcome in this rather convoluted way?
Are ripples in a pond caused by deterministic forces in the universe? Or are they caused by some random event, creating random patterns as they bounce off of the shores and criss-cross each other?
A key turning point in my life was a job I was offered in 1999. During my time there, while I was separated from my first wife, before my divorce was finalized, I met the woman who I would later marry and with whom I would start a family. Maybe my kids will grow up to be key players in human history. Was this chain of events precipitated by a decision made by someone or some force on the quantum level in the universe, or did my wife and I just impress the right people at the right times with our resumes?
Determinism equals solipsism. Examining the origin of the universe this way is a lot like tearing down a building and reconstructing it from the top down, or "hindsight is 20/20". We exist in a random soup of particles and energy. Isn't that beautiful enough?
If a butterfly flaps its wings, could it create a chain reaction of events that 4,000,000 years later would cause us to misplace out car keys, and in doing so, cause us to leave the house 30 seconds later than we would have, thus allowing us to miss the fatal car crash we would have otherwise be involved in? If it did, was our life meaningful enough to the universe as to determine our outcome in this rather convoluted way?
Are ripples in a pond caused by deterministic forces in the universe? Or are they caused by some random event, creating random patterns as they bounce off of the shores and criss-cross each other?
A key turning point in my life was a job I was offered in 1999. During my time there, while I was separated from my first wife, before my divorce was finalized, I met the woman who I would later marry and with whom I would start a family. Maybe my kids will grow up to be key players in human history. Was this chain of events precipitated by a decision made by someone or some force on the quantum level in the universe, or did my wife and I just impress the right people at the right times with our resumes?
Determinism equals solipsism. Examining the origin of the universe this way is a lot like tearing down a building and reconstructing it from the top down, or "hindsight is 20/20". We exist in a random soup of particles and energy. Isn't that beautiful enough?
Friday, July 2, 2010
Alex Jones Is A Paranoid Freak
Alex Jones and other like-minded people are half right. Riots, martial law and FEMA detention camps are a real possibility. But it's not the Tea Party and its not white Christian gun owners that they're after. These people are more than willing to wave the flag and bleed for country and turn to Jesus. The real threat to the Establishment are the people in black helmets with clubs. The anarchists. These are the people who scared the shit out of the cops in Toronto. They're a threat because they have growing numbers and they violently oppose the Establishment, capitalist greed and amoral authority. They spread their message quickly and effectively across the globe through social media on the internet. They also can and will manifest in cities around the world as more corporate bullshit and government lying persists. Each time the economic powers get together to meet they will be there. Toronto was a victory for them because it showed the cops and the city government that they meant business. Each little victory makes them stronger and their numbers increase. It won't be long before we see soldiers and armored vehicles in Canadian and American cities being used to protect the capitalist interests against this rising tide of resistance. Bullets will fly, heads will roll and blood will spill. Fortunately for Alex Jones, he and other paranoid, redneck blue bloods will be on the safe side of the fence.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
How To Stump an Atheist
A christian youtuber was having a bit of a laugh for supposedly stumping the hosts on an Austin, TX based cable access show, The Atheist Experience. He asked a question and was unsatisfied with their answer, therefore concluding that he had one-upped the evil atheists. This is all captured in his latest video upload, to which I will not supply a link, because I don't want to give him any additional traffic for him to soapbox his ignorance.
Also, it is noteworthy that I found out about this guy in the first place because he spammed me a friend invite, which I will continue to not act on, as I would rather keep things the way they are between us, that is chime in on his stuff anytime I feel so inclined to call him out on his bullshit.
The question he asked Atheist Experience was:
What proof and evidence can you supply that proves atheism is accurate and correct?
The answer to that is simple:
No one needs to prove that something doesn't exist. The one who makes the extraordinary claim that something exists has the burden of proof.
Not exactly rocket science.
Also, it is noteworthy that I found out about this guy in the first place because he spammed me a friend invite, which I will continue to not act on, as I would rather keep things the way they are between us, that is chime in on his stuff anytime I feel so inclined to call him out on his bullshit.
The question he asked Atheist Experience was:
What proof and evidence can you supply that proves atheism is accurate and correct?
The answer to that is simple:
No one needs to prove that something doesn't exist. The one who makes the extraordinary claim that something exists has the burden of proof.
Not exactly rocket science.
Keeping Up With The Joneses
Bitch-slapping Alex Jones disciples is easy when you're armed with knowledge. It's akin to hunting in the zoo. You will see this play out in the following exchange which took place on YouTube between me, using Les' handle, LesterMartin, and an evolution skeptic who calls himself 1toneboy.
It was in reference to a comment I made on a video called, Darwin Theory of Evolution pt1 - ALAN WATT ALEX JONES (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMPaeWuQt6E&feature=email). It's a clip of paleo-conservative radio host Alex Jones' phone interview with writer Alan Watt about Globalism, Eugenics, and Charles Darwin.
The comment I made was really in reference to another video, and maybe I had been watching too many videos late at night, but what I was really referring to was a clip called, Alex Jones And Evolution (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1y-44IFSBKU). In the clip, Jones states the he "doesn't believe in evolution the way its billed and sold," and later proclaims, "I believe in intelligent design."
Billed and sold? It's fucking peer-reviewed science! He thinks science is part of a conspiracy for what purpose? I had been regularly visiting Jones' website, infowars.com, and streaming his radio program until it became clear to me that his ideas about Globalism, the New World Order, and eye-in-the-sky big brotherism were a little too irrational.
One only needs to listen to him discuss chemtrails to get a clear sense of what I mean. The idea that he is a creationist, and his belief that scientists who promote evolution are part of an elitist global conspiracy further reinforce my feelings that his ability to use reason and logic are skewed, and possibly have a deeper motive or agenda.
So I blurted out a comment on the Jones/Alan Watt video, and it started a chain reaction with 1toneboy that is both amusing and informative. It's been a lively debate, but I must say that 1toneboy is somewhat deficient in his ability to separate his belief in the supernatural from scientific fact, to employ the scientific method, to communicate verbally, and to argue effectively.
The initial rebuttal to my comment came from a user called lakshmak, but it soon set off 1toneboy and we were off to the races. Along with our conversation, he is also debating another user called karlkarlkarl1234 about evolution, and he seems only capable of engaging both of us with insults and contradictions, even self-contradiction, as he does in the sample below:
-----
karlkarlkarl1234 @1toneboy: Actually evolution is the "MOST demonst ratable theory to ever exist". I don't think you've though that one through. Look at yourself in the mirror and you can see it. Scientists have done countless and countless research demonstrating without any doubt it exists.
I would advise reading a bit more on the topic first.
1toneboy @karlkarlkarl1234: oh god, what a retard, yeah you're proof there is no design from a higher being. i literally prefaced what i said with "i'm not saying it's wrong" YOU DIDNT SHOW ONE FACT you just insubstantially said i was wrong. and for the record i do believe in evolution. universities offer hundreds of thousands of dollars for proof of things like evidence of DNA reduction mutation. tell me please what proof? and if you say the fossil record i'm going to tear your argument apart
-----
This is the kind of twisted reasoning of creationists and conspiracy theorists as they grasp for straws once they're called out on their ignorance, as my conversation with 1toneboy illustrates:
-----
LesterMartin: Alex's tin foil hat is choking out the oxygen to his brain
lakshmak: and youre getting choked with false information, television, and complete bullshit.
LesterMartin: evolution is not false information, it is fact, like gravity
1toneboy @LesterMartin: i'm not saying its wrong but gravity is demonstratable, evolution isnt, cant be recreated and there is no physical proof.
LesterMartin @1toneboy: evolution is demonstratable, and has been observed in real time. To study evolution in action, scientists use organisms like bacteria and fruitflies that reproduce quickly, so they can see changes that require many generations.
1toneboy @LesterMartin: Ha-Ha! Oh, I see. and what has been observed from this? What changes in DNA have occurred, what different species did these bacteria develop into over these many generations. The generations of fruit flys can be measured to exceed that of the generations of what science tells us man has been on the earth and what trates of the fruit fly change? what new species arises? Evolution's got SUCH a long way to go and be refined, so many unanswered questions.
LesterMartin @1toneboy: the answer to your comment was that evolution is demonstratable, which it is. Changes in DNA and species aside, it doesn't take away the simple truth that evolution is fact. It happens. It is not explained away by magic. Evolution does not have a long way to go. It is observable through observation and experimentation. There are many lifetimes worth of knowledge about evolution and life in general to discover. Science acknowledges that.
1toneboy @LesterMartin: you didnt answer my question YOU JUST SAID THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION IS ITS A FACT i asked you what DNA changes, what new features does it develop, what new species does it turn into. you're not showing how its demonstrable you fool!
LesterMartin @1toneboy: Life reproduces with variation. If it didn't, we would all look exactly like our parents. But if you need other examples, there's bacteria and the AIDS virus which are constantly evolving into new strains which are immune to vaccines and penicillin
1toneboy @LesterMartin: thats a ridiculous ogmentation how genes are passed through reproduction. Virus' yeah whatever thats debatable, but I want YOU to explain YOUR fruit fly reasoning in a manner that answer's teh questions i put to you regarding it.
-----
As luck would have it, I ran across an article in NYTimes.com earlier that day about new strains of weeds which were resistant to the herbicide glyphosate. In the article, a scientist named Mike Owen commented that it is "Darwinian evolution in fast-forward." I thought I would point him in the right direction. And I thought it was about time that I helped him with his grammar.
-----
LesterMartin @1toneboy: Look up and read an article titled Farmers Cope With Roundup Resistant Weeds in the NY times. Then ask me again about physical proof of evolution and speciation.
LesterMartin @1toneboy: and I believe the word is augmentation
-----
I haven't heard back in a couple of days so I guess I schooled him.
It was in reference to a comment I made on a video called, Darwin Theory of Evolution pt1 - ALAN WATT ALEX JONES (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMPaeWuQt6E&feature=email). It's a clip of paleo-conservative radio host Alex Jones' phone interview with writer Alan Watt about Globalism, Eugenics, and Charles Darwin.
The comment I made was really in reference to another video, and maybe I had been watching too many videos late at night, but what I was really referring to was a clip called, Alex Jones And Evolution (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1y-44IFSBKU). In the clip, Jones states the he "doesn't believe in evolution the way its billed and sold," and later proclaims, "I believe in intelligent design."
Billed and sold? It's fucking peer-reviewed science! He thinks science is part of a conspiracy for what purpose? I had been regularly visiting Jones' website, infowars.com, and streaming his radio program until it became clear to me that his ideas about Globalism, the New World Order, and eye-in-the-sky big brotherism were a little too irrational.
One only needs to listen to him discuss chemtrails to get a clear sense of what I mean. The idea that he is a creationist, and his belief that scientists who promote evolution are part of an elitist global conspiracy further reinforce my feelings that his ability to use reason and logic are skewed, and possibly have a deeper motive or agenda.
So I blurted out a comment on the Jones/Alan Watt video, and it started a chain reaction with 1toneboy that is both amusing and informative. It's been a lively debate, but I must say that 1toneboy is somewhat deficient in his ability to separate his belief in the supernatural from scientific fact, to employ the scientific method, to communicate verbally, and to argue effectively.
The initial rebuttal to my comment came from a user called lakshmak, but it soon set off 1toneboy and we were off to the races. Along with our conversation, he is also debating another user called karlkarlkarl1234 about evolution, and he seems only capable of engaging both of us with insults and contradictions, even self-contradiction, as he does in the sample below:
-----
karlkarlkarl1234 @1toneboy: Actually evolution is the "MOST demonst ratable theory to ever exist". I don't think you've though that one through. Look at yourself in the mirror and you can see it. Scientists have done countless and countless research demonstrating without any doubt it exists.
I would advise reading a bit more on the topic first.
1toneboy @karlkarlkarl1234: oh god, what a retard, yeah you're proof there is no design from a higher being. i literally prefaced what i said with "i'm not saying it's wrong" YOU DIDNT SHOW ONE FACT you just insubstantially said i was wrong. and for the record i do believe in evolution. universities offer hundreds of thousands of dollars for proof of things like evidence of DNA reduction mutation. tell me please what proof? and if you say the fossil record i'm going to tear your argument apart
-----
This is the kind of twisted reasoning of creationists and conspiracy theorists as they grasp for straws once they're called out on their ignorance, as my conversation with 1toneboy illustrates:
-----
LesterMartin: Alex's tin foil hat is choking out the oxygen to his brain
lakshmak: and youre getting choked with false information, television, and complete bullshit.
LesterMartin: evolution is not false information, it is fact, like gravity
1toneboy @LesterMartin: i'm not saying its wrong but gravity is demonstratable, evolution isnt, cant be recreated and there is no physical proof.
LesterMartin @1toneboy: evolution is demonstratable, and has been observed in real time. To study evolution in action, scientists use organisms like bacteria and fruitflies that reproduce quickly, so they can see changes that require many generations.
1toneboy @LesterMartin: Ha-Ha! Oh, I see. and what has been observed from this? What changes in DNA have occurred, what different species did these bacteria develop into over these many generations. The generations of fruit flys can be measured to exceed that of the generations of what science tells us man has been on the earth and what trates of the fruit fly change? what new species arises? Evolution's got SUCH a long way to go and be refined, so many unanswered questions.
LesterMartin @1toneboy: the answer to your comment was that evolution is demonstratable, which it is. Changes in DNA and species aside, it doesn't take away the simple truth that evolution is fact. It happens. It is not explained away by magic. Evolution does not have a long way to go. It is observable through observation and experimentation. There are many lifetimes worth of knowledge about evolution and life in general to discover. Science acknowledges that.
1toneboy @LesterMartin: you didnt answer my question YOU JUST SAID THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION IS ITS A FACT i asked you what DNA changes, what new features does it develop, what new species does it turn into. you're not showing how its demonstrable you fool!
LesterMartin @1toneboy: Life reproduces with variation. If it didn't, we would all look exactly like our parents. But if you need other examples, there's bacteria and the AIDS virus which are constantly evolving into new strains which are immune to vaccines and penicillin
1toneboy @LesterMartin: thats a ridiculous ogmentation how genes are passed through reproduction. Virus' yeah whatever thats debatable, but I want YOU to explain YOUR fruit fly reasoning in a manner that answer's teh questions i put to you regarding it.
-----
As luck would have it, I ran across an article in NYTimes.com earlier that day about new strains of weeds which were resistant to the herbicide glyphosate. In the article, a scientist named Mike Owen commented that it is "Darwinian evolution in fast-forward." I thought I would point him in the right direction. And I thought it was about time that I helped him with his grammar.
-----
LesterMartin @1toneboy: Look up and read an article titled Farmers Cope With Roundup Resistant Weeds in the NY times. Then ask me again about physical proof of evolution and speciation.
LesterMartin @1toneboy: and I believe the word is augmentation
-----
I haven't heard back in a couple of days so I guess I schooled him.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Pascal's Wager
"If you erroneously believe in God, you lose nothing (assuming that death is the absolute end), whereas if you correctly believe in God, you gain everything (eternal bliss). But if you correctly disbelieve in God, you gain nothing (death ends all), whereas if you erroneously disbelieve in God, you lose everything (eternal damnation)."
Bollocks!
If there is a god, and I came before him as an unbeliever, how could I be condemned for my lack of belief? It is unfathomable, if there were a divine creator, that he would not take into account that these beautiful, sentient humans, with their powerful imagination and sense of wonder, able to reason and think analytically about their own being, would be doubtful of the existence of the supernatural in light of an overwhelming lack of evidence to support such a claim.
I would rather approach a creator as an informed skeptic than someone who's faith serves only to cover their ass. It seems to me that the former would be more deserving of respect for having used their intellect wisely and effectively than the latter who would disregard reason and give into superstition out of fear.
Bollocks!
If there is a god, and I came before him as an unbeliever, how could I be condemned for my lack of belief? It is unfathomable, if there were a divine creator, that he would not take into account that these beautiful, sentient humans, with their powerful imagination and sense of wonder, able to reason and think analytically about their own being, would be doubtful of the existence of the supernatural in light of an overwhelming lack of evidence to support such a claim.
I would rather approach a creator as an informed skeptic than someone who's faith serves only to cover their ass. It seems to me that the former would be more deserving of respect for having used their intellect wisely and effectively than the latter who would disregard reason and give into superstition out of fear.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
God vs. Science
I had to write this entry because this email has been circulating for several years, and I felt the need to interject myself into the conversation between the antagonist Godless professor and how he is made a fool by his alleged soon-to-be legendary student on the subject of the existence of God. I must say that the story is rife with assumptions, faulty logic, false claims, and nonsensical analogies. It reads word-for-word as I have received it, and it is the latest version, as I have found many. This one was apparently updated with some new tidbits that were not in the older ones.
I've broken it up into parts A through G, and added comments after each section, to make my points easier to understand and the whole thing easier to follow.
PART A
I wish I were sitting in this class...interesting "debate."
'Let me explain the problem science has with religion.'
The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand.
'You're a Christian, aren't you, son?'
'Yes sir,' the student says.
'So you believe in God?'
'Absolutely. '
'Is God good?'
'Sure! God's good.'
'Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?'
'Yes'
'Are you good or evil?'
'The Bible says I'm evil.'
The professor grins knowingly. 'Aha! The Bible! He considers for a moment. 'Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help him? Would you try?'
'Yes sir, I would.'
'So you're good!'
'I wouldn't say that.'
'But why not say that? You'd help a sick and maimed person if you could. Most of us would if we could. But God doesn't.'
The student does not answer, so the professor continues. 'He doesn't, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer, even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Can you answer that one?'
The student remains silent. 'No, you can't, can you?', the professor says. He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax. 'Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?'
'Er..yes,' the student says..
'Is Satan good?'
The student doesn't hesitate on this one. 'No.'
'Then where does Satan come from?'
The student falters. 'From God'
'That's right. God made Satan, didn't he? Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?'
'Yes, sir..'
'Evil's everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything, correct?'
'Yes'
'So who created evil?' The professor continued, 'If God created everything, then God created evil, since evil exists, and according to the principle that our works define who we are, then God is evil.'
Again, the student has no answer. 'Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things, do they exist in this world?'
The student squirms on his feet. 'Yes.'
'So who created them?'
The student does not answer again, so the professor repeats his question. 'Who created them?' There is still no answer. Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace in front of the classroom. The class is mesmerized. 'Tell me,' he continues onto another student. 'Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?'
The student's voice betrays him and cracks. 'Yes, professor, I do.'
The old man stops pacing. 'Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen Jesus?'
'No sir. I've never seen Him.'
'Then tell us if you've ever heard your Jesus?'
'No, sir, I have not..'
'Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus? Have you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ, or God for that matter?'
'No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't.'
'Yet you still believe in him?'
'Yes'
'According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?'
'Nothing,' the student replies.. 'I only have my faith.'
'Yes, faith,' the professor repeats. 'And that is the problem science has with God. There is no evidence, only faith.'
COMMENTS FOR PART A
This first part confuses me a little, mainly because the poor, meek "new" student states that the Bible says that he is evil. We never know why he's evil. Perhaps he just has a bad self image? It's an odd non-sequitor that doesn't seem to have a place in the story and is soon forgotten. Maybe it doesn't matter, since his apparent role is that of whipping boy to be made into an example by the evil atheist professor, who then snickers, "aha! The Bible!"
The story continues with the student standing mostly silently while the professor fills in the blanks and answers his own questions for him. After berating this young man, the professor makes a curious assertion, referring to "the principle that our works define who we are." Exactly whose principle is this? I suppose the reader is expected to assume that there is such a principle, creating the illusion that this is an actual conversation amongst intellectuals.
Continuing on, the professor interrogates the student further, about Jesus, and how the student has never had any sensory perception of Jesus but believes in him anyway. The professor then states that science says God doesn't exist "according to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol." To clarify, the writer meant to say something about the Scientific Method, but since he or she does not know what that is, they have to invent the nonsensical "rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol." The logic begins to break down from here.
PART B
The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a question of His own. 'Professor, is there such thing as heat? '
Yes.
'And is there such a thing as cold?'
'Yes, son, there's cold too.'
'No sir, there isn't.'
The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested. The room suddenly becomes very quiet. The student begins to explain.' You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don't have anything called 'cold'. We can get down to 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold; otherwise we would be able to go colder than the lowest -458 degrees. Everybody or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total absence of heat.. You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.'
Silence across the room. A pen drops somewhere in the classroom, sounding like a hammer.
COMMENTS FOR PART B
Here we have the Student firing back, using what turns out to be bad logic and a pitiful understanding of scientific terms, concepts, etc. He begins with a discussion about heat and cold.
Just starting off, I must say that if you have ever been outside without a coat in January north of, say, South Florida, you may be scratching your head at the claim by the student that there is no such thing as cold. Cold is a sensation felt by any organism that might concern itself with temperature extremes for a variety of reasons, beginning with self-preservation. The student begins an explanation about thermodynamics that discusses "lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat." I am fully certain that his terminology was not lifted verbatim from any thermodynamics textbook.
Next we move along to the topic of Absolute Zero, stating that we can't go "any further than that", and therefore there is no such thing as cold. Firstly, Absolute Zero is completely theoretical, as it is never reached naturally in the universe. and has never been reached by anyone on Earth. The Student refers to this as the "absence of heat", which is incorrect. Absolute Zero is the the point at which a system no longer has enough energy to transfer energy to another system. Is it cold? I certainly think so. Freakin' cold.
As to the notion that cold cannot be measured, this is completely nonsensical. No one can measure cold because cold is not something to measure. It is as logical as trying to measure "like." They're correct in stating that cold is not the opposite of heat. Cold is the opposite of hot. Any first grader knows that. Hot and cold are not quantities, they are sensations, experienced by some life form relative to their surroundings. No one can measure cold because no one would measure cold. There is no such thing as a cold making machine (air conditioners and refrigerators do not generate cold, they remove heat). To be technical, anything experienced by a human being as cold is not by any means absent of heat. It would have a considerable amount of heat energy, relative to the theoretical Absolute Zero.
PART C
'What about darkness, professor. Is there such a thing as darkness?'
'Yes,' the professor replies without hesitation. 'What is night if it isn't darkness?'
'You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light, but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to define the word. In reality, darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?'
The professor begins to smile at the student in front of him. This will be a good semester. 'So what point are you making, young man?'
COMMENTS FOR PART C
Similar to the discussion about heat, this part discusses light and darkness. The claim here is that light exists, but darkness doesn't. Try turning off the light in the room you're in at night and walk around. Do you bump into stuff and stub your toe? That's because its DARK. Darkness is a state experienced by little or no light. It exists not as a quantity, because it doesn't require a quantity. No one would measure it because no one has to. If there could be a scenario in the universe where there is no light at all, there would be nothing to measure. The only things in the universe that need to make sense of the state of darkness are things that require light to survive. It is, like hot and cold, relative to the life form and its surroundings.
PART D
'Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with, and so your conclusion must also be flawed.'
The professor's face cannot hide his surprise this time. 'Flawed? Can you explain how?'
'You are working on the premise of duality,' the student explains. 'You argue that there is life and then there's death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought.' 'It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it.' 'Now tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?'
'If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do.'
'Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?'
The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realizes where the argument is going. A very good semester, indeed.
'Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?'
COMMENTS FOR PART D
The "premise" that the Student mentions as "duality" is actually "dualism", or moral opposites (i.e. good and evil). Unfortunately for this student, it is not the case here. Earlier in the story, the professor was merely applying simple logic to the concept of evil stating that if God created evil and all of the evil and horrible things in the world, he is evil. Then he uses reasoning to say that Jesus cannot be felt by the five senses and therefore cannot be proven to exist, finally finishing by dismissing faith saying, "and that is the problem science has with God. There is no evidence, only faith". At no point was the professor using any kind of dualist moral opposites. The Student, in trying to stump the professor, attempts to use opposites, but as I discussed in PART B and PART C, these were not opposites. They were not even good analogies, and they were ignorant of basic scientific principles of light and heat.
It's a simple trick that is easy to pull on the ignorant or those who weren't paying attention. You make them think that they agree with a statement you've made because they either don't understand it and assume that you are smarter, or they think they missed something earlier on.
The argument begins to take a turn for the worst here, and the Student makes some major blunders here regarding thought, electricity and magnetism. The assumption here is that these things are not detectable or explainable by science. The writer has some reading to do, and I would start them off with textbooks on biology and physics. This is the 21st century, and maybe this was written in 1930 or something, but science has seen thought in human brain activity, and electricity and magnetism are both used extensively in the computer you're reading this on.
Moving along, the Student brings up the topic of death, claiming that it also does not exist, as "a substantive thing." If by substantive they mean "having independent existence", then it most definitely exists as a substantive thing, just ask anyone who is dead. You can't, because they're dead. Furthermore, death is not the absence of life. If that were true you could say that life was the absence of death. Death is the end of life.
Next we move on to evolution, and the Student asks if the professor teaches his students that humans evolved from monkeys, which I would hope he does not, but he says he does. Humans didn't evolve from monkeys, humans share a common ancestry with monkeys. The Student then erroneously states that no one has ever observed the process of evolution, which is untrue. It has been observed in fossil records and in real time. Evolution is not a belief or opinion. It is a fact, like gravity.
It's worth mentioning that the professor is now described a second time as "still smiling, as he realizes where the argument is going." Is this meant to be in deference to the seemingly more logical and intelligent Student, who is the hero and protagonist in the story?
PART E
The class is in uproar. The student remains silent until the commotion has subsided. 'To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, let me give you an example of what I mean.' The student looks around the room. 'Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's brain?' The class breaks out into laughter. 'Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain, felt the professor's brain, touched or smelt the professor's brain? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, with all due respect, sir.' 'So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust your lectures, sir?'
COMMENTS FOR PART E
I decided to write this blog post after reading this section, because it is utterly absurd and insulting to any intelligent person. Are they serious? Are they really saying that there is no empirical evidence that people have brains? The students can't see the professors brain, but is there any reason to doubt that he has one, and are the students accepting the notion that he does on faith alone? Or could it be the vast body of knowledge provided by fellow humans who have been studying anatomy for hundreds, if not thousands of years? I defy anyone who needs surgery on their brain to run the idea by the surgeon that the procedure may be unnecessary because they may not have a brain, since no one has ever seen it. Haven't we all seen CAT scans or MRI's? And if we were still in doubt, there certainly is a sure-fire way to find out if someone has a brain. All you need are simple household tools. We don't go to this extreme because we know it to be a fact that all humans, that is ALL humans, have brains.
Again, the author uses the phrase, "established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol." Are they trying to sound "scientific?" To the lay person, this may bear similarities to something they may have heard about called the Scientific Method. But it doesn't. Not at all. It's another application of the trick I mentioned earlier. I had a friend who once said to me that pseudo-science makes perfect sense to the ignorant.
PART F
Now the room is silent. The professor just stares at the student, his face unreadable. Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old man answers. 'I Guess you'll have to take them on faith.'
So, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with life,' the student continues. 'Now, sir, is there such a thing as evil?' Now uncertain, the professor responds, 'Of course, there is. We see it every day. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil.'
To this the student replied, 'Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light.'
The professor sat down.
If you read it all the way through and had a smile on your face when you finished, mail to your friends and family with the title 'God vs. Science'
COMMENTS FOR PART F
The now humbled prof apparently is unsure that he has a brain, as he decides that it is by faith that he is accepting the proposition that he has a brain. This leads the Student to draw a very ambiguous line from human brains to faith to the notion that "faith exists with life," to the dualism of God and evil, which are not even opposites. Good and evil are opposites. The Student then states that evil doesn't exist, or as he put it, "not unto itself." Well, does it exist or not? If its existence is contingent on being paired with something else, then it still exists. And in order for you to buy the idea that evil is the absence of God, you have to assume that God exists, and not once is that ever proven here.
The Student goes on to say "It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light." So what is the analogy? He says earlier that cold and darkness don't exist. If you put God and evil into the equation with heat and cold and light and darkness, the analogy would go, A is to B as C is to D as E is to F, but according to the Student, B, D and F don't really exist. But cold and darkness really do exist. So according to the analogy, so does evil. But he states that evil doesn't exist. This just doesn't make any sense.
PART G
PS: the student was Albert Einstein
Albert Einstein wrote a book titled God vs. Science in 1921.
COMMENTS FOR PART G
There are two sentences here, and my comments are as follows: no it wasn't, and no he did not. Look it up. Adding the name of an important figure in the scientific community is an attempt at adding intellectual weight onto this for people who won't know any better.
AND FINALLY
If the faithful want to believe in God, then so be it. Just don't attempt to prove it using logic because you can't. Do your faith a favor and leave it at that.
I've broken it up into parts A through G, and added comments after each section, to make my points easier to understand and the whole thing easier to follow.
PART A
I wish I were sitting in this class...interesting "debate."
'Let me explain the problem science has with religion.'
The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand.
'You're a Christian, aren't you, son?'
'Yes sir,' the student says.
'So you believe in God?'
'Absolutely. '
'Is God good?'
'Sure! God's good.'
'Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?'
'Yes'
'Are you good or evil?'
'The Bible says I'm evil.'
The professor grins knowingly. 'Aha! The Bible! He considers for a moment. 'Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help him? Would you try?'
'Yes sir, I would.'
'So you're good!'
'I wouldn't say that.'
'But why not say that? You'd help a sick and maimed person if you could. Most of us would if we could. But God doesn't.'
The student does not answer, so the professor continues. 'He doesn't, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer, even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Can you answer that one?'
The student remains silent. 'No, you can't, can you?', the professor says. He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax. 'Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?'
'Er..yes,' the student says..
'Is Satan good?'
The student doesn't hesitate on this one. 'No.'
'Then where does Satan come from?'
The student falters. 'From God'
'That's right. God made Satan, didn't he? Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?'
'Yes, sir..'
'Evil's everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything, correct?'
'Yes'
'So who created evil?' The professor continued, 'If God created everything, then God created evil, since evil exists, and according to the principle that our works define who we are, then God is evil.'
Again, the student has no answer. 'Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things, do they exist in this world?'
The student squirms on his feet. 'Yes.'
'So who created them?'
The student does not answer again, so the professor repeats his question. 'Who created them?' There is still no answer. Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace in front of the classroom. The class is mesmerized. 'Tell me,' he continues onto another student. 'Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?'
The student's voice betrays him and cracks. 'Yes, professor, I do.'
The old man stops pacing. 'Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen Jesus?'
'No sir. I've never seen Him.'
'Then tell us if you've ever heard your Jesus?'
'No, sir, I have not..'
'Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus? Have you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ, or God for that matter?'
'No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't.'
'Yet you still believe in him?'
'Yes'
'According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?'
'Nothing,' the student replies.. 'I only have my faith.'
'Yes, faith,' the professor repeats. 'And that is the problem science has with God. There is no evidence, only faith.'
COMMENTS FOR PART A
This first part confuses me a little, mainly because the poor, meek "new" student states that the Bible says that he is evil. We never know why he's evil. Perhaps he just has a bad self image? It's an odd non-sequitor that doesn't seem to have a place in the story and is soon forgotten. Maybe it doesn't matter, since his apparent role is that of whipping boy to be made into an example by the evil atheist professor, who then snickers, "aha! The Bible!"
The story continues with the student standing mostly silently while the professor fills in the blanks and answers his own questions for him. After berating this young man, the professor makes a curious assertion, referring to "the principle that our works define who we are." Exactly whose principle is this? I suppose the reader is expected to assume that there is such a principle, creating the illusion that this is an actual conversation amongst intellectuals.
Continuing on, the professor interrogates the student further, about Jesus, and how the student has never had any sensory perception of Jesus but believes in him anyway. The professor then states that science says God doesn't exist "according to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol." To clarify, the writer meant to say something about the Scientific Method, but since he or she does not know what that is, they have to invent the nonsensical "rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol." The logic begins to break down from here.
PART B
The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a question of His own. 'Professor, is there such thing as heat? '
Yes.
'And is there such a thing as cold?'
'Yes, son, there's cold too.'
'No sir, there isn't.'
The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested. The room suddenly becomes very quiet. The student begins to explain.' You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don't have anything called 'cold'. We can get down to 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold; otherwise we would be able to go colder than the lowest -458 degrees. Everybody or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total absence of heat.. You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.'
Silence across the room. A pen drops somewhere in the classroom, sounding like a hammer.
COMMENTS FOR PART B
Here we have the Student firing back, using what turns out to be bad logic and a pitiful understanding of scientific terms, concepts, etc. He begins with a discussion about heat and cold.
Just starting off, I must say that if you have ever been outside without a coat in January north of, say, South Florida, you may be scratching your head at the claim by the student that there is no such thing as cold. Cold is a sensation felt by any organism that might concern itself with temperature extremes for a variety of reasons, beginning with self-preservation. The student begins an explanation about thermodynamics that discusses "lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat." I am fully certain that his terminology was not lifted verbatim from any thermodynamics textbook.
Next we move along to the topic of Absolute Zero, stating that we can't go "any further than that", and therefore there is no such thing as cold. Firstly, Absolute Zero is completely theoretical, as it is never reached naturally in the universe. and has never been reached by anyone on Earth. The Student refers to this as the "absence of heat", which is incorrect. Absolute Zero is the the point at which a system no longer has enough energy to transfer energy to another system. Is it cold? I certainly think so. Freakin' cold.
As to the notion that cold cannot be measured, this is completely nonsensical. No one can measure cold because cold is not something to measure. It is as logical as trying to measure "like." They're correct in stating that cold is not the opposite of heat. Cold is the opposite of hot. Any first grader knows that. Hot and cold are not quantities, they are sensations, experienced by some life form relative to their surroundings. No one can measure cold because no one would measure cold. There is no such thing as a cold making machine (air conditioners and refrigerators do not generate cold, they remove heat). To be technical, anything experienced by a human being as cold is not by any means absent of heat. It would have a considerable amount of heat energy, relative to the theoretical Absolute Zero.
PART C
'What about darkness, professor. Is there such a thing as darkness?'
'Yes,' the professor replies without hesitation. 'What is night if it isn't darkness?'
'You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light, but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to define the word. In reality, darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?'
The professor begins to smile at the student in front of him. This will be a good semester. 'So what point are you making, young man?'
COMMENTS FOR PART C
Similar to the discussion about heat, this part discusses light and darkness. The claim here is that light exists, but darkness doesn't. Try turning off the light in the room you're in at night and walk around. Do you bump into stuff and stub your toe? That's because its DARK. Darkness is a state experienced by little or no light. It exists not as a quantity, because it doesn't require a quantity. No one would measure it because no one has to. If there could be a scenario in the universe where there is no light at all, there would be nothing to measure. The only things in the universe that need to make sense of the state of darkness are things that require light to survive. It is, like hot and cold, relative to the life form and its surroundings.
PART D
'Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with, and so your conclusion must also be flawed.'
The professor's face cannot hide his surprise this time. 'Flawed? Can you explain how?'
'You are working on the premise of duality,' the student explains. 'You argue that there is life and then there's death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought.' 'It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it.' 'Now tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?'
'If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do.'
'Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?'
The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realizes where the argument is going. A very good semester, indeed.
'Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?'
COMMENTS FOR PART D
The "premise" that the Student mentions as "duality" is actually "dualism", or moral opposites (i.e. good and evil). Unfortunately for this student, it is not the case here. Earlier in the story, the professor was merely applying simple logic to the concept of evil stating that if God created evil and all of the evil and horrible things in the world, he is evil. Then he uses reasoning to say that Jesus cannot be felt by the five senses and therefore cannot be proven to exist, finally finishing by dismissing faith saying, "and that is the problem science has with God. There is no evidence, only faith". At no point was the professor using any kind of dualist moral opposites. The Student, in trying to stump the professor, attempts to use opposites, but as I discussed in PART B and PART C, these were not opposites. They were not even good analogies, and they were ignorant of basic scientific principles of light and heat.
It's a simple trick that is easy to pull on the ignorant or those who weren't paying attention. You make them think that they agree with a statement you've made because they either don't understand it and assume that you are smarter, or they think they missed something earlier on.
The argument begins to take a turn for the worst here, and the Student makes some major blunders here regarding thought, electricity and magnetism. The assumption here is that these things are not detectable or explainable by science. The writer has some reading to do, and I would start them off with textbooks on biology and physics. This is the 21st century, and maybe this was written in 1930 or something, but science has seen thought in human brain activity, and electricity and magnetism are both used extensively in the computer you're reading this on.
Moving along, the Student brings up the topic of death, claiming that it also does not exist, as "a substantive thing." If by substantive they mean "having independent existence", then it most definitely exists as a substantive thing, just ask anyone who is dead. You can't, because they're dead. Furthermore, death is not the absence of life. If that were true you could say that life was the absence of death. Death is the end of life.
Next we move on to evolution, and the Student asks if the professor teaches his students that humans evolved from monkeys, which I would hope he does not, but he says he does. Humans didn't evolve from monkeys, humans share a common ancestry with monkeys. The Student then erroneously states that no one has ever observed the process of evolution, which is untrue. It has been observed in fossil records and in real time. Evolution is not a belief or opinion. It is a fact, like gravity.
It's worth mentioning that the professor is now described a second time as "still smiling, as he realizes where the argument is going." Is this meant to be in deference to the seemingly more logical and intelligent Student, who is the hero and protagonist in the story?
PART E
The class is in uproar. The student remains silent until the commotion has subsided. 'To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, let me give you an example of what I mean.' The student looks around the room. 'Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's brain?' The class breaks out into laughter. 'Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain, felt the professor's brain, touched or smelt the professor's brain? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, with all due respect, sir.' 'So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust your lectures, sir?'
COMMENTS FOR PART E
I decided to write this blog post after reading this section, because it is utterly absurd and insulting to any intelligent person. Are they serious? Are they really saying that there is no empirical evidence that people have brains? The students can't see the professors brain, but is there any reason to doubt that he has one, and are the students accepting the notion that he does on faith alone? Or could it be the vast body of knowledge provided by fellow humans who have been studying anatomy for hundreds, if not thousands of years? I defy anyone who needs surgery on their brain to run the idea by the surgeon that the procedure may be unnecessary because they may not have a brain, since no one has ever seen it. Haven't we all seen CAT scans or MRI's? And if we were still in doubt, there certainly is a sure-fire way to find out if someone has a brain. All you need are simple household tools. We don't go to this extreme because we know it to be a fact that all humans, that is ALL humans, have brains.
Again, the author uses the phrase, "established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol." Are they trying to sound "scientific?" To the lay person, this may bear similarities to something they may have heard about called the Scientific Method. But it doesn't. Not at all. It's another application of the trick I mentioned earlier. I had a friend who once said to me that pseudo-science makes perfect sense to the ignorant.
PART F
Now the room is silent. The professor just stares at the student, his face unreadable. Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old man answers. 'I Guess you'll have to take them on faith.'
So, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with life,' the student continues. 'Now, sir, is there such a thing as evil?' Now uncertain, the professor responds, 'Of course, there is. We see it every day. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil.'
To this the student replied, 'Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light.'
The professor sat down.
If you read it all the way through and had a smile on your face when you finished, mail to your friends and family with the title 'God vs. Science'
COMMENTS FOR PART F
The now humbled prof apparently is unsure that he has a brain, as he decides that it is by faith that he is accepting the proposition that he has a brain. This leads the Student to draw a very ambiguous line from human brains to faith to the notion that "faith exists with life," to the dualism of God and evil, which are not even opposites. Good and evil are opposites. The Student then states that evil doesn't exist, or as he put it, "not unto itself." Well, does it exist or not? If its existence is contingent on being paired with something else, then it still exists. And in order for you to buy the idea that evil is the absence of God, you have to assume that God exists, and not once is that ever proven here.
The Student goes on to say "It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light." So what is the analogy? He says earlier that cold and darkness don't exist. If you put God and evil into the equation with heat and cold and light and darkness, the analogy would go, A is to B as C is to D as E is to F, but according to the Student, B, D and F don't really exist. But cold and darkness really do exist. So according to the analogy, so does evil. But he states that evil doesn't exist. This just doesn't make any sense.
PART G
PS: the student was Albert Einstein
Albert Einstein wrote a book titled God vs. Science in 1921.
COMMENTS FOR PART G
There are two sentences here, and my comments are as follows: no it wasn't, and no he did not. Look it up. Adding the name of an important figure in the scientific community is an attempt at adding intellectual weight onto this for people who won't know any better.
AND FINALLY
If the faithful want to believe in God, then so be it. Just don't attempt to prove it using logic because you can't. Do your faith a favor and leave it at that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
