Contact:The Ending

Carl Sagan's movie, 'Contact' was great, and the book that inspired it was amazing. What irks me about this movie is the ending *spoiler alert in case you've just woken from a 12-year coma*.

Ok, so Ellie Arroway hears a signal from the Vega system. It's indepently-verified by countries around the world as a series of prime numbers ending in 101 as the Universal language of math which any decently-advanced human civilization should understand as an intelligent-response signal.

The signal is discovered to contain images, sound, and oh yeah, blueprints for a machine which humans decide to build at a cost of a third of a trillion dollars (and they build two). After the first one is blown up by a religious fucktard (no surprise there), Ellie is selected as the occupant who will ride the second one to wherever it goes.

Then, the ball drops through, and when Ellie seemingly doesn't 'go' anywhere, the people who invested gargantuan amounts of money and who have no idea how this machine works (yet understand how big space is) simple don't believe Ellie's account, and she's basically put on trial.

Ok look numbnuts, it's not like I walked into the woods and came back with a story. We heard a signal, from Vega. That's fucking crazy. It counted through prime numbers which we all verified. Unprecedented. Then, we find structure and plans for a machine. Rich nations of the world and skilled scientists and teams of contractors build this thing for a cost greater than the GNP of many countries. Ok, done. The thing works. Fuckin-A, remember this came from a signal from outer space. We start the thing up and it creates enough energy to shake nearby buildings. Oh wait, did we learn how to build this from a signal that came from outer space? Yes.

We send a human through and she lives and has stores to tell about her experience, and NOW we're all god-damned skeptics!!! Here's a tip, be skeptical BEFORE you spend 2/3rds of a trillion!

I love the movie Contact, one of my favorites of all time, but trying to compare Ellie Arroway's experience to 'mere faith' is a category error. Faith is based on 'all things hoped for' or some drivel, but in contact, humans had verified the Vega-signal all around the world. Humans purportedly found repeated broadcasts, like the 'pong' to our 'ping' and the blueprints designated some kind of working structure that clearly humans wouldn't understand (after all we're not exactly space-faring yet) and...the humans who built it clearly agreed it was worth spending a third of a trillion dollars on....twice.

All of this and Ellie comes back alive. I think in real life, someone would have discovered the 18 hours of footage before Ellie was put on trial, and who would think some electronic gizmo is gonna transmit her voice from freakin' Vega anyway, not to mention modifying the plans sent from interstellar space and putting a seat in, as if a caveman is gonna improve on the Corvette.

In the end, Ellie is exonerated by the 18 hours, but long before that the evidence was crystal mother-scratchin' clear that aliens were talking to them.

I think 'Contact' movie-makers felt they had to treat 'faith' with kid gloves lest all the sensitive Christians piss themselves in anger, but come on, faith is not on par with anything where there's the slightest bit of evidence, because let's face it, in the world of faith anything goes.

That said, 'Contact' is a beautiful movie, and the way they treated the alien-contact made so much sense. Jodie Foster is so believable...perfect choice for the role. It's just too bad they had to make a big deal about Ellie's experience being on par with mere 'faith', because last I checked, nobody's god was sending any kind of signals from anywhere.


-dB-

Rape: A Crime of Violence?

There are some who say that 'rape' is a crime of violence and not sex. Duh. All violent crimes are crimes of violence, but rape is about sex with violence as a means.

If rape didn't require some kind of violence or threat of violence, women (and some men) the world over would simply say 'no thank you, I would prefer to avoid non-consenting sex' and the rapist would have no recourse....aside from violence, that is.

See, violence is the *means* by which someone gets what they want while the other person is resisting or considering it. This is how people make others do what they want right then and there, and it works in law-enforcement too. Don't wanna be arrested? They'll forcibly cuff and carry you to jail. Is it an arrest of violence, or a means to expediently get a perp to jail? Clearly, the latter.

Obviously, I am going to refuse to let some uncouth stranger just have sex with me coz he/she feels like it...so naturally the rapist puts two and two together, predicts this outcome, and shows up prepared, or opportunistically chooses a weak party. If rape were simply about the violence, the rapist wouldn't need to bother adding sex to the equation and would just be really violent.

If you refuse to give up your money to a robber, there's a threat of violence or worse. If you refuse to hand over your car in a car-jacking, there's the fear of getting shot and likewise, some rapes are probably non-violent (aside from the rape itself) simply because the perp has a weapon and is threatening the life of the unfortunate victim.

Rape is not *just* about violence. Rape is a violent means some criminals choose to pursue dangerous, illegal and unwanted sex.

I feel for the victims of rape, I really do, but let's be honest about this crime and not pretend it's something it isn't, and it can't be much consolation to tell someone a 'rape' is about violence and not about sex, when clearly the sex was the harrowing part of the ordeal, especially in rapes where there was only a *threat* of violence (which most of us would take seriously).

This is just another repeated myth I had to address. I am not really sure why people repeat this notion. It doesn't fix anything and I am sure provides no real comfort to anyone who has been raped. No matter how some might spin it, rape by definition includes sex....whether it's 'only about violence' or not.


-dB-

Anty-Intallecshualizm

'Dont loose this blog, its to importent. Your going to need it latter'.

I am sure my fellow Spelling Nazi's are freakin' over my horrid spelling, coz it pains my spleen to read it. I purposely typed it like this to get a reaction from those who know better. Those of you who spell badly might not notice a thing and wonder what I am on about, but we'll get to that.

See, the Interwebs is basically a world of text with pretty pictures. All the bad-spellers of the world may have wished they paid more attention in English and spelling. Your mistakes are out there for all to see, and I am referring to native-English speakers here.

The thing is, does the person with bad spelling know he/she is making these mistakes? Clearly not, otherwise something has to be seriously wrong to know you have a spelling error, but be unable or unwilling to fix it. Bad spelling on the InterTubes™ is sorta like being in the middle of a massive stadium with a piece of toilet paper on your bum. You may be oblivious, but everyone else can see it and will be snickering away whether you know it or not.

Ok, sure, some small percent of you are actually learning-disabled. Some of you talk about being learning-disabled when you're corrected, probably in an effort to shut people up. I don't think 'lazy fucker' has been diagnosed as 'learning disabled' has it? When I correct someone on his spelling, I am doing that person a favor. I mean, I already know how to spell, and I assume others want to improve their spelling since errors are so obvious. I correct people because I find it super annoying...but I really do want to help the person fix a glaring, simple error. It's kinda like seeing a Coke can on the ground, I have an urge to put it in a recycle bin even though it's not my can.

We're not talking typos here, we're talking people who routinely mix up your/you're or there/their/they're or too/to, lose/loose and general spelling mistakes. Spelling, whether we admit this to ourselves or not, has a lot to do with how we're perceived when it's so visible in emails, forums, twitters, blogs, etc. Why *wouldn't* someone want to be as precise as possible?

It's not the spelling-errors themselves which bother me as much as the anti-intellectualism I sometimes see when the spelling is corrected. Here are some of the excuses I've heard:

'You can understand me, right?'

Yes, I fucking understand you, but what I am not telling you as that I have determined that you're uneducated, lack attention-to-detail and are probably not a reader, but I didn't tell you that.

Here's another good one: 'Who cares, you don't spell everything right either' (as they scour months of posts to find the slightest typo, as if that fixes the glaring ignorance leaping off the page from their posts and response to a simple spelling-correction).

Another favorite is, 'it was a typo' when months of logged-conversation show the same spelling mistakes, over and over. Sorry mate, a typo is a mechanical malfunction of your fingers, not a recurring error...that comes from your brain.

Another doozy is, 'I just spell like that to save time'. I see, nothing like typing like a moron to save a little time, learning bad habits which might come through when you really need to spell correctly. Yeah, good thing you saved those collective 2 minutes over the course of your Internet life because we all know you have to catch that private jet to the summit meeting....or maybe PornHub.

See, the response to 'Hey you spelled that wrong, here's how you spell it right' should NOT be more fucking ignorance. This just makes the person look ignorant and on top of that, militantly-ignorant. If someone points out a piece of crap on my car, do I scream at them about their car being dirty, and does that help my piece of crap? Should I distract them saying I am 'cleaning disabled' even though my car looks pretty good otherwise? Or, do I secretly wipe the dung off and pretend it was never there? NO.

I'd thank them, take care of the issue and move on. Spelling corrections (like any valid corrections) should be welcomed. Acknowledge it, fix it and never make the mistake again ever (unless you have the memory of a fucking gnat).

What bad spelling says to me, straight away, is much more than a simple mistake. It's the person not being observant, not being a reader (or they should notice correctly-spelled words being different than their own) and not pursuing accuracy. When that person is corrected and they react with ridiculous ruses or more ignorant distractions it just shows an inability or unwillingness to learn or improve. Somehow it seems like this would carry over into other areas of life and should be a red-flag.

With some jobs there is little room for error, and certainly no room to coddle mental-weakness or intellectual dishonesty. Sure, if you work in the business of religion, you're used to suspending your brain and not letting facts get in the way, but if you're a rocket-scientist you better fucking get it right, metric or imperial better be understood, you better get those decimal places right and don't act like a retarded asshat when a colleague corrects you (especially when you know he's right).

If one cannot accept the correction, then one is simply hiding from the truth and it's obvious. The person is embarrassed but chooses to react with anger in a silly attempt to distract the correcting party, and the distraction is obvious. In addition, the hostile reaction often does not result in any type of research and correction of said spelling and thus the person is clearly too dense to deal with simple words they use commonly, or too apathetic and lazy to bother.

I used to spell 'equation' like 'equasion'. Not an egregious error, but when discussing this in an email, I immediately noticed someone responding with 'equation'. I noticed their word didn't match mine so I looked it up. Yep, I was wrong, and had been spelling it wrong for 20 years! I fixed it and never spelled it wrong again since (barring typos). See? It's that simple. If you live long enough your spelling should be near perfect by the time you die of natural-causes, right? Shouldn't an observant person who cares about accuracy fix spelling pretty much the minute they notice others spelling it differently, assuming there's something to correct?

Words affect how people perceive you and effective language will let your thoughts flow better. Bad-spelling is confusing and/or distracting.

Here's an example:

'I had to much dessert!'.

OMG it's a trap! The word 'to' is used as a preposition, but in this example it's meant as an adverb to describe 'too much'. I was all ready for a preposition but it was a bait and switch! I had to backtrack and re-read the trick-sentence with the correct meaning. Sprinkle enough of these in a few paragraphs and it's annoying and distracting to the reader. The lack of effort and accuracy will quickly annoy people and could make them take their ideas less-seriously.

What also gets me is 'there, their, they're'. These are common words. Someone who is 30 had 20+ years to get this right. I mean, these are COMMON words. How difficult is it to get it right, and what is the downside of getting it wrong? Is it wrong to think someone is a fucking retard, lazy, unobservant, etc. when he/she gets this wrong *consistently*? Harsh, I know.

When one is corrected about spelling, and it's verified as a good correction but the person continues the bad spelling...that is not just a mistake. It's anti-intellectual, plain and simple. Sadly, it seems fairly common nowadays, and not just with spelling.

/rant.

If you find any spelling errors, please let me know because I will thank you. Seriously.


-dB-

The Out Campaign: A is for atheist.

I've decided to come out of the closet. No, I'm not gay, but some of my best friends are. ;)

Instead, I'm posting on my blog as an atheist, with 'atheist' in the title even though it's visible to prospective clients or employers. Shows to go ya how hated a minority we are when gay people are out without (much) incident, but atheists are still heavily closeted. I am all for equal-rights too and I am glad to see social-progress, but it sucks being in what is likely the world's most- hated minority group.

It's kind of a big deal, because I always have the fear that clients/employers will run screaming from the hills when they discover my atheism, though I'd taken great pains to hide it in the recent past.

The 'Out Campaign' was started by Richard Dawkins as a way to get atheists to come out and be seen, especially by other atheists who might come out as well. This could trigger an avalanche of awareness and acceptance similar to the gay movement. As more atheists leave their hiding places more people will realize that we're everywhere, and that's hard to ignore.

Atheists comprise a huge minority, and the fastest growing one in America. 16% in the U.S. alone are atheists or non-religious which is a staggering 49 million Americans. This outnumbers other minority groups like Catholics, Jews, even black people (not all of you are from Africa, I know). ;) We're your brother, sister, father, mother, friend, doctor, teacher and your video game artists specializing-in but not-limited to characters, specifically modeling and texturing.

Atheists have been so closeted and disorganized that we haven't been able to flex our political might to get merely equal treatment. In the vacuum of oppression, some have stepped in to try and foist religion into government and into our rights, and yes, even the rights of other believers. A better-organized group of un-closeted non-believers would be more effective at resisting religous tyranny, if nothing else, at the grass-roots level, because conversations do change minds (that's how I became an atheist in the first place). But, the first step is coming out. To that end, I urge fellow non-believers to check out Richard Dawkins's Out Campaign.

We're here. We're atheists. Get used to it.


-dB-

Kathy Griffin's on my A-List

Kathy, I know you love your gays, but I think you should be asking, 'where are my atheists at' too, coz girlfriend you crack me up. *A-snap*.

Kathy Griffin loves to ruffle feathers, and we're not talking about gentle ribbing....she has a way of pointing out the ridiculous with unflinching directness and a sharp wit. Nobody is immune, Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan, the Olsen Twins, the Catholic church and yes, even mother-scratchin' Jesus.

Thank goodness some celebrities out there have the gumption to be openly-non-religious or at least, mock religion. Religion has slandered everyone for thousands of year without restraint. I can't say Kathy is a non-believer (she calls herself a fallen-Catholic), but you can bet non-believers love her schtick, and I am one of them. I especially love when she calls the kid-fuckers out...it's pure comedy gold.

Award shows should not be a place for believers to force a captive audience to listen to their fairy-tale explanations of how a superbeing blessed them with the award, to the exception of other qualified candidates. It's the height of arrogance to dismiss the efforts of musicians, record companies, managers, agents, promoters and even the street team as the simple act of some invisible space-monster. So what is it, you can't win an award through your own talent and efforts?

Kathy Griffin refreshingly broke this trend. Here is her Emmy-acceptance speech, which was purged from the telecast-version:

'"A lot of people come up here and thank Jesus for this award. I want you to know that no one had less to do with this award than Jesus. Suck it, Jesus. This award is my god now."

Fuckin-A that was ballsy, and it's no surprise that sensitive-space-pixie worshippers yet again will censor dissent. It's about time someone told it like it is. Kathy didn't just refrain from mentioning a diety like others who don't preach during acceptance speeches or believe in such a thing, she explicitly said a diety, namely 'Jesus' had nothing to do with the award. Mad props.

Kathy, and you're on my 'A' list. Thanks for having the courage to be different and make this atheist laugh in the process. The Catholic League might be some schmuck behind a computer, but atheists in this country exceed 33 million based on the latest poll figures. We outnumber the Kid-Fuckers™!.

You are not alone, and thanks for telling it like it is!


-dB-

Millionaire GoldDigger Matchmaker!

Ok.

So, I understand some guys are rich, like rich enough to be called millionaires. Great. Why any of them would actually use the 'Millionaire Matchmaker' service is beyond me. I mean, women can smell money, and few things are more attractive to them than money, right? Yes, of course they love money (even if they deny it). It represents power, freedom, indepedence from a crushing 9-5, freedom from oppressive bosses and few worries about paying the gas bill.

So, why on Earth would some guy put the Golddiggers™ of the world on notice that he's ready to be fleeced? Maybe the women who sign up to meet millionaires through this service are just looking for a true love, you know, the simple life where important needs are met.

This suit is NOT black.

Like zombies slowly convening on their prey, these gold-diggers close in on their targets, brushing aside red-flags to hopefully develop genuine feelings for a rich guy. Makes sense right? Why fall in love with a poor guy if you can work toward the lap of luxury, get on MTV's 'Cribs' with your front-and-faced energy drinks or better yet, start your own clothing line (along with all the other housewives who married rich and suddenly became fashion-designers).

To make it worse, the emasculating Chrissy Somers lookalike biatch that runs the service is telling these guys, accomplished millionaires, how to date? We're not just talking ideas, we're talking about specific instructions about where to go, what to talk about (or not talk about) and when to start laying out the bucks for 'nice' dinners?

Here's an idea, just match me up with a gold-digger and shut the fuck up! These guys can do their own talking, after all, they made a million bucks before they met you, right? How the fuck are these guys supposed to find out how wack-a-doo these chicks are without actually discussing anything important, like religion or politics? What, is the guy supposed to be engaged with a caterer hired before he's allowed to find out the airhead he's dating practices Santeria, has a knitting-bee social with psychic ghost-hunters or likes to protest abortion clinics on weekends while listening to Rush Limbaugh podcasts?

If I were one of these rich dudes and single, I'd be stealth-rich. Walk around like a poor bastard in some beaten-down Datsun B210 straight outta 1975, wearing an old pink Izod (collar up LOL) and rockin' Tiffany's 'I think we're alone now' on my stereo cassette player as I pull up. Maybe even a Flock-of-Seagulls hair-do to top it all off. Let's see how far they 'run....run so far awayyyy'.

I figure that would be a good filter....better than two bitches on my jock coz I made some money. Forget Millionaire Matchmaker.

How about Thousandaire Matchmaker? Might be more interesting.


-dB-

I present to you, me.

Greetings from the atheist angle!

This blog is a no-holds-barred assault against all things retarded, ridiculous, oppressive, half-assed and anything which pisses me off, all from an atheist perspective. Commenters (even theists) are welcome, but fair warning, you'll probably be offended at some point, even if you're laughing at the same time. ;) Don't worry, I know some of you enjoy being offended a little now and then. Reminds ya that you're alive, right? Just try not to snort too loud at work.

Unfortunately, I've ranted in many inappropriate places trying to fix the world. I finally wised-up and got a Blog so I can properly rant to my heart's content (to the chagrin of many and cheers of a few).

Be it known that this blog may costs me jobs, freelance work, friends and a political career, but I do it all for you, dear reader.

Let the vitriol commence!

<3


--