NKorea warns war will bring "nuclear holocaust"
the north korean people are eating grass and bark, and whatever they can glean from the mud. yet they can afford a nuclear enrichment program and nuclear weapons. something is wrong here. such a government is not interested in "peace" -- they don't know the meaning of the word.
north korean interests are strictly personal -- kim jong il and his toadies are in the business of power and domination. now they are threatening nuclear war -- just what we should expect from such a country engaging in nuclear experimentation. iran is next to use nuclear weapons to threaten the mideast and the world's most plentiful oil supply.
this is what can be expected from totalitarian theocracies. and if you don't think north korea is a theocracy, think again -- kim il sung is the father, and kim jong il is the son. we saw what can happen in such a climate, when japan believed its emperor was a god. read The Captive Mind, and see what can be accomplished by leaders assuming the roles of gods or their messengers.
Saturday, January 1, 2011
Friday, December 3, 2010
yahoo censors post re: mccain on "don't ask, don't tell"
Mullen fires back at McCain's 'don't ask' repeal criticism
mccain was never the brightest bulb in the senate, or in flight school, or when flying, or when serving in the government. check his records -- he was the son and grandson of admirals, and that's where his qualifications began and ended. how does being a vietnam prisoner -- and tortured -- for five years qualify him to pass judgment on gays in the military?
even Cindy disagrees with him on this one. he has no credibility and less probity than Rodin's The Thinker -- i.e., a hunk of stone in a contemplative position. between grey and gay, i'll take gay any day. at least gays are capable of reasoned thought and compassion -- two things in which mccain is lacking. mccain is ye olde guard -- something we need less of.
the only opposition to gays serving openly and honestly is religious, and that has no place in civil government or a civilian military. look to the 10 Amendments, not the 10 commandments. The 9th Amendment guarantees our unenumerated rights, and that trumps particular religious "moralities" that are in actuality objectively immoral. a man of limited and circumscribed thought, such as mccain, is in no position to judge rationality. books like the bible and the qur'an prescribe death to homosexuals -- is that rational thought? the 9th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights implicitly guarantees freedom from any particular religious moral code. i don't think mccain is capable of such understanding, considering his limited philosophical talents. i suggest we as a nation not take him seriously in his bronze-age prejudices.
mccain was never the brightest bulb in the senate, or in flight school, or when flying, or when serving in the government. check his records -- he was the son and grandson of admirals, and that's where his qualifications began and ended. how does being a vietnam prisoner -- and tortured -- for five years qualify him to pass judgment on gays in the military?
even Cindy disagrees with him on this one. he has no credibility and less probity than Rodin's The Thinker -- i.e., a hunk of stone in a contemplative position. between grey and gay, i'll take gay any day. at least gays are capable of reasoned thought and compassion -- two things in which mccain is lacking. mccain is ye olde guard -- something we need less of.
the only opposition to gays serving openly and honestly is religious, and that has no place in civil government or a civilian military. look to the 10 Amendments, not the 10 commandments. The 9th Amendment guarantees our unenumerated rights, and that trumps particular religious "moralities" that are in actuality objectively immoral. a man of limited and circumscribed thought, such as mccain, is in no position to judge rationality. books like the bible and the qur'an prescribe death to homosexuals -- is that rational thought? the 9th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights implicitly guarantees freedom from any particular religious moral code. i don't think mccain is capable of such understanding, considering his limited philosophical talents. i suggest we as a nation not take him seriously in his bronze-age prejudices.
Friday, October 1, 2010
court rules site the birthplace of a deity
India less tense after court verdict on holy site
"Thursday's ruling said the Hindus could keep the area where the mosque once stood because the court determined it was the birthplace of Rama and archaeological evidence showed a temple had predated the mosque."
okay, a court has determined the birthplace of a fictional character; fictional, that is, except to its believers. this is positively surreal and beyond the bounds of reason.
as far as evidence that the mosque sat atop a temple -- it is common practice for "victorious" religions to build their houses of worship directly upon the site of a "loser" religion's place of worship. christians did it to jews, muslims to jews and christians, etc. this is very much relevant to the Ground Zero mosque debate. it would seem as though the muslims in that scenario would wish to build a "victorious" mosque atop a "loser"'s holy site.
it's all about "location, location, location."
"Thursday's ruling said the Hindus could keep the area where the mosque once stood because the court determined it was the birthplace of Rama and archaeological evidence showed a temple had predated the mosque."
okay, a court has determined the birthplace of a fictional character; fictional, that is, except to its believers. this is positively surreal and beyond the bounds of reason.
as far as evidence that the mosque sat atop a temple -- it is common practice for "victorious" religions to build their houses of worship directly upon the site of a "loser" religion's place of worship. christians did it to jews, muslims to jews and christians, etc. this is very much relevant to the Ground Zero mosque debate. it would seem as though the muslims in that scenario would wish to build a "victorious" mosque atop a "loser"'s holy site.
it's all about "location, location, location."
yahoo censors comment re: attorney's anti-gay blog
Mich. assistant AG's anti-gay blog free speech?
Shirvell 'accused Armstrong of hosting the party with the intent to "liquor-up underage freshmen and promote homosexual activity in an effort to recruit them to the homosexual lifestyle."' -- did he really say that? is this the 21st century or the 11th century? homosexuality isn't something you're recruited into, as though it were a choice, and liquoring-up underage freshmen to get them to be homosexually active is just so ignorant. Shirvell studied law at the Ave Maria law school -- that should tell you his agenda right there. this is another of the many christian homophobes who believe (1) homosexuality is a sin, and (2) homosexuality is a choice. neither are true. he has forfeited his right to be a civil servant since, obviously, he cannot serve the civilians in his sinecure.
Shirvell 'accused Armstrong of hosting the party with the intent to "liquor-up underage freshmen and promote homosexual activity in an effort to recruit them to the homosexual lifestyle."' -- did he really say that? is this the 21st century or the 11th century? homosexuality isn't something you're recruited into, as though it were a choice, and liquoring-up underage freshmen to get them to be homosexually active is just so ignorant. Shirvell studied law at the Ave Maria law school -- that should tell you his agenda right there. this is another of the many christian homophobes who believe (1) homosexuality is a sin, and (2) homosexuality is a choice. neither are true. he has forfeited his right to be a civil servant since, obviously, he cannot serve the civilians in his sinecure.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
SCOTUS and westboro baptist church protests
high court looks at military funeral protests
this is clearly a case of intentional infliction of emotional distress. the phelps cult had no real business at Matthew's funeral BUT to inflict emotional distress. they are hiding behind two banners -- (1) religion, and (2) free speech. but you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater, and you can't yell "i'm glad you're dead; god hates you; you're burning in hell" at a private funeral.
the cult's lawyer says they'll keep "talking" until they get their message across? -- they're not talking to anyone; they're yelling at everyone. they've gotten their point across; now they can go home and wait for their god to reward their good acts. SCOTUS should rule in favor of Mr. Snyder, because this is a clear intention to inflict emotional distress, hiding behind the guise of a church. it is a hate crime, just as if they had burnt down a place of worship or blown up some children.
and this is a nontheist talking. i personally don't believe in any gods, but i do believe in respect for peoples' grief. Matthew Snyder is beyond grief now, but his family and friends are not. they are vulnerable to attack, and emotionally sensitive. turning his funeral into a hate-filled spectacle is the same thing as yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, as i said before. it creates the exact same kind of emotional distress.
this is clearly a case of intentional infliction of emotional distress. the phelps cult had no real business at Matthew's funeral BUT to inflict emotional distress. they are hiding behind two banners -- (1) religion, and (2) free speech. but you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater, and you can't yell "i'm glad you're dead; god hates you; you're burning in hell" at a private funeral.
the cult's lawyer says they'll keep "talking" until they get their message across? -- they're not talking to anyone; they're yelling at everyone. they've gotten their point across; now they can go home and wait for their god to reward their good acts. SCOTUS should rule in favor of Mr. Snyder, because this is a clear intention to inflict emotional distress, hiding behind the guise of a church. it is a hate crime, just as if they had burnt down a place of worship or blown up some children.
and this is a nontheist talking. i personally don't believe in any gods, but i do believe in respect for peoples' grief. Matthew Snyder is beyond grief now, but his family and friends are not. they are vulnerable to attack, and emotionally sensitive. turning his funeral into a hate-filled spectacle is the same thing as yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, as i said before. it creates the exact same kind of emotional distress.
Monday, September 27, 2010
what schools and students need, and why
Obama -- money alone can't solve school predicament
i have been saying, for years, that our education system has more than enough money, not enough good teachers -- and, consequently, too many bad teachers -- and too short a schedule. finally, obama has said something i can agree wholeheartedly with! i am a testament to what good teachers can do for students -- they inspire, create curiosity, and generate interest in the subject matter by bringing it to life.
here's a shout-out for some of my best, A#1 teachers: Mrs. Salisbury (4th grade), Mr. Davis (8th grade), Dr. Harned, Lorenzo Thomas, and Dr. Haney (university). they all deserve(d) much more money than we pay them. and librarians, too -- don't leave out the very important keepers-of-books. these people should be compensated monetarily according to the importance of their careers and the success that they have achieved.
another thing -- teaching to the test is not the way to find out if you are a good teacher. teaching the subject matter well and successfully is the way to find out. how interested are the students? are they excited to come to class? are they intellectually stimulated? do they welcome tests, in order to show what they know as well as find out what they don't yet know? do they do homework willingly, even gladly? these are some of the ways to judge a good teacher.
and if teachers had more time to teach students, students would learn more. that's just common sense. with good teachers, students would be much more anxious to attend school, much less likely to ditch classes (right, Ferris?), and much more likely to understand the subject matter in a mature way that generates lifelong interest. they just might be interested in having a clear mind for learning, rather than a clouded mind by drugging and drinking. we are educating citizens, future leaders, fellow homo sapiens. what could be more important?
i have been saying, for years, that our education system has more than enough money, not enough good teachers -- and, consequently, too many bad teachers -- and too short a schedule. finally, obama has said something i can agree wholeheartedly with! i am a testament to what good teachers can do for students -- they inspire, create curiosity, and generate interest in the subject matter by bringing it to life.
here's a shout-out for some of my best, A#1 teachers: Mrs. Salisbury (4th grade), Mr. Davis (8th grade), Dr. Harned, Lorenzo Thomas, and Dr. Haney (university). they all deserve(d) much more money than we pay them. and librarians, too -- don't leave out the very important keepers-of-books. these people should be compensated monetarily according to the importance of their careers and the success that they have achieved.
another thing -- teaching to the test is not the way to find out if you are a good teacher. teaching the subject matter well and successfully is the way to find out. how interested are the students? are they excited to come to class? are they intellectually stimulated? do they welcome tests, in order to show what they know as well as find out what they don't yet know? do they do homework willingly, even gladly? these are some of the ways to judge a good teacher.
and if teachers had more time to teach students, students would learn more. that's just common sense. with good teachers, students would be much more anxious to attend school, much less likely to ditch classes (right, Ferris?), and much more likely to understand the subject matter in a mature way that generates lifelong interest. they just might be interested in having a clear mind for learning, rather than a clouded mind by drugging and drinking. we are educating citizens, future leaders, fellow homo sapiens. what could be more important?
democrats v. republicans -- a pox on both of you
it is unfortunate that both major political parties are really two heads of the same coin. they are both corrupt and ineffective. much of what they do is to slander the other party, as if the truth were limited to the one being attacked. my husband used to say, "if you have one finger pointed at me, then you have three fingers pointing back at you."
when republicans point at the democrats and accuse them of, e.g., abuse of power, they are condemning themselves as well, with their own words. nothing can be said about the one that is not true of the other, as well. and, as we all know, two wrongs do not make a right.
political parties are sects that are beholden to one another. they invite corruption. i believe it was James Madison in Federalist 10 or 11 who railed against the party system. right now, it is the party that builds the platform for which it stands; it should be the individual who is running for office -- any office -- who is required to set forth his or her platform. and i don't mean that they should just say, "i'm for the democrats" or "i'm for the republicans." they need to set out detailed statements/explications of their political views. this would of course require thinking and writing; and reading, by the public.
we are all complicit -- we need to fully participate. we cannot afford to be mentally lazy when it comes to electing representatives, and they cannot afford to be mentally and philosophically lazy when it comes to defining their platform. no more adhering to the republicrats; let's see individual accountability and individual participation.
candidates need, for one, to leave religious values out of their platforms. the First Amendment gives us rights that cannot be undone, no matter how much one sect would have their moral standards thrust upon all citizens. this goes for democrats as well as republicans -- one would legislate what goes on in our bedrooms, the other would dare legislate what goes on in the rest of the house.
there is an evil at work here; it is called bureaucracy. untold millions of trees are killed to make the paper behind which politicians hide, the huge mass of paperwork that does naught but obfuscate and misrepresent.
popularity should be exorcised from candidacy; personal traits, such as religious belief, should be kept personal. i look forward to the day when an atheist can openly run for office and actually be elected. we have had atheists in office, but they must behave as though they were caught by the throat of a "don't ask; don't tell" policy. belief in gods should not be a prerequisite for holding office. the Constitution allows for oath or affirmation, and that is all it has to say on the subject. the Bill of Rights works as a check upon government -- the "they shalt nots" that government cannot perpetrate upon its citizenry. too many people mix it up with the ten commandments -- the "thou shalt nots" -- that ought to be obeyed by one and all. this is explicitly forbidden by the First and Ninth Amendments.
it is very difficult to vote in today's climate. one must settle for the lesser of several evils, and then hope that congress is of the opposite persuasion, so that nothing can get done. this is the safest we can ever be, when it comes to enacting legislation. it is simply a total waste of the sapient mind and of a reasonable citizenry.
but at least we get to vote, which is a good thing, as martha stewart would say. how and whether our votes are counted and registered is, of course, another story. practically every election since 2000 has brought up that political bad boy. we remain uncertain as to whether our vote "counts," and this engenders disillusionment in the entire system. and we're back to the beginning of my argument ...
when republicans point at the democrats and accuse them of, e.g., abuse of power, they are condemning themselves as well, with their own words. nothing can be said about the one that is not true of the other, as well. and, as we all know, two wrongs do not make a right.
political parties are sects that are beholden to one another. they invite corruption. i believe it was James Madison in Federalist 10 or 11 who railed against the party system. right now, it is the party that builds the platform for which it stands; it should be the individual who is running for office -- any office -- who is required to set forth his or her platform. and i don't mean that they should just say, "i'm for the democrats" or "i'm for the republicans." they need to set out detailed statements/explications of their political views. this would of course require thinking and writing; and reading, by the public.
we are all complicit -- we need to fully participate. we cannot afford to be mentally lazy when it comes to electing representatives, and they cannot afford to be mentally and philosophically lazy when it comes to defining their platform. no more adhering to the republicrats; let's see individual accountability and individual participation.
candidates need, for one, to leave religious values out of their platforms. the First Amendment gives us rights that cannot be undone, no matter how much one sect would have their moral standards thrust upon all citizens. this goes for democrats as well as republicans -- one would legislate what goes on in our bedrooms, the other would dare legislate what goes on in the rest of the house.
there is an evil at work here; it is called bureaucracy. untold millions of trees are killed to make the paper behind which politicians hide, the huge mass of paperwork that does naught but obfuscate and misrepresent.
popularity should be exorcised from candidacy; personal traits, such as religious belief, should be kept personal. i look forward to the day when an atheist can openly run for office and actually be elected. we have had atheists in office, but they must behave as though they were caught by the throat of a "don't ask; don't tell" policy. belief in gods should not be a prerequisite for holding office. the Constitution allows for oath or affirmation, and that is all it has to say on the subject. the Bill of Rights works as a check upon government -- the "they shalt nots" that government cannot perpetrate upon its citizenry. too many people mix it up with the ten commandments -- the "thou shalt nots" -- that ought to be obeyed by one and all. this is explicitly forbidden by the First and Ninth Amendments.
it is very difficult to vote in today's climate. one must settle for the lesser of several evils, and then hope that congress is of the opposite persuasion, so that nothing can get done. this is the safest we can ever be, when it comes to enacting legislation. it is simply a total waste of the sapient mind and of a reasonable citizenry.
but at least we get to vote, which is a good thing, as martha stewart would say. how and whether our votes are counted and registered is, of course, another story. practically every election since 2000 has brought up that political bad boy. we remain uncertain as to whether our vote "counts," and this engenders disillusionment in the entire system. and we're back to the beginning of my argument ...
Sunday, September 12, 2010
yahoo censors this comment re: arresting the pope
Different pope, different times for pope's trip to England
ratzinger should be arrested. he was in charge during the initial stages of the sex-abuse scandal, and he is in charge now as the ultimate figurehead of the rcc. he is the gang leader, and should be made to pay for his crimes and his aiding and abetting criminals.
ratzinger should be arrested. he was in charge during the initial stages of the sex-abuse scandal, and he is in charge now as the ultimate figurehead of the rcc. he is the gang leader, and should be made to pay for his crimes and his aiding and abetting criminals.
Saturday, September 11, 2010
yahoo censors this comment re: the nature of islam
obama commemorates 9/11 with appeal for tolerance
to everyone out there in internet-land -- rent the documentary "Islam: What The West Needs To Know" before you talk about free speech rights. islam is determined to take over the world, until they are the only religion, except for the dhimmi. read the qur'an and the hadith. it's all in there. islam is a religion of the sword; they have elevated death while killing infidels to the level of martyrdom. there is nothing peaceful about a religion whose name literally translates to "submission" and whose stated and unstated desires are for world domination. there is no such thing as a moderate muslim -- they are considered apostates and are targeted for death by assassination. if you read islam's religious texts, you will see that "moderate" has no place there. believers are permitted to lie and deceive to get to the eventual goal.
again, watch "Islam: What The West Needs To Know" and listen to what the experts say. they will kill over a cartoon, a book (Salman Rushdie's "The Satanic Verses," even over a threat to burn their qur'an. they will kill at the drop of a hat, because islam is all about killing. no doubt about it.
to those who believe that the acts of 9/11/01 were cowardly, they were not. they were the acts of deeply committed religious people who KNEW that they would be rewarded in islamic heaven with virgins and family members. they were merely following the precepts of their religion to the letter. let that be a warning to all those who do the same, no matter what religion it may be.
to everyone out there in internet-land -- rent the documentary "Islam: What The West Needs To Know" before you talk about free speech rights. islam is determined to take over the world, until they are the only religion, except for the dhimmi. read the qur'an and the hadith. it's all in there. islam is a religion of the sword; they have elevated death while killing infidels to the level of martyrdom. there is nothing peaceful about a religion whose name literally translates to "submission" and whose stated and unstated desires are for world domination. there is no such thing as a moderate muslim -- they are considered apostates and are targeted for death by assassination. if you read islam's religious texts, you will see that "moderate" has no place there. believers are permitted to lie and deceive to get to the eventual goal.
again, watch "Islam: What The West Needs To Know" and listen to what the experts say. they will kill over a cartoon, a book (Salman Rushdie's "The Satanic Verses," even over a threat to burn their qur'an. they will kill at the drop of a hat, because islam is all about killing. no doubt about it.
to those who believe that the acts of 9/11/01 were cowardly, they were not. they were the acts of deeply committed religious people who KNEW that they would be rewarded in islamic heaven with virgins and family members. they were merely following the precepts of their religion to the letter. let that be a warning to all those who do the same, no matter what religion it may be.
Friday, September 10, 2010
yahoo censors this comment re: homosexuals serving in the military
this poster claims that only perverts and/or pedophiles support homosexuals who serve their country, so, i guess i'm a pervert and/or a pedophile. news to me. opinions like that are the reason we have courts to rule on Constitutional questions, and the reason the Bill of Rights was written. rights trump opinions, especially opinions like that.
btw, i'm a heterosexual woman, NOT a pervert or a pedophile. you're the pervert ... are you also a pedophile? methinks the poster doth protest too much.
btw, i'm a heterosexual woman, NOT a pervert or a pedophile. you're the pervert ... are you also a pedophile? methinks the poster doth protest too much.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
yahoo censors this comment re: the sexual nature of god/s
why does any god have to have a sex at all? it doesn't need a penis or vagina to reproduce, it doesn't need eggs or sperm; it uses dirt and breath, if i am not mistaken. i won't be answering to an it, because it doesn't exist. none of the its exist. it's your problem, what its sexual orientation is or is not, if indeed it should have a sexual orientation. why does it need one? is it because men invented gods and anthropomorphized them? i think that is its nature -- i.e., man's nature.
Monday, September 6, 2010
yahoo censors this comment re: persian woman sentenced to death by stoning
regarding the persian woman sentenced to be stoned to death -- what about the two men? apparently, what is a crime for a woman is not a crime for a man. this is a misogynistic religion, as well as one trapped in the dark ages. where are the "moderate" muslims condemning both the woman's punishment and the men's lack of punishment?
what the heck is she being punished for? she was a widow and she had sex. she did not commit adultery, unless having a dead husband prevents you from ever having sex again. this is so totally backwards and immature that i cannot imagine the people who actually take this seriously!
if this woman is put to death, a great crime will have been committed. having already subjected her to 99 lashes -- a very painful punishment (just see mel gibson's passion of christ) -- is barbarous. these people don't have the sense or maturity to be ashamed of themselves. please let's don't take them seriously, as they would like us to do.
see what they are willing to do with stones and whips? now imagine what they will be willing to do with nuclear weapons.
what the heck is she being punished for? she was a widow and she had sex. she did not commit adultery, unless having a dead husband prevents you from ever having sex again. this is so totally backwards and immature that i cannot imagine the people who actually take this seriously!
if this woman is put to death, a great crime will have been committed. having already subjected her to 99 lashes -- a very painful punishment (just see mel gibson's passion of christ) -- is barbarous. these people don't have the sense or maturity to be ashamed of themselves. please let's don't take them seriously, as they would like us to do.
see what they are willing to do with stones and whips? now imagine what they will be willing to do with nuclear weapons.
Sunday, September 5, 2010
yahoo censors this comment re: legalizing prostitution
men and women who sell sex are businesspersons. they should be able to advertise, their health should be regulated, and they should pay taxes. the opposition is mainly from the religious community, whose sense of morality is conflicted at best, perverted at worst.
and another thing, why should businesses be closed on sunday? i'm all for 24/7/365 workdays. if you want to go to church, fine -- go to church. if you want to buy a bottle of liquor, fine -- buy a bottle of liquor. sunday is just another day of the week.
the post office should lower the price of stamps and deliver mail 7 days a week. then, maybe they'd get more business. there would certainly be more jobs available.
all these objections/prohibitions are based on judeochristian morality, which has no place in secular government. just because one group of people find sex purveyors immoral, doesn't mean that they are immoral. if you don't like it, turn off the tv, change the channel, don't hire a sex worker, etc. but don't impose your outmoded, faith-based morality upon the rest of us.
reason tells us that there are people -- of both sexes -- who want to engage in sex, and there are people -- of both sexes -- who are willing to accommodate them. a person's religion or faith in general have no business in the public arena. i am personally offended at the imposition of an irrational morality that ignores reason in favor of belief without evidence. sex sells, and there will always be people -- of both sexes -- who are willing to sell. let's let them!
and another thing, why should businesses be closed on sunday? i'm all for 24/7/365 workdays. if you want to go to church, fine -- go to church. if you want to buy a bottle of liquor, fine -- buy a bottle of liquor. sunday is just another day of the week.
the post office should lower the price of stamps and deliver mail 7 days a week. then, maybe they'd get more business. there would certainly be more jobs available.
all these objections/prohibitions are based on judeochristian morality, which has no place in secular government. just because one group of people find sex purveyors immoral, doesn't mean that they are immoral. if you don't like it, turn off the tv, change the channel, don't hire a sex worker, etc. but don't impose your outmoded, faith-based morality upon the rest of us.
reason tells us that there are people -- of both sexes -- who want to engage in sex, and there are people -- of both sexes -- who are willing to accommodate them. a person's religion or faith in general have no business in the public arena. i am personally offended at the imposition of an irrational morality that ignores reason in favor of belief without evidence. sex sells, and there will always be people -- of both sexes -- who are willing to sell. let's let them!
Friday, August 20, 2010
re: an SF website without star wars or star trek ...
i was hoping for real speculative fiction, not the "cowboys and indians" in
space b-s. anybody out there like Cliff Simak? James Blish?
Ward Moore? C.M. Kornbluth? Kuttner and Moore? Ted Sturgeon?
L. Sprague de Camp?
Clifford Simak is my favorite author.
we had a correspondence shortly before he died, but it's been
published in a czech translation of one of his books. so i am in a
czech book :) i would suggest anyone read The Big Front Yard, Immigrant,
Drop Dead, Desertion (from the book City), Skirmish, Way Station, and lots
more.
and don't forget Kornbluth. his The Words of Guru
is absolutely fascinating and repulsive at the same time;
truly frightening in a weird way. he co-wrote The Space Merchants,
a great book. and many, many more before he died at age 38 --
much too young.
there are really too many to tell you about,
mostly from the '30s to the '60s. i've been a real fan for almost 40 years.
no militarism, no belligerence, no war-making (except in de Camp's Lest
Darkness Fall, an excellent short novel about a modern man trying to prevent
the dark ages from coming, back in 565 c.e.
really, it's more than star wars and star trek. although Galaxy Quest was
great :)
space b-s. anybody out there like Cliff Simak? James Blish?
Ward Moore? C.M. Kornbluth? Kuttner and Moore? Ted Sturgeon?
L. Sprague de Camp?
Clifford Simak is my favorite author.
we had a correspondence shortly before he died, but it's been
published in a czech translation of one of his books. so i am in a
czech book :) i would suggest anyone read The Big Front Yard, Immigrant,
Drop Dead, Desertion (from the book City), Skirmish, Way Station, and lots
more.
and don't forget Kornbluth. his The Words of Guru
is absolutely fascinating and repulsive at the same time;
truly frightening in a weird way. he co-wrote The Space Merchants,
a great book. and many, many more before he died at age 38 --
much too young.
there are really too many to tell you about,
mostly from the '30s to the '60s. i've been a real fan for almost 40 years.
no militarism, no belligerence, no war-making (except in de Camp's Lest
Darkness Fall, an excellent short novel about a modern man trying to prevent
the dark ages from coming, back in 565 c.e.
really, it's more than star wars and star trek. although Galaxy Quest was
great :)
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Yahoo censors this comment re: existence of gods
there are no gods. nontheism includes all of men's gods, not just the one the western hemisphere is most currently familiar with. no zeus, no shiva, no jim jones, no david koresh, no charles manson -- whoops, there IS a charles manson :) no thor, no wodin, no poseidon, no jupiter, no apollo (ohno, not again), no cupid, etc., etc., etc.
just because we're more familiar with the monotheistic judeochristianislamic culture, doesn't mean that gods stop there. ain't none of 'em a reality. mohammed makes jim jones look like a nice guy with a penchant for koolaid; jesus preached obligatory altruism; abraham was willing to kill his own son ... i could go on forever.
the mormon tradition is, to paraphrase Dr. Sam Harris, author of The End of Faith, just christianity with a few more stupid ideas.
again, people, repeat after me: THERE ARE NO GODS!
just because we're more familiar with the monotheistic judeochristianislamic culture, doesn't mean that gods stop there. ain't none of 'em a reality. mohammed makes jim jones look like a nice guy with a penchant for koolaid; jesus preached obligatory altruism; abraham was willing to kill his own son ... i could go on forever.
the mormon tradition is, to paraphrase Dr. Sam Harris, author of The End of Faith, just christianity with a few more stupid ideas.
again, people, repeat after me: THERE ARE NO GODS!
Monday, August 9, 2010
Yahoo censors this comment re: Prop. 8
i'm still trying to post my comment. there is absolutely nothing objectionable in it, unlike many of the posts i have read here. someone must be very religious to not allow my thoughts to be posted.
Ted Olson and David Boies did a bang-up job; their arguments were right on point. I read the entire ruling -- all 138 pages -- and it is tight tight tight. no wriggle room for Scalia or Thomas.
Here is what is relevant:
Bill of Rights -- First Amendment and Ninth Amendment (unenumerated rights).
Marriage is a civil ceremony, appropriated by but not the purview of religion.
The "religious views of the majority of Americans" have no relevance in this civil matter. The same arguments were used in favor of miscegenation, if you remember. And they were ruled unconstitutional, as is prop. 8.
And the majority of Americans is not as "religious" as you think. We nontheists/atheists/agnostics are coming on strong, and we will also soon be able to influence the political process, merely by keeping our personal views out of it.
Ted Olson and David Boies did a bang-up job; their arguments were right on point. I read the entire ruling -- all 138 pages -- and it is tight tight tight. no wriggle room for Scalia or Thomas.
Here is what is relevant:
Bill of Rights -- First Amendment and Ninth Amendment (unenumerated rights).
Marriage is a civil ceremony, appropriated by but not the purview of religion.
The "religious views of the majority of Americans" have no relevance in this civil matter. The same arguments were used in favor of miscegenation, if you remember. And they were ruled unconstitutional, as is prop. 8.
And the majority of Americans is not as "religious" as you think. We nontheists/atheists/agnostics are coming on strong, and we will also soon be able to influence the political process, merely by keeping our personal views out of it.
Monday, June 28, 2010
the evil that is faith
people -- read The End of Faith by Sam Harris, god is not GREAT by Christopher Hitchens, and The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. you will realize how inherently evil is faith -- belief without proof -- and how no religion should be tolerated in a supposedly modern, urbane society. the more we give faith a free pass, the more we will have people flying planes into buildings. after all, they were only doing what their faith told them, and they were sincere believers, not crazed animals.
truly civilized people find the idea of faith repugnant and ridiculous. don't sanction faith over scientific proof, and don't make up irrational arguments in favor of god and faith that can be refuted by the merest among us thinkers. faith allowed pedophiles to be alone with children, and faith kept those children silent about their abuse for a very long time. what will faith be responsible for next?
truly civilized people find the idea of faith repugnant and ridiculous. don't sanction faith over scientific proof, and don't make up irrational arguments in favor of god and faith that can be refuted by the merest among us thinkers. faith allowed pedophiles to be alone with children, and faith kept those children silent about their abuse for a very long time. what will faith be responsible for next?
Saturday, June 26, 2010
letter to Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens
i have never been religious; i have never believed in any gods, not for as long as i have been able to think for myself, and that was at a very young age. however, i consider myself a nontheist rather than an atheist for several reasons:
1. "atheist" is an anti-theist term. i am not anti-theist; i do not honor the question. also, i do not reject only the traditional judeo-christian god; i reject ALL gods: past, present, and future. they are not nice, and they bring out the inherent evil in believers.
2. "atheist" is what people of one set of beliefs call people of a different set of beliefs, although both sets profess a belief in god/s. i do not wish to be part of that melange.
3. "atheist" seems to refer mainly to the "great" judeo-christian god (who is not), while i do not limit myself to only one. the prefix "a-" is a negative; the prefix "non-" is a more comprehensive and at the same time less negative term. it is a rejection without a fight.
4. atheists are considered godless, while i look upon that word as an inherent negative. i prefer to look upon myself as god-free, which is a load off my back and a happier thought. i am not less because i have no gods in my life; i am free of dogma of any kind. it is exhilarating to be positive about it rather than working from a negative terminology.
i agree with Sam Harris that we should not have to call ourselves anything at all, but until that day comes (and i do not see it coming in my lifetime), i will be god-free, not god-less; nontheist rather than atheist.
i consider religions anathema -- they bring out the worst in people. they spread moralities that are at the very least suspect; at the most, destructive. obligatory altruism is not a good; faith is not a good; belief without evidence (faith) is actually bad for homo sapiens. even animals are smarter than that -- they have to be, in all practicality, or they will be eaten.
in our culture, it is those who are god-free who are eaten, but that will inevitably change, as Man matures. religion is for children who need father-figures and who are afraid of death. i am an orphan in the maelstrom, and not unhappy with that thought. i had one father; i need no more. even the "founding fathers" i prefer to call the "Framers," for that is what they did.
religion was invented by men who craved answers to questions. i prefer questions; they are more interesting, and even the interesting answers only lead to more questions, ad infinitum.
finally, i want to thank you for your eloquent and fervent arguments in favor of nonbelief. i am a fan, of course, and i loved "god is not great," "the missionary position," and "the values of the worst family." (hillary the enabler is my least favorite, but bill the perjurer and sexual harasser comes close behind).
keep up the good work. i wish we could have lunch together; we would have a great conversation; of that i am sure. i would like to break bread with, e.g., socrates, voltaire, and ben franklin -- compare those companions to oprah winfrey's obsequious choice: jesus. what a bore! i would be inclined to include thomas jefferson, tom paine, and mark twain, but i self-limited to three.
thank goodness for you.
1. "atheist" is an anti-theist term. i am not anti-theist; i do not honor the question. also, i do not reject only the traditional judeo-christian god; i reject ALL gods: past, present, and future. they are not nice, and they bring out the inherent evil in believers.
2. "atheist" is what people of one set of beliefs call people of a different set of beliefs, although both sets profess a belief in god/s. i do not wish to be part of that melange.
3. "atheist" seems to refer mainly to the "great" judeo-christian god (who is not), while i do not limit myself to only one. the prefix "a-" is a negative; the prefix "non-" is a more comprehensive and at the same time less negative term. it is a rejection without a fight.
4. atheists are considered godless, while i look upon that word as an inherent negative. i prefer to look upon myself as god-free, which is a load off my back and a happier thought. i am not less because i have no gods in my life; i am free of dogma of any kind. it is exhilarating to be positive about it rather than working from a negative terminology.
i agree with Sam Harris that we should not have to call ourselves anything at all, but until that day comes (and i do not see it coming in my lifetime), i will be god-free, not god-less; nontheist rather than atheist.
i consider religions anathema -- they bring out the worst in people. they spread moralities that are at the very least suspect; at the most, destructive. obligatory altruism is not a good; faith is not a good; belief without evidence (faith) is actually bad for homo sapiens. even animals are smarter than that -- they have to be, in all practicality, or they will be eaten.
in our culture, it is those who are god-free who are eaten, but that will inevitably change, as Man matures. religion is for children who need father-figures and who are afraid of death. i am an orphan in the maelstrom, and not unhappy with that thought. i had one father; i need no more. even the "founding fathers" i prefer to call the "Framers," for that is what they did.
religion was invented by men who craved answers to questions. i prefer questions; they are more interesting, and even the interesting answers only lead to more questions, ad infinitum.
finally, i want to thank you for your eloquent and fervent arguments in favor of nonbelief. i am a fan, of course, and i loved "god is not great," "the missionary position," and "the values of the worst family." (hillary the enabler is my least favorite, but bill the perjurer and sexual harasser comes close behind).
keep up the good work. i wish we could have lunch together; we would have a great conversation; of that i am sure. i would like to break bread with, e.g., socrates, voltaire, and ben franklin -- compare those companions to oprah winfrey's obsequious choice: jesus. what a bore! i would be inclined to include thomas jefferson, tom paine, and mark twain, but i self-limited to three.
thank goodness for you.
Monday, June 21, 2010
e pluribus, unum
i suggest that you remember that the prior “slogan” — meaning “war cry” — of the usa was “e pluribus, unum” — out of many, one. that alone negates the principle that we are one nation under god. think about it — out of many, one. it is a beautiful concept, and it is the reason that america exists as it does. as long as we are “out of many,” we cannot be indivisible under god. 12-14% of americans agree with me on this, and that negates the indivisibility of one nation under god. remember those of us who are god-free when you proselytize. and as far as “evangelism” goes, i say: what is the “good news” brought by religion? how about war, mutual antagonism, hatred/hostility, negative judgment, separation of the many, to name but a few. let’s get back to “e pluribus, unum,” for our own good. invoke your god if and as you wish, but just remember that many of us are not in agreement with you; you cannot force god down my throat, but as one of the many, i am one.
freedom from religion
as a nontheist, i am of course interested in the right to freedom from religion. i believe that the Ninth Amendment implicitly gives me the right to be free of religion. the unenumerated rights are i think the most important phrase in the entire Bill of Rights. if we paid more attention to the Ninth Amendment, we wouldn’t need several of the later amendments — slaves would be free, all men and women would have the right to vote, prohibition would never have happened, e.g.
the Bill protects individual citizens from the tyranny of the federal government. it is a list of “they shalt nots” — not “thou shalt nots.” as such, the Ninth Amendment is probably the most important of them all. and notice that it is placed — deliberately, i believe — ahead of the Tenth Amendment’s guarantee of states’ rights vs. federal rights. placement matters. the rights of the individual trump the rights of the state or of the federal government.
and, in the light of the Ninth Amendment, i plead with you to keep god out of government, including out of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. i do not have a favorable opinion of any gods, including the judeo-christian one so often quoted. we are not a nation “under god” as long as i — and the 12-14% of my fellow americans share that opinion. how can we be indivisible if there are those of us who are not “under god”? the Ninth Amendment gives us the right to be free of god and religion. i am not godless — i am god-free. and i have that right, thanks to the unenumerated rights of the Ninth Amendment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
