Millionaire Matchmaker: Ok, I already knew Patti Stanger was an excitable nutbag, but now she's hectoring one of her millionairesses to get her 'Chakras' aligned with 'crystal healing', as if something was wrong with her client's personality AND as if this wacknut new age woo woo could remotely do anything about it.
The woman is a millionaire you stupid dolt, she doesn't need your crackerjack bullshit! Go back to being a Madame for gold-diggers and giving your mixed-metaphor nutball advice as your brain struggles to keep up with your mouth. ;)
Real Housewives of Atlanta: Amazing. Cigarette-sucking Kim Zolciak still doesn't know she can't sing, and to top it off, Kandi is saying Kim screwed her out of the earnings promised from her production work on 'Tardy for the Party', even though Kandi graciously let it go. Now, Kim's saying she doesn't like Kandi's new song written for her, but the reality is, there's no way in Hell Kim can sing it even with AuToTuNe hard at work. Hmmm, maybe Kandi is giving Kim a little public payback for her lack of appreciation? 'Sing this, bitch!' LOL.
Kim, I Googled you, and I guess the song didn't mean a thing eh? You should pay Kandi what you owe her for making you famous. I guess money can't buy you talent (or a work ethic).
Meanwhile, Kandi had Sheree's hairdresser Lawrence in for a production session and despite those 'grown lady bills', the man can sing! I see great things for them to come. Kandi, for all her grammy-winning talent deserves someone who actually likes to sing and puts the effort in.
Sheree's dancing is bad as Kim's singing, and I think she's just as delusional about how good she is. Ugh, it was painful to watch....and judging from her partner's face, he seemed to agree.
-dB-
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Monday, October 11, 2010
Point of Inquiry: PZ Myers vs. Jennifer Michael Hecht and Chris Mooney
Point of Inquiry's latest podcast featured biologist and atheist blogger PZ Myers discussing accomodationism with host Jennifer Michael Hecht and Chris Mooney. It quickly turned into a two-on-one debate with PZ holding his own (and his apparent temper) quite well.
Here's the link: http://pointofinquiry.libsyn.com/rss
The core of the issue is this: Should atheists be nicer to theists about their incorrect ideas, simply because they might be liberal, progressive, or even scientists advancing some of the same causes in the realm of science education and critical-thinking?
For example, does Dr. Francis Collins, the former head of the human genome project and now head of the National Institute for Science get a 'free pass' from is nutball brand of theism?
PZ was totally right on the money essentially saying that no idea is exempt from scrutiny.
Simply because we're in majority agreement with someone is no 'free pass' for bad ideas. I may think highly of someone, but if he/she claims to be psychic or sincerely advances some other woo, the skeptical boxing gloves come out and my opponent better be ready. I don't see god claims as any different or less erroneous than claims about homeopathy, acupuncture, Autism-vaccine stupidity, moon-hoax claims and the Chupacabra.
Jennifer Michael Hecht made a vague accusation to PZ that 'you might be a little wrong', but this is a statement that doesn't make any specific claim against PZ. Instead, she is defending a straw-audience of people she has deemed too delicate to handle the scrutiny of claims that she herself has rejected.
Despite the lighter tone of accomodationist atheists, they've rejected Biblical claims as much as PZ or Richard Dawkins and according to many Bibles, are going to a Hell that's just as hot. After all, Psalms 14:1 does not just call the 'aggressive atheists' fools, it deems us all fools and claims we've done abominable works and that none of us has done good.
Why would someone who rejects religious claims fret about the tone of another atheist who openly rejects the same claims, for an unspecified audience? In my view, it's a gross underestimation of the resilience of people who CAN handle hearing a tone she thinks is too much for them. So, while PZ might seem too harsh to some, Chris Mooney and Jennifer Michael Hecht simply underestimate people and their ability to deal with dissent, but they're all atheists who probably arrived at their conclusions in different ways.
It's like me strongly rejecting racist claims, and then some fellow-racist-denier says, 'hey, don't you think you're being a little harsh on the racists?'. Yes, because racism is wrong, and it needs to be resisted, but the racists would likely take offense to either of our arguments. Style be damned, the message is the same, and some styles work better for some than others.
This issue here is not being 'a little wrong', it's about specific claims and how no erroneous idea is exempt from scrutiny. Why all the fuss about tone between people who agree that no religion they've heard to date is worth believing?
How do the memes of religion spread in the first place? Why are so many people currently infected with bad cases of religion? Most people were simply told to believe the religious ideas they're infected with, and often at a young age where these bad ideas bypass their undeveloped logic.
The voices which might object to these claims have either been silenced, excluded, drowned-out by the masses and sometimes outright killed. Why on Earth in 2010 should theists expect any special treatment when religion brought us hundreds of years of Dark Ages, and continues to be a blight on progress?
While Jennifer Michael Hecht and Chris Mooney on Point of Inquiry are both atheists, they seem to somehow want to avoid 'offending' theists, especially those who are 'on our side' when it comes key issues such as reproductive rights, evolution, science in general, etc.
The mistake Jennifer and Chris make is that they wrongly assume that most theists (or people) necessarily shut down when 'offended', assuming they're offended at all by mere skepticism.
Some people can handle direct confrontation of even their most sacred ideas, and others want to kill us for merely drawing cartoons or even just admitting to being insufficiently pious, let alone an atheist. If we encourage logical accomodation, then we dim the voices of dissent, and I think that's an exceedingly bad idea when unchecked religion can inspire such suffering.
The Christian Bible even says that atheists are 'fools' and that there are 'none that doeth good' in Psalms 14:1, and some christians actually call this the 'good book'! Sorry, what was that about tone again? Islam recommends death for any who leave Islam and has a practice where women are oppressed, worth half of a man and sometimes killed to 'restore honor' if they get raped, date the wrong person or not properly covered with the Hijab, Abaya and Burqa. Sorry, what was that about tone?
As we've seen, Islam motivates its adherents to 'slay the Infidel', and people such as Kurt Westergaard or Molly Norris are threatened with death for drawing the 'offensive' cartoons about Mohammad, and there's already been an attempt on Kurt Westergaard's life...good thing he had a special saferoom installed in his house. Theo Van Gogh wasn't so lucky, he was murdered for his movie about Islam called 'Submission', and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, his partner, is still under armed guard.
Historically, there's a common theme with religion: It likes to silence its opposition. The answer is not less skepticism or 'nicer' skepticism but to stay the course. What we're seeing is two different worlds: Islam is how the world is when religion has too much power. Unchecked dogma leads not just hurt feelings but outright suppression of dissent.
While Christianity is more reformed, its adherents often encourage dissenters to be silent either because they consider it rude, impious, blasphemous and otherwise uncomfortable to deal with...but there was a time when Christianity's answer to 'heresy' and 'blasphemy' was oppression or death....kind of where Islam is now. We can thank skeptics and science for the reform forced on Christianity, and that same skeptical fortitude will eventually tame Islam but it won't go quietly into the night.
Skepticism and critical-thinking should be employed early and often, regardless of who it offends. The fact is, sometimes you get through to people whether its the more aggressive forms of atheism from Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris or PZ Myers, or the accomodationist styles of Jennifer Michael Hecht or Chris Mooney. Reason works, but only if someone has agreed to honor reason over dogma. Failing that, ridicule is often a good counter for those being dishonest with their foundational assumptions or who refuse to acknowledge a lost point.
There will *always* be those offended by atheists or even skeptics whether we simply identify as such, wear a Darwin shirt or bring scathing critique in full-length, best-selling books. We need to encourage critical-thought and not further foster the silly idea that beliefs have merit just because they're sincerely held. Beliefs have to be justified, and nobody and more importantly, *no idea* is exempt from this. No belief should be respected merely because it's sincerely-held, just as we wouldn't respect the sincere beliefs of racists, sexists, homophobes, Creationists, anti-vaxxers, birthers, moon-hoaxers or those who claim to have a private audience with space-pixies.
Personally, I am very grateful for the person who openly-questioned my sincere Christian beliefs when I was 20. A month later, I was an atheist. My de-conversion was exceedingly fast (with some emotional upheaval), but I know others who I've personally helped de-convert who also became atheists rather quickly once the logic set-in. I have an aggressive skeptical style which doesn't tolerate logical inconsistency that well since I tend to see it as dishonesty.
If that person many years ago hadn't had the intestinal fortitude to question my beliefs, I might be posting a Christian blog entry today. I'd have much less respect for someone who lets me languish in the land of delusion simply because he or she didn't want to hurt my feelings...and put his/her personal comfort over facts.
Those who sacrifice personal comfort to question your assumptions are actually doing you a favor. The proper tack here is not to suppress critical-review, but to embrace it, check your assumptions, and be glad we can actually have a conversation without being burned at the stake for heresy.
-dB-
Here's the link: http://pointofinquiry.libsyn.com/rss
The core of the issue is this: Should atheists be nicer to theists about their incorrect ideas, simply because they might be liberal, progressive, or even scientists advancing some of the same causes in the realm of science education and critical-thinking?
For example, does Dr. Francis Collins, the former head of the human genome project and now head of the National Institute for Science get a 'free pass' from is nutball brand of theism?
PZ was totally right on the money essentially saying that no idea is exempt from scrutiny.
Simply because we're in majority agreement with someone is no 'free pass' for bad ideas. I may think highly of someone, but if he/she claims to be psychic or sincerely advances some other woo, the skeptical boxing gloves come out and my opponent better be ready. I don't see god claims as any different or less erroneous than claims about homeopathy, acupuncture, Autism-vaccine stupidity, moon-hoax claims and the Chupacabra.
Jennifer Michael Hecht made a vague accusation to PZ that 'you might be a little wrong', but this is a statement that doesn't make any specific claim against PZ. Instead, she is defending a straw-audience of people she has deemed too delicate to handle the scrutiny of claims that she herself has rejected.
Despite the lighter tone of accomodationist atheists, they've rejected Biblical claims as much as PZ or Richard Dawkins and according to many Bibles, are going to a Hell that's just as hot. After all, Psalms 14:1 does not just call the 'aggressive atheists' fools, it deems us all fools and claims we've done abominable works and that none of us has done good.
Why would someone who rejects religious claims fret about the tone of another atheist who openly rejects the same claims, for an unspecified audience? In my view, it's a gross underestimation of the resilience of people who CAN handle hearing a tone she thinks is too much for them. So, while PZ might seem too harsh to some, Chris Mooney and Jennifer Michael Hecht simply underestimate people and their ability to deal with dissent, but they're all atheists who probably arrived at their conclusions in different ways.
It's like me strongly rejecting racist claims, and then some fellow-racist-denier says, 'hey, don't you think you're being a little harsh on the racists?'. Yes, because racism is wrong, and it needs to be resisted, but the racists would likely take offense to either of our arguments. Style be damned, the message is the same, and some styles work better for some than others.
This issue here is not being 'a little wrong', it's about specific claims and how no erroneous idea is exempt from scrutiny. Why all the fuss about tone between people who agree that no religion they've heard to date is worth believing?
How do the memes of religion spread in the first place? Why are so many people currently infected with bad cases of religion? Most people were simply told to believe the religious ideas they're infected with, and often at a young age where these bad ideas bypass their undeveloped logic.
The voices which might object to these claims have either been silenced, excluded, drowned-out by the masses and sometimes outright killed. Why on Earth in 2010 should theists expect any special treatment when religion brought us hundreds of years of Dark Ages, and continues to be a blight on progress?
While Jennifer Michael Hecht and Chris Mooney on Point of Inquiry are both atheists, they seem to somehow want to avoid 'offending' theists, especially those who are 'on our side' when it comes key issues such as reproductive rights, evolution, science in general, etc.
The mistake Jennifer and Chris make is that they wrongly assume that most theists (or people) necessarily shut down when 'offended', assuming they're offended at all by mere skepticism.
Some people can handle direct confrontation of even their most sacred ideas, and others want to kill us for merely drawing cartoons or even just admitting to being insufficiently pious, let alone an atheist. If we encourage logical accomodation, then we dim the voices of dissent, and I think that's an exceedingly bad idea when unchecked religion can inspire such suffering.
The Christian Bible even says that atheists are 'fools' and that there are 'none that doeth good' in Psalms 14:1, and some christians actually call this the 'good book'! Sorry, what was that about tone again? Islam recommends death for any who leave Islam and has a practice where women are oppressed, worth half of a man and sometimes killed to 'restore honor' if they get raped, date the wrong person or not properly covered with the Hijab, Abaya and Burqa. Sorry, what was that about tone?
As we've seen, Islam motivates its adherents to 'slay the Infidel', and people such as Kurt Westergaard or Molly Norris are threatened with death for drawing the 'offensive' cartoons about Mohammad, and there's already been an attempt on Kurt Westergaard's life...good thing he had a special saferoom installed in his house. Theo Van Gogh wasn't so lucky, he was murdered for his movie about Islam called 'Submission', and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, his partner, is still under armed guard.
Historically, there's a common theme with religion: It likes to silence its opposition. The answer is not less skepticism or 'nicer' skepticism but to stay the course. What we're seeing is two different worlds: Islam is how the world is when religion has too much power. Unchecked dogma leads not just hurt feelings but outright suppression of dissent.
While Christianity is more reformed, its adherents often encourage dissenters to be silent either because they consider it rude, impious, blasphemous and otherwise uncomfortable to deal with...but there was a time when Christianity's answer to 'heresy' and 'blasphemy' was oppression or death....kind of where Islam is now. We can thank skeptics and science for the reform forced on Christianity, and that same skeptical fortitude will eventually tame Islam but it won't go quietly into the night.
Skepticism and critical-thinking should be employed early and often, regardless of who it offends. The fact is, sometimes you get through to people whether its the more aggressive forms of atheism from Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris or PZ Myers, or the accomodationist styles of Jennifer Michael Hecht or Chris Mooney. Reason works, but only if someone has agreed to honor reason over dogma. Failing that, ridicule is often a good counter for those being dishonest with their foundational assumptions or who refuse to acknowledge a lost point.
There will *always* be those offended by atheists or even skeptics whether we simply identify as such, wear a Darwin shirt or bring scathing critique in full-length, best-selling books. We need to encourage critical-thought and not further foster the silly idea that beliefs have merit just because they're sincerely held. Beliefs have to be justified, and nobody and more importantly, *no idea* is exempt from this. No belief should be respected merely because it's sincerely-held, just as we wouldn't respect the sincere beliefs of racists, sexists, homophobes, Creationists, anti-vaxxers, birthers, moon-hoaxers or those who claim to have a private audience with space-pixies.
Personally, I am very grateful for the person who openly-questioned my sincere Christian beliefs when I was 20. A month later, I was an atheist. My de-conversion was exceedingly fast (with some emotional upheaval), but I know others who I've personally helped de-convert who also became atheists rather quickly once the logic set-in. I have an aggressive skeptical style which doesn't tolerate logical inconsistency that well since I tend to see it as dishonesty.
If that person many years ago hadn't had the intestinal fortitude to question my beliefs, I might be posting a Christian blog entry today. I'd have much less respect for someone who lets me languish in the land of delusion simply because he or she didn't want to hurt my feelings...and put his/her personal comfort over facts.
Those who sacrifice personal comfort to question your assumptions are actually doing you a favor. The proper tack here is not to suppress critical-review, but to embrace it, check your assumptions, and be glad we can actually have a conversation without being burned at the stake for heresy.
-dB-
Monday, September 13, 2010
The 'Mosque' at 'Ground Zero'. Yay or Nay?
There's been lots of talk surrounding the issue of the proposed Cultural Center two blocks away from Ground Zero, which is the site of the World Trade Center twin-towers destroyed in the 2001 9/11 attacks. The proposed center would have a Muslim prayer area inside (with other religions represented), and is explained as something intended to 'heal wounds'.
Despite this seemingly-innocent proclamation, the idea of a Muslim-proposed center two blocks from Ground Zero (actually on Ground Zero, if we count all areas damaged in the attacks), is going to make things *worse* for many, and it appears about 64% of New Yorkers are against the proposed construction.
To me, the religious Cultural Center doesn't come across as a means to heal or unite, but as an Islamic exclamation point on a site they directly destroyed, inspired by beliefs in the Koran and cheered on by massed of Muslims in the Middle East (just watch some of the footage shown after the 9/11 attacks).
Whether we know it or not and whether we like it or not, America's motivation after 9/11 was a response to a declared holy war. It doesn't mean that all Muslims are equally culpable, but those who represent the idealogues who seek our destruction should not expect the same rights as everyone else during wartime. If nothing else, it's a good reason to delay or declare a moratorium on new construction for mosques near areas destroyed by the motivations of Islam. If nothing else, it's a security measure, or an attempt to prevent Americans from being demoralized during an active war with militarized factions of Islam.
Furthermore, if we understand correctly that Islam is part of the problem and not the solution to a problem it created, erecting any Muslim 'interfaith' structure so close to Ground Zero should be a repugnant idea to Muslim moderates and Americans, who were also injured in the 9/11 attacks. Strangely, we don't hear much from the Muslim 'moderates' regarding this.
A Mosque or 'Islamic Cultural Center' two blocks from Ground Zero would be like a proposed Shinto/Japanese shrine near the destroyed battleships in Pearl Harbor, or a Nazi community center near Auschwitz, Treblinka or Birkenau. While there may be a Constitutional provision for those who seek to build religious structures near sites destroyed by religious extremists, the city itself can simply disallow it under zoning laws, much the same way they'd prevent a Harley mechanic from setting up shop downtown between two fine-dining establishments.
If a city can zone for new construction based on noise, pollution and other concerns, why can't they make a case for those who represent enemy combatants which we're still at war with?
If nothing else, the community center would inflame and/or demoralize Americans, and serve as a 'victory' flag for Islam near a site which isn't even restored. Osama Bin Laden is still at-large and the stated endgame of Islam is to dominate all non-Muslims. The Koran instructs its adherents to treat Infidels roughly, and 'slay them wherever you find them'.
There's no reason to allow proponents of an unreformed 7th-century death-cult to build so close to Ground Zero during wartime, even if they're only apologists who might not be actively be at war, but are still preaching the same dogma which inspired the 19 terrorists and countless others who seek to destroy or dominate the free world.
The U.S. in the past has gone to great lengths to keep up morale during wartime, and yes, unfortunately, the U.S. is at war with militarized factions of Islam, and those who would support them. How did the 19 terrorists (sometimes called the 'Magnificent 19') have so much financial and moral support in the first place, and why did their own families celebrate their martyrdom? Why does the Middle East suffer no shortage of suicide bombers? It's not something peculiar to the location, but to Islam itself.
In the shadow of the site destroyed by the forces of Islam, do we allow Muslims to build their 'community' center, when religion was precisely the cause of the as yet unrestored World Trade Center, with Osama Bin Laden still at large during a time of war? I say, no, at least, not yet, and perhaps, not there or both.
I think this is why so many Americans are conflicted about this proposed community center. They understand that Constitutionally, there's no reason to disallow it. However, we're at war with militarized factions of radical Islam. We weren't attacked by Mormons, swedes, stamp collectors or people who hate cauliflower. We were attacked and continue to be attacked by those directly-inspired by Islam, with support from others who aren't actively fighting the war.
During war-time, not every citizen is in battle carrying a gun or driving a tank, but as a nation, we aim to win wars, not lose them. If we're going to fight a war, whether we agree with it or not, we should aim to win or not fight at all.
As long as Islam has declared war on the U.S. and the west, and since 9/11 already happened, and with Osama Bin Laden still at large, I say, all bets are off.
During war-time, we don't always have the same rights we'd expect during peacetime, and this would apply to those trying to build a Shinto Shrine in 1948 near the destruction of Pearl Harbor. This proposal would be made more repugnant if the area still hadn't been restored and Japan still hadn't surrendered, and we were still at war as a response to the Pearl Harbor attacks on December 7th, 1941, with enemy number one still at large.
We can consider Ground Zero to be somewhat of a crime scene. Just like any crime scene which is taped-off barring entry as a matter of security and investigation, America can decide where those boundaries are with regard to Ground Zero, and the zoning which is enacted with regard to new construction should fall under the purview of national security and American morale.
This is not to say that mosques shouldn't be built anywhere, just that it's up to the city where to draw the 'crime' scene tape, and this might apply to all new religious construction in that area. Since religion got us in this mess, it would make sense during a time of war to have a moratorium on new religious construction in the area, at least till the war is over, Osama is captured and Ground Zero is restored. If nothing else, the timing is all wrong, and the location is suspect.
If there's to be any new structure built, I would recommend not a religious community center, but a secular museum *for everyone* which pays tribute to those who died (and survived). This museum could demonstrate the danger of religious dogma and irrational hatred, similar to Holocaust museums which remind us of the dangers of our own human frailties, ignorance, and capability for destruction.
This would help heal wounds, and wouldn't be perceived as a flag planted by Islam on the soil of their destruction.
-dB-
Despite this seemingly-innocent proclamation, the idea of a Muslim-proposed center two blocks from Ground Zero (actually on Ground Zero, if we count all areas damaged in the attacks), is going to make things *worse* for many, and it appears about 64% of New Yorkers are against the proposed construction.
To me, the religious Cultural Center doesn't come across as a means to heal or unite, but as an Islamic exclamation point on a site they directly destroyed, inspired by beliefs in the Koran and cheered on by massed of Muslims in the Middle East (just watch some of the footage shown after the 9/11 attacks).
Whether we know it or not and whether we like it or not, America's motivation after 9/11 was a response to a declared holy war. It doesn't mean that all Muslims are equally culpable, but those who represent the idealogues who seek our destruction should not expect the same rights as everyone else during wartime. If nothing else, it's a good reason to delay or declare a moratorium on new construction for mosques near areas destroyed by the motivations of Islam. If nothing else, it's a security measure, or an attempt to prevent Americans from being demoralized during an active war with militarized factions of Islam.
Furthermore, if we understand correctly that Islam is part of the problem and not the solution to a problem it created, erecting any Muslim 'interfaith' structure so close to Ground Zero should be a repugnant idea to Muslim moderates and Americans, who were also injured in the 9/11 attacks. Strangely, we don't hear much from the Muslim 'moderates' regarding this.
A Mosque or 'Islamic Cultural Center' two blocks from Ground Zero would be like a proposed Shinto/Japanese shrine near the destroyed battleships in Pearl Harbor, or a Nazi community center near Auschwitz, Treblinka or Birkenau. While there may be a Constitutional provision for those who seek to build religious structures near sites destroyed by religious extremists, the city itself can simply disallow it under zoning laws, much the same way they'd prevent a Harley mechanic from setting up shop downtown between two fine-dining establishments.
If a city can zone for new construction based on noise, pollution and other concerns, why can't they make a case for those who represent enemy combatants which we're still at war with?
If nothing else, the community center would inflame and/or demoralize Americans, and serve as a 'victory' flag for Islam near a site which isn't even restored. Osama Bin Laden is still at-large and the stated endgame of Islam is to dominate all non-Muslims. The Koran instructs its adherents to treat Infidels roughly, and 'slay them wherever you find them'.
There's no reason to allow proponents of an unreformed 7th-century death-cult to build so close to Ground Zero during wartime, even if they're only apologists who might not be actively be at war, but are still preaching the same dogma which inspired the 19 terrorists and countless others who seek to destroy or dominate the free world.
The U.S. in the past has gone to great lengths to keep up morale during wartime, and yes, unfortunately, the U.S. is at war with militarized factions of Islam, and those who would support them. How did the 19 terrorists (sometimes called the 'Magnificent 19') have so much financial and moral support in the first place, and why did their own families celebrate their martyrdom? Why does the Middle East suffer no shortage of suicide bombers? It's not something peculiar to the location, but to Islam itself.
In the shadow of the site destroyed by the forces of Islam, do we allow Muslims to build their 'community' center, when religion was precisely the cause of the as yet unrestored World Trade Center, with Osama Bin Laden still at large during a time of war? I say, no, at least, not yet, and perhaps, not there or both.
I think this is why so many Americans are conflicted about this proposed community center. They understand that Constitutionally, there's no reason to disallow it. However, we're at war with militarized factions of radical Islam. We weren't attacked by Mormons, swedes, stamp collectors or people who hate cauliflower. We were attacked and continue to be attacked by those directly-inspired by Islam, with support from others who aren't actively fighting the war.
During war-time, not every citizen is in battle carrying a gun or driving a tank, but as a nation, we aim to win wars, not lose them. If we're going to fight a war, whether we agree with it or not, we should aim to win or not fight at all.
As long as Islam has declared war on the U.S. and the west, and since 9/11 already happened, and with Osama Bin Laden still at large, I say, all bets are off.
During war-time, we don't always have the same rights we'd expect during peacetime, and this would apply to those trying to build a Shinto Shrine in 1948 near the destruction of Pearl Harbor. This proposal would be made more repugnant if the area still hadn't been restored and Japan still hadn't surrendered, and we were still at war as a response to the Pearl Harbor attacks on December 7th, 1941, with enemy number one still at large.
We can consider Ground Zero to be somewhat of a crime scene. Just like any crime scene which is taped-off barring entry as a matter of security and investigation, America can decide where those boundaries are with regard to Ground Zero, and the zoning which is enacted with regard to new construction should fall under the purview of national security and American morale.
This is not to say that mosques shouldn't be built anywhere, just that it's up to the city where to draw the 'crime' scene tape, and this might apply to all new religious construction in that area. Since religion got us in this mess, it would make sense during a time of war to have a moratorium on new religious construction in the area, at least till the war is over, Osama is captured and Ground Zero is restored. If nothing else, the timing is all wrong, and the location is suspect.
If there's to be any new structure built, I would recommend not a religious community center, but a secular museum *for everyone* which pays tribute to those who died (and survived). This museum could demonstrate the danger of religious dogma and irrational hatred, similar to Holocaust museums which remind us of the dangers of our own human frailties, ignorance, and capability for destruction.
This would help heal wounds, and wouldn't be perceived as a flag planted by Islam on the soil of their destruction.
-dB-
Friday, September 10, 2010
Koran Cookout
Pastor Terry Jones of Gainesville Florida had planned a Koranic cookout on Saturday, 9/11, which would be the 9th anniversary of the September 11 attacks by Muslim extremists.
All Terry Jones wants to do is burn some privately-owned Korans as a form of protest, a protected-right in America. It's destructive, but it's also powerful symbolism.
Let's keep things in perspective here. On 9/11/2001, 19 members of an Islamic death cult, driven by their religious ideas and with religious rituals the night before (including shaving their body hair to enter Islamic paradise) used our own American civilian-filled planes as missiles, taking out important symbolic targets such as the World Trade Center, damaging the Pentagon (our seat of national security), were probably going to attempt to take out the White House, and killed thousands of Americans and started what is effectively a holy war. Cheering crowds in the middle east celebrated their 'victory' over the west, including members of the marty's families, as the death of a martyr in Islam helps secure a spot in Paradise for his family. If this was just a group of rogue extremists, how were they so well funded, celebrated so widely, and where were the outcries from Muslim 'moderates' afterward?
Are people actually concerned about the symbolic and *legal* Koran-burning by some Pastor on the 9th anniversary of 9/11?
Again, this is powerful symbolism, but the reason we need to allow this freedom of speech and protest is because while I may not exactly with Pastor Jones's reasoning (or his own wacky faith), I do feel Islam needs to be reminded that their laws don't apply to secular America, nor do they apply to individuals who disagree with them.
The fact that Muslims often will kill to intimidate others into submission is all the more reason to never back down to their threats. You can't make an army of those who follow a death cult happier by submitting to their Draconian laws, and they're already plenty motivated to destroy those who oppose them.
A symbolic protest-burning of the Koran 9 years after the 9/11 attacks is by no means going to fuel any more fires than are already fueled by the ongoing war. What do we care if our enemy combatants are offended? We're already at war with the militarized forces of Islam *because* of the 9/11 attacks, and let's not forget, they tried to take out the World Trade Center in 1993...it was just lucky for us that they failed. A legal protest by one American and his church-group is little to be concerned about.
9/11 already happened and we've been at war for years, and Osama Bin Laden remains at large. We are currently in a holy war with Islam (even if people wish it weren't the case). While not all Muslims are extremists, moderate Muslims should understand the symbolism behind Paster Jones's upcoming Koranic BBQ, and American Muslims who understand our rights as Americans known that book or flag burning (of your own private property) is protected 'speech'. Any reasonable Muslim should understand the situation we're in as a nation....and should be more concerned about reforming Islam than trying to silence its critics.
If someone wants to burn their own copies of the Bible, I say, go for it. If you want to burn your own copies of Darwin's 'Origin of Species', you have that right, even if I disagree with you.
While I generally disagree with this form of protest simply because I think it's a waste of paper and materials, I do understand the power of symbolism. Muslims are fond of burning effigies of Bush or Obama or the American flag. Desecration or symbolism is something they *understand*, perhaps this is why there's such an uproar.
The very fact that Muslims go ape-nuts crazy when their 7th century ideals are offended is all the more reason to never relent, lest they actually get what they want: Submission. This is what Islam literally means, 'Submission'. This was explained by Ibn Warraq, author of 'Why I am not a Muslim' and Parvin Darabi in her book, 'Rage Behind the Veil'. Both are former Muslims and who shed much-needed light on the real goings-on in Islam, which is the inside look at Islam the west often doesn't see (though we see the destruction inspired by it).
What is first a protest against book burning symbolism, a protected right in America, can easily become the protest against women not wearing Hijab, or any kind of Muslim criticism in books or other media. It is somewhat of a slippery slope, but modern day people with free-speech rights will *always* offend Islam. We have to understand that there's simply no way to avoid offending some radical Muslims, especially since we're at war with some of them and still trying to find Osama Bin Laden (unfinished business). To focus on minor offenses via free-speech is to miss the point. Islam needs to change and reform and join the rest of us in the 21st century. Like a spoiled child who finally receives discipline, it's ill-advised to refrain from discipline simply because they make a loud noise.
That said, let's remember that Muslims killed Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh for merely making a critical movie about Islam entitled 'Submission'. Van Gogh was stabbed through his chest and shot in the streets by a Muslim extremist. Ex-Muslim Ayaan Hirsi Ali wrote about this in her book, 'Infidel', and she is still under threat of death if certain Muslims find her due to her friendship and work with Mr. Van Gogh.
Some Muslims wanted to kill Salman Rushdie for writing 'Satanic Verses', and I am sure there are those who are still seeking to end his life, for merely believing enough in Islam to fulfill the fatwah for his death issued by Muslim leaders.
Cartoonists such as Danish Kurt Westergaard who dared portray the prophet Mohammed were threatened with death as well. Should we never dare draw Mohammed again? No.
The best way to combat this ridiculous extremism is to respond in large numbers and insist on defending our rights to free-expression....Islamic law does not apply to non-Muslims...especially those in free, secular countries like America.
While some people like Pastor Terry Jones seek to use their Constitutional rights to hold a Koran-burning in protest on 9/11, something I think many would understand, Muslims often seek to silence and kill those who offend them.
Muslims do not get to abridge the rights of non-Muslims, especially in a secular nation, simply because they're offended. As long as Islam is unreformed and killing people for merely expressing ideas, it's all the more reason to offend them early and often, and challenge their barbaric ideas and oppression at every turn.
All Terry Jones wants to do is burn some privately-owned Korans as a form of protest, a protected-right in America. It's destructive, but it's also powerful symbolism.
Let's keep things in perspective here. On 9/11/2001, 19 members of an Islamic death cult, driven by their religious ideas and with religious rituals the night before (including shaving their body hair to enter Islamic paradise) used our own American civilian-filled planes as missiles, taking out important symbolic targets such as the World Trade Center, damaging the Pentagon (our seat of national security), were probably going to attempt to take out the White House, and killed thousands of Americans and started what is effectively a holy war. Cheering crowds in the middle east celebrated their 'victory' over the west, including members of the marty's families, as the death of a martyr in Islam helps secure a spot in Paradise for his family. If this was just a group of rogue extremists, how were they so well funded, celebrated so widely, and where were the outcries from Muslim 'moderates' afterward?
Are people actually concerned about the symbolic and *legal* Koran-burning by some Pastor on the 9th anniversary of 9/11?
Again, this is powerful symbolism, but the reason we need to allow this freedom of speech and protest is because while I may not exactly with Pastor Jones's reasoning (or his own wacky faith), I do feel Islam needs to be reminded that their laws don't apply to secular America, nor do they apply to individuals who disagree with them.
The fact that Muslims often will kill to intimidate others into submission is all the more reason to never back down to their threats. You can't make an army of those who follow a death cult happier by submitting to their Draconian laws, and they're already plenty motivated to destroy those who oppose them.
A symbolic protest-burning of the Koran 9 years after the 9/11 attacks is by no means going to fuel any more fires than are already fueled by the ongoing war. What do we care if our enemy combatants are offended? We're already at war with the militarized forces of Islam *because* of the 9/11 attacks, and let's not forget, they tried to take out the World Trade Center in 1993...it was just lucky for us that they failed. A legal protest by one American and his church-group is little to be concerned about.
9/11 already happened and we've been at war for years, and Osama Bin Laden remains at large. We are currently in a holy war with Islam (even if people wish it weren't the case). While not all Muslims are extremists, moderate Muslims should understand the symbolism behind Paster Jones's upcoming Koranic BBQ, and American Muslims who understand our rights as Americans known that book or flag burning (of your own private property) is protected 'speech'. Any reasonable Muslim should understand the situation we're in as a nation....and should be more concerned about reforming Islam than trying to silence its critics.
If someone wants to burn their own copies of the Bible, I say, go for it. If you want to burn your own copies of Darwin's 'Origin of Species', you have that right, even if I disagree with you.
While I generally disagree with this form of protest simply because I think it's a waste of paper and materials, I do understand the power of symbolism. Muslims are fond of burning effigies of Bush or Obama or the American flag. Desecration or symbolism is something they *understand*, perhaps this is why there's such an uproar.
The very fact that Muslims go ape-nuts crazy when their 7th century ideals are offended is all the more reason to never relent, lest they actually get what they want: Submission. This is what Islam literally means, 'Submission'. This was explained by Ibn Warraq, author of 'Why I am not a Muslim' and Parvin Darabi in her book, 'Rage Behind the Veil'. Both are former Muslims and who shed much-needed light on the real goings-on in Islam, which is the inside look at Islam the west often doesn't see (though we see the destruction inspired by it).
What is first a protest against book burning symbolism, a protected right in America, can easily become the protest against women not wearing Hijab, or any kind of Muslim criticism in books or other media. It is somewhat of a slippery slope, but modern day people with free-speech rights will *always* offend Islam. We have to understand that there's simply no way to avoid offending some radical Muslims, especially since we're at war with some of them and still trying to find Osama Bin Laden (unfinished business). To focus on minor offenses via free-speech is to miss the point. Islam needs to change and reform and join the rest of us in the 21st century. Like a spoiled child who finally receives discipline, it's ill-advised to refrain from discipline simply because they make a loud noise.
That said, let's remember that Muslims killed Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh for merely making a critical movie about Islam entitled 'Submission'. Van Gogh was stabbed through his chest and shot in the streets by a Muslim extremist. Ex-Muslim Ayaan Hirsi Ali wrote about this in her book, 'Infidel', and she is still under threat of death if certain Muslims find her due to her friendship and work with Mr. Van Gogh.
Some Muslims wanted to kill Salman Rushdie for writing 'Satanic Verses', and I am sure there are those who are still seeking to end his life, for merely believing enough in Islam to fulfill the fatwah for his death issued by Muslim leaders.
Cartoonists such as Danish Kurt Westergaard who dared portray the prophet Mohammed were threatened with death as well. Should we never dare draw Mohammed again? No.
The best way to combat this ridiculous extremism is to respond in large numbers and insist on defending our rights to free-expression....Islamic law does not apply to non-Muslims...especially those in free, secular countries like America.
While some people like Pastor Terry Jones seek to use their Constitutional rights to hold a Koran-burning in protest on 9/11, something I think many would understand, Muslims often seek to silence and kill those who offend them.
Muslims do not get to abridge the rights of non-Muslims, especially in a secular nation, simply because they're offended. As long as Islam is unreformed and killing people for merely expressing ideas, it's all the more reason to offend them early and often, and challenge their barbaric ideas and oppression at every turn.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
California Prop H8 Overturned Today!
Today, from the U.S. District Court of San Francisco, Federal Judge Vaughn Walker overturned California's ban on same sex marriage in a 136-page decision. This ban was better known as Proposition 8 and was fiercely contested in the November 2008 presidential election.
While the victory is not yet complete (the legal process takes time), this is a serious blow to Prop 8, and a step toward homosexual couples finally having equal-rights with regard to marriage.
The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads as follows:
'Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.'
As it plainly states in Section 1, a State cannot abridge the rights of citizens, and U.S. Citizens who happen to be gay are still entitled to fair treatment under the law, despite the outdated 'moral' sensibilities of the religious or those who seek to suppress equal-rights for other reasons.
California's infamous Prop 8, aka 'Prop H8' was funded largely by the Mormon church out of Utah and other religious groups, raising nearly 40 million dollars to affect laws in California. It's no surprise that powerful forces representing various religions were once again, on the wrong side of civil rights as they have been throughout history.
Despite the fact that Judge Vaughn Walker was a Bush Sr. appointee, he made the right decision in overturning this unconstitutional ban on equal rights under the law for gay people. Apparently, a Republican-appointed judge can make socially progressive decisions, but more importantly, decisions which remain loyal to the U.S. Constitution and its amendments.
This is similar to Bush appointee Judge John E. Jones III's ruling against Creationists yet again trying to force their agenda into public schools (disguised as Intelligent Design), against the expectations of some Bush constituents. Jones decisively ruled against a public school district that required the presentation of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution, in the landmark 2005 Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial. This was yet another devastating loss for religious idealogues seeking to force their narrow brand of religious interpretation into law, at the expense of science and the American educational system.
There is simply no argument FOR Prop 8, banning same-sex marriage. The ban on same-sex marriage is a clear, unconstitutional violation of the 14th Amendment.
Here is what Los Angeles County Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich had to say about the ruling,
“To address the issues raised by the courts, Proposition 8 was placed on the ballot after Proposition 22 was deemed unconstitutional by the courts. It is clear that the Judge’s political correctness agenda prevailed at the expense of the will of the people. Ultimately, it will be up to the United States Supreme Court to uphold the constitutionality of Proposition 8. Thomas Jefferson warned that radical judicial activism would undermine the will of the people. He said, ‘When the people fear their government, there is tyranny.’ Today’s ruling was a direct assault to the over 4.5 million voters in 2000, and the over 7 million who turned out in 2008 to vote on this vital issue.”
What Antonovich is forgetting, is that Jefferson established church-state separation with his letter to the Danbury Baptists, and the arguments for Prop 8 have been almost entirely religious. There is no good, secular argument for the state to abridge the rights of a U.S. Citizen on the basis of sexual orientation, which isn't even something homosexuals can control any more than heterosexuals can. Since America enjoys church-state separation per the 1st Amendment to the first ever secular Constitution, religion has no weight in matters of law and is easily discarded as irrelevant.
Antonovich also fails to mention that America is not simple 'majority rule', as it once was the 'will of the people' to have slaves or abridge the rights of black Americans with Jim Crow laws in force from 1876 to 1965. It was once the will of the people to suppress women's rights, including the right to vote or even travel freely. It was the will of the majority to suppress the teaching of certain sciences, namely evolution, due to massive religious indoctrination and a majority representation.
Historically, the will of the majority has often been wrong about civil rights issues.
This is why we have three branches of government for checks and balances: the executive, judicial and legislative branch. What we saw in Judge Walker's decision was an upholding of the Constitution through the judicial system in order to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.
Issues of civil rights should not be up for popular vote in the first place.
Imagine a law banning black people from marrying white people. Actually, this used to be law and it had majority support, but it's no less unconstitutional than Prop 8.
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:
'Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibit the free excercise thereof'.
Few ideas make a government more fearsome than a commingling of religion and government, where Bronze-age superstition is allowed to affect all Americans as law, and religious ideas about marriage (and funding) have been the driving force behind Prop 8.
Religion, driven in large part by a religious temperance movement, caused the colossal failure known as Prohibition, which only served to make the alcohol trade highly-profitable and replete with organized crime.
We saw how ill-treated women have been due to religious ideas, and this happens today in unreformed Islam where women are routinely abused for nothing other than religious ideas. First, religion might seek to ban gay marriage, and next thing you know, moral police a la Islam are telling you who you can hold hands with, and where. Yes, this really happens in some theocracies around the world (including parts of Utah), and it's a stern reminder why America is a secular nation which does not, and should not, honor religious arguments which attempt to govern the lives of others.
Majority religion in America has interfered directly with science and progress, and has been on the wrong side of nearly every issue in living memory; civil rights (including slavery), women's rights, the rights of non-believers and gay rights, to name a few.
I believe that if any consenting-age citizen can marry, then all consenting-age citizens should necessarily enjoy this privilege. If any citizen can be a domestic partner, then any citizen should enjoy this right. The government has no business discriminating against variant consenting sexual relationships, even if it offends the sensibilities of the majority or the religious.
As a heterosexual male in a domestic-partnership for 12 years, I currently cannot enjoy domestic partner benefits recognized for same-sex partnerships under state law, and which would allow the sharing of health benefits. This is nothing less than unmarried couple discrimination (CA law only allows heterosexual domestic partnerships if one partner is 62 or older).
I don't like the idea of marriage, nor do I want to be railroaded into an unwieldy and legally-cumbersome tradition simply because the law discriminates against the type of consensual relationship I choose to have.
Thank you, Judge Vaughn Walker, for respecting the U.S. Constitution, and congratulations to all my GBLT friends who've made progress attaining equal-rights today.
There is a lot more work to do, and the wheels of justice turn slowly. These legal victories for civil rights and social progress set legal precedence for future victories, so this decision is an important one not to be dismissed simply because the process isn't yet complete.
Civil rights for those outside our immediate identification aren't just progress for others, it's progress for ALL of us.
-dB-
While the victory is not yet complete (the legal process takes time), this is a serious blow to Prop 8, and a step toward homosexual couples finally having equal-rights with regard to marriage.
The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads as follows:
'Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.'
As it plainly states in Section 1, a State cannot abridge the rights of citizens, and U.S. Citizens who happen to be gay are still entitled to fair treatment under the law, despite the outdated 'moral' sensibilities of the religious or those who seek to suppress equal-rights for other reasons.
California's infamous Prop 8, aka 'Prop H8' was funded largely by the Mormon church out of Utah and other religious groups, raising nearly 40 million dollars to affect laws in California. It's no surprise that powerful forces representing various religions were once again, on the wrong side of civil rights as they have been throughout history.
Despite the fact that Judge Vaughn Walker was a Bush Sr. appointee, he made the right decision in overturning this unconstitutional ban on equal rights under the law for gay people. Apparently, a Republican-appointed judge can make socially progressive decisions, but more importantly, decisions which remain loyal to the U.S. Constitution and its amendments.
This is similar to Bush appointee Judge John E. Jones III's ruling against Creationists yet again trying to force their agenda into public schools (disguised as Intelligent Design), against the expectations of some Bush constituents. Jones decisively ruled against a public school district that required the presentation of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution, in the landmark 2005 Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial. This was yet another devastating loss for religious idealogues seeking to force their narrow brand of religious interpretation into law, at the expense of science and the American educational system.
There is simply no argument FOR Prop 8, banning same-sex marriage. The ban on same-sex marriage is a clear, unconstitutional violation of the 14th Amendment.
Here is what Los Angeles County Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich had to say about the ruling,
“To address the issues raised by the courts, Proposition 8 was placed on the ballot after Proposition 22 was deemed unconstitutional by the courts. It is clear that the Judge’s political correctness agenda prevailed at the expense of the will of the people. Ultimately, it will be up to the United States Supreme Court to uphold the constitutionality of Proposition 8. Thomas Jefferson warned that radical judicial activism would undermine the will of the people. He said, ‘When the people fear their government, there is tyranny.’ Today’s ruling was a direct assault to the over 4.5 million voters in 2000, and the over 7 million who turned out in 2008 to vote on this vital issue.”
What Antonovich is forgetting, is that Jefferson established church-state separation with his letter to the Danbury Baptists, and the arguments for Prop 8 have been almost entirely religious. There is no good, secular argument for the state to abridge the rights of a U.S. Citizen on the basis of sexual orientation, which isn't even something homosexuals can control any more than heterosexuals can. Since America enjoys church-state separation per the 1st Amendment to the first ever secular Constitution, religion has no weight in matters of law and is easily discarded as irrelevant.
Antonovich also fails to mention that America is not simple 'majority rule', as it once was the 'will of the people' to have slaves or abridge the rights of black Americans with Jim Crow laws in force from 1876 to 1965. It was once the will of the people to suppress women's rights, including the right to vote or even travel freely. It was the will of the majority to suppress the teaching of certain sciences, namely evolution, due to massive religious indoctrination and a majority representation.
Historically, the will of the majority has often been wrong about civil rights issues.
This is why we have three branches of government for checks and balances: the executive, judicial and legislative branch. What we saw in Judge Walker's decision was an upholding of the Constitution through the judicial system in order to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.
Issues of civil rights should not be up for popular vote in the first place.
Imagine a law banning black people from marrying white people. Actually, this used to be law and it had majority support, but it's no less unconstitutional than Prop 8.
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:
'Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibit the free excercise thereof'.
Few ideas make a government more fearsome than a commingling of religion and government, where Bronze-age superstition is allowed to affect all Americans as law, and religious ideas about marriage (and funding) have been the driving force behind Prop 8.
Religion, driven in large part by a religious temperance movement, caused the colossal failure known as Prohibition, which only served to make the alcohol trade highly-profitable and replete with organized crime.
We saw how ill-treated women have been due to religious ideas, and this happens today in unreformed Islam where women are routinely abused for nothing other than religious ideas. First, religion might seek to ban gay marriage, and next thing you know, moral police a la Islam are telling you who you can hold hands with, and where. Yes, this really happens in some theocracies around the world (including parts of Utah), and it's a stern reminder why America is a secular nation which does not, and should not, honor religious arguments which attempt to govern the lives of others.
Majority religion in America has interfered directly with science and progress, and has been on the wrong side of nearly every issue in living memory; civil rights (including slavery), women's rights, the rights of non-believers and gay rights, to name a few.
I believe that if any consenting-age citizen can marry, then all consenting-age citizens should necessarily enjoy this privilege. If any citizen can be a domestic partner, then any citizen should enjoy this right. The government has no business discriminating against variant consenting sexual relationships, even if it offends the sensibilities of the majority or the religious.
As a heterosexual male in a domestic-partnership for 12 years, I currently cannot enjoy domestic partner benefits recognized for same-sex partnerships under state law, and which would allow the sharing of health benefits. This is nothing less than unmarried couple discrimination (CA law only allows heterosexual domestic partnerships if one partner is 62 or older).
I don't like the idea of marriage, nor do I want to be railroaded into an unwieldy and legally-cumbersome tradition simply because the law discriminates against the type of consensual relationship I choose to have.
Thank you, Judge Vaughn Walker, for respecting the U.S. Constitution, and congratulations to all my GBLT friends who've made progress attaining equal-rights today.
There is a lot more work to do, and the wheels of justice turn slowly. These legal victories for civil rights and social progress set legal precedence for future victories, so this decision is an important one not to be dismissed simply because the process isn't yet complete.
Civil rights for those outside our immediate identification aren't just progress for others, it's progress for ALL of us.
-dB-
Friday, July 2, 2010
Vegas: Smoker's Paradise.
Here's a question, why the flying fuck in 2010 do I still gotta breathe some asstard's cigarette smoke inside a Las Vegas casino?
Ok, I know it's Vegas. Booze. Gambling. Smokers. Sin City, yeah, I got it. I can already hear people making the argument that if you're going to gamble and drink, why not allow smokers? Why not just allow heroin addicts and self-mutilators too, and pass out themed purge bowls for the anorexics while we're at it? I mean where does it stop?
Here's the thing, my money is worth just as much as a smoker's. Actually, my long-term business is worth more than most smokers because I will probably live longer, all else being equal. Hotels should be working harder to secure my business.
I can't believe nobody in Vegas has the forsight to make a non-smoking hotel WITH drinking and gambling. That is, exactly like any other hotel, just remove the smoking. The MGM Grand Signature and Rennaisance are non-smoking, but they've also removed the gambling! That is not the right solution for people like myself who actually like to gamble, and where gambling is one of the main attractions in Vegas.
Having a non-smoking hotel is great, and it's a step in the right direction, but don't remove the gambling you tardwits! That completely defeats the purpose! Without the gambling, I am not even setting foot in your hotel other than a quick tour if I happen to be nearby, so the MGM Grand Signature needs to re-think their strategy. That's like making a non-smoking strip club without any strippers...what is the god damned point? Developers, ignore the MGM Grand Signature's silly concept.
The niche here is to make a hotel exactly like any other, WITH drinking and WITH gambling, but without some god-damned smoker stinking up my area and destroying my health, forcing me to do 'smoker scans' before securing my place at a machine. Sure enough though, if some jacktard decides to light up, I get to play the 'find a smoke-free area' game again. We may as well just let the smokers run the place and force non-smokers to jump through hoops with David Copperfield while we're at it.
Smokers have the choice of every other casino in Vegas to pollute, so there should be a haven for those who aren't addicted to cigarettes. Imagine, if there was a non-smoking hotel, every non-smoker who hates breathing smoke would give them business at some point, and perhaps often. As a point of protest, I would even boycott the other hotels if ONE single developer had the sack (or ovaries) to make a non-smoking hotel WITH gambling and booze. I would stay at the non-smoking hotel and do the bulk of my gambling there and consider that a long-term home base for any future Vegas visits. In effect, I would be showing my approval with my Vegas dollars, and I believe others would do the same.
Think about it, whole states have banned smoking indoors. Smokers stil find their way to any establishment you can name. The smokers are the ones with the addiction, and THEY should be forced to deal with the discomfort of having to stop sucking on tar sticks long enough to lose a few bucks in a Wheel of Fortune machine.
One thing a non-smoking hotel could do is offer plush/themed smoking rooms for gamblers who need a smoke break. We're talking about rooms with separate air conditioning, separate air intakes/exhaust/ double-paned glass and a means to let the addicts get their fix without forcing the non-smokers into unwilling participation. Perhaps the entrances to these places would be secured too so smoke doesn't spill out into the casino proper. This way, a non-smoking hotel could be healthy and still allow the addicts to get their fix without forcing everyone else to be captive, unwitting secondhand smokers.
In November of 2006, Nevada voters passed the Clean Indoor Air Act, banning smoking in restaurants and wherever food is served. This also includes most indoor establishments apart from casino floors, oddly enough. Seeing this trend, developers need to be planning new, themed hotels on the strip with gambling and booze, but no smoking. It's going to happen, and Vegas developers may as well embrace it and make it happen now.
From now on, I am going to only stay at hotels which offer non-smoking gaming sections. When a non-smoking hotel opens up, I am going to show my approval with my dollars. I'll do my little part to support anyone with the foresight to open a non-smoking hotel, on the strip, while retaining the gambling and booze (I am not a big drinker, but I want the option).
Let's face it, smoking is fucking stupid and many smokers wish they could quit (as well as their friends and families). Cigarettes have known carcinogens and are responsible for more deaths than all other diseases combined and still cause hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths every year according to the CDC (Center for Disease Control).
Some of us come to Vegas because of the legal gambling, but that doesn't mean we want to gamble with our lives.
-dB-
Ok, I know it's Vegas. Booze. Gambling. Smokers. Sin City, yeah, I got it. I can already hear people making the argument that if you're going to gamble and drink, why not allow smokers? Why not just allow heroin addicts and self-mutilators too, and pass out themed purge bowls for the anorexics while we're at it? I mean where does it stop?
Here's the thing, my money is worth just as much as a smoker's. Actually, my long-term business is worth more than most smokers because I will probably live longer, all else being equal. Hotels should be working harder to secure my business.
I can't believe nobody in Vegas has the forsight to make a non-smoking hotel WITH drinking and gambling. That is, exactly like any other hotel, just remove the smoking. The MGM Grand Signature and Rennaisance are non-smoking, but they've also removed the gambling! That is not the right solution for people like myself who actually like to gamble, and where gambling is one of the main attractions in Vegas.
Having a non-smoking hotel is great, and it's a step in the right direction, but don't remove the gambling you tardwits! That completely defeats the purpose! Without the gambling, I am not even setting foot in your hotel other than a quick tour if I happen to be nearby, so the MGM Grand Signature needs to re-think their strategy. That's like making a non-smoking strip club without any strippers...what is the god damned point? Developers, ignore the MGM Grand Signature's silly concept.
The niche here is to make a hotel exactly like any other, WITH drinking and WITH gambling, but without some god-damned smoker stinking up my area and destroying my health, forcing me to do 'smoker scans' before securing my place at a machine. Sure enough though, if some jacktard decides to light up, I get to play the 'find a smoke-free area' game again. We may as well just let the smokers run the place and force non-smokers to jump through hoops with David Copperfield while we're at it.
Smokers have the choice of every other casino in Vegas to pollute, so there should be a haven for those who aren't addicted to cigarettes. Imagine, if there was a non-smoking hotel, every non-smoker who hates breathing smoke would give them business at some point, and perhaps often. As a point of protest, I would even boycott the other hotels if ONE single developer had the sack (or ovaries) to make a non-smoking hotel WITH gambling and booze. I would stay at the non-smoking hotel and do the bulk of my gambling there and consider that a long-term home base for any future Vegas visits. In effect, I would be showing my approval with my Vegas dollars, and I believe others would do the same.
Think about it, whole states have banned smoking indoors. Smokers stil find their way to any establishment you can name. The smokers are the ones with the addiction, and THEY should be forced to deal with the discomfort of having to stop sucking on tar sticks long enough to lose a few bucks in a Wheel of Fortune machine.
One thing a non-smoking hotel could do is offer plush/themed smoking rooms for gamblers who need a smoke break. We're talking about rooms with separate air conditioning, separate air intakes/exhaust/ double-paned glass and a means to let the addicts get their fix without forcing the non-smokers into unwilling participation. Perhaps the entrances to these places would be secured too so smoke doesn't spill out into the casino proper. This way, a non-smoking hotel could be healthy and still allow the addicts to get their fix without forcing everyone else to be captive, unwitting secondhand smokers.
In November of 2006, Nevada voters passed the Clean Indoor Air Act, banning smoking in restaurants and wherever food is served. This also includes most indoor establishments apart from casino floors, oddly enough. Seeing this trend, developers need to be planning new, themed hotels on the strip with gambling and booze, but no smoking. It's going to happen, and Vegas developers may as well embrace it and make it happen now.
From now on, I am going to only stay at hotels which offer non-smoking gaming sections. When a non-smoking hotel opens up, I am going to show my approval with my dollars. I'll do my little part to support anyone with the foresight to open a non-smoking hotel, on the strip, while retaining the gambling and booze (I am not a big drinker, but I want the option).
Let's face it, smoking is fucking stupid and many smokers wish they could quit (as well as their friends and families). Cigarettes have known carcinogens and are responsible for more deaths than all other diseases combined and still cause hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths every year according to the CDC (Center for Disease Control).
Some of us come to Vegas because of the legal gambling, but that doesn't mean we want to gamble with our lives.
-dB-
Thursday, July 1, 2010
My Girlfriend's a Catholic
The topic of religion often comes up when couples are dating, often as an important criteria for pursuing a relationship further. How do two people with different ideas about religion agree on their different faiths, traditions, families and their opinons, marriage ceremonies, child-rearing and everything else that is affected by religion?
For instance, when a Jew is dating a Christian and the chemistry is otherwise good, how do they resolve that one believes Jesus to be their lord and savior, and the other doesn't even believe Jesus is the son of their common God? Sure, some people will ditch their earnestly-held faith and convert (which I find hilarious), but generally, I suspect if the differences are strong enough this becomes a dealbreaker for the relationship, or a source of unending argument, especially if the couple have kids. Do we send him to Hebrew school or Jesus Camp?
While I was raised a Catholic, I am an atheist who views religion like an anthropologist views the rituals of African Zulu or Maori ritual dance. I see all religion as erroneous inventions of fallible men trying to explain the unknown, and I understand that most people are religious. Personally, I'm no more offended by the Scientologist, the Jew, the Christian or the Muslim (ok I am more offended by Islam, generally). But you get the point, I think it's all nutty, and I don't really believe their stories, I just worry that THEY believe them...a little too much sometimes.
My girlfriend of 12 years, you may be surprised to learn, is a Catholic, having been raised exhaustively as a Catholic, attending Catholic girl's schools all the way till college (also Catholic).
How is it that one of the most atheist guys on the planet like me can be with a nice Catholic girl for that long without issue?
Well, the simple answer is, she's a terrible Catholic, but a great person (proving once again that ethics and religion are not one and the same).
Yes, she's a bloody-gawd-awful Catholic, and she'd be ex-communicated for any number of reasons, not the least of which is being with an atheist in an unmarried live-in relationship for 12+ years, and I am not her first atheist boyfriend. If that wasn't enough, we don't go to church on Sundays (and I work on Sunday as often as possible), we eat meat on good Friday, never give up anything for Lent (or his brother Larry) and did I mention she lives with an outspoken atheist with an ascerbic atheist blog?
She's also the biggest fag-hag ever...having grown-up in Hollywood and is well acclimated to gay people. Sure, I have gay friends too (one dear friend who I've known since 6th grade) and I understand the possible evolutionary reasons why straight people keep making gay people, but as a Catholic she technically claims belief in a Bible which condems gays to death in Leviticus. However, like most Christians, she simply ignores the Draconian parts of the Bible or the parts she doesn't know about. In large part, she is a product of her environment (progressive, liberal L.A.). She is personally modern and reasonable enough to understand why being gay is a normal part of the human experience, and it's yet another reason we get along great, since I am socially progressive myself.
If we were to have kids, I already mentioned that there would be no way in Hell I would raise them religious. That's a dealbreaker to me. The thing is, neither of us want kids. Things are hard enough at times, and I think neither of us really wants that kind of responsibility since we want to keep our freedom and financial flexibility, especially in this economy. There are simply enough kids in the world already. I've already had the vasectomy, and after 25+ years of birth control she can finally quit that. It worked out for both of us.
As for marriage, I'm very up front about not getting married, and I've written at length about it here in this blog. I've never married anyone and don't plan to. I find marriage to be a sloppy conflation of government and a private relationship, and I boycott marriage since not everyone enjoys this privilege....I want my gay friends to be able to get married too. I also hate the fact that straight couples under 62 cannot be domestic partners and are railroaded into marriage as an only option. Gay couples can be domestic partners but can't get married in CA. Marriage sucks, and I am not going to partake in this silly ritual....especially considering the ridiculous alimony laws. That said, there's no conflict about 'what kind of wedding to have' since we're not getting married. Also, we're living proof that we don't need to be married. Our 12+ year relationship has lasted longer than many married couples. If you're going to stay together, you don't need marriage, and if you're going to separate you shouldn't have gotten married in the first place. All logical roads lead to the fact that not getting married is the most flexible option. The only downside is that there is still discrimination against unmarried couples, which will change, eventually.
Speaking of marriage, I doubt you would have an atheist 'convert' to any religion just to be with a person, and chances are anyone with an atheist for enough time will lose their religion, as religion stands no chance against honest review. Religion only survives with the white noise of distraction, or simply running away from the argument and attempting to keep dissent silent.
We get along because while she labels herself as a Catholic (I call her an awful Catholic), we share the same ethical standards. Both of us are democrats, we're both socially progressive and are cool with the gays. We both enjoy sleeping in on Sundays and she doesn't get weirded out by my atheism...in fact, I think we agree on a lot of points, but she's not emotionally ready to totally give up her Catholicism, and I am ok with that too. Everyone deals with challenges to their religion in their own time. It took me a month to dump my religion when challenged, but our personalities are very different when it comes to confrontation.
Now, when quizzed on science, I can see where her Catholic education failed her. She had very little understanding of science and evolution, and thought the Sun went around the Earth! I've fixed all that, and she's a bright woman...she accepts evolution and I'm helping fix some of the holes in her religious-centric education. Some of that education comes during the holidays, when I explain the real Pagan origins of Christmas and Easter, and it's fun conversation on the way to family gatherings.
It was really funny when her family found out I was atheist. Her dad asked me to lead the prayer one Thanksgiving, and I said, 'you're asking the wrong guy' haha, but I refrained from explicitly stating my atheism at that moment, in front of everyone. There were no follow-up questions, and no more prayer requests. Once the alcohol was flowing, a crazy Englishman I didn't know raised a toast to atheism...I don't remember how it came up, but it was hilarious when three of us at the table outed ourselves and joined in on the toast. One of those toasters was the father-in-law of my girlfriend's sister! The look of shock was priceless (from me as well, to be sure), but we were all sufficiently imbued to make it a funny coming-out party.
After that point, when her parents were ok with with my non-belief, I think she understood that even if she lost her faith, things would be ok. People are people, and no matter what they label themselves, you can only really judge them based on what they say and what they do. Ethics, in the end, is what matters. Her parents never grilled me on my atheism, and never even brought it up. Sometimes I wonder if they truly absorbed what happened that Thanksgiving night, but I see no need to press the issue.
Ethical people don't need religion, and someone who is sufficiently irreligious is tantamount to an atheist, in practice. Like my girlfriend...she's such a bad Catholic that we agree on almost any ethical or social issue. It seems the more people ignore their religion, the more they're free to be truly ethical humans, considering moral dilemmas with compassion and logic, not the dictates of Bronze-Age shepherds.
I'm very glad my girlfiend is a terrible Catholic. Maybe someday she'll be a baby atheist, but I am not going to rush her. <3
-dB-
For instance, when a Jew is dating a Christian and the chemistry is otherwise good, how do they resolve that one believes Jesus to be their lord and savior, and the other doesn't even believe Jesus is the son of their common God? Sure, some people will ditch their earnestly-held faith and convert (which I find hilarious), but generally, I suspect if the differences are strong enough this becomes a dealbreaker for the relationship, or a source of unending argument, especially if the couple have kids. Do we send him to Hebrew school or Jesus Camp?
While I was raised a Catholic, I am an atheist who views religion like an anthropologist views the rituals of African Zulu or Maori ritual dance. I see all religion as erroneous inventions of fallible men trying to explain the unknown, and I understand that most people are religious. Personally, I'm no more offended by the Scientologist, the Jew, the Christian or the Muslim (ok I am more offended by Islam, generally). But you get the point, I think it's all nutty, and I don't really believe their stories, I just worry that THEY believe them...a little too much sometimes.
My girlfriend of 12 years, you may be surprised to learn, is a Catholic, having been raised exhaustively as a Catholic, attending Catholic girl's schools all the way till college (also Catholic).
How is it that one of the most atheist guys on the planet like me can be with a nice Catholic girl for that long without issue?
Well, the simple answer is, she's a terrible Catholic, but a great person (proving once again that ethics and religion are not one and the same).
Yes, she's a bloody-gawd-awful Catholic, and she'd be ex-communicated for any number of reasons, not the least of which is being with an atheist in an unmarried live-in relationship for 12+ years, and I am not her first atheist boyfriend. If that wasn't enough, we don't go to church on Sundays (and I work on Sunday as often as possible), we eat meat on good Friday, never give up anything for Lent (or his brother Larry) and did I mention she lives with an outspoken atheist with an ascerbic atheist blog?
She's also the biggest fag-hag ever...having grown-up in Hollywood and is well acclimated to gay people. Sure, I have gay friends too (one dear friend who I've known since 6th grade) and I understand the possible evolutionary reasons why straight people keep making gay people, but as a Catholic she technically claims belief in a Bible which condems gays to death in Leviticus. However, like most Christians, she simply ignores the Draconian parts of the Bible or the parts she doesn't know about. In large part, she is a product of her environment (progressive, liberal L.A.). She is personally modern and reasonable enough to understand why being gay is a normal part of the human experience, and it's yet another reason we get along great, since I am socially progressive myself.
If we were to have kids, I already mentioned that there would be no way in Hell I would raise them religious. That's a dealbreaker to me. The thing is, neither of us want kids. Things are hard enough at times, and I think neither of us really wants that kind of responsibility since we want to keep our freedom and financial flexibility, especially in this economy. There are simply enough kids in the world already. I've already had the vasectomy, and after 25+ years of birth control she can finally quit that. It worked out for both of us.
As for marriage, I'm very up front about not getting married, and I've written at length about it here in this blog. I've never married anyone and don't plan to. I find marriage to be a sloppy conflation of government and a private relationship, and I boycott marriage since not everyone enjoys this privilege....I want my gay friends to be able to get married too. I also hate the fact that straight couples under 62 cannot be domestic partners and are railroaded into marriage as an only option. Gay couples can be domestic partners but can't get married in CA. Marriage sucks, and I am not going to partake in this silly ritual....especially considering the ridiculous alimony laws. That said, there's no conflict about 'what kind of wedding to have' since we're not getting married. Also, we're living proof that we don't need to be married. Our 12+ year relationship has lasted longer than many married couples. If you're going to stay together, you don't need marriage, and if you're going to separate you shouldn't have gotten married in the first place. All logical roads lead to the fact that not getting married is the most flexible option. The only downside is that there is still discrimination against unmarried couples, which will change, eventually.
Speaking of marriage, I doubt you would have an atheist 'convert' to any religion just to be with a person, and chances are anyone with an atheist for enough time will lose their religion, as religion stands no chance against honest review. Religion only survives with the white noise of distraction, or simply running away from the argument and attempting to keep dissent silent.
We get along because while she labels herself as a Catholic (I call her an awful Catholic), we share the same ethical standards. Both of us are democrats, we're both socially progressive and are cool with the gays. We both enjoy sleeping in on Sundays and she doesn't get weirded out by my atheism...in fact, I think we agree on a lot of points, but she's not emotionally ready to totally give up her Catholicism, and I am ok with that too. Everyone deals with challenges to their religion in their own time. It took me a month to dump my religion when challenged, but our personalities are very different when it comes to confrontation.
Now, when quizzed on science, I can see where her Catholic education failed her. She had very little understanding of science and evolution, and thought the Sun went around the Earth! I've fixed all that, and she's a bright woman...she accepts evolution and I'm helping fix some of the holes in her religious-centric education. Some of that education comes during the holidays, when I explain the real Pagan origins of Christmas and Easter, and it's fun conversation on the way to family gatherings.
It was really funny when her family found out I was atheist. Her dad asked me to lead the prayer one Thanksgiving, and I said, 'you're asking the wrong guy' haha, but I refrained from explicitly stating my atheism at that moment, in front of everyone. There were no follow-up questions, and no more prayer requests. Once the alcohol was flowing, a crazy Englishman I didn't know raised a toast to atheism...I don't remember how it came up, but it was hilarious when three of us at the table outed ourselves and joined in on the toast. One of those toasters was the father-in-law of my girlfriend's sister! The look of shock was priceless (from me as well, to be sure), but we were all sufficiently imbued to make it a funny coming-out party.
After that point, when her parents were ok with with my non-belief, I think she understood that even if she lost her faith, things would be ok. People are people, and no matter what they label themselves, you can only really judge them based on what they say and what they do. Ethics, in the end, is what matters. Her parents never grilled me on my atheism, and never even brought it up. Sometimes I wonder if they truly absorbed what happened that Thanksgiving night, but I see no need to press the issue.
Ethical people don't need religion, and someone who is sufficiently irreligious is tantamount to an atheist, in practice. Like my girlfriend...she's such a bad Catholic that we agree on almost any ethical or social issue. It seems the more people ignore their religion, the more they're free to be truly ethical humans, considering moral dilemmas with compassion and logic, not the dictates of Bronze-Age shepherds.
I'm very glad my girlfiend is a terrible Catholic. Maybe someday she'll be a baby atheist, but I am not going to rush her. <3
-dB-
Saturday, June 26, 2010
The Real Housewives of New York! OMG WHAT?
And now for something completely, totally different.
Like some of you, I'm a fan of reality TV, and that includes the Real Housewives of New York (and the others). Now don't get me wrong, I don't care about who's wearing Prada or rocking the latest dress from Dolce and Gabanna. Nooo. I watch for different reasons...mostly, for behavioral reasons as well as the sheer joy of seeing people get called on their bullshit! I also get a laugh out of the mixed metaphors (and malapropisms).
I watch RHONY (I'm abbreviating already like you're Andy Cohen, all up on the dirt and lingo) because I like to watch the various strategies these women employ when trying to B.S. each other and it's great when they get called out on their shenanigans.
For instance (ok, non-RHONY fans are probably tuning out, see you next post, lovies), that Kelly Bensimon is one loopy, crazy bitch. Gummy Bears and Cartwheels? More like a Dixie™ cup of sedatives and mental-stabilizers. It's a good thing she's rich and privileged coz she couldn't think her way out of a twin bed.
Bethenny is a loose stick of dynamite in a sparkler factory, but hilarious and refreshingly honest. Sometimes her humor bites, but I find her perspective mostly on point, and she's adept at calling the other people (ahem, Jill and Kelly) out on their bullshit. Sometimes, I think she's actually remarkably restrained.
Ramoner (I am speaking Jillous™ here) with those crazy eyes and her robot-style catwalk is nutty, but lovably sincere and irresistably blunt. It's like she can't help but say what she thinks, but I find that endearing and refreshing. I love when she had her 17-year marr-, um, re-commitment ceremony (what do I call it!?) and told her husband that she loved him forever...(crazy eyes on) and EVER (slightly creepy, but still endearing). Mario just seems happy to be along for the ride.
Jillous is a conniver, a spin doctor, and what appears to be a gold-digger who seems miserable with her life. Her hubby is like 3 or 30 years older, and sure he seems nice enough, but yeah, did she sell out for money? You be the judge. I've never seen someone spin such obvious bad behavior like the recipient simply 'misunderstood' it. She must think everyone's as dumb as she is two-faced.
Alex is the level-headed geek who's finally coming out of her shell, having finally been asked to dance by that freckled-ManGinger™ in the red-vinyl pants. But Simon seems awesome...metrosexual, in-touch with his goofy side, not afraid to make an ass of himself but with a brain. I adore those moments when Alex shows her teeth...she's got a lot going on and she's not taking any shit from ANYONE anymore, got it? Now Alex and Simon, control your god-damned hamburger-mashing leg-humping Frenchified kids before we sic Grandma Wrinkles on them!
LuAnn the He-Woman is great (as in large) but no really I like LuAnn. Money can't buy her class, but as Andy Cohen said on 'Watch What Happens' it sure as Hell bought her Auto-Tune, and there's nothing wrong with that. I just find it crazy that Kim Z. of 'Tardy for the Party' fame, being the tuneless wig-wearing, chain-smoking no-talent hack with phrasing from Hell had the gall to say she didn't like the Countess's song. Ok look, we're all humoring you. Kim, you have ZERO talent, so remember the glass houses and stones thing. Kim Zolciak is proof that a fetus wailing into a condenser mic can hit the top 10 at iTunes with the right producer, but at least the Countess has some decent phrasing. So Kim, lighten up on the criticism....remember, we all saw your vocal takes which made William Hung sound like a 5-octave Julliard vocal instructor.
Actually, that crazy Danielle from the New Jersey cast actually sings decently (if not a bit breathy). We know you're a gay advocate Danielle, now get off the lesbian and speaking of women, learn how to say WOMEN! You sound like Tom Vu referring to women as 'woman' all the time, silly!
Sonja is just a breath of fresh air...stays out of the drama, is a safe-zone for Kelly (like the nice, underpaid babysitter who takes care of your extra-chromosome kids all hopped up on Pop Rocks and Capri Sun) but she's a riot too...can't wait to see more from her. I love how she said (on Scary Island), 'Don't leave me alone with her!'.
Why am I writing all this? Well, I enjoy watching the things these women do, the crazy crap they say and the way they try to 'spin' it all, pretend certain things never happened, pretend we 'misunderstood' them, damage relationships and try to fix them.
Ok, by 'women' (not the Danielle pronounciation) I mean Jill and Kelly. KOOKADOODLEDO!
Jill must think everyone is a dunce, where she can say and so whatever she feels like, and then just fix it later with an insincere 'I'm sorry' as people run through a laundry list of her bad behavior.
When asked to clarify her 'Bethenny, we are done', on one of the Reunion shows, Jill passed that off as if it was a common thing among her family and friends.
'Hey Jill, how are you?'
'Atheist Angle, we are done!'
'Oh, done talking...or like, done for good?'
See, rational people understand 'we are done' as 'we are no longer friends' and not 'we are done talking'. For Jill to spin that comment as anything other than 'we are done' is her saying, 'Wow, I think you're really, really stupid and you'll believe me so I can stop feeling like such an evil douchenozzle and hey look don't you have anything to say about Kelly?'.
Then, Jill basically used the direct 'I'm sorry' approach in the reunion shows, since it worked so well for Bethenny and the Countess, where Bethenny just apologized, straight up. Jill was like, 'I'm sorry, you know what? I'm sorry I shouldn't have done/said that'. If Jill means so well, why did she spend 5 minutes apologizing for a litany of complaints from Bethenny, Alex and Ramoner?
I think the difference here is that Bethenny was sincere, and well Jill....she's just uncomfortable.
Now speaking of uncomfortable, what the flying fuck is up with Kelly? That chick is psychotic...like, having some kind of mental issues, since at Scary Island™ (as she calls it) she wasn't making any kind of sense. What was funny about Kelly was her attempt to control conversation, all the while thinking SHE was being attacked. Who the Hell turns an amazing vacation into something scary and stupid? Kelly does, that's who.
First, Kelly seemed horrified at Bethenny's gift basket outside her door. Yes, I know, that's crazy that Bethenny would do such a thing, after all, Kelly kept insisting Bethenny was out to kill her. OMG! Surprise bath essentials, a towel and assorted Bethenny-branded merchandise! CALL THE FBI!
Then, Kelly keeps trying to block any kind of compliments about Bethenny's cooking, insisting also that Bethenny is not a chef but a cook. Newsflash, a chef is a rank OR a reference to someone who has cooking credentials related to a reputation for cooking, usually with some kind of formal or real-world training. But if you look around, Kelly, you're on a reality show with other women getting paid to vacation together. Bethenny doesn't exactly need to actually work in a restaurant full-time to be a chef, does she? No, and I doubt she'll be applying at Wolfgang Puck's after the season ends.
At dinner, Kelly told Ramoner to 'zip it' a few times when she's was trying to make some kind of announcement. Lemme tell you, one of my friends tells me to 'zip it' (and means it) and there's gonna be a problem. Sorry, I'm not a cocker spaniel. Your request for my silence requires more than 'zip it', so Kelly has to be on crack if she thinks this is a way to get adult women to stop talking (especially when they're just having fun and not even attacking you). I tell you what tho, someone does need a referee's whistle every time Kelly brings out the crazy...or maybe a few Gummy Bears and a placating smile. There, there. All better. No one's going to hurt you...
If that weren't enough...Kelly kept thinking she was under attack. Gee, who else tells others to shut up while insisting they're the ones under attack? That's right, religionists....and it's hilarious. They make up a large majority, have slandered atheists (or the insufficiently devout) for thousands of years and are forever trying to get us to shut up, while they loudly proclaim their faith and scream oppression if we try to stop or notice their enduring oppression. I couldn't help but make this connection when watching Kelly unravel into a mental mush as her favorite method of dealing with conflict was removed (making a grand exit). I found it hilarious that Bethenny made a point of noticing this.
What else is hilarious is that earlier in the season, Kelly held up one hand over the other and said to Bethenny, 'I'm up here and you're down here'. That's clear, but it was fun trying to see some of the housewives try to play that off as if Bethenny misunderstood it. No, it's clear, but it was interesting seeing the group try to accomodate KrazyKelly just to ease tensions. Sorry KookoodoodleKelly, your meaning was clear, and you what? We are done.
It seems Jill's actions can no longer be fixed with her empty words. I understand she feels real emotion, possibly, but those could be the tears of frustration at herself. The thing is, her maneuvering is finally being called out, and it's delicious. It seems just trying to get everyone to re-interpret reality with her spin isn't working...again, kinda like religion, no? The bullshit is stinking through the veneer, and it's about time. I thought it was really classic when Jill intimated that there would be some sex for her quite elderly hubby Bobby if she 'felt some jewelry' on her, and that he 'would feel something good later'. Wow. Ok, I know he's older. She might really just like older guys. Older guys like young girls like Hef for his....age. She also really, really loves jewelry...but to offer sex on camera for jewelry....did she really do that on camera? Hmmmm.....you know,
The next time Bobby gets to 'feel something good' he should wait right after he's finished and say to Jill, 'We are done!'. Let's see if Jill takes that the wrong way.
So, I am looking forward to the new season of RHONY. It'll be interesting if Bethenny comes back, now that she's getting married(?), and we'll see if Jill manages to get Bethenny to give her a second chance, now that Bethenny is no longer an 'underdog' and has plenty for Jillous to be Jillous of. Can't beat 'em? May as well join 'em, right?
That's it for now. I better stop now or I'll risk making a mountain out of a Holemill™. You know what? We are done.
And that's the atheist-angle on RHONY. Hope you enjoyed the change-of-pace. Till next time, lovies.
-dB-
Like some of you, I'm a fan of reality TV, and that includes the Real Housewives of New York (and the others). Now don't get me wrong, I don't care about who's wearing Prada or rocking the latest dress from Dolce and Gabanna. Nooo. I watch for different reasons...mostly, for behavioral reasons as well as the sheer joy of seeing people get called on their bullshit! I also get a laugh out of the mixed metaphors (and malapropisms).
I watch RHONY (I'm abbreviating already like you're Andy Cohen, all up on the dirt and lingo) because I like to watch the various strategies these women employ when trying to B.S. each other and it's great when they get called out on their shenanigans.
For instance (ok, non-RHONY fans are probably tuning out, see you next post, lovies), that Kelly Bensimon is one loopy, crazy bitch. Gummy Bears and Cartwheels? More like a Dixie™ cup of sedatives and mental-stabilizers. It's a good thing she's rich and privileged coz she couldn't think her way out of a twin bed.
Bethenny is a loose stick of dynamite in a sparkler factory, but hilarious and refreshingly honest. Sometimes her humor bites, but I find her perspective mostly on point, and she's adept at calling the other people (ahem, Jill and Kelly) out on their bullshit. Sometimes, I think she's actually remarkably restrained.
Ramoner (I am speaking Jillous™ here) with those crazy eyes and her robot-style catwalk is nutty, but lovably sincere and irresistably blunt. It's like she can't help but say what she thinks, but I find that endearing and refreshing. I love when she had her 17-year marr-, um, re-commitment ceremony (what do I call it!?) and told her husband that she loved him forever...(crazy eyes on) and EVER (slightly creepy, but still endearing). Mario just seems happy to be along for the ride.
Jillous is a conniver, a spin doctor, and what appears to be a gold-digger who seems miserable with her life. Her hubby is like 3 or 30 years older, and sure he seems nice enough, but yeah, did she sell out for money? You be the judge. I've never seen someone spin such obvious bad behavior like the recipient simply 'misunderstood' it. She must think everyone's as dumb as she is two-faced.
Alex is the level-headed geek who's finally coming out of her shell, having finally been asked to dance by that freckled-ManGinger™ in the red-vinyl pants. But Simon seems awesome...metrosexual, in-touch with his goofy side, not afraid to make an ass of himself but with a brain. I adore those moments when Alex shows her teeth...she's got a lot going on and she's not taking any shit from ANYONE anymore, got it? Now Alex and Simon, control your god-damned hamburger-mashing leg-humping Frenchified kids before we sic Grandma Wrinkles on them!
LuAnn the He-Woman is great (as in large) but no really I like LuAnn. Money can't buy her class, but as Andy Cohen said on 'Watch What Happens' it sure as Hell bought her Auto-Tune, and there's nothing wrong with that. I just find it crazy that Kim Z. of 'Tardy for the Party' fame, being the tuneless wig-wearing, chain-smoking no-talent hack with phrasing from Hell had the gall to say she didn't like the Countess's song. Ok look, we're all humoring you. Kim, you have ZERO talent, so remember the glass houses and stones thing. Kim Zolciak is proof that a fetus wailing into a condenser mic can hit the top 10 at iTunes with the right producer, but at least the Countess has some decent phrasing. So Kim, lighten up on the criticism....remember, we all saw your vocal takes which made William Hung sound like a 5-octave Julliard vocal instructor.
Actually, that crazy Danielle from the New Jersey cast actually sings decently (if not a bit breathy). We know you're a gay advocate Danielle, now get off the lesbian and speaking of women, learn how to say WOMEN! You sound like Tom Vu referring to women as 'woman' all the time, silly!
Sonja is just a breath of fresh air...stays out of the drama, is a safe-zone for Kelly (like the nice, underpaid babysitter who takes care of your extra-chromosome kids all hopped up on Pop Rocks and Capri Sun) but she's a riot too...can't wait to see more from her. I love how she said (on Scary Island), 'Don't leave me alone with her!'.
Why am I writing all this? Well, I enjoy watching the things these women do, the crazy crap they say and the way they try to 'spin' it all, pretend certain things never happened, pretend we 'misunderstood' them, damage relationships and try to fix them.
Ok, by 'women' (not the Danielle pronounciation) I mean Jill and Kelly. KOOKADOODLEDO!
Jill must think everyone is a dunce, where she can say and so whatever she feels like, and then just fix it later with an insincere 'I'm sorry' as people run through a laundry list of her bad behavior.
When asked to clarify her 'Bethenny, we are done', on one of the Reunion shows, Jill passed that off as if it was a common thing among her family and friends.
'Hey Jill, how are you?'
'Atheist Angle, we are done!'
'Oh, done talking...or like, done for good?'
See, rational people understand 'we are done' as 'we are no longer friends' and not 'we are done talking'. For Jill to spin that comment as anything other than 'we are done' is her saying, 'Wow, I think you're really, really stupid and you'll believe me so I can stop feeling like such an evil douchenozzle and hey look don't you have anything to say about Kelly?'.
Then, Jill basically used the direct 'I'm sorry' approach in the reunion shows, since it worked so well for Bethenny and the Countess, where Bethenny just apologized, straight up. Jill was like, 'I'm sorry, you know what? I'm sorry I shouldn't have done/said that'. If Jill means so well, why did she spend 5 minutes apologizing for a litany of complaints from Bethenny, Alex and Ramoner?
I think the difference here is that Bethenny was sincere, and well Jill....she's just uncomfortable.
Now speaking of uncomfortable, what the flying fuck is up with Kelly? That chick is psychotic...like, having some kind of mental issues, since at Scary Island™ (as she calls it) she wasn't making any kind of sense. What was funny about Kelly was her attempt to control conversation, all the while thinking SHE was being attacked. Who the Hell turns an amazing vacation into something scary and stupid? Kelly does, that's who.
First, Kelly seemed horrified at Bethenny's gift basket outside her door. Yes, I know, that's crazy that Bethenny would do such a thing, after all, Kelly kept insisting Bethenny was out to kill her. OMG! Surprise bath essentials, a towel and assorted Bethenny-branded merchandise! CALL THE FBI!
Then, Kelly keeps trying to block any kind of compliments about Bethenny's cooking, insisting also that Bethenny is not a chef but a cook. Newsflash, a chef is a rank OR a reference to someone who has cooking credentials related to a reputation for cooking, usually with some kind of formal or real-world training. But if you look around, Kelly, you're on a reality show with other women getting paid to vacation together. Bethenny doesn't exactly need to actually work in a restaurant full-time to be a chef, does she? No, and I doubt she'll be applying at Wolfgang Puck's after the season ends.
At dinner, Kelly told Ramoner to 'zip it' a few times when she's was trying to make some kind of announcement. Lemme tell you, one of my friends tells me to 'zip it' (and means it) and there's gonna be a problem. Sorry, I'm not a cocker spaniel. Your request for my silence requires more than 'zip it', so Kelly has to be on crack if she thinks this is a way to get adult women to stop talking (especially when they're just having fun and not even attacking you). I tell you what tho, someone does need a referee's whistle every time Kelly brings out the crazy...or maybe a few Gummy Bears and a placating smile. There, there. All better. No one's going to hurt you...
If that weren't enough...Kelly kept thinking she was under attack. Gee, who else tells others to shut up while insisting they're the ones under attack? That's right, religionists....and it's hilarious. They make up a large majority, have slandered atheists (or the insufficiently devout) for thousands of years and are forever trying to get us to shut up, while they loudly proclaim their faith and scream oppression if we try to stop or notice their enduring oppression. I couldn't help but make this connection when watching Kelly unravel into a mental mush as her favorite method of dealing with conflict was removed (making a grand exit). I found it hilarious that Bethenny made a point of noticing this.
What else is hilarious is that earlier in the season, Kelly held up one hand over the other and said to Bethenny, 'I'm up here and you're down here'. That's clear, but it was fun trying to see some of the housewives try to play that off as if Bethenny misunderstood it. No, it's clear, but it was interesting seeing the group try to accomodate KrazyKelly just to ease tensions. Sorry KookoodoodleKelly, your meaning was clear, and you what? We are done.
It seems Jill's actions can no longer be fixed with her empty words. I understand she feels real emotion, possibly, but those could be the tears of frustration at herself. The thing is, her maneuvering is finally being called out, and it's delicious. It seems just trying to get everyone to re-interpret reality with her spin isn't working...again, kinda like religion, no? The bullshit is stinking through the veneer, and it's about time. I thought it was really classic when Jill intimated that there would be some sex for her quite elderly hubby Bobby if she 'felt some jewelry' on her, and that he 'would feel something good later'. Wow. Ok, I know he's older. She might really just like older guys. Older guys like young girls like Hef for his....age. She also really, really loves jewelry...but to offer sex on camera for jewelry....did she really do that on camera? Hmmmm.....you know,
The next time Bobby gets to 'feel something good' he should wait right after he's finished and say to Jill, 'We are done!'. Let's see if Jill takes that the wrong way.
So, I am looking forward to the new season of RHONY. It'll be interesting if Bethenny comes back, now that she's getting married(?), and we'll see if Jill manages to get Bethenny to give her a second chance, now that Bethenny is no longer an 'underdog' and has plenty for Jillous to be Jillous of. Can't beat 'em? May as well join 'em, right?
That's it for now. I better stop now or I'll risk making a mountain out of a Holemill™. You know what? We are done.
And that's the atheist-angle on RHONY. Hope you enjoyed the change-of-pace. Till next time, lovies.
-dB-
Friday, June 4, 2010
Humans Create Synthetic Life!
Science fiction, my dear readers, has once again become reality.
Dr. Craig Venter and his team of researchers at Synthetic Genomics have created the first self-replicating artificial life, after 15-years of exhaustive, iterative effort and some 40 million dollars invested.
This artificial life started on a computer as a million-character DNA sequence, with all the known processes needed for self-replication and a pretty blue signature color, among other parameters.
The new DNA molecule was later assembled using the 4-base proteins of DNA (Adenine, Cytosine, Guanine and Thymine) from 50-80 character long snippets. These snippets were all put into a yeast carrier, where the base-pair proteins linked up and created the complete DNA sequence as designed.
Finally, the artificial DNA was inserted into a host bacteria (Mycoides), replacing the bacteria's original DNA with the artifical one. This new life basically 'booted up', which is to say, that bacteria became hardware driven by what was essentially totally custom software, complete with self-replication.
This new DNA sequence even had watermarks written on it for those who would want to independently verify this claim (since watermarks in DNA do not occur in nature). The watermarks were made possible via a code Venter and staff produced to write alphabetical characters into the DNA, spelling out whatever they wanted. Each team member had his or her name written into the code, and this would be expressed in every cell in the colony, ad infintum. In addition, there are three philosophical quotes and even a website URL for those who can 'break' the rest of the code.
Anyone who checks the DNA of this new artificial life can clearly see and prove its pedigree while they verify that indeed, humans really did create new life in the lab.
It was something humans had never done before.....they created life in the lab 'with ones and zeroes' as Dr. Venter put it. Now, there's one more new species to add to the world roster, and the first one with computer parents.
This is an incredible achievement, and no-doubt represents a huge paradigm change in what is possible from here on out. Drugs can be created now simply by designing and growing them, in self-replicating fashion, in house, and with amazing efficiency. Perhaps an artificial organism can be made which seeks out disease cells, from cancer to AIDS to the common cold. Flu vaccines can be made 99% faster than current technology allows, which by itself is incredible.
The sky's the limit. But, as is with any new technological advance, there will be fear. That's nothing new though, as throughout history, almost every human advance has been challenged, feared, perhaps outright shunned.
I'm sure we've all heard stories of the resistance to human autopsy, even anesthesia, or vaccination (there are many who still fear vaccination, and without good reason). Even birth-control in 2010 remains controversial for those stuck in the Bronze age or blindly following the ravings of Bronze-age shepherds (religion).
Any new technology can potentially be used for bad things, granted. Though it's no reason to forge ahead with technology governed by ethics. We must always work to prevent abuses whether it's using technology or sticks and stones.
As it is, humans are already inventive enough to find ways to kill each other...even if relegated to their bare hands. However, technology can save millions. We have to consider the tremendous benefit that technology has had and work to reform its abuses, and make it safer as we go. We've seen through history how the understanding of germ theory and vaccination has made it possible for literally millions of people to live with much less risk of preventable disease. However, we also see the ignorance of the anti-vax crowd reducing herd immunity, and actually helping to bring back diseases such as Measles, Mumps, Rubella or Polio which were nearly eradicated in most developed nations.
I fully expect people will fear Dr. Venter's artifical self-replicating bacteria just as humans have generally geared the unknown, and progress always is a step through the unknown. In the right hands, this will be an amazing tool for good and will benefit us all...it's going to be world-changing.
Some will accuse humans of 'playing god', but this was exactly the same sort of argument used to prevent child-bearing women from having the benefit of pain-relieving anesthesia, or have the choice of a medical procedure called abortion. It's the same religious dogma and fear-mongering which argued against human autopsy, or birth-control, even the equality of women, gays and minorities.
Even powered flight by the Wright Brothers in 1903 was seen as unnecessary by some, after all, if 'God' wanted us to fly, wouldn't we have wings? Thankfully, the anti-technology crowd was sufficiently ignored then just as we need to ignore it now in the purview of scientific understanding.
Until theists and those who invoke 'god' can bring any kind of rigor into their wild claims of space-fairies, they have no business making commentary about what their vaunted space-fairies say about real-world discoveries and the scientific method. Similarly, I don't care what someone thinks Vishnu, Zoroaster or the Galactic Overlord Xenu has to say about euthanasia or birth-control, and I don't care what some crazy loon believes Jesus has to say about artificial life.
On Discovery's 'Creating Synthetic Life: Your Questions Answered' special, they had a Catholic priest weighing in briefly on the repercussions of synthetic life, a man way out of his league surrounded by real scientists, or at least people who operate in the real world. The steely reception he got from the scientists around him was obvious to me, and the cold reception was appropriate. Nobody cares what a cabal of fairy-tale believers who routinely harbor known child-molestors has to say about science. Religion is simply irrelevant to anything in the natural world, given that their wild claims are completely unproved and unfounded. What a 'god' thinks of the affairs of science doesn't even begin to matter till someone can make a rational case that a god(s) even exists.
Those who seriously make claims about what a purported space-pixie has to say about science is a madman at the table of reason, and needs to be shown the door. Religion should have no place, no say and no control over science. What we find when religion gets involved, at any time in human history, is that religion invariably retards progress, and is always dragged into modernity after being pummeled into submission. Even when roundly defeated, religion tends to linger like a virulent mind-virus in the minds of otherwise reasonable people.
Superstitious mysticism has nothing to say regarding the affairs of real-world understanding. We need to noy only ignore the religious when it comes to matters of the natural world and scientific discovery, we need to ridicule them early and often when they pretend to speak for some super-diety which exists outside spacetime. We need to stop paying lip-service to the ravings of madmen out of a misguided sense of 'tolerance' or 'balance'. Otherwise, I fully expect to hear the Raelians, the Scientologists and everyone else weigh-in on this issue too (without all that giggling, I mean).
This doesn't mean that ethical concerns don't matter or shouldn't be discussed....just that our ethical concerns should be based in the real-world. This is why 'religion' and ethics are two different words, and one does not require or infer the existence of the other.
I applaud this latest success in our collective enterprise to further our understanding of the world around us. Dr. J. Craig Venter and everyone at Synthetic Genomics has made an amazing breakthrough, and this is truly *a historic moment in human history!
I can't wait to see what you and others do with this amazing new technology in the near future.
Sources:
Discovery Science Channel's 'Creating Synthetic Life'
Discovery Science Channel's 'Creating Synthetic Life: Your Questions Answered with Paula Zahn'
The Guardian (UK): Interview with Dr. J. Craig Venter
---
*'an' historic is wrong. The 'H' sound in 'historic' is not silent, and thus, you would use the indefinite article 'a' in front of 'historic', since the indefinite article 'a' or 'an' is based on the sound of the following word and whether that 'sound' is a vowel or consonant.
Therefore, 'a historic' is correct. Likewise, 'an honor' is correct. The 'h' in 'honor' is silent, and thus has an 'o' sound at the beginning which is a vowel sound. An honorable, an onion, an uncle.
More examples: A universe, an umbrella. An orangutan, a one-time event, an octopus.
-dB-
Dr. Craig Venter and his team of researchers at Synthetic Genomics have created the first self-replicating artificial life, after 15-years of exhaustive, iterative effort and some 40 million dollars invested.
This artificial life started on a computer as a million-character DNA sequence, with all the known processes needed for self-replication and a pretty blue signature color, among other parameters.
The new DNA molecule was later assembled using the 4-base proteins of DNA (Adenine, Cytosine, Guanine and Thymine) from 50-80 character long snippets. These snippets were all put into a yeast carrier, where the base-pair proteins linked up and created the complete DNA sequence as designed.
Finally, the artificial DNA was inserted into a host bacteria (Mycoides), replacing the bacteria's original DNA with the artifical one. This new life basically 'booted up', which is to say, that bacteria became hardware driven by what was essentially totally custom software, complete with self-replication.
This new DNA sequence even had watermarks written on it for those who would want to independently verify this claim (since watermarks in DNA do not occur in nature). The watermarks were made possible via a code Venter and staff produced to write alphabetical characters into the DNA, spelling out whatever they wanted. Each team member had his or her name written into the code, and this would be expressed in every cell in the colony, ad infintum. In addition, there are three philosophical quotes and even a website URL for those who can 'break' the rest of the code.
Anyone who checks the DNA of this new artificial life can clearly see and prove its pedigree while they verify that indeed, humans really did create new life in the lab.
It was something humans had never done before.....they created life in the lab 'with ones and zeroes' as Dr. Venter put it. Now, there's one more new species to add to the world roster, and the first one with computer parents.
This is an incredible achievement, and no-doubt represents a huge paradigm change in what is possible from here on out. Drugs can be created now simply by designing and growing them, in self-replicating fashion, in house, and with amazing efficiency. Perhaps an artificial organism can be made which seeks out disease cells, from cancer to AIDS to the common cold. Flu vaccines can be made 99% faster than current technology allows, which by itself is incredible.
The sky's the limit. But, as is with any new technological advance, there will be fear. That's nothing new though, as throughout history, almost every human advance has been challenged, feared, perhaps outright shunned.
I'm sure we've all heard stories of the resistance to human autopsy, even anesthesia, or vaccination (there are many who still fear vaccination, and without good reason). Even birth-control in 2010 remains controversial for those stuck in the Bronze age or blindly following the ravings of Bronze-age shepherds (religion).
Any new technology can potentially be used for bad things, granted. Though it's no reason to forge ahead with technology governed by ethics. We must always work to prevent abuses whether it's using technology or sticks and stones.
As it is, humans are already inventive enough to find ways to kill each other...even if relegated to their bare hands. However, technology can save millions. We have to consider the tremendous benefit that technology has had and work to reform its abuses, and make it safer as we go. We've seen through history how the understanding of germ theory and vaccination has made it possible for literally millions of people to live with much less risk of preventable disease. However, we also see the ignorance of the anti-vax crowd reducing herd immunity, and actually helping to bring back diseases such as Measles, Mumps, Rubella or Polio which were nearly eradicated in most developed nations.
I fully expect people will fear Dr. Venter's artifical self-replicating bacteria just as humans have generally geared the unknown, and progress always is a step through the unknown. In the right hands, this will be an amazing tool for good and will benefit us all...it's going to be world-changing.
Some will accuse humans of 'playing god', but this was exactly the same sort of argument used to prevent child-bearing women from having the benefit of pain-relieving anesthesia, or have the choice of a medical procedure called abortion. It's the same religious dogma and fear-mongering which argued against human autopsy, or birth-control, even the equality of women, gays and minorities.
Even powered flight by the Wright Brothers in 1903 was seen as unnecessary by some, after all, if 'God' wanted us to fly, wouldn't we have wings? Thankfully, the anti-technology crowd was sufficiently ignored then just as we need to ignore it now in the purview of scientific understanding.
Until theists and those who invoke 'god' can bring any kind of rigor into their wild claims of space-fairies, they have no business making commentary about what their vaunted space-fairies say about real-world discoveries and the scientific method. Similarly, I don't care what someone thinks Vishnu, Zoroaster or the Galactic Overlord Xenu has to say about euthanasia or birth-control, and I don't care what some crazy loon believes Jesus has to say about artificial life.
On Discovery's 'Creating Synthetic Life: Your Questions Answered' special, they had a Catholic priest weighing in briefly on the repercussions of synthetic life, a man way out of his league surrounded by real scientists, or at least people who operate in the real world. The steely reception he got from the scientists around him was obvious to me, and the cold reception was appropriate. Nobody cares what a cabal of fairy-tale believers who routinely harbor known child-molestors has to say about science. Religion is simply irrelevant to anything in the natural world, given that their wild claims are completely unproved and unfounded. What a 'god' thinks of the affairs of science doesn't even begin to matter till someone can make a rational case that a god(s) even exists.
Those who seriously make claims about what a purported space-pixie has to say about science is a madman at the table of reason, and needs to be shown the door. Religion should have no place, no say and no control over science. What we find when religion gets involved, at any time in human history, is that religion invariably retards progress, and is always dragged into modernity after being pummeled into submission. Even when roundly defeated, religion tends to linger like a virulent mind-virus in the minds of otherwise reasonable people.
Superstitious mysticism has nothing to say regarding the affairs of real-world understanding. We need to noy only ignore the religious when it comes to matters of the natural world and scientific discovery, we need to ridicule them early and often when they pretend to speak for some super-diety which exists outside spacetime. We need to stop paying lip-service to the ravings of madmen out of a misguided sense of 'tolerance' or 'balance'. Otherwise, I fully expect to hear the Raelians, the Scientologists and everyone else weigh-in on this issue too (without all that giggling, I mean).
This doesn't mean that ethical concerns don't matter or shouldn't be discussed....just that our ethical concerns should be based in the real-world. This is why 'religion' and ethics are two different words, and one does not require or infer the existence of the other.
I applaud this latest success in our collective enterprise to further our understanding of the world around us. Dr. J. Craig Venter and everyone at Synthetic Genomics has made an amazing breakthrough, and this is truly *a historic moment in human history!
I can't wait to see what you and others do with this amazing new technology in the near future.
Sources:
Discovery Science Channel's 'Creating Synthetic Life'
Discovery Science Channel's 'Creating Synthetic Life: Your Questions Answered with Paula Zahn'
The Guardian (UK): Interview with Dr. J. Craig Venter
---
*'an' historic is wrong. The 'H' sound in 'historic' is not silent, and thus, you would use the indefinite article 'a' in front of 'historic', since the indefinite article 'a' or 'an' is based on the sound of the following word and whether that 'sound' is a vowel or consonant.
Therefore, 'a historic' is correct. Likewise, 'an honor' is correct. The 'h' in 'honor' is silent, and thus has an 'o' sound at the beginning which is a vowel sound. An honorable, an onion, an uncle.
More examples: A universe, an umbrella. An orangutan, a one-time event, an octopus.
-dB-
Monday, May 24, 2010
Harlan Ellison
I just discovered a new person today, and he's fucking awesome.
Watching Sundance channel today, I caught a biography partway through the broadcast called, 'Dreams With Sharp Teeth' about Harlan Ellison. I laughed at his ascerbic wit and colorful language, cheered his direct confrontation with opposing ideas, applauded his progressive, free-thinking worldview and heartily agreed with his full-frontal assault on the decline of American intellectualism (and apparent celebration thereof).
It wasn't till *after* all this that I discovered on the show that he's an unapologetic atheist who has fearlessly proclaimed his stance for years. This guy is a firecracker, and I love it. Here's an Ellison quote from the documentary,
Video excerpt from 'An Evening of Lively Argument'. M.I.T., Oct. 6th, 2001.
"See first of all I gotta tell ya I was raised a Jew, I am an atheist. I am not an agnostic, I am not one of the wusses that says 'well maybe'. You know. If there were a god, by now she'd have hit me with a bolt of lightning in the ass long since. So, I am an atheist. I'm a card-carrying, fully-bound, right out there atheist. Ok? Ok. And I know most of you are too but you don't want to cop to it because you're afraid everybody is going to say, 'Don't you believe in the Second Coming?'. I don't even believe in the first fucking-coming!'
Quoted from the 'Dreams With Sharp Teeth' interview:
"I find nothing more ridiculous and annoying than some guy who runs a 100 yards...runs a kickoff....back 105 yards from the endzone and drops to his knees and thanks God. Well that's foolish. God didn't do it he did it. Because if God did that for him you mean god was against the other team? God is that mean-spirited that he has nothing better to do on Sunday afternoon, then beat the crap out of a bunch of poor football players?"
Truth be told, he reminds me of myself in a way, and watching Harlan, I felt an unusual emotion: relief. There are people out there who aren't afraid to be the only dissenter in the room, and he's done it for years and in a refreshingly fearless manner. There is no time for fear or political correctness.
Harlan Ellison is a case study for the sharply-made point (the documentary is seemingly named to that effect), and the world needs people like him as much as the gentler types. I've commented on this at length in my recent blogs on 'tone'. People need to get over 'tone' and listen to content. I cannot count how many times someone rejected valid information simply because of tone, and continued to plod-on being wrong about some mundane topic, correction, pseudo-science, silly belief, etc.
What do I like about him? He says it like it is, or at the very least, how he sees it...unmitigated by nice language, religion, permission or the hurt feelings of dissenters, many of whom have no business making any informed contribution to the matter being discussed.
One anecdote I especially enjoyed from the biography was Harlan relating a story about an episode he wrote for Star Trek. He had described in the script some 'runes' which were part of the set, but apparently the set builder didn't know the word 'rune' and apparently could not spell 'ruin' properly. Instead of making stones with runic inscriptions on them, the setbuilder made 'ruins', or crumbling remnants of structures which weren't even in the script.
So, when people insist on accuracy in language, it's because language is the vehicle by which we communicate. That Star Trek set-designer, when confronted by a word he didn't understand, apparently didn't have the humility or intellectual curiosity to look up or verify the meaning of this word in the script. This mistake directly caused a waste of time, resources and effort, probably caused a lot of embarrassment, some choice words from Harlan no doubt and could possibly have cost a few people their jobs.
Words matter. Accuracy matters...even if it offends people to discover that they're wrong. Better to discover the mistake early and avoid a bigger mistake later.
I'm sad to say I'm only discovering Harlan Ellison now, but better late than never. That said, at least now I have a huge new list of books I can add to my Kindle for iPhone, and I have a lot of catching up to do. (Any recommendations as to which of his books to read first are welcomed).
I'll close with one more quote from Harlan's insightful interview:
"As long as you can blame everything on some unseen deity, you don't ever have to be responsible for your own behavior."
Hear, hear.
-dB-
Watching Sundance channel today, I caught a biography partway through the broadcast called, 'Dreams With Sharp Teeth' about Harlan Ellison. I laughed at his ascerbic wit and colorful language, cheered his direct confrontation with opposing ideas, applauded his progressive, free-thinking worldview and heartily agreed with his full-frontal assault on the decline of American intellectualism (and apparent celebration thereof).
It wasn't till *after* all this that I discovered on the show that he's an unapologetic atheist who has fearlessly proclaimed his stance for years. This guy is a firecracker, and I love it. Here's an Ellison quote from the documentary,
Video excerpt from 'An Evening of Lively Argument'. M.I.T., Oct. 6th, 2001.
"See first of all I gotta tell ya I was raised a Jew, I am an atheist. I am not an agnostic, I am not one of the wusses that says 'well maybe'. You know. If there were a god, by now she'd have hit me with a bolt of lightning in the ass long since. So, I am an atheist. I'm a card-carrying, fully-bound, right out there atheist. Ok? Ok. And I know most of you are too but you don't want to cop to it because you're afraid everybody is going to say, 'Don't you believe in the Second Coming?'. I don't even believe in the first fucking-coming!'
Quoted from the 'Dreams With Sharp Teeth' interview:
"I find nothing more ridiculous and annoying than some guy who runs a 100 yards...runs a kickoff....back 105 yards from the endzone and drops to his knees and thanks God. Well that's foolish. God didn't do it he did it. Because if God did that for him you mean god was against the other team? God is that mean-spirited that he has nothing better to do on Sunday afternoon, then beat the crap out of a bunch of poor football players?"
Truth be told, he reminds me of myself in a way, and watching Harlan, I felt an unusual emotion: relief. There are people out there who aren't afraid to be the only dissenter in the room, and he's done it for years and in a refreshingly fearless manner. There is no time for fear or political correctness.
Harlan Ellison is a case study for the sharply-made point (the documentary is seemingly named to that effect), and the world needs people like him as much as the gentler types. I've commented on this at length in my recent blogs on 'tone'. People need to get over 'tone' and listen to content. I cannot count how many times someone rejected valid information simply because of tone, and continued to plod-on being wrong about some mundane topic, correction, pseudo-science, silly belief, etc.
What do I like about him? He says it like it is, or at the very least, how he sees it...unmitigated by nice language, religion, permission or the hurt feelings of dissenters, many of whom have no business making any informed contribution to the matter being discussed.
One anecdote I especially enjoyed from the biography was Harlan relating a story about an episode he wrote for Star Trek. He had described in the script some 'runes' which were part of the set, but apparently the set builder didn't know the word 'rune' and apparently could not spell 'ruin' properly. Instead of making stones with runic inscriptions on them, the setbuilder made 'ruins', or crumbling remnants of structures which weren't even in the script.
So, when people insist on accuracy in language, it's because language is the vehicle by which we communicate. That Star Trek set-designer, when confronted by a word he didn't understand, apparently didn't have the humility or intellectual curiosity to look up or verify the meaning of this word in the script. This mistake directly caused a waste of time, resources and effort, probably caused a lot of embarrassment, some choice words from Harlan no doubt and could possibly have cost a few people their jobs.
Words matter. Accuracy matters...even if it offends people to discover that they're wrong. Better to discover the mistake early and avoid a bigger mistake later.
I'm sad to say I'm only discovering Harlan Ellison now, but better late than never. That said, at least now I have a huge new list of books I can add to my Kindle for iPhone, and I have a lot of catching up to do. (Any recommendations as to which of his books to read first are welcomed).
I'll close with one more quote from Harlan's insightful interview:
"As long as you can blame everything on some unseen deity, you don't ever have to be responsible for your own behavior."
Hear, hear.
-dB-
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Immigration Reform and 'Racism'.
I know this is a touchy subject, but it shouldn't be. I'm going to explain my position on immigration in general (namely illegal immigration). Please don't presume to know my opinion yet, as it's neither simplistic, absolutist or black and white. I assure you I am pro-*legal* immigration, being a product of immigration myself (Irish-Italian descent) like many of my fellow immigrants here in America.
This is a timely post, since there's a lot of protest and controversy right now surrounding Arizona governor Jan Brewer's SB 1070 Immigration Reform law, and what I believe to be yet another example of an unfair and unnecessary conflation of immigration reform and the charge of 'racism'.
Read on, if so inclined. I am going to draw contrast between how the laws affect legal American citizens, and how just how many laws are ignored simply being an illegal alien. Also, I am going to separate the myth of 'racism' with the very real and factual status of those who are here illegally, regardless of race. Lastly, I'll make the case that not everyone who comes here has good intentions.
Press on, intrepid reader, if you dare.
1. Do the nation's laws matter, and should they be upheld? Yes, assuming the laws are good laws (IE: the lawbooks are filled with outdated, archaic laws that nobody would dream of enforcing).
2. Are the laws we have working to the benefit of the U.S. and its citizens? (Yes, otherwise they shouldn't be laws, or at least, shouldn't be actively enforced). If the laws are being actively enforced, then it's probably a good idea to acknowledge and follow them, even if we as citizens disagree with them.
3. Is there a legal means to protest and change bad laws? Yes. This can be done by changing the law, removing bad laws, or simply not enforcing them. There are means by which citizens can practice peaceful protests or assemblies, and certainly our votes work toward changing laws we disagree with.
Indeed, laws do matter, especially if they are being actively enforced. Sure, there may be laws on the books about women hanging out near lamp-posts after dark, but nobody cares about this archaic nonsense. If these outdated laws were enforced, they would quickly become landmark cases and possibly make it to the Supreme Court, whereupon the outdated laws would quickly be deemed unconstitutional and used as precedence to overturn similar laws at no trivial taxpayer expense.
Still, other laws are being actively enforced (like prohibitions against car theft, for example) and should be upheld to protect the innocent from those who mean to violate their property rights. Laws against murder, identity theft, even child endangerment all make sense to us, and are actively and vigorously enforced.
Another example we face everyday as Americans is the national speed limit of 65 mph, whether we agree with it or not, it affects us every minute we operate a vehicle on public roads.
While I take issue with an arbitrary national speed limit which is supposed to apply in all situations, and where Germans drive faster per mile and with fewer accidents, the current 65mph national speed limit is in place. If you violate it sufficiently and in view of a cop, he/she will likely arrest you (pull you over), limiting your movement for the time being.
If you're stopped by a Law Enforcement Officer while driving on a public, taxpayer-funded (public) road, you'll be asked for the following papers before any other business is conducted:
1. Valid Driver's License
2. Valid vehicle registration
3. Insurance papers to prove minimum liability coverage (this social law is chiefly in place to protect others in case of an accident).
The officer will also take note of the following conditions:
1. Are you under the influence of drugs or alcohol?
2. Were you wearing your seatbelt as required by law (in applicable areas), or motorcycle helmet if on a motorbike? If not, there are penalties to be had and these can be cited.
3. Is your vehicle in violation of any other VC's (Vehicle Codes)? Perhaps your muffler isn't street legal, or your window-tint may be too dark, etc.
4. If you're carrying children, are they in violation of any airbag prohibitions for underage/underweight children, and if they're in the back, are they secured properly in seatbelts and in a child-carrier seat where applicable?
5. If you're carrying non-child passengers, are their seatbelts secured (in applicable areas), and are they holding any open liquor? Any suspicious behavior?
6 Is there any suspicious contraband (or behaviour from you) which would give probable cause for a search for drugs, contraband, guns or other illegal items/cargo?
And, it doesn't end there. This is the laundry-list of events which occur whenever you're stopped for what seems a routine traffic infraction, whether it's speeding at 100mph+ or having a broken lamp on your rear license plate.
While all of this may seem routine, it's only routine *if* this doesn't lead to the cop discovering other issues which may lead to more infractions on a citation or worse, impounding of your vehicle, arrest, Miranda warning and a trip to the detention facility. Someone's who got 'their papers' in order has little to worry about. They may or may not receive a citation (often based on their attitude) and if a citation is received, there is legal recourse to fight the ticket or simply pay it, take the point and higher insurance rates, and press on.
Note, that in order to qualify as an operator of a vehicle you're driving on public roads, you have to have driver training, which is how you get your license to begin with. The vehicle has to be legal, smog-checked and you have to be authorized to drive it, etc., which is handled by the registration process.
Of course, you need to prove liability for the vehicle you're operating, and that is handled through your insurance. Let the insurance lapse, and your registration will be suspended in some states, since the two are now linked together. Get caught driving without insurance and you face a hefty $1000 fine (or more) and 3 months of 'insurance probation' along with hefty rate hikes, and your car may be impounded as well.
The fact is, there are laws which govern what we can do even as American citizens, and violating these laws have consequences.
Now, why is it that people make such a fuss defending illegal immigration, and often hurl charges of 'racism' at those who notice or want to uphold laws which prohibit this federal crime?
There are numerous ways to legally occupy American soil. One can get a student visa, a work visa, a green card and all of these are potential paths to naturalization and citizenship.
If you drive a car, you have to generally be a U.S. citizen to even get a driver's license, otherwise it's a serious breach in protocol. How does one sneak into the country and yet drive on public roads and care about road rules and such trivialities such as speed limits if they're not even legal citizens? Why should American citizens of all stripe be scrutinized so intensely when they are stopped for speeding, an illegal u-turn or even for something so small as illegal window tint? Meanwhile, non-legal aliens flout these and greater laws, not even having bothered to become citizens which is a requirement to even be here, much less drive on public roads with the rest of us? Why do people dutifully pay speeding tickets, and yet whole groups of people seemingly defend those who run over the nation's borders as 'noble' exiles?
The same holds true for illegals and their various jobs, assuming they're making money through legal means. How does one work and pay into the system (through income tax) without being a legal citizen who can be hired legally and without penalty by employers? Sales tax of course takes care of itself, but nobody is exempt from income tax. And yet, that same person avoiding the legal path to citizenship and income tax will likely drive on public roads with unknown training (if any) and possibly make use of public services too, and some have the gall to shout epithets such as 'racist' if such abuses are recognized as such?
Naturally, one's legal status affects one's ability to drive and work, where the lack of legal status forces one to act outside the law and legal system. Those who steal 'citizenship' by way of illegal immigration are simply working outside the legal citizenship process already in place, and not only are these people unknown to the country and state they occupy, they're also in violation of Federal law. It's wholly unfair both to existing citizens and those trying to become legitimate citizens within the law for others to squat illegally and demand amnesty simply because their crime is 'in the past' and they're 'already here'.
The fact is this; America is not an open-border country and has a persistent and pervasive illegal immigration problem, mostly on its southern-border with Mexico. This does not speak to what illegal immigrants *do* when they get here (whoever they may be), only to the fact that these border laws exist, and there's no debate about that. This also doesn't necessarily mean that illegals are always Mexican, as anyone of any race who knows about the border weaknesses can hire a coyote or sneak across with others through Mexico...regardless of national origin.
Under Title 8 Section 1325 of the U.S. Code, "Improper Entry by Alien," any citizen of any country other than the United States who:
Enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers; or
Eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers; or
Attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact;
has committed a federal crime.
Violations are punishable by criminal fines and imprisonment for up to six months. Repeat offenses can bring up to two years in prison. Additional civil fines may be imposed at the discretion of immigration judges, but civil fines do not negate the criminal sanctions or nature of the offense.
There's the law, and anyone can verify this for themselves. There's no denying immigration laws exist. Any arguments FOR illegal immigration are generally not legal arguments but appeals to emotion and/or distractions to defend crimes of opportunity. This is why people unfairly toss the accusation 'racist' around, which is an emotional hot-button distraction and non-sequitur, designed to put the person noticing the violation of federal law on the defensive. This accusation rests on the knowledge that most modern Americans will do almost anything to avoid this label, even if it means putting their skeptical brains on hold with regard to illegal immigration. I wholly reject this association. Just as speeding tickets, accusations of theft or rape don't have anything to do with race, neither does the fact that millions of illegal aliens flow over under-protected borders every single year.
The fact is, we have borders by which our tax-money serves to protect and defend from incursion, especially in the wake of heightened security after the 911 attacks, and those laws were in place before 911. Should those laws be ignored? No. Do they serve a purpose in an attempt to protect legal American citizens? Yes. Should America have open borders? This is another debate, and I am open to it, but for now suffice it to say that America does have borders which are protected and should be honored.
The immigration laws serve another purpose, which is for the country to know just who wants in, be that student or rapist, cereal-farmer or serial molester, guest-worker or drug runner, car mechanic or car-thief, gardener or garden-variety terrorist. This shouldn't need explanation, but until we have open borders in America (which we don't), it does behoove us to know who is coming into the country. We Americans often lose our collective minds when the government wants to build prisons in or near our neighorhoods, and understandably....so why are so many people defending or promoting what seems to be an all-out attack on those who notice illegal immigration, comment on it, or want to simply enforce existing immigration laws?
While some romantically depict illegal immigrants as hardworking migrants who simply want a better life, and while this might be generally true, there are many who come here under stealth who are criminals of some ilk. The fact is, when someone crosses the border illegally having circumvented legal means, we just don't know what we're getting (apart from someone whose first action on American soil is to break federal law).
Illegal immigration, as the name implies, is illegal in a fundamental sense, where it's no different than just driving around on public roads in an unregistered car, without a license and without insurance. Illegal immigration is akin to squatting in a house you don't own, and is tantamount to theft of citizenship. At worse, the illegal immigrant group crossing U.S. borders could be seen as part of an invading squad or force, but that might be taking it too far. Still, when national laws are ignored, it's more than just a trivial problem.
So, before we even worry about WHO is coming over illegally, illegal immigration, by definition, is illegal and that is an established and uncontested fact.
Now, why do some people make such a fuss over the fact that a litany of requirements is needed to simply drive on public roads, but somehow others want to protect those who simply ran over the U.S. border, only to squat on U.S. territory and have the gall to ask for a 'path to citizenship'?
It's nothing less than intimidation, politically and at a grass-roots level. See, the problem is so bad now, so pervasive, that people are getting to where they are called 'racist' if they notice it, or if they want to do something about it. However, race is secondary, and a separate issue. Country of origin is noteworthy here since, as we all know, the U.S. shares a long border with Mexico, and this is where the huge majority of illegals filter in from. This doesn't indicate that all illegals are Mexican, simply that this is a known issue, statistically, due to simple geography and the poor economic state of Mexico, which lends itself to those seeking improvement in their lives without waiting around for pesky bureaucracy such as seeking legal citizenship, which can be tedious and time-consuming.
How is it racist to enforce national immigration law anymore than it is for a cop to pull me over for blasting 110 mph down the freeway? It isn't. Modern U.S. laws are not inherently racist, at least, the ones I am discussing aren't.
The problem is, those who identify *themselves* as targets of these laws are often generally themselves guilty of illegal immigration, or perhaps are friends with, or know or are aiding and abetting illegal aliens. These people affiliated with illegals are strongly discouraged from acting in the interest of national security but in self-interested opportunism, either to directly help those breaking these laws or as a convenient way to avoid confrontation with friends and family.
That sort of pressure is no small influence to those that are forced to live with and around a large constituent that identifies with the masses who simply came here illegally after circumventing the legal process, and are pressuring everyone else not to notice. This is much the same strategy used by the Catholic church to aid and abet child molesters. Don't notice, don't ask don't tell, don't talk about it. But, the problem still exists.
Ok, now many will make the ridiculous argument that those who come here illegally are just looking for 'a better life'. Granted. I agree that they are looking for a better life, but so is a car thief, the bank robber and the desperate would-be mom who steals a baby from a hospital.
All of them want to improve their situation (as do most criminals) at a direct cost to others. It's how they go about it, in violation of the law, which is the issue at hand. We don't fret about the race or gender of those who steal babies (usually females do this), because the issue is that we don't allow baby-theft in a civil society. We don't get hung up on the gender or race of the identity thief, because it's illegal no matter what your gender, race, etc. (though one could argue that illegal immigration largely feeds this criminal market). Likewise, illegal immigration is no different, and isn't primarily a racial issue, but a geographic and financially-driven issue.
When a car thief successfully steals your car, is there a path to ownership? No. The thief, if caught, will be apprehended for this crime and thrown in jail, with penalties matching the crime. If that car-thief happens to be an illegal alien, this will too be discovered by way of seeking identification and often, that criminal will likely be deported.
See, discovering one crime or infraction often leads to the discovery of others. It's no different than the cop who spots the somewhat innocuous driver with an expired registration, only to pull him over for a routine 'fix it' citation. If the officer spots a controlled substance such as a Marijuana joint, this could lead to a probable cause search, which could lead to a discovery of a cache of drugs in the trunk...maybe a gun or other contraband. Evidence is simply probable cause for discovery of other alleged wrongdoing simply by way of observation.
Why then would we be surprised if a traffic stop which *requires* a cop to ask for license, registration and insurance, and where none is provided, not lead to questions about citizenship? How else do we propose to discover who is an illegal alien, especially in border states where this is a much bigger problem than say, Iowa or Nebraska?
Why shouldn't the cop, who is canvassing the situation to see if you were not wearing a seat belt or talking on a non-hands-free cellphone (infractions in many states), also not check to see if you are even a legal citizen if you fail to provide a license, registration or insurance (or all of the above)? Why would we let a an officer of the law search a vehicle based on probable cause that you're carrying drugs or other contraband, but not be allowed to think too hard about whether you're here illegally, regardless of your race?
All criminal investigation requires profiling of some type. This is exactly what cops do, and if they didn't, they wouldn't be very good at their jobs. When there's a suspected rapist, most of the time the offender is going to be male, and understandably, the rapist will generally know his crime and be nervous around cops, especially if he knows people are looking for him. Anyone accused of this crime would have their description given to the cops, and if that happens to fit the descriptions of other accused rapists, so be it. It doesn't change the fact that the perpetrator will be brought to justice if caught.
If the crime is car theft, the stolen car in question is put into the system, and the cops on the hunt will profile ALL cars of that make, model and color in and around that area. If you happen to be the unlucky driver of that make model and color car, you might get pulled over while the cops look for the real perpetrator, but most civilians understand this inconvenience and would appreciate the same courtesy if their own cars were stolen.
In addition, almost any reported crime dispatched to Law Enforcement Officers will include descriptions of the physical characteristics of the perpetrator, including race and gender. To anyone who has eyes, this is useful information if you're looking for a suspect. Is the suspect tall, short? Black or white? Tattoos or any other noticeable markings? Does he dress a certain way? Drive a certain type of vehicle? Is he seen at a certain place regularly? As pattern-recognizing primates, these are all essential ingredients to finding perpetrators for detention and further questioning.
With regard to those who might be here illegally, there is also profiling which is necessary, and it's no more racist than profiling those who steal cars or transport controlled substances. Sure, an illegal alien could be Swedish, Russian, Chinese or Guatamalan, but that would only be a part of the equation, and this doesn't mean race is the *first* criteria in discovering illegals. While an illegal alien could be Swedish or Hungarian, we know that statistically and due to simple geography, illegal aliens in the U.S. border states are overwhelmingly Hispanic. A cop shouldn't be legally restrained from discovering an illegal alien through pertinent questioning when a driver fails to show valid ID, regardless of the driver's race. It's not wholly unlike screening for terrorists at airports. Statistically, airline terrorists aren't from South Wales or Iceland as much as they are generally Muslim extremists of 'Middle-Eastern' appearance, but that doesn't mean any suspicious persons won't be asked to comply with further screening 'as needed' to protect the rest of us from any perceived threats. I understand not all Muslim extremists are Arab-looking, but most are (certainly the 19 terrorists who blew up the trade-center were). I am not speaking in absolutes, but generalities here.
The cop isn't looking *first* for illegal aliens anymore than he's necessarily looking for those who might be hiding a loaded gun under their seat at a traffic stop. The initial contact with a civilian might simply be the cop citing for a broken taillight, exceeding the max speed, driving in the carpool lane solo, etc.
Once that stop takes place, however, it is NOT inherently racist for the lack of papers justifying operation of a vehicle on American public roads (license, registration and insurance) to lead to questions about citizenship status. This is simply one or more infractions leading to the discovery of others, as demonstrated above in any routine traffic stop. After all, why should someone who isn't even here legally be allowed to drive without the necessary requirements on public roads shared by the rest of us? How is this fair to anyone? We don't offer special dispensation to those who are legal citizens driving without a license, registration or insurance, so why should those who are here illegally not charged with the greater crime of being in the country after avoiding legal status in the first place?
Wouldn't it make sense that someone without any ID, registration and insurance is likely not a legal citizen or at least seriously in violation of the basic requirements to drive on public roads? If a legal citizen is cited for these infractions, the cop issues a citation after optionally impounding the vehicle and the accused simply gets his affairs in order before his driving privilege is restored. Naturally, someone who lacks any papers supporting his driving privilege who is not a legal citizen/resident has a lot more to lose, but I think it behooves us to allow cops to use their logical deduction and follow the evidence where it leads....and if that uncovers an illegal alien once in a while, so be it. After all, if we don't rely on cops to spot crime, then who should do it? Do we rely on vigilantism? I should hope not.
Perhaps, we've all been there in whole or part with missing documents in a routine traffic stop. Sometimes we let registrations lapse, forget to restore insurance coverage (an expensive lapse) or fail to renew our driver's licenses. But, most of us *have* some kind of driver's license, even outdated ones. Failure to produce any documentation, even outdated docs, would be probable cause for any officer of the law to then ask for Proof of Citizenship (were it allowed) just as they ask for POI (Proof of Insurance) in a normal traffic stop.
Again, for legitimate citizens, be they on work/student visa, green card, naturalized or full citizens, it's a legitimate question by those who represent the law. If a cop, who is merely a witness in this case, cannot ask you for your proof of citizenship, then effectively *nobody* can. Think about it, if a cop cannot see who the legal residents are, do we rely on the secretive witch hunts and have neighbors reporting on neighbors, who then have to deal with the I.N.S.?
This is where things get silly, as people cry 'racism' at the notion that one infraction should not be allowed to lead to the discovery of another. As we already know through routine traffic stops, this happens *every day* to legal citizens driving their vehicles on public roads. The cop might pull you over for a broken tail-light and discover you have no insurance and are carrying pot. Small problem leads to a bigger problem. He may run your plate before stopping you and find a warrant for your arrest. Bad luck, bad timing, but the cop still was able to find you in the system and get information on you.
With illegal aliens, no such information exists, the illegal likely has no paperwork, or illegitimate/fake paperwork, and we're supposed to ignore this, or pretend it's not a problem? I heartily disagree. Checking legal residency/citizenship status could be as simple as having a driver's license or state ID which is already required to drive on public roads. Showing proof of citizenship should be a basic requirement *when asked*, as there's a known issue with illegal immigration in America, moreso in border states. This problem has a cascading effect in other areas, as I'll explain below.
The basic legal status of an individual should pre-date any license, registration or insurance requirement anyway, since it seems illogical to grant all of these papers to someone who snuck into the contry in the first place.
It's somewhat like granting a driver's license to someone who has escaped jail....that person isn't even supposed to be out of jail, let alone driving on public roads. It's a simple cart before the horse issue. First: citizenship, second driver's license and other rights afforded to legitimate American citizens.
Now, I realize this is a huge blog entry already, but I feel the need to address some of the 'defenses' of illegal immigration. Remember, there is no disputing that immigration laws exist, and once violated, the illegal alien is now in violation of a federal crime. But, let's answer a few objections to those who seek to circumvent the path to citizenship by simply sneaking into the country by various means.
Don't these illegal immigrants just want a better life? What's wrong with them coming over?
My first response is to reject the assumption that all illegals are simply here to do noble deeds, go to work, and send money to their families when their very first action on American soil is to break federal law by circumventing the legal path to citizenship. We don't know who is coming over when we don't know who is coming over....they could be workers, rapists, families or terrorists. I support the current laws and the government wanting to know who is coming into the country. Breaking the law to get into America is obviously a pursuit for a better life, but it impinges on the right of America to be a sovereign nation with protected borders. It cuts in front of those waiting patiently for legal citizenship by way of occupation, and like the car thief or land-squatter, obviously people will break the law to have a better life, but it's no excuse. Again, we don't offer car thieves and land-squatters 'paths to ownership', just as we shouldn't offer illegal aliens paths to citizenship ahead of those using legal means to become Americans.
Additionally, living outside the law as a fugitive has a cascading effect on the lives of others. For one, it means you're probably not trained to be driving on American roads, and lack some of the training about drinking and driving, seatbelt laws, and other provisions that every legal American must abide by. Yet, many of these illegal aliens will drive anyway and 'take their chances' which is really putting everyone else at risk, not to mention clogging roads with drivers of questionable driver training, if any.
Worse, being a fugitive means the illegal alien driver is more likely to drive off in the event of any kind of accident, for fear of arrest and deportation.
Paul Babeu, an Arizona Sheriff from Pinal County explains:
'Last month alone, just in one patrol region, we had sixty-four pursuits. That means people who were driving a vehicle, failed to yield, took off like a bat out of hell, running red lights, creating traffic wrecks, numerous people were killed in these wrecks over the last several months, and who are these people? Not one of them was a U.S. citizen'.
Here's the article link, for those who want to read more. Check out this YouTube audio file below for the interview with Pinal County Sheriff, Paul Babeu, who discusses illegal aliens involved in high-speed pursuits and the issue of 'racial profiling'.
Clearly, there is a trend here. Illegals don't want to be caught, and it affects *everyone*.
Apparently it's not just car chases. Here's an exerpt from Sheriff Babeu's own website,
'At approximately 4 PM on April 30th, Deputy Louie Purrol was tracking six drug smugglers (later known to be armed) in the remote desert area south of I-8 and west of Casa Grande, when he was ambushed and shot. Over 200 officers from local, state, tribal nations and our federal partners responded. Your help and support was tremendous and underscored the strength of our professional bond.
Though the investigation continues, we have several investigative leads and have identified three other Mexican Nationals, who are victims (robbed of cash and personal belongings) of the same suspects that shot Deputy Purrol. The Border Patrol apprehended two of four (two escaped) illegals along this smuggling corridor and recovered four fully loaded AK-47s in the three points area, located along the Pima/Pinal border. Two illegal immigrants with felony drug trafficking (cocaine) warrants out of the mid-west were also apprehended within our security perimeter. There were over 100 illegals apprehended within our security perimeter in the remote desert area south of I-8 and west of Casa Grande, just within 24 hrs we were there'.
Noble migrant workers, or invading militia? Perhaps a bit of both? The fact is, America has a right to know who is coming into the country, and American ciizens deserve to have a protected border if we're going to bother having a border at all. No wonder people in border states feel uneasy, and it explains new laws like the one Gov. Jan Brewer signed into law on April 23 (SB 1070), which would make illegal immigration an Arizona state crime (not just a federal crime), and allow checking of legal status once criminal investigation is underway.
As Sheriff Babeu says in the YouTube clip, he doesn't profile by race, he profiles criminals. That's exactly what our tax-dollars pay cops to do. If they can't use their intellect to catch criminals, then who should do it? Pretending not to notice Federal crime might be convenient for illegals, but it doesn't do American citizens much good.
Don't these illegal immigrants just want to work? They perform work service that American citizens don't want to do themselves.
While the romantically-portrayed migrant worker does provide a service (while avoiding income taxes as many are paid in cash or under-the-table), there are others coming over who are murderers, violent criminals, child molesters, rapists, terrorists, drug-runners or involved in other black markets, car thieves, etc, not to mention already guilty (by definition) of a federal crime of illegal occupation on American soil. For those who have the stomach to look, there are pages of criminals on the web who were apprehended and found to be illegal aliens.
While many will talk about illegal immigrants performing jobs that others 'won't' perform, this is a self-fulfilling prophecy in large part. This is due to the fact that someone who isn't here illegally doesn't have the benefit of American legal protections, risks deportation by being exposed as an illegal alien, and is easily exploited and underpaid. This limits the means by which a legitimate American citizen can compete with the under-the-table wages paid to illegal aliens, as legal aliens and citizens are guaranteed a minimum wage, but illegals often work for much less outside the system.
Fugitive labor comes at an astonishingly low-cost, and there's just no way for American workers to compete for that job at such a low wage. That holds true for new American citizens who are still working low-wage jobs, but who have legal recourse, a guaranteed minimum wage, established break-time, OSHA protection, etc. The illegal will always be exploited and motivated to undercut and work for less. This really does affect citizens who might otherwise work these jobs but for unscrupulous companies hiring cheap, illegal labor.
Weren't indigenous American-continent Hispanics or Native Americans here before the Europeans? What's the big deal with them coming back?
I've heard this argument before relating to 'Hispanics' coming back to occupy land which was 'taken' from them through past wars and such. To this I reply, 'It doesn't change the fact that America is a sovereign nation, with borders and border laws'.
The unfortunate fact of territory is that it changes hands from time to time, through war, purchases and other means. While it is true that the Americas were originally native American, this changed with the incursion of Spanish and their superior technology, not to mention their New World diseases wreaking havoc on indigenous populations. Native Americans or 'Indians' in common parlance, were forcibly converted to Catholicism and raped (along with consensual breeding), and this is responsible for the various gene-mixing we've come to know as 'Mexican' and other Hispanic peoples living in the Americas.
The native-Americans themselves weren't always here, but came from Africa (like the rest of us) by way of Mongolia and then through the Bering land bridge, which can be verified through population genetics or Mitochonrdial DNA comparisons. This is why Native Americans have an 'Asian' look, their ancestors were from Asia.
That said, if the intent by illegals is to simply re-occupy their former territory, then that is an act of war, even if it's not recognized as such by others or declared as such. However, I have heard various Hispanic militants on the radio claiming that while the intent isn't overtly war, there is a movement among a subset of illegals to out-populate and occupy lands which were formerly theirs. I am not saying that all illegal aliens feel this way or even know about these sentiments, but it is out there. This attempt to re-populate again, isn't always as innocent or noble as defenders of illegal immigration make it out to be.
To be fair though, out-breeding has as much to do with socio-economic status as anything else, as throughout history the poor, religious (namely Catholic) and less-educated have always had far more children than the well-to-do. It stands to reason that those who are fleeing disastrous economic conditions in their home countries are poor, and many families are under the thumb of Catholicism or simply under-educated about birth control. There's also the strategy of having American-born, aka 'anchor babies' as a way to secure provisional citizenship and/or complicate deportation, so it's far from a simple problem with a simple solution, at times.
Lastly: the general drain on resources. Where does the illegal immigrant go for healthcare, and how does that affect the already 45 million legal citizens who don't have healthcare? My guess at the very least, illegal immigrants tend to use Emergency Rooms as their primary care, but this affects everyone with regard to wait time and overcrowding, not to mention cutting into profits and thinning the efforts of an already over-burdened staff. Where do illegal immigrant children go to school, and how much of a burden does this put on instructors who are already underpaid, but now potentially have to teach in two languages? How much traffic are Americans willing to deal with, without those who are fugitives creating more traffic along with everyone else if they're driving on public roads, with an unknown level of driver training? I am sure I could think of more examples, but you get the picture.
There are a lot more repercussions for illegal immigration, but the fact is, the term is self-described as 'illegal' immigration, regardless of race. I am all for legal immigration through proper channels. Likewise, if I were going to go to France or the U.K., I would expect to have to acquire citizenship through proper legal channels as well, and I wouldn't protest in the streets with an upside-down flag of my unknowing 'host' country just because a crime of illegal immigration was recognized and punished as the crime it is.
Let's be real here. The charge of 'racism' for recognizing illegal immigration is an erroneous conflation of two separate ideas. Perhaps, a more likely term would be 'citizenist', which would at least be accurate. Those who shout 'racist' are revealing more information about themselves and their association with race and illegal immigration than anything else. It's a classic case of, 'I resemble that remark!'.
If legal American citizens have to abide numerous rules and regulations just to drive a car on public roads, then it should be behoove us as citizens to allow our police to also check for citizenship at routine traffic stops, if warranted by those we appoint with the power to check your license, registration, insurance, seatbelts, etc.. After all, if someone is simply squatting within sovereign borders, why on Earth are they here driving around? Simply 'getting away with the crime' is not a free pass. If we disallow the police this power to pursue evidence, then how should we else does the law propose to discover someone's legal status?
One solution regarding traffic stops and legal status would be to allow police to ask about your citizenship *if* one fails to provide any driver's license or state ID, or if that ID appears to be fake in some manner. I think this is reasonable, and that kind of question about citizenship or residency status would only come as a result of some breach in protocol, where you're caught in an infraction/crime, come into contact with police and fail to provide proper ID. Of course, not being able to speak the language is a strong indicator that you haven't been in the country very long either, just as smelling of alcohol might be an indicator that someone's been drinking...another thing cops have every right to investigate further.
Sure, being an illegal alien isn't directly a cause of injury like drinking and driving, but like someone driving with a warrant, it's certainly a reason that person should be detained by the cops and dealt with should this fact be discovered. Even lying to a cop about your name can be used against you, so being in the country illegally shouldn't be exempt from scrutiny.
Bottom line, legal status has zero to do with racism, but is a natural extension of enforcing existing federal law. People should not be intimidated by charges of 'racism' for noticing this crime anymore than noticing other crimes.
Regardless of race, someone who is here illegally is just that, here illegally and thus the term *illegal* immigrant. It's fairly simple, and confers nothing about idea relating to the superiority of any race which is the erroneous idea 'racism' actually refers to.
As for legal immigration, I'm all for it. It takes time and effort, but few things worthwhile come easily.
This is a timely post, since there's a lot of protest and controversy right now surrounding Arizona governor Jan Brewer's SB 1070 Immigration Reform law, and what I believe to be yet another example of an unfair and unnecessary conflation of immigration reform and the charge of 'racism'.
Read on, if so inclined. I am going to draw contrast between how the laws affect legal American citizens, and how just how many laws are ignored simply being an illegal alien. Also, I am going to separate the myth of 'racism' with the very real and factual status of those who are here illegally, regardless of race. Lastly, I'll make the case that not everyone who comes here has good intentions.
Press on, intrepid reader, if you dare.
1. Do the nation's laws matter, and should they be upheld? Yes, assuming the laws are good laws (IE: the lawbooks are filled with outdated, archaic laws that nobody would dream of enforcing).
2. Are the laws we have working to the benefit of the U.S. and its citizens? (Yes, otherwise they shouldn't be laws, or at least, shouldn't be actively enforced). If the laws are being actively enforced, then it's probably a good idea to acknowledge and follow them, even if we as citizens disagree with them.
3. Is there a legal means to protest and change bad laws? Yes. This can be done by changing the law, removing bad laws, or simply not enforcing them. There are means by which citizens can practice peaceful protests or assemblies, and certainly our votes work toward changing laws we disagree with.
Indeed, laws do matter, especially if they are being actively enforced. Sure, there may be laws on the books about women hanging out near lamp-posts after dark, but nobody cares about this archaic nonsense. If these outdated laws were enforced, they would quickly become landmark cases and possibly make it to the Supreme Court, whereupon the outdated laws would quickly be deemed unconstitutional and used as precedence to overturn similar laws at no trivial taxpayer expense.
Still, other laws are being actively enforced (like prohibitions against car theft, for example) and should be upheld to protect the innocent from those who mean to violate their property rights. Laws against murder, identity theft, even child endangerment all make sense to us, and are actively and vigorously enforced.
Another example we face everyday as Americans is the national speed limit of 65 mph, whether we agree with it or not, it affects us every minute we operate a vehicle on public roads.
While I take issue with an arbitrary national speed limit which is supposed to apply in all situations, and where Germans drive faster per mile and with fewer accidents, the current 65mph national speed limit is in place. If you violate it sufficiently and in view of a cop, he/she will likely arrest you (pull you over), limiting your movement for the time being.
If you're stopped by a Law Enforcement Officer while driving on a public, taxpayer-funded (public) road, you'll be asked for the following papers before any other business is conducted:
1. Valid Driver's License
2. Valid vehicle registration
3. Insurance papers to prove minimum liability coverage (this social law is chiefly in place to protect others in case of an accident).
The officer will also take note of the following conditions:
1. Are you under the influence of drugs or alcohol?
2. Were you wearing your seatbelt as required by law (in applicable areas), or motorcycle helmet if on a motorbike? If not, there are penalties to be had and these can be cited.
3. Is your vehicle in violation of any other VC's (Vehicle Codes)? Perhaps your muffler isn't street legal, or your window-tint may be too dark, etc.
4. If you're carrying children, are they in violation of any airbag prohibitions for underage/underweight children, and if they're in the back, are they secured properly in seatbelts and in a child-carrier seat where applicable?
5. If you're carrying non-child passengers, are their seatbelts secured (in applicable areas), and are they holding any open liquor? Any suspicious behavior?
6 Is there any suspicious contraband (or behaviour from you) which would give probable cause for a search for drugs, contraband, guns or other illegal items/cargo?
And, it doesn't end there. This is the laundry-list of events which occur whenever you're stopped for what seems a routine traffic infraction, whether it's speeding at 100mph+ or having a broken lamp on your rear license plate.
While all of this may seem routine, it's only routine *if* this doesn't lead to the cop discovering other issues which may lead to more infractions on a citation or worse, impounding of your vehicle, arrest, Miranda warning and a trip to the detention facility. Someone's who got 'their papers' in order has little to worry about. They may or may not receive a citation (often based on their attitude) and if a citation is received, there is legal recourse to fight the ticket or simply pay it, take the point and higher insurance rates, and press on.
Note, that in order to qualify as an operator of a vehicle you're driving on public roads, you have to have driver training, which is how you get your license to begin with. The vehicle has to be legal, smog-checked and you have to be authorized to drive it, etc., which is handled by the registration process.
Of course, you need to prove liability for the vehicle you're operating, and that is handled through your insurance. Let the insurance lapse, and your registration will be suspended in some states, since the two are now linked together. Get caught driving without insurance and you face a hefty $1000 fine (or more) and 3 months of 'insurance probation' along with hefty rate hikes, and your car may be impounded as well.
The fact is, there are laws which govern what we can do even as American citizens, and violating these laws have consequences.
Now, why is it that people make such a fuss defending illegal immigration, and often hurl charges of 'racism' at those who notice or want to uphold laws which prohibit this federal crime?
There are numerous ways to legally occupy American soil. One can get a student visa, a work visa, a green card and all of these are potential paths to naturalization and citizenship.
If you drive a car, you have to generally be a U.S. citizen to even get a driver's license, otherwise it's a serious breach in protocol. How does one sneak into the country and yet drive on public roads and care about road rules and such trivialities such as speed limits if they're not even legal citizens? Why should American citizens of all stripe be scrutinized so intensely when they are stopped for speeding, an illegal u-turn or even for something so small as illegal window tint? Meanwhile, non-legal aliens flout these and greater laws, not even having bothered to become citizens which is a requirement to even be here, much less drive on public roads with the rest of us? Why do people dutifully pay speeding tickets, and yet whole groups of people seemingly defend those who run over the nation's borders as 'noble' exiles?
The same holds true for illegals and their various jobs, assuming they're making money through legal means. How does one work and pay into the system (through income tax) without being a legal citizen who can be hired legally and without penalty by employers? Sales tax of course takes care of itself, but nobody is exempt from income tax. And yet, that same person avoiding the legal path to citizenship and income tax will likely drive on public roads with unknown training (if any) and possibly make use of public services too, and some have the gall to shout epithets such as 'racist' if such abuses are recognized as such?
Naturally, one's legal status affects one's ability to drive and work, where the lack of legal status forces one to act outside the law and legal system. Those who steal 'citizenship' by way of illegal immigration are simply working outside the legal citizenship process already in place, and not only are these people unknown to the country and state they occupy, they're also in violation of Federal law. It's wholly unfair both to existing citizens and those trying to become legitimate citizens within the law for others to squat illegally and demand amnesty simply because their crime is 'in the past' and they're 'already here'.
The fact is this; America is not an open-border country and has a persistent and pervasive illegal immigration problem, mostly on its southern-border with Mexico. This does not speak to what illegal immigrants *do* when they get here (whoever they may be), only to the fact that these border laws exist, and there's no debate about that. This also doesn't necessarily mean that illegals are always Mexican, as anyone of any race who knows about the border weaknesses can hire a coyote or sneak across with others through Mexico...regardless of national origin.
Under Title 8 Section 1325 of the U.S. Code, "Improper Entry by Alien," any citizen of any country other than the United States who:
Enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers; or
Eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers; or
Attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact;
has committed a federal crime.
Violations are punishable by criminal fines and imprisonment for up to six months. Repeat offenses can bring up to two years in prison. Additional civil fines may be imposed at the discretion of immigration judges, but civil fines do not negate the criminal sanctions or nature of the offense.
There's the law, and anyone can verify this for themselves. There's no denying immigration laws exist. Any arguments FOR illegal immigration are generally not legal arguments but appeals to emotion and/or distractions to defend crimes of opportunity. This is why people unfairly toss the accusation 'racist' around, which is an emotional hot-button distraction and non-sequitur, designed to put the person noticing the violation of federal law on the defensive. This accusation rests on the knowledge that most modern Americans will do almost anything to avoid this label, even if it means putting their skeptical brains on hold with regard to illegal immigration. I wholly reject this association. Just as speeding tickets, accusations of theft or rape don't have anything to do with race, neither does the fact that millions of illegal aliens flow over under-protected borders every single year.
The fact is, we have borders by which our tax-money serves to protect and defend from incursion, especially in the wake of heightened security after the 911 attacks, and those laws were in place before 911. Should those laws be ignored? No. Do they serve a purpose in an attempt to protect legal American citizens? Yes. Should America have open borders? This is another debate, and I am open to it, but for now suffice it to say that America does have borders which are protected and should be honored.
The immigration laws serve another purpose, which is for the country to know just who wants in, be that student or rapist, cereal-farmer or serial molester, guest-worker or drug runner, car mechanic or car-thief, gardener or garden-variety terrorist. This shouldn't need explanation, but until we have open borders in America (which we don't), it does behoove us to know who is coming into the country. We Americans often lose our collective minds when the government wants to build prisons in or near our neighorhoods, and understandably....so why are so many people defending or promoting what seems to be an all-out attack on those who notice illegal immigration, comment on it, or want to simply enforce existing immigration laws?
While some romantically depict illegal immigrants as hardworking migrants who simply want a better life, and while this might be generally true, there are many who come here under stealth who are criminals of some ilk. The fact is, when someone crosses the border illegally having circumvented legal means, we just don't know what we're getting (apart from someone whose first action on American soil is to break federal law).
Illegal immigration, as the name implies, is illegal in a fundamental sense, where it's no different than just driving around on public roads in an unregistered car, without a license and without insurance. Illegal immigration is akin to squatting in a house you don't own, and is tantamount to theft of citizenship. At worse, the illegal immigrant group crossing U.S. borders could be seen as part of an invading squad or force, but that might be taking it too far. Still, when national laws are ignored, it's more than just a trivial problem.
So, before we even worry about WHO is coming over illegally, illegal immigration, by definition, is illegal and that is an established and uncontested fact.
Now, why do some people make such a fuss over the fact that a litany of requirements is needed to simply drive on public roads, but somehow others want to protect those who simply ran over the U.S. border, only to squat on U.S. territory and have the gall to ask for a 'path to citizenship'?
It's nothing less than intimidation, politically and at a grass-roots level. See, the problem is so bad now, so pervasive, that people are getting to where they are called 'racist' if they notice it, or if they want to do something about it. However, race is secondary, and a separate issue. Country of origin is noteworthy here since, as we all know, the U.S. shares a long border with Mexico, and this is where the huge majority of illegals filter in from. This doesn't indicate that all illegals are Mexican, simply that this is a known issue, statistically, due to simple geography and the poor economic state of Mexico, which lends itself to those seeking improvement in their lives without waiting around for pesky bureaucracy such as seeking legal citizenship, which can be tedious and time-consuming.
How is it racist to enforce national immigration law anymore than it is for a cop to pull me over for blasting 110 mph down the freeway? It isn't. Modern U.S. laws are not inherently racist, at least, the ones I am discussing aren't.
The problem is, those who identify *themselves* as targets of these laws are often generally themselves guilty of illegal immigration, or perhaps are friends with, or know or are aiding and abetting illegal aliens. These people affiliated with illegals are strongly discouraged from acting in the interest of national security but in self-interested opportunism, either to directly help those breaking these laws or as a convenient way to avoid confrontation with friends and family.
That sort of pressure is no small influence to those that are forced to live with and around a large constituent that identifies with the masses who simply came here illegally after circumventing the legal process, and are pressuring everyone else not to notice. This is much the same strategy used by the Catholic church to aid and abet child molesters. Don't notice, don't ask don't tell, don't talk about it. But, the problem still exists.
Ok, now many will make the ridiculous argument that those who come here illegally are just looking for 'a better life'. Granted. I agree that they are looking for a better life, but so is a car thief, the bank robber and the desperate would-be mom who steals a baby from a hospital.
All of them want to improve their situation (as do most criminals) at a direct cost to others. It's how they go about it, in violation of the law, which is the issue at hand. We don't fret about the race or gender of those who steal babies (usually females do this), because the issue is that we don't allow baby-theft in a civil society. We don't get hung up on the gender or race of the identity thief, because it's illegal no matter what your gender, race, etc. (though one could argue that illegal immigration largely feeds this criminal market). Likewise, illegal immigration is no different, and isn't primarily a racial issue, but a geographic and financially-driven issue.
When a car thief successfully steals your car, is there a path to ownership? No. The thief, if caught, will be apprehended for this crime and thrown in jail, with penalties matching the crime. If that car-thief happens to be an illegal alien, this will too be discovered by way of seeking identification and often, that criminal will likely be deported.
See, discovering one crime or infraction often leads to the discovery of others. It's no different than the cop who spots the somewhat innocuous driver with an expired registration, only to pull him over for a routine 'fix it' citation. If the officer spots a controlled substance such as a Marijuana joint, this could lead to a probable cause search, which could lead to a discovery of a cache of drugs in the trunk...maybe a gun or other contraband. Evidence is simply probable cause for discovery of other alleged wrongdoing simply by way of observation.
Why then would we be surprised if a traffic stop which *requires* a cop to ask for license, registration and insurance, and where none is provided, not lead to questions about citizenship? How else do we propose to discover who is an illegal alien, especially in border states where this is a much bigger problem than say, Iowa or Nebraska?
Why shouldn't the cop, who is canvassing the situation to see if you were not wearing a seat belt or talking on a non-hands-free cellphone (infractions in many states), also not check to see if you are even a legal citizen if you fail to provide a license, registration or insurance (or all of the above)? Why would we let a an officer of the law search a vehicle based on probable cause that you're carrying drugs or other contraband, but not be allowed to think too hard about whether you're here illegally, regardless of your race?
All criminal investigation requires profiling of some type. This is exactly what cops do, and if they didn't, they wouldn't be very good at their jobs. When there's a suspected rapist, most of the time the offender is going to be male, and understandably, the rapist will generally know his crime and be nervous around cops, especially if he knows people are looking for him. Anyone accused of this crime would have their description given to the cops, and if that happens to fit the descriptions of other accused rapists, so be it. It doesn't change the fact that the perpetrator will be brought to justice if caught.
If the crime is car theft, the stolen car in question is put into the system, and the cops on the hunt will profile ALL cars of that make, model and color in and around that area. If you happen to be the unlucky driver of that make model and color car, you might get pulled over while the cops look for the real perpetrator, but most civilians understand this inconvenience and would appreciate the same courtesy if their own cars were stolen.
In addition, almost any reported crime dispatched to Law Enforcement Officers will include descriptions of the physical characteristics of the perpetrator, including race and gender. To anyone who has eyes, this is useful information if you're looking for a suspect. Is the suspect tall, short? Black or white? Tattoos or any other noticeable markings? Does he dress a certain way? Drive a certain type of vehicle? Is he seen at a certain place regularly? As pattern-recognizing primates, these are all essential ingredients to finding perpetrators for detention and further questioning.
With regard to those who might be here illegally, there is also profiling which is necessary, and it's no more racist than profiling those who steal cars or transport controlled substances. Sure, an illegal alien could be Swedish, Russian, Chinese or Guatamalan, but that would only be a part of the equation, and this doesn't mean race is the *first* criteria in discovering illegals. While an illegal alien could be Swedish or Hungarian, we know that statistically and due to simple geography, illegal aliens in the U.S. border states are overwhelmingly Hispanic. A cop shouldn't be legally restrained from discovering an illegal alien through pertinent questioning when a driver fails to show valid ID, regardless of the driver's race. It's not wholly unlike screening for terrorists at airports. Statistically, airline terrorists aren't from South Wales or Iceland as much as they are generally Muslim extremists of 'Middle-Eastern' appearance, but that doesn't mean any suspicious persons won't be asked to comply with further screening 'as needed' to protect the rest of us from any perceived threats. I understand not all Muslim extremists are Arab-looking, but most are (certainly the 19 terrorists who blew up the trade-center were). I am not speaking in absolutes, but generalities here.
The cop isn't looking *first* for illegal aliens anymore than he's necessarily looking for those who might be hiding a loaded gun under their seat at a traffic stop. The initial contact with a civilian might simply be the cop citing for a broken taillight, exceeding the max speed, driving in the carpool lane solo, etc.
Once that stop takes place, however, it is NOT inherently racist for the lack of papers justifying operation of a vehicle on American public roads (license, registration and insurance) to lead to questions about citizenship status. This is simply one or more infractions leading to the discovery of others, as demonstrated above in any routine traffic stop. After all, why should someone who isn't even here legally be allowed to drive without the necessary requirements on public roads shared by the rest of us? How is this fair to anyone? We don't offer special dispensation to those who are legal citizens driving without a license, registration or insurance, so why should those who are here illegally not charged with the greater crime of being in the country after avoiding legal status in the first place?
Wouldn't it make sense that someone without any ID, registration and insurance is likely not a legal citizen or at least seriously in violation of the basic requirements to drive on public roads? If a legal citizen is cited for these infractions, the cop issues a citation after optionally impounding the vehicle and the accused simply gets his affairs in order before his driving privilege is restored. Naturally, someone who lacks any papers supporting his driving privilege who is not a legal citizen/resident has a lot more to lose, but I think it behooves us to allow cops to use their logical deduction and follow the evidence where it leads....and if that uncovers an illegal alien once in a while, so be it. After all, if we don't rely on cops to spot crime, then who should do it? Do we rely on vigilantism? I should hope not.
Perhaps, we've all been there in whole or part with missing documents in a routine traffic stop. Sometimes we let registrations lapse, forget to restore insurance coverage (an expensive lapse) or fail to renew our driver's licenses. But, most of us *have* some kind of driver's license, even outdated ones. Failure to produce any documentation, even outdated docs, would be probable cause for any officer of the law to then ask for Proof of Citizenship (were it allowed) just as they ask for POI (Proof of Insurance) in a normal traffic stop.
Again, for legitimate citizens, be they on work/student visa, green card, naturalized or full citizens, it's a legitimate question by those who represent the law. If a cop, who is merely a witness in this case, cannot ask you for your proof of citizenship, then effectively *nobody* can. Think about it, if a cop cannot see who the legal residents are, do we rely on the secretive witch hunts and have neighbors reporting on neighbors, who then have to deal with the I.N.S.?
This is where things get silly, as people cry 'racism' at the notion that one infraction should not be allowed to lead to the discovery of another. As we already know through routine traffic stops, this happens *every day* to legal citizens driving their vehicles on public roads. The cop might pull you over for a broken tail-light and discover you have no insurance and are carrying pot. Small problem leads to a bigger problem. He may run your plate before stopping you and find a warrant for your arrest. Bad luck, bad timing, but the cop still was able to find you in the system and get information on you.
With illegal aliens, no such information exists, the illegal likely has no paperwork, or illegitimate/fake paperwork, and we're supposed to ignore this, or pretend it's not a problem? I heartily disagree. Checking legal residency/citizenship status could be as simple as having a driver's license or state ID which is already required to drive on public roads. Showing proof of citizenship should be a basic requirement *when asked*, as there's a known issue with illegal immigration in America, moreso in border states. This problem has a cascading effect in other areas, as I'll explain below.
The basic legal status of an individual should pre-date any license, registration or insurance requirement anyway, since it seems illogical to grant all of these papers to someone who snuck into the contry in the first place.
It's somewhat like granting a driver's license to someone who has escaped jail....that person isn't even supposed to be out of jail, let alone driving on public roads. It's a simple cart before the horse issue. First: citizenship, second driver's license and other rights afforded to legitimate American citizens.
Now, I realize this is a huge blog entry already, but I feel the need to address some of the 'defenses' of illegal immigration. Remember, there is no disputing that immigration laws exist, and once violated, the illegal alien is now in violation of a federal crime. But, let's answer a few objections to those who seek to circumvent the path to citizenship by simply sneaking into the country by various means.
Don't these illegal immigrants just want a better life? What's wrong with them coming over?
My first response is to reject the assumption that all illegals are simply here to do noble deeds, go to work, and send money to their families when their very first action on American soil is to break federal law by circumventing the legal path to citizenship. We don't know who is coming over when we don't know who is coming over....they could be workers, rapists, families or terrorists. I support the current laws and the government wanting to know who is coming into the country. Breaking the law to get into America is obviously a pursuit for a better life, but it impinges on the right of America to be a sovereign nation with protected borders. It cuts in front of those waiting patiently for legal citizenship by way of occupation, and like the car thief or land-squatter, obviously people will break the law to have a better life, but it's no excuse. Again, we don't offer car thieves and land-squatters 'paths to ownership', just as we shouldn't offer illegal aliens paths to citizenship ahead of those using legal means to become Americans.
Additionally, living outside the law as a fugitive has a cascading effect on the lives of others. For one, it means you're probably not trained to be driving on American roads, and lack some of the training about drinking and driving, seatbelt laws, and other provisions that every legal American must abide by. Yet, many of these illegal aliens will drive anyway and 'take their chances' which is really putting everyone else at risk, not to mention clogging roads with drivers of questionable driver training, if any.
Worse, being a fugitive means the illegal alien driver is more likely to drive off in the event of any kind of accident, for fear of arrest and deportation.
Paul Babeu, an Arizona Sheriff from Pinal County explains:
'Last month alone, just in one patrol region, we had sixty-four pursuits. That means people who were driving a vehicle, failed to yield, took off like a bat out of hell, running red lights, creating traffic wrecks, numerous people were killed in these wrecks over the last several months, and who are these people? Not one of them was a U.S. citizen'.
Here's the article link, for those who want to read more. Check out this YouTube audio file below for the interview with Pinal County Sheriff, Paul Babeu, who discusses illegal aliens involved in high-speed pursuits and the issue of 'racial profiling'.
Clearly, there is a trend here. Illegals don't want to be caught, and it affects *everyone*.
Apparently it's not just car chases. Here's an exerpt from Sheriff Babeu's own website,
'At approximately 4 PM on April 30th, Deputy Louie Purrol was tracking six drug smugglers (later known to be armed) in the remote desert area south of I-8 and west of Casa Grande, when he was ambushed and shot. Over 200 officers from local, state, tribal nations and our federal partners responded. Your help and support was tremendous and underscored the strength of our professional bond.
Though the investigation continues, we have several investigative leads and have identified three other Mexican Nationals, who are victims (robbed of cash and personal belongings) of the same suspects that shot Deputy Purrol. The Border Patrol apprehended two of four (two escaped) illegals along this smuggling corridor and recovered four fully loaded AK-47s in the three points area, located along the Pima/Pinal border. Two illegal immigrants with felony drug trafficking (cocaine) warrants out of the mid-west were also apprehended within our security perimeter. There were over 100 illegals apprehended within our security perimeter in the remote desert area south of I-8 and west of Casa Grande, just within 24 hrs we were there'.
Noble migrant workers, or invading militia? Perhaps a bit of both? The fact is, America has a right to know who is coming into the country, and American ciizens deserve to have a protected border if we're going to bother having a border at all. No wonder people in border states feel uneasy, and it explains new laws like the one Gov. Jan Brewer signed into law on April 23 (SB 1070), which would make illegal immigration an Arizona state crime (not just a federal crime), and allow checking of legal status once criminal investigation is underway.
As Sheriff Babeu says in the YouTube clip, he doesn't profile by race, he profiles criminals. That's exactly what our tax-dollars pay cops to do. If they can't use their intellect to catch criminals, then who should do it? Pretending not to notice Federal crime might be convenient for illegals, but it doesn't do American citizens much good.
Don't these illegal immigrants just want to work? They perform work service that American citizens don't want to do themselves.
While the romantically-portrayed migrant worker does provide a service (while avoiding income taxes as many are paid in cash or under-the-table), there are others coming over who are murderers, violent criminals, child molesters, rapists, terrorists, drug-runners or involved in other black markets, car thieves, etc, not to mention already guilty (by definition) of a federal crime of illegal occupation on American soil. For those who have the stomach to look, there are pages of criminals on the web who were apprehended and found to be illegal aliens.
While many will talk about illegal immigrants performing jobs that others 'won't' perform, this is a self-fulfilling prophecy in large part. This is due to the fact that someone who isn't here illegally doesn't have the benefit of American legal protections, risks deportation by being exposed as an illegal alien, and is easily exploited and underpaid. This limits the means by which a legitimate American citizen can compete with the under-the-table wages paid to illegal aliens, as legal aliens and citizens are guaranteed a minimum wage, but illegals often work for much less outside the system.
Fugitive labor comes at an astonishingly low-cost, and there's just no way for American workers to compete for that job at such a low wage. That holds true for new American citizens who are still working low-wage jobs, but who have legal recourse, a guaranteed minimum wage, established break-time, OSHA protection, etc. The illegal will always be exploited and motivated to undercut and work for less. This really does affect citizens who might otherwise work these jobs but for unscrupulous companies hiring cheap, illegal labor.
Weren't indigenous American-continent Hispanics or Native Americans here before the Europeans? What's the big deal with them coming back?
I've heard this argument before relating to 'Hispanics' coming back to occupy land which was 'taken' from them through past wars and such. To this I reply, 'It doesn't change the fact that America is a sovereign nation, with borders and border laws'.
The unfortunate fact of territory is that it changes hands from time to time, through war, purchases and other means. While it is true that the Americas were originally native American, this changed with the incursion of Spanish and their superior technology, not to mention their New World diseases wreaking havoc on indigenous populations. Native Americans or 'Indians' in common parlance, were forcibly converted to Catholicism and raped (along with consensual breeding), and this is responsible for the various gene-mixing we've come to know as 'Mexican' and other Hispanic peoples living in the Americas.
The native-Americans themselves weren't always here, but came from Africa (like the rest of us) by way of Mongolia and then through the Bering land bridge, which can be verified through population genetics or Mitochonrdial DNA comparisons. This is why Native Americans have an 'Asian' look, their ancestors were from Asia.
That said, if the intent by illegals is to simply re-occupy their former territory, then that is an act of war, even if it's not recognized as such by others or declared as such. However, I have heard various Hispanic militants on the radio claiming that while the intent isn't overtly war, there is a movement among a subset of illegals to out-populate and occupy lands which were formerly theirs. I am not saying that all illegal aliens feel this way or even know about these sentiments, but it is out there. This attempt to re-populate again, isn't always as innocent or noble as defenders of illegal immigration make it out to be.
To be fair though, out-breeding has as much to do with socio-economic status as anything else, as throughout history the poor, religious (namely Catholic) and less-educated have always had far more children than the well-to-do. It stands to reason that those who are fleeing disastrous economic conditions in their home countries are poor, and many families are under the thumb of Catholicism or simply under-educated about birth control. There's also the strategy of having American-born, aka 'anchor babies' as a way to secure provisional citizenship and/or complicate deportation, so it's far from a simple problem with a simple solution, at times.
Lastly: the general drain on resources. Where does the illegal immigrant go for healthcare, and how does that affect the already 45 million legal citizens who don't have healthcare? My guess at the very least, illegal immigrants tend to use Emergency Rooms as their primary care, but this affects everyone with regard to wait time and overcrowding, not to mention cutting into profits and thinning the efforts of an already over-burdened staff. Where do illegal immigrant children go to school, and how much of a burden does this put on instructors who are already underpaid, but now potentially have to teach in two languages? How much traffic are Americans willing to deal with, without those who are fugitives creating more traffic along with everyone else if they're driving on public roads, with an unknown level of driver training? I am sure I could think of more examples, but you get the picture.
There are a lot more repercussions for illegal immigration, but the fact is, the term is self-described as 'illegal' immigration, regardless of race. I am all for legal immigration through proper channels. Likewise, if I were going to go to France or the U.K., I would expect to have to acquire citizenship through proper legal channels as well, and I wouldn't protest in the streets with an upside-down flag of my unknowing 'host' country just because a crime of illegal immigration was recognized and punished as the crime it is.
Let's be real here. The charge of 'racism' for recognizing illegal immigration is an erroneous conflation of two separate ideas. Perhaps, a more likely term would be 'citizenist', which would at least be accurate. Those who shout 'racist' are revealing more information about themselves and their association with race and illegal immigration than anything else. It's a classic case of, 'I resemble that remark!'.
If legal American citizens have to abide numerous rules and regulations just to drive a car on public roads, then it should be behoove us as citizens to allow our police to also check for citizenship at routine traffic stops, if warranted by those we appoint with the power to check your license, registration, insurance, seatbelts, etc.. After all, if someone is simply squatting within sovereign borders, why on Earth are they here driving around? Simply 'getting away with the crime' is not a free pass. If we disallow the police this power to pursue evidence, then how should we else does the law propose to discover someone's legal status?
One solution regarding traffic stops and legal status would be to allow police to ask about your citizenship *if* one fails to provide any driver's license or state ID, or if that ID appears to be fake in some manner. I think this is reasonable, and that kind of question about citizenship or residency status would only come as a result of some breach in protocol, where you're caught in an infraction/crime, come into contact with police and fail to provide proper ID. Of course, not being able to speak the language is a strong indicator that you haven't been in the country very long either, just as smelling of alcohol might be an indicator that someone's been drinking...another thing cops have every right to investigate further.
Sure, being an illegal alien isn't directly a cause of injury like drinking and driving, but like someone driving with a warrant, it's certainly a reason that person should be detained by the cops and dealt with should this fact be discovered. Even lying to a cop about your name can be used against you, so being in the country illegally shouldn't be exempt from scrutiny.
Bottom line, legal status has zero to do with racism, but is a natural extension of enforcing existing federal law. People should not be intimidated by charges of 'racism' for noticing this crime anymore than noticing other crimes.
Regardless of race, someone who is here illegally is just that, here illegally and thus the term *illegal* immigrant. It's fairly simple, and confers nothing about idea relating to the superiority of any race which is the erroneous idea 'racism' actually refers to.
As for legal immigration, I'm all for it. It takes time and effort, but few things worthwhile come easily.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Atheist Angle RSS Feed