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-
Monday, September 13, 2010
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-
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Atheist Angle RSS Feed