Christmas is a Farce.

In Japanese, 'Arigato(u)' is actually an apology of sorts. To Americans, it is a corollary to 'thank you' but in Japanese it doubles as 'sorry to have caused you trouble'. As a culture, the Japanese acknowledge the dificulty related to incurring personal debt to someone by giving an unsolicited favor.

It turns out that my idea of favors and the uncomfortable debt they incur is very much like the Japanese.

This Holiday season, I would rather not have people giving me gifts when I am in no position to return the favor, and it's the same reason I demand people not buy me birthday gifts.

At Christmas, since most people I know are cultural Christmas-revelers, I am placed in the unsavory situation of spending money I'd rather not spend on an equally-valued gift, or not returning a gift and sitting there, like a stooge, collecting gifts when I have nothing to give or would rather not participate in the exchange. This is even worse if I have specifically stated that I am not participating in gift-exchange, like I did for 2009 as someone struggling to find work in this bad economy.

However, nobody ever asks others to opt-in or out! There is no list, like a football pool, of who actually wants to participate in this exchange.

People simply include you if they feel like it, and often, you're left surprised and ashamed when some peripheral person you didn't anticipate Ninja-gifts® you with nothing to give in return. Even if people act like they don't care, those who buy gifts generally expect to get them back, right?

People need to realize that not everyone is in good financial standing at this time of year (or any time of year depending on your situation). Insisting on gift-giving puts a burden on others, and people need the option to opt-out of the Christmas or any gift-swapping holiday as needed. Better yet, assume everyone is opting out unless they opt-in.

My philosophy is similar to the philosophy of leaving others alone rather than doing something to them and expecting the same in return; 'Do *not* unto others as you would have them *not* do unto you'. This bit of non-invasive philosophy predates the common Christian 'Golden Rule' which is, 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you', as it espouses leaving others alone rather than foisting your sensibilites on them. If my neighbors love deep-tissue massage at 5am after a 10 mile run, leave me the Hell out of it! I like to sleep in, and find massage rather annoying (especially if I don't know the person).

Last Christmas, I was faced with a huge property tax bill, slow work, potential employers who don't respond because they're on holiday vacations and the same bills as usual. The last thing I want to do is participate in a farce where essentially, I have to buy stuff for other people but am spending generally equal amounts of money knowing what others insist on spending on me every year. Add to this the fact that most of us don't really know what the other needs. If I need my electric bill paid, I certainly cannot put this on a Christmas list! Instead, I'll be forced to give a list of items I don't really need, when in reality I often need cold, hard cash at the end of the year, especially when I am unemployed.

I would much prefer a situation where people buy *themselves* something with as much or as little value as they choose. Then, everyone can meet up for family-friend time, do a show and tell with the actual item, pictures, video, etc. and have a stress free holiday season. Why on Earth do people partake in the massive lemming-fest that is holiday shopping? Why would people choose, willingly, to do a ton of shopping for people when everyone else is doing the same thing, guaranteeing maximum headaches, crowds, annoyance and stress? It's kind of how people all go to work at the same time, clogging the freeways and spending the maximum time possible in traffic.

If people just bought themselves something of as little or much value as they're comfortable, we'd still get time with family/friends but we'd avoid the uncomfortable shopping, wrapping, gift-exchange, the feigned happiness and stress.

We'd avoid the hassle of shopping or getting the wrong gift, clothing the wrong color, style, size, etc. as well as the ever-uncomfortable store-return situation where a receipt is needed. If people simply bought themselves something, they could order it online or shop at their leisure and simply discuss it over dinner with enthusiasm, or even share it with others if it's something that can be brought to a dinner-gathering. This would also be a time people would know they can buy themselves something nice, and it might be a goal which could help people focus and save money the rest of the year.

The only exception I would make to this rule are for kids. Get the kids something (if you can), since they often have no money of their own. I don't wanna be a Scrooge, but I'd like 'opt-out' as the default for adults at least.

The general idea is, if you're in a particularly bad financial spot, buy very little for yourself and nothing for others apart from your time, company and good-cheer, knowing your electric will be on when you get home. If you're doing great, buy yourself something awesome, or even buy someone else something knowing that nothing is expected in return.

Gift-giving should never be considered mutual and should always be an opt-in. The default should be, opt-out, with the understanding that you should never expect anything, but buy something for someone with the clear idea that you shouldn't expect anything in return.

Isn't that what giving is all about?

I opted out of Christmas for 2009, and yes, some people *still* got me gifts. But, I had put others on notice that I was too cash-poor to participate in this exchange, nor do I want to be obligated in years hence. If I am making boatloads of cash, it might be different. Until the next holiday, I will close with this;

'Arigato'. Sorry to have caused you trouble. ;)


-dB-

President Obama Was Raised by an Atheist

Despite the claims that Barack Obama is a radical Muslim, he claims to be a Christian and we should take him at his word, unless Christians around the world want to be called 'radical Muslims' too even if they insist on being Christians. By definition, a Christian merely needs to accept the divinity of Christ to qualify, but we know how difficult it is to get two Christians to agree on anything, right?

The more interesting fact here is that Obama's mother, who chiefly raised him during the absence of his father, is an atheist. According to Obama's book where he speaks about his mother's view on religion, she took an anthropological view...exposing him to many different religions such as Buddhism, Christianity and even the Bhagavad Gita, but remained herself a non-believer. Apparently, his father was a non-practicing Muslim as well and possibly an atheist, but it's clear to see the influence Obama's non-believing mother had on him with regard to his wider view on religion and the makeup of American voters.

Why do I say this? Obama is the first president in my 41-year living memory who actually acknowledges non-believers, and more than once. While I never heard him mention our significant majority in his presidential campaign, he did mention 'non-believers' in his inaugural speech, after he was elected. I can understand why he'd be a bit coy about mentioning his support for us until he had won the election, considering he also wanted to attract moderate-Christian voters and atheists are still a hated/misunderstood minority in America.

I am sure President Obama has to know that while non-believers are the fastest growing group among all the religious people in the U.S. We are a compelling audience which most-likely supports Obama among other socially-progressive candidates, and are not likely to be Bush or McCain/Palin supporters.

Obama recognized non-believers in the recent Ft.Hood, Texas tragedy in a recent weekly radio address, "They are Christians and Muslims, Hews and Hindus and nonbelievers."

Yes, we're here and Obama knows it. At last count, conservative estimates place atheists around 16% of the American population, which includes those who self-identify as non-religious or agnostic according to the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF). This sizeable minority outnumbers Catholics, gay, black and Jewish voters. It's a population that a savvy president should not ignore, and it seems Obama is one of the more savvy.

This is a big change from Bush Sr., who had this to say when questioned by atheist radio personality, Rob Sherman;

Sherman: What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are atheists?

Bush: I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me.

Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?

Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

Sherman (somewhat taken aback): Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?

Bush: Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists.

Well actually, Bush is wrong (surprise). This is not one nation under god. That national motto and relgious vandalism on our currency was a recent development, only appearing on paper money in 1957, though it was on coins earlier. Before this divisive religious slogan, our money read, 'E Pluribus Unem' which means, 'From Many, One'. This is a much more inclusive slogan for *all* Americans.

In 2012, I suspect that the atheist population will be even bigger, maybe around 18% of Americans or more, especially since today's youth are leaving religion in droves are aren't sufficiently inculcated in the first-place. When nutters like Sarah Palin try to run in 2012 with their Draconian ideas about birth-control and sex-education and lack of science-understanding (evolution) it's not going to go over well.

By 2012, Obama should be able to more-freely support his atheist constituents as he's starting to do now and you can bet they will be voting for him in droves, assuming things go well.

An atheist alone does not a president make, but it sure helps not to have an anti-science fundagelical Crusader like Bush Jr. in office who thinks he's instrumental in Armaggeddon to attain the end-goal of his spiritual fairytale....something which doesn't bode well for any of us.

Thank you, President Obama, for recognizing the fastest-growing segment of the population...atheists (and for putting a science advisor back in the White House). This atheist just asks that you stay on track. It's a good sign that the new Universal Healthcare bill removed coverage for religions woo-woo like faith-healing or other religious 'treatment', but we need to shut down that Stupak Amendment, allowing abortion services to be covered. Abortion is a legal medical procedure and it's not the business of religion. Until religious people actually prove there actually IS a god, they have nothing to say about the real world, since they can't prove any of their claims. That said, abortion is the choice of the female, and it's between her and her doctor, and nobody else.

Let's hope that Palin runs in 2012...it'll be another sure victory for Obama and maybe we can fix some of the issues related to eight years of Bush.

Focused Argumentation: Avoiding Distractions When Making a Point.

Sometimes, when debating someone on a topic you're much better versed-in, there's a sad realization that the person you've just invested quality time into is either intensely stupid or being dishonest, usually as a transparent attempt to preserve his/her ego as they realize they're on the losing side of an argument.

One trend I've noticed among Americans I meet is their unwillingness to admit defeat, but rather, they want to enjoy the annoying 'resolution' of 'agreeing to disagree'. It goes without saying that anyone in the history of time who disagreed had a tacit agreement to disagree, and really the idea that any disagreement needs an agreement is just silly. Someone who is satisfied with 'agreeing to disagree' is just exiting the conversation, and to me that's an admission of defeat, as generally they would rather you never brought the topic up again. I see this as more of a method of controlling the conversation rather than solving anything, as often, those who want to 'agree to disagree' are out of ideas or commentary and simply want to abort the topic.

However, if the person who holds an idea can't defend it with rational argument, why would he/she be so quick to 'agree to disagree'? Could we 'agree to disagree' with slavery, or Hitler? Hell no. I believe in making a strong point which withers the opposition and never let up until the other side concedes, or at least till the bystanders listening in are swayed, pressuring those with silly ideas to abandon them.

For instance, some people take their religion so personally that to 'attack' their religion (as they call it), you're 'attacking' them. But, don't be so quick as a skeptic to agree to those terms or give credence to that emotional ruse. If you do, you've agreed that hurt feelings are off-limits and you've effectively muted yourself. You're not 'attacking' anything, you're 'reviewing' a claim they ostensibly support, and they have no right to make a claim they're not willing to defend (especially if it involves you burning in Hell for eternity).

If one can't defend a claim then the claim is forfeit for that argument (even if that same person debates it elsewhere with a less-skeptical audience). It's important to let the opponent know that you're not attacking him or her (no matter how much they insist on being a martyr), but you're reviewing their *claim*. This lets them save face when and if they decide to reject their claims later on, and adds a more comfortable layer of separation.

Same thing with such Ad-Hominem ruses as, 'Are you saying I'm dumb?' or 'Are you saying I'm evil because you think my religion is evil?'. Nope. It's all about the claim, not your opponent's feeling. If your opponent feels dumb or evil because of what he's defending, then that is his problem, and you can keep it his problem. Some people will dominate the conversation (if you let them) and follow their logical tangents into the cesspool of emotion and hurt feelings. Hurt feelings are just noise when it distracts from the issue at hand, provided you're sticking to the topic and not getting sidetracked into Ad-Hominem personal attack (which should be avoided in any argument).

With religion, theists hold the burden of proof and atheists can safely push that onus on them to prove their claim, otherwise retract the claim and backtrack into agnosticism (and thus atheism). Likewise, it's best not to let theists define what an 'atheist' is unless they nail it....as this sets up a strawman argument and misleads others. Before debating anyone, it's best to agree on the terms you're discussing...if not, that needs to be clarified. Sometimes the argument can never get past terms if they're being dishonest about them as a strawman they can knock down easily.

Example, anti-choicers call themselves 'pro life' and call everyone else murderers or baby killers. Shockingly, many pro-choicers call the anti-choicers 'pro life' as well, accepting the terms coined by the opposition. One can be pro-life and pro-choice. What I do is call the misnamed 'pro-lifers' what they are, 'anti-choice' just as Richard Dawkins has taken to calling those who deny evolution, 'evolution deniers' which conveys more information than 'creationists'.

Those who support women's rights are 'pro-choice'. Re-think the terms your opponents use, as they're often set up to make themselves look good and slander you at ever oppportunity. You don't want bystanders listening in to be mis-educated either, so it's good to get the terms correct before proceeding.

You will often find that theists love to hit and run. They'll make a series of flawed points which take several minutes each to address and then rush off or change the subject so you'll stop talking. I try not to let debate opponents such a theists control the conversation in this way. If you find they're wanting to run just tell them you're gonna make a closing statement, then let them run for the hills after.

Ridicule is a useful tool as well, especially when dealing with someone making dishonest points with some kind of audience (online or in-person). If you constantly catch someone abandoning agreed-upon points of logic (such as, a good god should not murder babies), then call them on it. Even if the theist lies like crazy, the bystanders will notice and the theist might even be a bit self-conscious. Sometimes, when conversing one-on-one with a theist though, you'll get far more crazy responses than if you debate them with onlookers. On some level, those arguing dishonest points know what they're doing and won't be as likely to make silly points when they know they'll be ridiculed for them. The threat of ridicule seems harsh, but it keeps theists and other debate opponents a little more honest but more importantly, points that you win are way more obvious to everyone.

Those with horribly flawed positions have no chance of defending the positions with elegance and logic, so they have to resort to distraction, semantic tricks, selective reasoning, and more distraction which eventually will be interrupted by them trying to end the conversation before you can drive the point home.

Call people on their dishonest or poor argumentation-tactics and you'll have a more focused, more entertaining debate and expose the weakness in their arguments as you go. I also think it's never good to be soft on someone just because they're offended or are holding up their 'feelings' as some brick-wall impediment to solving the issue at hand. Make the point strong and clear, because hurt feelings go away, but there aren't many opportunities to make strong points sometimes. If you agree to be controlled by mere hurt-feelings you'll never make progress with a given point, because almost everyone who's being told they're wrong is at least a little offended (except the rare few who truly prefer facts over ego).

Lastly, if your points are good, they will continue to work on the mind of those you debate, long after you're done talking (even the hopeless cases abandon the worst of their arguments when roundly defeated often enough). It's not easy, it feels repetitive and sometimes even the best arguments are lost on people. Remember, you're not just arguing for the opponent but the audience as well (when there is one). So, even if your opponent is a lost cause you'll often still make your points to those who are listening-in.

-dB-

America Needs Health Care

Now.

I just finished reading 'The Healing of America: A Global Quest for Better, Cheaper, and Fairer Health Care' by T.R. Reid.

Phenomenal book.

I know now what I knew before: America needs a proper healthcare plan which is government subsidized through some clever use of existing taxes, or some kind of mandate (like auto-insurance) so everyone can be covered and so nobody is refused due to a pre-existing condition or dropped because they made a claim.

Right now, the healthcare payment system is designed to reduce coverage, to reject treatment and ultimately fail the patient, because it's for profit and run by insurance companies who, like wolves guarding the henhouse, have opposing interests to actually healing the sick. Do you have a pre-existing condition such as cancer? Good luck finding healthcare, and you just may go broke trying to stay alive. Did you make a claim recently? You might just be the victim of healthcare recission as I was, where your company dumps you soon after. Do you need a particular test that a for-profit insurance company deems too expensive? You may just not get it. Is your insurance company owned by idealogues who oppose birth control? Maybe this is why the pill or abortion often isn't covered, yet childbirth (a much more expensive option) is covered.

Many of us get health-insurance through employers, but I find this to be a flawed system. Health insurance should be a valid option for the individual and not related to your source of income. What about those who are unemployed as much of the U.S. finds themselves to be in this economic downturn? Should the unemployed also be out in the cold with regard to health insurance? Talk about a double-whammy. What about those who can't work but would otherwise be willing to?

What America needs is some kind of standardized healthcare for everyone with nobody being rejected for a 'pre-existing' condition or being dumped because they made a claim. If you can't make a claim for insurance, why bother having it at all? We should not be penalizing those who truly need to make a claim.

One shocking fact is this...although America leaves nearly 50-million Americans uninsured, the National Coalition on Health Care (NCHC) reports that America spends 17.6% of our Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on healthcare, whereas every other developed nation with Universal Health Care spends less, MUCH less on health care..usually less than half.

The Japanese actually visit the doctor most, according to Reid's book, and their system is still cheaper than ours and one of the most efficient in the world. Japan only spends about 8% of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on health insurance, while America spends 17.6% of its GDP on healthcare yet leaves nearly 50 million Americans uninsured...this is repeated just to drive home the fact that every other nation with Universal healthcare does it way cheaper than the broken American system.

The Japanese system has very strict limits on what hospitals/doctors can charge. Their doctors make a healthy living, but nothing compared to what U.S. doctors make, who are still often hamstrung in their decision-making by insurance companies such as HMO's who are way-too involved with the bottom-line or private inusrance companies who have to promise a return to investors.

France is rated by the World Health Organization as having the best health care in the world, the world's richest nation (the U.S.) rates 37th! France also spends much less than America on their system (about 10% of its GDP), partially due to the efficiency of their system. For example, they don't have the huge administrative costs we have the U.S. One thing they've done is eliminate paper medical records, filing, storing, etc. They store your entire medical history on a digital card you carry on your person, called the 'Carte Vitale'. Every required detail of your medical history is on the card and can easily be accessed by French doctors. Recently, American HMO, Kaiser Permanente switched to the card system. This is a step in the right direction as our entire healthcare system undergoes reform.

The British system, commonly known as 'National Health Insurance' or 'NHS', was designed and written by William Beveridge. Beveridge was an aristocrat, social-reformer at the turn of the 20th century. This likely-atheist who eschewed the clergy profession is quoted as saying, 'I believe neither in Heaven, which would be insipid, nor in Hell, which would be ridiculous'. During Britain's post-war rebuilding efforts in the 1940's, Beveridge was given an opportunity by Winston Churchhill to lead the way to a new healthcare system, which he pretty-much single-handedly drafted in what was known as 'Social Insurance and Allied Services', and was wildly popular with the British people. His popularization of his plan via numerous speeches spread the idea thoroughly.

This Beveridge plan was later put into law by Welshman Aneurin 'Nye' Bevan who witnessed the death of four of his siblings growing up. With his hardscrabble coal-miner roots and more aggressive personality, he went on to become a Union agitator and politician, elected to the House of Commons as the Labour Party candidate. As a result of the efforts of Beveridge, Bevan and others, the National Health Service opened on July 5th, 1948 for everyone in the U.K.

This Beveridge-Bevan system (NHS) is a no-pay at the point of service healthcare, except for small co-pays for prescriptions which is waived for children, anyone over sixty, pregnant women and the chronically ill. The taxes in Britain are higher, about 15 to 17.5%, but the difference is, you won't go broke from some catastrophic injury or illness if you're caught without insurance, no fighting insurance companies to retain coverage if you're sick, no being dropped for pre-existing conditions and you won't lose your home for lack of medical insurance or worse, your life for fear of medical bills and delayed care. The NHS does use a Gatekeeper system to see a specialist, just like in the U.S., and this helps control costs, the difference is, the NHS covers everyone in the UK.

With all of the spending on healthcare, the U.S. still ranks 37th in the world in healthcare, 22nd when it comes to infant mortality. For the richest nation on Earth, these results are more evidence how much the healthcare system needs to be improved.

People seem to fear 'socialized medicine' as they call it because it would 'limit choice'. Not so. In Germany under the Bismarck model, they have a system similar to what Americans have with employer-based insurance, and can choose between 200 different private insurance companies which they keep their entire lives. They're covered under private insurance longer than Americans! However, those German insurance companies have to offer the basic insurance package guaranteed by the government at fixed rates, and cannot decline people based on pre-existing conditions or dump someone, as long as people pay their premiums. German insurance companies do compete for those government dollars in the form of added-value and quick payments, and some for-profit insurance companies in Germany will offer additional services not covered under the basic plan.

Americans over 65 switch to Medicare, which in fact was invented by a Canadian socialist by the name of Tommy Clement Douglas, who is lauded as a hero in Canada even over the likes of Wayne Gretsky or Alexander Graham Bell. When it comes to veterans, nobody complains about 'socialized' medicine even though it's nearly that. Veterans are covered by the government, and this is the closest system to 'socialized medicine' that America has, but it works.

The ones who are left in the cold are the backbone of America's economy, and that's the working class who often can't afford health insurance or can't get it through their employer, or through discriminatory domestic-partner laws (straight couples under the age of 62 are not eligible).

There is a mandate to have car-insurance. Fail to get it, and the DMV is notified and your registration is suspended. Your privilege to drive is contingent on having auto-insurance (and a valid registration). If you make a claim, you may get dumped by your current company, but *someone* will cover you. Cancer that nobody could have hoped to foresee or cure alone should no more be a case for denial than a not-at-fault car-accident claim should be a reason to deny someone car insurance.

Having a mandate for health-insurance is required simply because if insurance is to cover *everyone*, then *everyone* should be paying into it. This could be done through taxes like the U.K. system or a mandated yearly fee like other systems. Either way, this is pennies compared to trying to pay for a week-long hospital stay out-of-pocket should the need arise or worse, paying out-of-pocket for treatment of a chronic illness like cancer. People often go broke for nothing but the results of unforseen medical expenses, and it's a crying shame. This can't be good for Americans or the economy.

We need a simple, effective, tax-funded healthcare system for everyone, regardless of claims or pre-existing conditions. Whether we use the co-pay system of France (which is refunded) to remind people that healthcare costs money, or a system of private insurance companies who compete for perks but are not 'for profit', something, almost *anything* would be an improvement on being 37th in the world for healthcare when we're the richest nation on Earth.

With nearly 50-million people who aren't insured and successful systems all over the world to learn from, it's high time we did *something* to revolutionize our healthcare and make it available for everyone. Even if it's not you going bankrupt or dying to the current system, the failure of the current system affects us all.

T.R. Reid gives real hope that if America can humble itself and learn from others, we too can enjoy amazingly good healthcare for everyone and for much less than we spend now. As Michael Moore's documentary, 'Sicko' points out, Americans have no issues adopting better technology when we see it....from Japanese cars to Swiss watches...why on Earth aren't we cherry-picking the best Universal Health Care systems from around the world and putting them into practice in America?

And now for the atheist angle...why on Earth is the world's most religious developed nation leaving so many people out in the cold when it comes to health insurance? Those who are so worried about abortion and gay people being allowed to marry should really pay attention to the real travesty...millions of people who die from otherwise treatable diseases. No wonder gay people want to be able to marry...some of them probably just want health insurance. Who can blame them.

We really have nothing to lose, and everything to gain....especially for the nearly 50 million Americans without healthcare.

-dB-

Smart Cars: A New Forum

I've started a new smart-car forum at http://www.smartforums.info/, and I encourage everyone who's interested in these little cars to come join us.

After I was banned from a larger smart-forum (and I use the term smart specifically about the cars here), I decided to strike out on my own. Forums are like mini-governments...sometimes you run into a hapless dictator with no sense of reason or fairness, or those who let their underlings (moderators) stomp on everyone else with their personal biases.

While I have my biases and strong opinions as evidenced from my blog-history, free-speech and free-inquiry are vitally important to me both as an American and an atheist. I may disagree with some people and their posts, lifestyles, etc., but I recognize that everyone is different and that merely censoring certain 'controversial' issues does nothing to change that fact.

As one of my ancestors, Patrick Henry, once said: 'Give me liberty or give me death'. While I don't want to invite death, I can't abide anyone messing with my liberty, yes, even some silly moderator on a smart-car forum.

I would rather have a site with 10 people than be on a large-site plagued with Lockerators™ who lock any thread which tweaks their personal biases. As an atheist moderator on a motorcycle site, I've had long debates with Creationists in the off-topic section, and I never had to lock or delete threads or censor their posts.

Censorship in most cases is just not necessary and eventually, everyone who wanted to say something said it. People come and go and they move on. Real life is the same way. If your friends can't bear your opinions then they're not really your friends. If someone's opinion can't be swayed by solid argumentation, then that person is unreasonable. Bottom line is, if you've got an opinion that's worth anything, it will stand to scrutiny. But as forums go, people are free to ignore conversations they don't enjoy just as they might in real-life.

As long as the discourse is civil and reasonable, I prefer to let people 'talk it out' and thus, my new site was inevitable in-light of the heavy-handed thread-locking and outright censorship which existed on the forum I was booted from. It's no wonder one of their moderators stepped down, and I can't say I blame him.

My new site is smartforums.info and although it's under construction (adding content and adjusting graphics), it's very much open for business and there's no charge or fee for vendors who want to advertise smart-related products and services.

On a lighter note, I'm selling smart-car decals through a great local aftermarket company called Smart Madness here in sunny SoCal. The decals are printed by a wide-format Roland printer with Max-brand eco-solvent inks. All decals have an over-laminate for maximum outdoor life, which is about 3-5 years.

This decal was inspired by wow, but was all hand-drawn by yours-truly. It's a funny acknowledgement of the tiny-size of the smart with a nod to Gnomish Engineering. World-of-Warcraft (wow) fans will be quite familiar with the concept, and the rest will still understand it too. 'The Power of Small' is something I've heard to describe the gnomes in wow and I've always loved this phrase. It's funny on many different levels, but it acknowledges what many non-smart drivers think we don't know, 'OMG THAT CAR IS SO TEENY!'. ;)





The decal below is a pumpkinized smart-car, part of a new set of decals I've made called Punkinheads™. The Punkinheads™ are a Mix-and-Match family (like the stick-figure familes you've seen on car windows) that are intended for cars but can stick almost anywhere.

Not-So-Smart Discrimination

I am a smart-car owner. The smart brand is referred to as 'smart', lowercase by design, one-word, as you might say 'Honda' or 'Mini'. This is a great little car, and the only micro-sub compact sold on American shores. It's a one-liter, 70 horsepower, mid-engine car which is easy to park and gets 41 mph highway...that's the best MPG of any gas-using car in America, right behind the hybrids but at about 10K less to buy. Available in the U.S. since early 2008, the smart has been making inroads through Roger Penske's smart dealers into the American consciousness.

As a member of the Smart Car of America Forums (SCOA), I participate with other enthusiastic owners about all things smart.....the questions we're asked, aftermarket accessories, everything regarding dealers, maintenance, perks and quirks with the car, etc.

Who buys smarts? My answer to this question might have be: 'progressive, out-of-the-box thinkers with a penchant for embracing new ideas, with a tendency toward size-economy and the green movement'. It ain't necessarily so.

Sadly, this blog is about discrimination, which is something atheists face every day. See if you agree.

On the SCOA forum, I happened to be browsing the off-topic threads and saw that some smart-owners had started threads about who among them might be gay, with another thread asking who their fellow vegetarians/vegans were. Reading the threads myself, it seemed people were playing nicely and simply voicing another common interest among a receptive, progressive audience of other forum members clearly open to new ideas.

That was, until I started the 'Who here is an atheist smart-owner' thread. Here's what I wrote:

'Ok, I've seen the separate Gay and Vegan smart-owner threads, very interesting!

Here's my question: How many atheists drive smarts?

Is there any correlation between our maverick embrace of a new automotive paradigm and those who self-describe as atheists/agnostics/secularists/non-religious or non-believers of some sort?

The car itself represents a lot in my opinion: a willingness to be different, a witting/unwitting embrace of the green-movement and less oil-dependence, some-degree of environmental conscience, a willingness to favor economy of size over the 'bigger is better' mentality (even with threat of derision), and a more liberal/progressive political population (I realize there will be exceptions).

My hypothesis is that atheists would be over-represented by smart-car owners (per-capita).

This is by no means a scientific poll, but I am curious to see the responses.

Thanks in advance'.

Reasonable enough, wouldn't you say? Just like the gay and vegan threads, it's natural to ask who among other out-of-the-box thinkers might have left traditional ideas like religion, right?

Wrong. The thread was immediately closed by an admin with this comment.

'Forget it.“The following topics and links are prohibited on Smart Car of America Forums: Religion, Death Penalty, and Politics”

Ok, since when does identifying as an atheist necessarily constitute a religious argument or even religion? Atheism by definition is the *rejection* of religion as it literally means 'without theism' from the Greek form, 'theos'. A-theos is literally 'without god or belief in god'.

Ostensibly, the forum admins are trying to avoid controversy which might lead to pages of in-fighting (which people can choose to ignore), but what good is a forum moderator if they can't even be bothered to moderate potentially volatile threads? Again, this was in the 'off-topic' section which should mean smart-owners are free to discuss issues, as long as it doesn't devolve into pure name-calling and threats, and these threads can be moderated.

Instead, the powers-that-be at SCOA seem to feel more comfortable with outright censorship based on the 'rules', but I would think censorship is far more volatile than moderating a 'potentially' controversial thread. Those who find these threads offensive always have the choice of ignoring them.

My post was merely an informal poll, like the vegan and gay threads, and was specifically posed to see who among my fellow-smart drivers shared my lack of belief in god(s). This rule, as applied, would necessarily mean that nobody could ever identify as any religion on the forum, ever.

Look what another admin said when I complained about censorship. Quoted in relevant part:

By agreeing to these rules, you warrant that you will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-oriented, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws.

Ok, so the identifying as an atheist clearly doesn't fall into these categories, yet the thread about which smart-owners might be gay certainly *does*. Talk about selective application of rules. The reader will note that she had nothing to say in her defense after she was called out on this. Of course not. There is a clear double-standard at work.

My friends, this is a clear case of censorship, even if it's in the 'rules'. Sometimes, rules are wrong or too-broadly applied. After all, there used to be little rules about minorities being segregated from the majority, or women not being allowed to vote.

In this day and age, it's shocking that this still happens, but sadly not surprising. What's even more distressing is the lack of visible protests from other members who might be atheists or know agnostics, or understand the injustice that's happening. There were a few on that forum in support, but mostly....silence and thus, a form of complicity.

Here's what the smug admin had to say when I complained about the thread closure in a private message:

Whatever flood of protests you are hoping for is going the other way (by PM) – it has been positive for the action taken. You are, so far, alone in this.If you are in need of the support of atheists owning smarts, you are free to participate in atheist sites elsewhere, and ask the same question. As a start you might try something at groups.yahoo or groups.google*

* Full URL omitted to avoid linking.

I see. So it's ok for a smart-owner to ask, in an off-topic section, about who in the forum might be gay or vegan (controversial for many), even though talking about 'sexually-oriented' content is in clear violation of the forum rules. Why is it not permissible to ask who might be atheist even though by itself it's not a religious argument? Add to that the smug way in which the admin tries to convince me I am 'alone in this' which is probably why he thought he could get away with such a thing. You see, fellow non-believers...this is exactly why some theists feel they can abuse non-believers.. We seek fair treatment, but we still get abuse and discrimination because some feel that we're such an insignificant or silent minority that we just don't matter. This is exactly why we need to be out of that 'other closet' en-masse as we've seen with the success of the gay-movement.

Tell someone they can't talk about being 'African' or 'Italian' and there would be hell to pay. Tell someone they can't mention that they are a Christian or Jew and you'd see a backlash. Why is the mere mention of identification with 'atheism' seen as a 'religious' statement? By this logic, mentioning that you're abstinent would be sexual harassment?

This may all seem trivial, but it's still discrimination, and it's a reflection of the 'majority rules' scenario which has historically trampled on the rights of the minority, simply because it was smugly thought that the majority could get away with it. As long as people are cowed into silence, we will never have a collective voice, and this is why it's so important for minorities, especially the most-hated minority (atheists) all over the world to speak out, be heard, be seen.

When people realize how populous this abused minority is, they might think twice about being so cavalier with discrimination, even in the small, annoying ways which happen every day.

Sure, most of us on the SCOA drive 'smart' cars, but by no means should anyone assume that all of us are logical, forward-thinking, progressive or even smart. It makes me very glad I didn't 'become a member' and give them my hard-earned money....but apparently they think atheists are such a tiny, insignificant minority that our opinions and support just don't matter. ...even in such a tiny-sub group known as 'Smart-Car Owners of America'.

This is more than just discrimination on an obscure forum. It's a reflection of the world we all still live in, and a small core-sample of daily abuses.

I recommend that all of you who identify with labels such as atheist, agnostic, freethinker, secularist, rationalist, non-theist, etc. make yourselves known. The sooner people realize that they can't get away with blatant discrimination and abuse, the sooner we'll get the fair-treatment we're asking for.


-dB-

Carpool Lanes and Lane Discipline.

One of the biggest problems plaguing U.S. drivers and traffic-flow lies with inefficient lane-usage due to poor driver-training, self-righteous drivers, too much focus on simple-minded myths such as 'speed kills' and over-enthusiastic enforcement of unrealistic speed laws. Throwing extra lanes or 'carpool' lanes at the problem doesn't noticeably improve traffic efficiency for the majority of drivers.

In Germany, drivers enjoy higher average speeds and fewer accidents per mile. The 'speed-kills' proponents should really consider and research this: they drive *faster* than us on average but have fewer accidents per mile. This is due in large part to better driver training but a social phenomenon which is heavily peer and police enforced, and that is lane discipline.

Lane discipline, simply put, is about being at the right speed for the lane, allowing faster traffic to pass and making effective passes yourself. Slower traffic on the right, passing on the left, no exceptions. This means, if you're not passing, you're not in the left (fast) lane. If you're going the same speed as the guy to your right, you're a rolling roadblock and should not be in that lane to begin with. If a faster car is approaching from behind....you don't become citizen-cop and block him, you move over *before* he gets to you so he can pass without losing momentum.

Sadly, American drivers get the giant fail-horn when it comes to these simple acts of courtesy, and it's no wonder our freeways are a snarled mess of rolling roadblocks with drivers heads firmly planted up their posteriors, self-appointed officer Stouts who think it's their duty to slow-down faster traffic, and slowpokes who think they have a right to any lane they happen to find themselves in.

Of course, we can't totally blame American drivers, because political pressure and police enforcement and has centered so much around myths such as 'speed kills' and the former, '55 saves lives'.

For those who've driven on a California freeway recently in free-flowing conditions, the average speed is around 75-80. Going 65 in the 'fast' lanes would simply slow down the freeway and create a slalom course that faster drivers are forced to navigate. Some of those faster drivers are going to be very pissed off about a rolling roadblock, which results in a faster, potentially-angry driver who is now taking more risks among additional lane-changes. Naturally, this is going to lead to more accidents, and the culprit here is not outright speed as is often-blamed but the lack of lane-discipline resulting in roadrage. If the slowpokes stayed to the right and allowed faster traffic to go through, there would be fewer people forced to break momentum and happier drivers all-around.

Here's a quick quiz for the safetycrats who bleat, 'speed kills':

Which is the correct answer to this DMV permit-test question:

When merging onto a freeway, you should be driving

a. At or near the same speed as the freeway traffic
b. At the legal freeway speed limit
c. Slower than the freeway traffic

The correct answer is a., 'At or near the same speed as the freeway traffic'.

So, if the freeway is going about 75, and the speed limit is 65, there's a mixed message here, especially since most drivers have gotten tickets for 75-80 in their lifetimes. On one hand you have a speed limit with a severe financial penalty for being 'caught' driving with the flow of traffic, but logic indicates that less speed difference or disparity is safer than being much slower or faster than surrounding traffic.

It's also safer for people to make fewer lane-changes, but a lack of lane-discipline forces not only more lane-changes, but potentially-angry lane-changes. Those who are terrorized by 'maniac drivers' all the time are probably making the mistake of driving too slowly for their lane-choice and thus, they tend to be on the receiving end of more than their fair-share of road rage.

Here is how surface-street (non-freeway) speed-limits are established:

A traffic engineer sits out there with an unmarked car and surveys the speed of at least 50 cars on a given stretch of road in free-flowing conditions. The road should not be within 150 feet of a traffic control device such as a stop sign or traffic light, and not on a curve. The engineer measures the 85th percentile speed and this is what the prima-facie limit is based on, barring extenuating conditions. The 85th percentile is considered to be the amount of people who drive at speeds 'safe for conditions' based on the road, traffic, weather, etc.

However, the freeway completely ignores this methodology, and in fact, the freeway limits in CA used to be 55, hence the outdated phrase, '55 saves lives'. The 55 mph limit was prompted by the gas crunch of the 70's, and had little to do with saving any lives. When this low-limit was lifted, accident rates *went down*. The 65 mph limit on CA freeways actually improved things and evened out traffic flow...especially considering the modernization of vehicles over the years which can easily handle the higher-speeds.

The MUTCD is the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. This is the federal manual which all states must be in majority compliance with regarding speed limits, roadsigns and markings, etc. This manual also warns against speed limits which are artificially low for the same reason....artificially low speed limits may make citizens feel safer and generate lots of revenue for the city, but will invariably result in more accidents.

When drivers take an artificially-low speed limit seriously (prompted by enthusiastic ticket-writing), citizens slow down and the 85th percentile driving at speeds safe for conditions will encounter those slow drivers, resulting in more lane changes and you guessed it, more accidents.

Higher limits tend to 'even' out the traffic flow, as long as the higher limits relate to the 85th percentile of measured drivers, since the slowpokes won't be encouraged to drive even slower, and the faster drivers aren't going to be blocked as much by slowpokes. Overall, it means less speed disparity and thus, fewer accidents.

So if the 85th percentile speed works for surface streets, why isn't this logic applied to freeways? I am sure any measurement in free-flowing conditions would show an 85th percentile of 70+, and the 65 mph limit is encouraging slower traffic to think their slow speed is ok in even the fastest lanes of a freeway going 75-80, though smarter slowpokes will avoid these faster lanes for self-preservation.

The artificially low-speed limit on freeways is tantamount to a speed-trap, as the 65 mph limit in most places ignores the 85th percentile speed. This is a cause of greater speed disparity, increased lane-changes and more accidents than if the speed limits were more realistic and realistically-enforced with more emphasis on lane-discipline.

Carpool lanes are an ineffective band-aid. If drivers practiced effective lane-discipline, there would be far more efficient-use of the lanes...even on a two-lane road. It's almost comical to be on a 5 lane freeway and then sure enough, some arse-tard is in the number 1 (fast) lane, driving the exact same speed as the guy to his right. If the person didn't have his head squarely up his bum he would be in the lane to the right, going the same speed as his road-block buddy but in front or behind him without being the source of road-rage.

In addition, the carpool lane is a farce when drivers can qualify for this lane by carrying a child. Last I checked, children cannot drive, at least not very well. Why on Earth does a soccer mom get to bring her gigantic land-barge into the carpool lane just because 2-year-old Timmy is in the child-carrier? How does this take any driver off the road or benefit anyone? What next, do we start at conception and let the preggers mom go into the carpool lane? After all, she's driving for two, right? It's re-god-damn-diculous. If more than one person qualifies you for the carpool lane, that other driver should be at least 15 with a valid driver's license, otherwise we're not taking any cars off the road, and the carpool lane is tantamount to a breeder-lane. I'd say that's a little-bit retarded.

Motorcycles qualify for the carpool lane, but they take hardly any space, are gas-efficient, take hardly any room for parking and it's good to encourage riders not to drive bigger cages. As a motorcycle-rider myself, I benefit from the carpool lane directly, but I'd be all for removing all carpool lanes. They just don't work for the majority.

Another issue is hybrids. Hybrid-cars in CA are allowed in the carpool lanes with a solo-occupant, but only if they have the special state-issued tags. They've stopped handing out these tags though, probably due to the sheer number of hybrids on the road and the obvious tactic of buying a hybrid simply for use in the carpool lane when commuting.

The search for alternative fuels presses on, and saying 'hybrid' in 5-10 years will be like saying 'vehicle' today. The majority of cars will be some kind of alternative-fuel or electric vehicle and the lower-carbon footprint reward of the carpool-lane will be moot. Of course, my smart (car) doesn't qualify me for the carpool lane even though it's the best MPG gas-powered car in the U.S. right behind the hybrids, takes up way less space to park, doesn't have a bunch of batteries to dispose of later and costs 10k less. ;) There are other gas-powered cars which are very 'green' but are disallowed from the carpool lane with a solo driver. The hybrid-carpool benefit simply won't work in a day and age where every auto-manufacturer is 'going green' and moving into hybrid technology.

All it takes is one slow-ass vehicle to clog the carpool lane and the lane becomes much less effective, and this goes for giant buses too. Ok sure, they are definitely carpooling, but isn't a bus too big for a carpool lane? Why are we encouraging a giant-arse bus to go ALLLLLLL the way across all the lanes to the carpool lane, and then go alllll the way back to exit the freeway? That's completely stupid. Buses and other multi-axle vehicles should not be allowed in the carpool lane and should stay to the right where they belong with the trucks and other slow, multi-axle traffic. After all, we don't see tractor-trailers in the carpool lane just because there's a toddler in the front-cab, do we?

So yeah, carpool lanes aren't fixing anything, but are a boon to a slim minority with specially-tagged hybrids, those who ride motorcycles and people carrying other adults or non-driving kids.

If we simply emphasize lane-discipline over speed-myths, remove carpool lanes and improve driver-training (including proper cell-phone use and no god-damn texting while-driving), I think we'd be better off.

-dB-

New Dawkins Book (and Other Thoughts).

Richard Dawkins's new book entitled, 'The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution' is being officially released today in the United States. I definitely plan to pick up a copy in case I run into one of the 40% of U.S. citizens Dawkins mentions who don't accept the fact of evolution (education time). It's also just a fascinating subject in general, and I am looking forward to the coverage of artifical selection relating to the domestication and breeding of our canine friends. Book review coming later!

I understand that evolution is out of the perview of atheism, but many who reject evolution do so because of conflicting ideas from their religion. That doesn't stop progressive theists from accepting evolution as they would accept the law of gravitation or atomic theory. And really, there doesn't need to be a conflict between theism and evolution. A liberal theist could just assume their 'god' started it all but that evolution was allowed to happen on its own. Not a logical argument for god, but it allows the theist the luxury to avoid the faith-arguments but still accept obvious scientific fact. There is a choice to be made here though, as most religions offer a creation myth that is expected to be taken seriously...because it's not like ministers, pastors and priests the world over are saying 'this part of the Bible is ok to reject but you must accept this part or burn in eternal hellfire forever'. Although, progressive-theism must do exactly that, reject large chunks of their holy books or be mired in medieval fundamentalism.

Incidentally, I am going to give Borders my business until the more conveniently-located Barnes and Noble has an atheist section where you'd find some of Dawkins's other books (such as 'The God Delusion'). We're too numerous as a minority group to be forced to buy our books alongside bibles, and atheism is most certainly not a 'religion' even though the term does deal with the rejection of theism. With the popularity of these books, and considering that they're probably going to get a lot more popular in the coming years, atheism deserves its own section in any bookstore. Hell at one time I could barely find any atheist books in stores and yet the religion section was huge. It's probably why I stopped going to bookstores altogether (though it's high-comedy to place the odd Bible in the science-fiction section). ;)

It's not like fundies are going to rush to buy books from the new-atheists, but the people they're trying to convince are quickly getting much better educated at taking down Bronze-age superstition, and the popularity of these books is telling. Fewer people are buying the whole religion thing, and more of them are actively resisting these crazy ideas.

With the Intertubes, good ideas spread fast and bad ideas are knocked down from every angle, not the least of which is Snopes helping to kill email chains with silly, repeated rumors and myths. I am surprised anyone could stay a Fundy very long if they feel compelled to talk about it at a young age because they'd be beleaguered by those willing to show them how they're wrong....in email, on blogs, YouTube, etc. The days of religious claims going unchallenged for years are over forever....even if parents try to shelter their kids in private-schools, the Internet is going to pounce all over silly beliefs and it doesn't generally have a delicate touch.

Usually I read new Kindle books on my iPhone with a wonderful little (free) app called, and you may have guessed, 'Kindle for iPhone'.

That's right, it's a port of the Kindle software you've read about for the Amazon Kindle, only Kindle for iPhone lets you read Kindle books with a backlight, which the real Kindle doesn't have (and sorely needs as an option you can toggle). You can read any Kindle book with 'Kindle for iPhone' so it's easy to buy new books with the 1-click feature at Amazon.com, just as you would with Kindle. I love it.

The variety of books on Kindle blows away any other e-reader, and being able to sneak into bed with the girlfriend and not wake her up while reading 'Infidel' by Ayaan Hirsi Ali or 'Stolen Innocence' by Elissa Wall was fantastic. Both of these books are escape-from-fundamentalist religion stories of sorts and are highly-recommended.

'Infidel' depicts the oppression of being an Ethioian Muslim and the horrific rituals and practices associated with that before Ayaan makes her escape, but not before she suffers the horrors of female castration and other indignities.

Wall's 'Stolen Innocence' delves into her experiences as a female in the Mormon Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints (FLDS), where girls are 'placed' with their grooms at 14 (or younger) and whole communities live under the control of their 'prophet'. Wall was married off young, against her will to a boy she didn't even like...it's amazing people still live like this, and uplifting that some escape before lasting damage is done.

Whether you opt for hardback or a new Kindle book, there's a lot of resources to become educated enough to take on Fundies or apologists of any religion.

Evolution has nothing to do with atheism, but it seems fundies everywhere are attacking evolution as if somehow that leaves their crazy Creation-myth as the 'only' alternative. No doubt, Richard Dawkins's latest book will further arm your logical minds to combat some of the anti-evolution propaganda you'll encounter at some point, especially if you're an outspoken atheist.

America is (Not) a Christian Nation.

There are some who will go to any length to convince you of their brand of religion, including revising U.S. History. This is either an honestly mistaken belief due to an amazing historical ignorance or a lie perpetrated to convince others to embrace Christianity. Either way it's an anti-intellectual affront and needs to be confronted whenever it's repeated.

Our forefathers had the tremendous foresight to collectively forge the first-ever secular Constitution on the planet. The Constitution, our founding document, is godless. There is no mention of following any commandments, no religious decrees, no deference to commandments or Bibles. It's a secular governmental document, by the people and for the people, not by god(s) or for any god(s). Our founding fathers understood that unless we are free *from* religion we cannot enjoy religious freedom at all.

If you lived in pre-1776 England, you would not have had the choice of which religion you followed in the English church-state. In fact, the European witch-hunts were in full-swing at the time...admitting any kind of non-orthodoxy was still a life-risking proposition, let alone the deism of Thomas Jefferson or the atheism of James Madison.

The 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution says it plainly;

'Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibit the free-exercise thereof'.

This means, in matters of religion, government is neutral. Religion nor atheism should be endorsed by any government-entity. Likewise, the government legal process should not include any kind of religious test, including swearing on a Koran, the Vedas, Talmud or Bible.

How would it feel to have an entire-courtroom see you refuse to swear on a Bible before your testimony even begins? This could affect the outcome of the trial if the jury or judge is very religious, and it's tantamount to an unconstitutional religious-test and is in clear-violation of the 1st-amendment. Yet, this happens every-day in America.

The removal of religious-oppression by government-entities such as courtrooms, public schools, presidential inaugurations, public monuments, etc. is *not* tantamount to atheism, as some might propose. It's simply neutrality. There should not be any government endorsement of religion or active rejection thereof as stated clearly in the 1st amendment.

The 1797 Treaty of Tripoli explicitly states in Article 11 that America is not a Christian Nation.

'Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries'.

Some would claim that our money is 'evidence' that this is a 'Christian Nation' by virtue of the fact that it's been infected with the religious slogan; 'In God We Trust'. Similarly, our pledge also has 'Under God' in it, which some believe is further evidence that this nation was intended to be god-fearing.

It might surprise some to know that the religious-language on our money and in our pledge are recent developments, and were originally secular.

Our pledge was written in 1892 by a Baptist minister, Francis Bellamy, and did not originally include 'Under God'. The divisive 'Under God' was added in 1954 by President Eisenhower at the behest of Christian special-interest groups such as the Knights of Columbus. Here's the unblemished pledge before it was altered:

'I pledge allegiance to the flag, of the United States of America,
and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible
with liberty and justice for all'.

One might note that the original pledge is all-inclusive. The addition of 'Under God' instantly forces everyone reciting the pledge to be 'under' something, subserviant to an unseen 'diety' which has dominion over all, and makes all non-Christians and non-believers second-class citizens. It's amazingly divisive and is a clear violation of the intentions of the forefathers and the 1st-amendment.

Our money has 'In God We Trust' on it, but this wasn't added until 1957 on paper money, though it was on coins earlier. Most likely, the 'In God We Trust' motto was a reaction to McCarthyism and the 'Red Scare' associated with communism and atheism. However, it's possible to be a communist without being an atheist and most atheists are decidedly not communists.

Prior to religious-prayer now on our currency the Latin motto was 'E Pluribus Unem', which literally translates to 'From Many, One'. This phrase is all-inclusive regardless of religious-association or lack thereof. 'In God We Trust' is divisive, simply because people worship different gods and some don't submit to any gods. Again, this religious-notion violates the intention of the founding fathers and the 1st-amendment, and forces non-Christians and the non-religious to be party to theist-oppression. Our secular democratic republic is not merely majority rule, but serves to protect the minority from the majority. Otherwise, Jim Crow laws would still be in force, and women would still be disallowed from the voting booth. In the same manner, it's not Constitutionally right to oppress non-Christians and non-religious Americans with conflicting religious whims of a Christian majority.

Removing the oppressive religious language unconstitutionally-inserted into our pledge, money, court-rooms, schools, public parks or any governmental agency is a return to government neutrality and secularism as the founding fathers rightly intended. This neutrality still allows freedom of religion. The difference is that government should not endorse any one religion over another, or endorse religion over irrelegion.

Our forefathers and early patriots sought to escape the church-state of England, and many died establishing and defending the new colonies and the first-ever secular Constitution. We as free Americans should uphold church-state separation and the 1st amendment, because if there's no freedom *from* religion then there is truly no freedom of religion. If we slip into a theocractic church-state again we'll be right back where started in 1775 England.

As is often said, those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." -Thomas Jefferson

-dB-

What's That Funny Noise?

When you hear sirens, pull over to the right, park and wait for the emergency vehicles to pass (in case there is more than one). It does not mean 'FREEZE WHERE YOU ARE'.

All too often when I hear sirens I see people in cars STOP right where they are in the road. When did they stop teaching the proper response to sirens in driving-school and how does stopping in place help anything? Should the firetruck, ambulance or police car now have to go around everyone who stopped in place? If enough people do this, there simply won't be a path for the emergent vehicle.

People need to think about why the siren is on in the first place. It's there to alert other motorists to the emergency vehicle, but also because the siren-blaring e-vehicle might need to run a light or go the wrong way on a given road...but the important thing is that they have a clear-path...imagine it's a cop responding to attempted murder, an ambulance with a cardiac patient or a firetruck racing toward a brush-fire. There's no time to be sloppy and distracted.

When enough people stop in place you have people effectively blocking the the siren-vehicle's path of travel or at least creating a slalom course, and stopping in place is just a giant roadblock when there's heavy traffic. Thankfully, some people still move over and actually clear-up road to make up for the numbnuts who stop in place.

If everyone makes an attempt to move to the right, the emergency vehicle would understand the maneuver and would take the clear path to your left...that is, until he runs into the next fucktard who's stopped in place.

The other day, I saw someone in a car with a cop behind her....full sirens and lights...what did she do? She STOPPED right in front of the cop. The cop, with nowhere else to go (and I watched the whole thing from the sidewalk) had to sit there until the lady eventually figured out her error and moved out of the way. Why is it that people pull to the right (or the left on occasion) when pulled over for a ticket, but some people have this crazy idea that it's good to just stop in place when hearing a siren meant for someone else? Sure, it can be startling or confusing, but if you pull to the right it will satisfy any emergency vehicle trying to get through and if it's a cop after you, it's going to be better than stopping in the middle of a busy road. No need to think too much about it, just clear a path.

The downside to stopping in place means the emergency vehicle has to go around you still, but if someone in other lanes pulled the same bonehead maneuver of stopping in place eventually the emergency vehicle will be trapped again. Other drivers, distracted by the emergency vehicle, might rear-end the stopped-driver. Nobody expects someone to be STOPPED in the middle of the road, but the distraction of the commotion combined with jackwipe being stopped in the lane sets that person up for a rear-ender. Congrats, if there's a rear-end collision there are now two emergencies.

When you hear sirens...pull over to the right, wait for the emergency vehicle to pass, and then you're on your way. You'll demonstrate proper behaviour during the commotion and you won't be blocking an emergency vehicle from its timely-arrival. Even just pulling into the right lane is better than stopping in place since it's a temporary path you're helping to clear.

After all, if the emergency was for our families we'd want others to clear a path ASAP, right? Right.

Spread the word.

-dB-

Faith is Not a Choice (And How I Lost Mine).

First, let me state that people don't necessarily 'choose' their beliefs. Instead, they choose how critically (or not) they review new ideas and challenges to their existing beliefs. Atheists don't just 'choose' to dismiss their beliefs, so much as their logical mind eventually defeats their dogma, and a dismissal of the old-belief is inevitable. However, if you can convince someone of an idea before their logical minds are even formed, you're probably going to get the idea to sink-in, unfettered by opposition.

Sadly, children are convinced at a young age to believe in a 'god', and they lack the mental faculties and logical-prowess to protest in any effective manner, not to mention that they rely on their parents for everything. Imagine a six-year old who laughs off a parent's earnest description of god as 'nonsense', what kind of life would this kid have? As a matter of self-preservation, it's probably good that kinds don't protest too much early-on, for the same reason the child needs to listen when the parent warns against touching hot stoves or running into traffic. It's unfortunate that most kids taught religion at a young age are infected for life, and continue to hold ridiculous beliefs they pass on to their kids...so much so that when faced with a devastating logical challenge they will often react completely irrationally.

There's no reason at such a young age to think your parents are lying, deluded or downright bloody stupid. Kids just don't know any better. I knew one kid in school who thought he was an elf, simply because this is something his mom believed as well. He gave an oral report about it....and as funny as it was at the time, I find it kind of depressing now (but he did kinda look like an elf).

A child can see the clear problems with the very definition of things that contradict....like a square circle, or a big-small thing or something that is hot and cold...or other contradictory definitions. However, if you get them young enough, you can pretty much convince them of anything...you're an elf, there's an invisible space-spook watching your every move, and Santa delivers presents on Christmas eve to every kid in the world in one night. Sure, kids outgrow the notion of Santa Claus simply because adults don't really believe it, nor do older kids....but 'god' is a fairy tale most adults DO believe. When a child cries after discovering there's no Santa Claus...this is what some grown-people do when they discover there's no god....except it's all-too often preceded by anger and hostility toward the messenger. Adults seem to be much less resilient than children in this regard.

It's going to be confusing to a child when he/she is told that a god knows everything, is all-powerful and perfect and all-good and loving, but will let mommy's new baby die inside her tummy while the Duggars can pop out 19 of them without issue.

Why?

A kid's 'why' response oftens gets beaten-down early by those who find tough questions to be uncomfortable or threatening. A true-believer won't often call god evil or stupid or cruel as he should...instead people tend to make excuses for this evil space pixie. 'He's testing me. He's asking me to wait. Now is not the right time, I can't question him or his plan'.

Faith is not a choice, it's something you've been convinced of, usually at such a young age that it's out of the scope of your review process. It's internalized and often defended with territorial ferocity and irrational fervor. People routinely die or let others die merely because they're convinced of some fundamental deception about how the Universe works, and because being wrong can be so uncomfortable...moreso with a longer investment in an erroneous idea.

It behooves people to unravel their assumptions when reviewing ideas...including their own. How one responds to a challenge to one's beliefs is a test of courage, integrity and intellectual honesty.

Some people, when challenged on their belief in god, simply try to paint ruses and confuse or distract you, especially right before you trap them in unassailable logic (they can see it coming usually). Some will talk over you, or try to pressure you into shutting up, or threaten violence or change the subject or pretend to be distracted, or pretend 'evolution' or 'Darwinism' is on equal-footing with their god-belief in order to make it seem as if you're both in the same boat of religion. Nobody likes to feel stupid, but nothing makes people feel stupid faster than defending a barbaric, irrational religion with someone who can reason better than a child.

The courageous and intellectually honest-theist hears about the logical contradiction of how a loving god lets babies suffer and die and says, 'You're right, that's pretty crazy, I wouldn't let babies die if I were god'. This is an honest and no-nonsense response. This is how a *reasonable* person responds to the logical contradiction when pointed out. The reasonable theist, after being faced with this devastating argument from evil, should step back a bit and re-examine his faith on the spot and not make excuses for their killer god anymore than someone would be tolerated making excuses for Hitler or Stalin.

That's right, few of us would let babies suffer and die if we were god, because we're nicer and more logical than god. An all-powerful being, who knows everything and is *good* would simply not let this happen. Furthermore, god can't 'let' anything happen because he *makes* it happen...yes, if he's truly all-knowing, he knows everything for infinity past and future, meaning everything that happens is exactly to his plan: every miscarriage, holy war, epidemic, the rise of Hitler and venereal warts. All exactly to god's plan, and nothing that an all-powerful being wants can be denied, right?

Growing up, I was a devout Catholic, though in high-school my new circle of friends and experiences at various churches and youth-groups had me gravitating toward a more 'born again' Christianity. I prayed before meals and at night, read the Bible, made religious artwork (some of which I still have), communicated with God on a daily basis...asking him for stuff, thanking him, giving him credit or asking for guidance. I would acknowledge the cross in my room, and I distinctly remember playing guitar at a Christian youth-group I would attend on Tuesday nights...talking about God and religion and the Bible and such. The 'no true Scotsman' fallacy does not apply here (since some annoyed theists would simply deny that I was a 'real' Christian).

My family was Catholic (Irish-Italian) and my religion-primed brain readily accepted other hokum that my family believed: telekinesis, psychics, ghosts, Satanic lyrics embedded into backward-played records and other phenomenae. I actually destroyed my AC/DC album 'Back in Black' because I thought I heard 'Oh Lord Satan' in the lyrics when played backward. My mom was upset that we were Dungeons and Dragons fans, thinking it was somehow Satanic, and I remember my Dad being upset with certain art my brother made thinking it was Devilish or evil in some way. They weren't fanatics, but my family was definitely infected with religion, and they went back to be re-infected at our local Catholic church on a regular basis.

In 1989 at age 20, I was working with a somewhat zany yet brilliant software engineer at a new company making Nintendo games. He was my boss but our relationship was more like workmates/friends. We discussed everything under the sun while we worked into the wee hours making games...everything from Transcendental Meditation to the wonders of Indian food to how many fairies could dance on the head of a pin, and religion. He was a funny guy...not forceful in his atheism or high-pressure or anything, but questioned my logic when it came to my defense of a god-belief in his characteristically witty manner. I had never heard Christian apologetics, but I made plenty of apologist arguments and fallacies such as the argument from numbers (a lot of people believe it), Pascal's Wager (safe bet to believe rather than end up in Hell), and other unwitting apologist claptrap or outright fallacies.

This issue with Pascal's Wager is that it doesn't consider the fact that you lose a lot of time and resources praying to the wrong god if you end up in say, Islamic Hell or praying to a god which isn't even there. Argument from numbers doesn't work because the majority of people have been on the wrong side of a lot of issues (astronomy, slavery and civil rights, women's rights, etc.).

What happened was, his arguments made sense to me, but it internally embarrassed and infuriated me to be bested logically. I felt like a lawyer defending my client 'God'.

I knew that something was wrong. Either my client was a murderous and wantonly evil tyrant as he was saying it was depicted in the Bible, my client didn't exist as claimed or I needed to do more Bible-research and find explanations for this stuff.

Spurred by what I felt were logical defeats and seeking to defeat his arguments, I did some research. I looked up the Bible phrases he mentioned depicting god's killing sprees or when god's name is invoked by those on killing sprees. I checked out the babies being dashed on rocks, the hatred and recommended stoning of homosexuals, the condoning of slavery and instructions for keeping them, etc. Everything he generally mentioned about the Bible was shocking because I thought I knew my Bible, but more shocking when I verified the atrocities within the Bible! Suddenly, it was seeming like a whole different book. How come I didn't hear about this stuff in church? Why did we believe this whole book, but the priest only talked about the nicer stuff before the collection plates went out?

Then, it dawned on me. I was simply lied to, or those who were talking about the virtues of the Bible were either seriously omitting the bad parts, or were just as clueless about the bad parts as I was. It seemed that none of the atrocities of the Bible (aside from the snake-framing, the flood and Hell) were discussed, and since those who sit passively in church listening can't really stop a sermon to ask questions, nobody ever learned anything but what the priest felt like talking about unless they delved deep into their Bibles themselves (with a critical mind). No wonder the Catholic church banned reading the Bible for yourself in most of its history.

Within a month, I had rejected the Bible, and fired my client 'God'. I realized he didn't exist, and couldn't exist with all the evil in the world.

Isaiah 45:7 reads:

'I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.'

Well, of course. Either god made *everything* as claimed or he didn't. If he didn't, then he's just a co-god, where another god is making other stuff. This would mean he's not the 'only' god and certainly not all-powerful if he cannot stop evil or stop creating it. If god is *good* then he'd want to stop suffering. But, Isaiah 45:7 clearly states that God 'created evil' and thus he IS evil. If God is everything, he is as evil as he is good. He is the hangnail, the stillbirth, the AIDS epidemic, and the kid-diddling Catholic priest. Be relieved there's no god, because if he does exist he's an evil bastard.

Either way, within a month of meeting and discussing real issues with the first atheist I met, I rejected my belief. It took some courage (willing to face objections head-on without ruses or game-playing), integrity (willing to follow logic where it lead me) and intellectual honesty (willing to admit being wrong).

20 years of inculcation unraveled in a month. It was disturbing and difficult though. One does not release a lifelong faith without some kind of trauma...because I felt even reviewing the evidence put me in very bad stead with God, which I still believed in until I didn't. But, it's like going against a cult-leader. The more you resist, the angrier he is and the more you lose your support in the cult. Once you're out, you can see it was the best thing you ever did, but it gets harder (and scarier) before it gets better.

Giving up the idea of gods was a huge weight off of my mind and conscience. No more did I think a space-pixie was watching my every move. I had true privacy and I could finally sleep-in on Sunday without guilt. No longer did I accept any other crazy ideas which were predicated on god, or spirits, the devil, an afterlife, etc. I also released the crazy idea that Jewish people killed Jesus, as I no longer believed in Jesus as a diety who 'died for my sins'. Women were no more responsible for the downfall of mankind simply because they failed the talking snake apple-test framed by God. I was free to delve into the scientific wonders and explanations of the world such as evolution and astronomy, since I didn't have to experience a battle in my mind between Creation as explained in Genesis vs. the findings of science. I no longer had to lament how many times God ignored my desperate prayers, or answered insignificant ones, allowed gluttony for some while others starved or let some die while others thrive.

The injustice in the world is expected in a world without a god (and worse with god), but it's humans who can make things better. My mind was finally free of the crazy myths of Bronze-age desert nomads and I was free to take the world on its own terms, for better or worse. I had to rely on myself and my fellow humans without wasting energy appealing to some murderous space-pixie.

It was the most liberating experience I've ever had in my 41 years.

No matter how old you are, or how uncomfortable it is....always follow logic where it goes. Resisting, mental-trickery, ruses, semantic-games, all of those distract from the pursuit of truth and retard our collective progress. It will also make those who see through the ruses lose a lot of respect for the person's courage, integrity and intellectual honesty. If one avoids logic simply because it's uncomfortable, it's like the drug-addict or alcoholic who can't get clean because he wants to avoid withdrawl symptoms.

The beauty of being a good critical-thinker is that there's no truth with a capital 'T'. You're free to adjust as needed, honing your knowledge as new data comes in. In fact, the human enterprise relies on this process as we discover more about the Universe we live in...and we all benefit. Yes, even the young-Earth wack-a-doo Creationist who argues over the Internet about the dangers of EVILution probably doesn't comprehend the irony.

Sometimes, the truth hurts, but it's well worth it.

-dB-

19 Kids and Counting. Somebody Stop This Crazy Thing!

The Duggars are expecting their 19th kid. That's re-god-damn-diculous.

Surprise, it's all because religious nutters Jim-Bob and Michelle have this funny idea that a 'God' is 'blessing' them with kids. No, I would say your ignorant lack of birth-control is saddling you with kids. Poor Michelle's gonna keep popping them out until she collapses or gets a restraining order against Jim-Bob

Ok, I am all for personal freedoms, really. But where does it end? Clearly these people never plan to use birth-control as long as they have a genuine belief in a baby-blessing 'god', and it seems their friends the 'Bates' are trying to catch up, working on #17.

Incidentally, the Bates recently got help remodeling their home from the Duggars. During the tour, yes, Mrs. Bates called the master bedroom the 'Master Bates Room'. True Story. I live for these precious moments, almost too funny to handle....and I love the delicious fact that some cackling editor left that bit of pure evil in the show! TLC, you certainly are darker than you let on, and I love you for it.

What's sad is that due to persistent religious indoctrination via home 'schooling', the eldest Duggar Josh is probably gonna bang out kid after kid with his Christer-addled wife in exactly the same fashion with a spin-off TV show to cover it all. I am just wondering which Duggar will be the first gay-person or atheist and send the whole Leave it to Christer-Beaver illusion whirling out of control. ;)

The exponential potential here is just staggering, assuming each of the 19 kids (and counting) reproduce as vigorously as their parents. If each of the 19 kids has 19 kids, that's 361 more moronic creationists precious lives on the planet who actually think Ken Ham's Creation museum is 'science'. Call me a cynic, but I find it all depressing (though it's shocking and a bit of dark comedy to watch their show).

Sure, the Duggars make cute kids, and they all feign niceties with regard to the crazy things we unsaved outsiders do...like 'dancing' or as they might call it, 'writhing with Satanic lust'. I love their favorite curse-word too, 'interesting'. Ask them about anything they have an unwavering hatred for, and you can bet the saccharine-sweet Duggars will say, 'interesting' which is Duggar-code for 'OMFG WTF I HATE THAT SHIZZLE!'. The Duggars found Ethiopian cuisine quite 'interesting', as well as revealing wedding dresses....very, very interesting. I find those interesting too, but for different reasons. De-frauder™! A De-Frauder is Duggar Christer-speak for someone who promises sex but doesn't deliver. Sounds like a few girls I dated! If you cut a Duggar off on the freeway, do they say, 'Sir, you are VERY interesting!'? No, YOU'RE super interesting!!

Ok, maybe I dance and the Duggars don't, sure, but I don't have enough brothers and sisters to pack a nightclub, now do I? It's cute how their TV program shows the kids in chronological order, with the youngest one in a child-seat at the end. To the right of the youngest should be an animation of hundreds of sperm...because that's what's coming next (smarmy pun intended). What I am really wondering here (like Jon and Kate Plus 8) is how it will end. Will they show Michelle Duggar at age 50 popping out blessing number 28, or will we start seeing defects as her eggs get older and older? I for one am morbidly curious. Soon, they're gonna be like AOL with all the J-names....Jackson00213, Jessa40310, etc.

It's really too bad they're all being raised as home-schooled Creationists though, just the kind of view which stymies progress. Some of them might break through that little world of lies and inculcation someday, I know I did, but I didn't have 18 brainwashed siblings to contend with if I spoke up in dissent.

Now the Duggars might ask themselves, why would their crazy 'God' think it's a good idea to have 19-fucking kids, but creates barren would-be mothers or makes some babies stillborn or lets them starve to death?

I am sure a god would understand if the Duggars or anyone else decided to close the baby factory...after all, what the fuck is god gonna do, come down and open it back up? That's right, god won't do jack-diddly-squat coz god doesn't exist. If a 'god did exist you'd think it would heal amputees or let some women (many who believe in their same god) have *one* single child successfully where they're otherwise plagued by infertility or miscarriages.

Now, someone please educate these people. A Chick-style tract dropped in the mail about birth-control might be a message they'd understand....as long as they think it's from their friend Jesus (hey there's another 'J' name for #19, why beat around the bush?).

No matter what you think of the Duggars, they're really, really, really interesting! ;)

-dB-

Marriage: Who Needs It?

I hope you're settled in with a cool drink or hot cuppa joe, coz this is a long one! This could probably be a book, because there's a lot to say.

The premise is simple and direct: Nobody needs to be married in this day and age, and the legal downsides of divorce are tremendous.

I decided a long time ago that I don't need to be married *ever*, and this was back in 1989 or so when I de-converted from Catholicism. While some of us in our society are deprived of the right I also boycott in protest. As an atheist, I don't want to feed-into the 'married' couple ideal set up by ancient religions which I don't believe in, and any religious prescription to get married is irrelevant to me.

The concept of marriage comes from an institution where women were seen as chattel property. They didn't always have the right to vote and were told to 'honor and obey' their masters husbands....and all of this was after the understanding that there was no sex before marriage. Talk about motivation.

Pledging lifelong allegiance to a person based on the transient-insanity of sexual desire at a young age (or any age) is not the wisest choice, especially considering the change humans go through and the penalties for 'failure'.

Divorce has historically been shunned or could get one excommunicated from one's social networking group (church) and what many believe is the path to 'salvation'. Worse, divorce in modern times often means huge lawyer fees, alimony payments to maintain the lifestyle of an ex-spouse (usually the female) for a lifestyle she couldn't maintain without the partner in the first-place. On top of all this is community property law in relevant states and ball-busting judges with agendas who basically can decide your fate with the bang of a gavel...but if you're not married (assuming no common-law marriage) then you don't have to worry about the legal entanglements of divorce.

Without marriage, you're free to leave if it suits you and it keeps partners on better behaviour, and there won't be divorce lawyers banging on your door (and your bank account) with all the legal recourse in the world to make you miserable.

Child-support is often alimony in disguise and rarely relates directly to what a child actually needs as additional income (look at what celebrities pay in child-support). Since child-support follows the child, marriage doesn't relate to children at all except in some traditional religious sense, but religion has no effect on those immune from its dictates.

Sure, some of you are screaming at the monitor, 'Get a pre-nup doofus!'. Now, ask yourselves, why do you need a contract to *undo* the horrible contract that comes with a marriage certificate? Talk about a red-flag. It's like going to a car dealer with a lawyer-drafted contract to counter-act the bad contract you're getting into at the dealership. The simple thing to do is avoid the bad-contract in the first place.

Simply put, divorce can be insanely expensive, and confers too much power to the female (usually) and a legal system which has no business in the affairs (literally) of consenting adults.

It's disconcerting to think that the government 'stamps approval' on some relationships, but other taxpaying, consenting adults cannot marry at all because they share the same gender. Likewise, if four women want to marry one guy, what business is it of the government's? Guys with tremendous resources (or a convenient harem-religion) always attract multiple partners (same with powerful women). If they're all consenting adults, it's none of our business.

Oddly, straight couples under the age of 62 cannot even become domestic partners in California, where I live, though they *used* to be able to before politicians removed that law and just left us the 'all or nothing' marriage option.

Sure, companies can *elect* to honor heterosexual domestic-partners with regard to health-coverage, but there is no state-mandate. If you're straight and under 62 in California, it's marriage or nothing. If you're gay, it's domestic partnership or nothing. The logical thing would be to allow both straight and gay couples to enter into marriage or a domestic partnership if they so choose.

It's all a big hot flaming and discriminatory mess and I want no part of it.

Societal conditioning prepares young girls for marriage at an early age, though that trend is probably changing in 2009. There is a reason newsstands are plastered in 'Bride' magazines, but rarely will you find a 'Groom' magazine. There is a reason women want marriage in the U.S. more than men...they have everything to gain, generally speaking, and little to lose, whereas men stand to lose a lot in the event of divorce.

As an atheist, I am not bound by the dictates of the church. I am free to ignore its prescriptions for celibacy before marriage and ignore the very idea of marriage itself. After all, who invented this idea? It's out-dated and simply unnecessary in a modern age.

Some will fall under the misconception (usually promoted by wannabe brides) that marriage=commitment. Wrong. Divorce rates speak for themselves. Over half of marriages end in divorce, even with couples who claim to be religious (since they are the majority in the first place). In fact, unmarried households now outnumber traditional, married households as reported by U.S. Today in 2006. This shows that the trend is going away from marriage simply because it just doesn't work, statistically-speaking, and there's a lot to lose if you're in the more than 50% who end up getting divorced.

Speaking of commitment, some women will use this buzzword to try and get a guy to marry them, and I guess some men might do that, but you'll most often hear this from women on talk-shows, in books, articles, etc. The idea is that if the man doesn't 'commit', then the woman should find someone else to 'commit' and marry her. What is the idea here, to find a spouse or find the *right* person who you want to spend time with? Why do people feel they need a label, a legal paper and an expensive ceremony to feel 'committed' to someone, all the while being willing to let a good person go if they won't sign a legal document? Sounds like extortion to me. Imagine pressuring your friends....'Hey man, be my friend for life or find another friend!'. The logic just doesn't make any kind of sense.

If a woman is willing to leave you, a man she wants to be with forever simply because you won't sign a contract to marry, then she doesn't really want to be with you forever. It's simple. You're easily replaced, and she is telling you that unless you sign this contract, you're going to be replaced by someone else she wants to be with 'forever'...someone who WILL sign on the dotted line.

Commitment is not on a legal document. It's in the mind and displayed in your behavior. Unless I am missing something, people don't go to the altar with the intent to get divorced in the forseeable future (except gold-diggers who nobody should unwittingly marry in the first place). Ostensibly, those who get married take their vows seriously enough, and would prefer to stay married. But, life isn't a fairytale. Some people cheat, they grow bored, they change (sometimes wildly so), they disagree about fundamental issues such as religion, kids, money, in-laws, or what kind of wedding cake to get.

Humans are dynamic creatures, and evolution didn't shape us (notably, males) for long-term monogamy. Women drop an egg a month, men generate billions of sperm a day. If monogamy happens, great, and those who enter into relationships should honor the physical well-being of their partners and not spread diseases they might catch in a tryst. The moment one cheats, it behooves that person to tell his/her partner and abstain from sex until then. It's one thing to change your mind, but it's another to expose an innocent party by way of undisclosed dalliances.

That said, humans change...it's guaranteed. Whether you will change together or not cannot be known and it's another reason not to try and put a 'forever' label on marriage.

Let's pretend for a second that 'marriage' is just the first of two-stages of arbitrary 'commitment' labels. What if there was another level called 'Flarriage'? Would the partner then be comparing and contrasting with her friends, annoyed that the hubs will marry her but not 'Flarry' her? It could get ridiculous. One of the reasons I think that women get annoyed when they're not married is that they see it as some sort of personal failure, as if they weren't 'good enough' to 'get' a guy to marry them. But, there's no competition. What matters is whether you enjoy spending time with the person and whether you want to mutually continue.

The analogy just demonstrates that the label 'marriage' is arbitrary, even if it's widely thought to be something more. With regard to real commitment, it's in your brain and your 'heart' so to speak, not on a legal document. In fact, the false-security of marriage might cause some people to cheat, simply because they feel more trapped than they otherwise would....and they feel trapped because in a very real legal sense, they are.

The reason people get cold feet, most notably men, is because they are about to sign a paper which assumes they'll be together forever in the eyes of the law and their church for those who are religious, but with a huge penalty for failure (divorce) leading to a serious financial hit which can last a lifetime. In California, an alimony award (usually to the female) will cost the male *for life* if the couple were married over 10 years. Yeah, cold-feet isn't just a worry about the open-bar tab after the reception. Imagine deciding you'd rather have a Mini-Cooper than a paid-off Honda, but you still have to pay for the Honda even when someone else is driving it!

Some marriage proponents (or those seeking company in their misery) will note the perks that come with the legal rat's-nest of matrimony. Yes, there are rights conferred to married people that are withheld from gay or unmarried straight couples, but this is discrimination and should be treated accordingly...even by people who are allowed to get married.

Take hospital visitation, for instance. The law allows family and spouses visitation rights whereas it's disallowed for unmarried partners. Domestic partners who are government-recognized have these and next-of-kin rights in some states, but straight-couples under 62 cannot even get domestic partnership status if they wanted to!

It's not up to the hospital to decide who should visit you. If you're conscious, you should have a list of people who are allowed to see you, and those who are blocked at the nurse's station. Some people may have a dear friend they'd love to see and family they never want to see. Simply because someone is a spouse or family-member has nothing to do with visitation, but those who aren't having government approved sexual relations suffer the abuse of discrimination, simply because they are not married or straight. This will change, but it's been an issue.

With regard to death benefits...anyone can set up a will or other legal means to protect the partner in the event of death and through life-insurance. You certainly don't need marriage for this.

In the old days, you could not get a hotel room with your girlfriend/boyfriend without being married. Those days are over. Common law marriage was an awful Draconian practice where the government would 'marry you anyway' if you lived with someone for 7-10 years, depending on your state. Thankfully, this ridiculous law is off the books in most states (including my home state of California).

The downsides of unmarried relationships are minimal nowadays, but the downsides of divorce remain colossal. If you're unmarried, you're there because you want to be...like your parents, your brother or sister, your dog or cat, and your job. In California, businesses generally hire you 'at will', meaning they can fire you anytime for any reason, and you can leave when you want. This is ideal, since the employer is not saddled with a sub-par employee and the employee can always pursue a better deal.

Relationships are no different. There are always options, and no legal paper will disguise that. A woman can find a better-looking, richer guy who cuddles more and is better in bed. A guy can find a hotter, younger woman who is a nympho and part-time chef and gets season passes to baseball games. Staying with someone 'at-will' is far more noble and freeing than being married, without the ever-looming threat of messy, expensive divorce. You're there because both of you find it mutually beneficial.

Here's another example. Think of anyone you ever broke up with. Things started well, right? But, when things went sour, you were glad you didn't marry them. Since over-half of marriages end in divorce, everyone who gets divorced probably wishes they were never married either...though that doesn't mean they wouldn't still have had a relationship. You never know if you 'should have gotten married' until it's too late, but if you never marry in the first place you won't set a legal bear-trap for yourself just because things changed in a manner you didn't predict.

Nobody needs marriage. It's unecessary in a modern time, and the downside of divorce is tremendous and could lead to financial ruin for some. What we're seeing is the slow dissolution of the marriage idea before our eyes, changing incrementally by generation. First, gay couples can't get married, then they can, then it's voted down, but we all know that eventually, gay-marriage will be common, unremarkable and available to any gay couple.

Social progress is slow and the religious conservatives continue to do their level best to oppress others through legislated social-retardation, but in the end social-progress wins....the religious could not keep slavery, they couldn't keep women from voting, they couldn't keep Jim Crow laws and segregation, they can't suppress evolution, astronomy or science at large, and they certainly won't be able to 'save' marriage or even religion itself once people realize they don't have to allow the church to think for them. As religion dies its slow death, marriage will die along with it.

I predict that in 10 years, maybe less....marriage will be seen as the old-fashioned, quaint yet hopelessly naive, outdated and unnecessary institution it is. Unmarried households already outnumber married households in the U.S.. The shift has already started.

Finally, here's the unassailable logic in its simplest form: If you're gonna get divorced you shouldn't have gotten married and if you're gonna stay together, you don't need marriage.

-Happily unmarried for 12 years.

-dB-